PLANETIZEN POST
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange speaks exclusively to RT. The man behind WikiLeaks says his website’s revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. In an exclusive interview with RT, Julian Assange said it is only a matter of time before more damaging information becomes known.
JULIAN ASSANGE RT EXCLUSIVE – FULL INTERVIEW (PART 2 of 2)
Excerpt from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Moving the Mountain: Beyond Ground Zero To A New Vision Of Islam In America (Free Press, May 2012)
I am an American citizen born in Kuwait of Egyptian parents. I grew up in Great Britain, Malaysia, and Egypt and have lived in the United States since 1965, when I was seventeen.
When I arrived in America, I experienced serious culture shock. For someone with a religious upbringing, the 1960s were an extremely difficult time. Even though religion was a big part of the civil rights and peace movements, in my college religion was treated as irrelevant, hopelessly stodgy, and behind the times. This was the heyday of the “God is dead” movement. Islam was almost always portrayed negatively in the media and larger culture. Most American Muslims were Black Muslims, members of the separatist Nation of Islam headed by Elijah Muhammad, of which most white Americans were terrified. Arabs were then considered uncouth, dirty, and uncivilized.
In Malaysia, where Western culture was extremely influential, I’d grown up listening to Elvis and the Beatles and watching American movies. People wanted to be like Americans. In contrast, when I got here, I saw prosperous middle-class American college students wanting to somehow join the Third World. I understood their anger about the military draft and the Vietnam War, but their talking and singing about revolution and idolizing Che Guevara and Fidel Castro made no sense to me at all.
Add my own search for identity to this mix, and the freedom that was everywhere—in the form of drugs, sex, and alcohol—was unnerving, to say the least. Staying chaste until marriage, a commandment of my faith, was one of the most difficult challenges of my young life. I had a powerful sense that if I did not get a grip on my identity, my ethics, and my religion, I would go off the rails.
For the first time in my life I had to decide whether, and to what extent, to be a Muslim. In a Muslim society like Egypt or Malaysia, practicing your faith is like observing Christmas for many in America: you do it almost without thinking, it is part of the environment. But in the morally free maelstrom of the 1960s, trying to be religious by choice required enormous effort. Finally, using that very individual freedom for which American culture is so rightly celebrated, I was able to consciously and deliberately choose the religion I had grown up with.
I was the kind of person who needed coherent rational understanding of what I was experiencing. As a physics major, I needed to put everything together into an integrated whole, a kind of Grand Unified Theory of my life, so I began to read books on religion, philosophy, and theology.
As the oldest son of an eminent Islamic scholar, I had also learned a great deal from my father. I had learned to type at age twelve, first typing my father’s thesis, and then his lectures, radio talks, and sermons. Reading what I was typing, I would ask him pointed questions that expressed my doubts as much as it expressed my need to be convinced of the truth of my inherited faith. In reading the Quran, I saw how God criticized those who blindly followed the religion of their fathers (Quran 2:170). And since I prided myself on being a good thinker, I felt that if I practiced Islam just because it was my father’s religion, I was opening myself to the same criticism.
I therefore had to adopt Islam based on my own genuine conviction, and I needed to have something substantial to build on if I was to adopt it sincerely at all. Learning Islam intellectually was different from feeling or experiencing this religion as my own choice, but a no less important part of integrating the whole gestalt of being a Muslim.
I worked hard to put myself together in those years, to reconfigure myself in a way that was true to my own deepest principles. I had to confront and absorb the meaning of my religion, its spiritual core as well as its ethical imperatives. How was I to deal with the drugs and alcohol that surrounded me, the free and open sexuality seemingly celebrated everywhere? How was I to relate to other people, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, to Jews in the wake of the 1967 and 1973 wars between Israel and my home country of Egypt? What about the racism I saw everywhere, and experienced directly and frequently? What to make of friends who were very different, who engaged easily in premarital sex, who smoked marijuana, who were gay?
What helped me through this period was to reflect on the fact that throughout my life, I had changed rapidly and continually in just about every way: physically, emotionally, and intellectually. My body had changed every few years since my birth. Starting at the age of six, when every English boy’s ambition was to be a train engineer, I found myself answering the question “What do you want to be when you grow up, Feisal?” differently every couple of years: a movie actor, then a director, then a musician, and then, at thirteen, a scientist. My emotional attachments followed a similar roller-coaster ride. At just seven years old I had such a crush on my teacher that I felt jilted when she married. Then every couple of years or so I would have a crush on another girl, without whom I felt I would not be able to live.
And yet, in spite of all these changes, in every measurable part of me I somehow knew I was the same person, the same Feisal—the same “I.” This deep conviction, combined with my spiritual search for, journey to, and personal discovery of God, made me recognize that my soul—and its values and needs—was the truly permanent part of my being. The very changeability of everything else demonstrated to me the need to have something about my life that was indeed permanent, starting with my deepest values and ethics.
Excerpted from “Moving the Mountain” by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Copyright 2012 by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Excerpted by permission of Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Talk by Vandana Shiva author of “Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit” speaking on “The Impact of Globalization on Food and Water” given July 28, 2002 at Kane Hall, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Recently I heard from Ernesto Robles, a friend I had helped overcome his fear of dogs on Dog Whisperer. Now Ernesto was helping other people with their fears. Ernesto told me that he had met a 14 year old young man through his involvement with his kids’ school. This teenager was a big fan of Dog Whisperer, and had written a great essay about his pets and what they meant to him and how my work had influenced him.
What Ernesto told me next stopped my heart: the teen had been bullied non-stop since he was in elementary school, and a couple of months ago, it became too much for him, and he tried to take his own life. I spent time with him this week, and I am so grateful he didn’t succeed. He is such a smart and wonderful kid. He’s a straight-A student and he is going to bring a lot to the world if he gets the chance. And he will get the chance.
Ernesto and I spoke about our own experiences getting bullied as children and teenagers. Ernesto was beaten so badly he was hospitalized. I was bullied in Mexico because I was poor and called an el perrero — the “dirty dog boy.” They made fun of me because dogs followed me around and they thought I was dirty and had fleas and ticks. I didn’t realize until I came to America that having dogs follow me around might be a good thing.
All of us have something about us that makes us different. It might be because of the color of our skin. Because we have a different religion. Because we or our parents come from another country. Because we like boys or girls. Because we’re heavy or skinny. Because we’re short or tall. Because our hair’s a certain color. Because we’re in special classes. Because we’re poor.
It doesn’t matter what it is, bullies will find something different about you and try to make your life hard. For me it was because I was short, poor, and had dogs following me around. But when I told my mother at the age of 13 that I wanted to be a dog trainer, she believed in me and encouraged me and didn’t let me listen to the negative things people said about me. If you aren’t lucky enough to have someone like that in your life, there are always dogs — they love and accept you no matter what. And when I came to America, I couldn’t speak a word of English, I was poor and homeless, but all of a sudden it was cool to have dogs following me. Over time, I went from being the “dirty dog boy” to the “dog whisperer.” It really does get better.
I hated seeing in the news so many stories about teen suicides, and also about bullied kids going to school and taking revenge. Don’t let anger take over you. On Dog Whisperer, I worked with a Labrador named Holly. Holly was very aggressive when she met me and bit my hand. I didn’t want her to think that she made me afraid of her, so I didn’t budge when she bit me. Even though I had to go to the emergency room later and get stitches from what she did. Now Holly’s at the Dog Psychology Center and we can play like best friends.
I wish I could tell you that bullying will change. It won’t. But you can change how you react to it. Whatever you do, don’t hurt yourself and don’t hurt other people, because that’s how it gets worse.
I want to thank Ernesto, my fellow “dog boy,” and his mother for inspiring me to make this video for the It Gets Better Project.
Let’s all work together to be kind and support each other, even if we’re different. If we do that, it really will get better.
Stay calm and assertive,
Cesar
The It Gets Better Project began in response to the alarming number of suicides of teenagers, particularly LGBT teens. If you or someone you know is being bullied, or contemplating harming themselves, please seek help. There are many resources available below:
ItGetsBetter.org
StopBullying.gov
TheTrevorProject.org
There’s also a great program in schools which I helped develop along with Yale University and North Shore Animal League — it’s called the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum and uses dogs in the classroom to help teach children compassion and empathy and has been shown to help combat bullying.
For dog training advice visit: CesarsWay.com
For about five years now, the question for smartphone buyers has been a classic either/or: “Android or iPhone?” Answering that question is more difficult than ever, thanks to large advances in Android, as well as the emergence of a third viable option: Microsoft’s beautiful Windows Phone OS.
This week, we’ll attempt to break down your three options, looking at each operating system’s greatest strengths and weaknesses. Which one you choose should depend largely on how you use your phone.
For the first part of this comparison, let’s look at the iPhone and the iOS operating system. The most oft-repeated (and spot-on) description of the iPhone and its operating system is that Apple knows what you want and gives it to you and doesn’t let you change it; you can’t really alter or customize the experience because — well, why would you want to?
Frankly, you would want to. There’s a lot that’s perfect about iOS, but there’s also a lot it could learn from Android and Windows Phone. Here’s where it sparkles over its competitors and where it could use work:
Strengths
Games And Apps: Apple doesn’t just have the most apps in its app store; it also has the best apps. This is especially true for gaming: Gameplay on the iPhone is smoother than on any other smartphone I’ve tried.
Camera: The camera on the iPhone 4S trumps any other smartphone camera I’ve tried. The HTC One X comes close, but for high-quality photography day or night, the iPhone 4S is your best bet.
Easy To Use: The iPhone still has a simple interface that makes it a good buy for a first-time smartphone user. I think Windows Phone is a little easier to use — the larger icons help, especially for older buyers with declining eyesight — but the iPhone is still idiot-proof, from initial use, to navigating the phone, to the use of each individual app. The always-available Apple support team of Geniuses also helps.
iMessage: The iPhone is the most popular single smartphone in America, and with iMessage, texting any other iPhone is essentially free. Rather than counting against your monthly text message, any message sent over iMessage counts a minimal amount against your data plan.
Device Speed: Forget processors — the iPhone is still, screen-to-screen, the fastest smartphone experience that is available. Apps and games load quickly and without stutter, and the touchscreen is always responsive to your touch, something that no Android phone can say quite yet. It’s a satisfying experience and a big reason why the iPhone maintains its slick appearance.
Weaknesses
Maps/Navigation: We’re still waiting on voice navigation — spoken turn-by-turn directions — on the Maps app on the iPhone. You can download other apps (for free) with Voice Navigation, but when you click on an address in an email or on a website to get directions, you’ll be taken into Apple’s Maps, not your GPS app of choice. Frustrating.
Facebook: Uploading photos to Facebook — and Instagram, Google+, Dropbox and more, but let’s focus on the world’s largest social network — is harder than it should be on the iPhone. When you take a photo on Android or Windows Phone, there is an option to upload it to Facebook and even tag your friends straight from the camera. On the iPhone, you have to go into the Facebook app and manually upload it. Apps just don’t communicate with each other very well on the iPhone. For example, here is what I can do with a photo on the HTC One X versus what I can do with a photo on the iPhone 4S:
iPhone on the left, Android on the right. The list of apps you can share with grows as you download more applications (like Tumblr, Google+, etc.).
The list of apps you can share with grows as you download more applications (like Tumblr, Google+, etc.).
Homescreen: The iPhone’s homescreen, and your options for what can be shown on it, is the most rigid and limited of the three major operating systems. When you unlock your iPhone’s screen, you’re going to be looking at your static rows of icons and nothing else. On Android and Windows Phone, you have the option to have “widgets” or “live tiles,” respectively, that can give you a preview of your new mail, the current weather, top headlines, Facebook and Twitter updates, etc, without having to open any individual app.
Mail: Email on the iPhone is disappointing. Email reliably arrives slower on my iPhone than it does on Android devices, and searching through your archives for old messages is harder on the iPhone.
3G: Word is that Verizon salespeople are now pushing prospective iPhone buyers over to 4G Android devices, because the iPhone 4S runs on the slower 3G network rather than the newer, faster 4G network. Some writers are upset about this, but they really shouldn’t be: The fact is that, to a consumer who just wants a phone that can make calls, send text messages and surf the Internet, the difference between operating systems matters less than the difference between 3G and 4G speeds. According to a 2012 study from PCWorld, 3G smartphones’ (like the iPhone 4S) data speeds were around 1.05 megabytes per second on the download. On Verizon’s 4G LTE network, that number rose to 7.35 megabytes per second. It’s a speed advantage that is tangible when you are surfing the web or downloading apps on your smartphone.
So Who Should Buy The iPhone?
Buying an iPhone 4S is like walking into a pizza shop and getting a slice of pepperoni pie. It’s a safe choice that won’t let you down, but if you start to think about it, you might end up wondering what else you might have gotten.
The iPhone 4S is easily the best smartphone option for those who spend a lot of time playing games on their phones or who download a lot of apps to fill out their phone’s functions. For those who use their phone as their primary camera, the iPhone 4S is also the best choice. Given how easy it is to use, and Apple’s famously accessible “Geniuses” at its retail stores, I would also recommend it for first-time smartphone buyers who don’t feel comfortable or confident in their ability to navigate the system. If you anticipate having lots of questions or needing assistance, Apple’s help desk is phenomenal.
For those using their smartphone as an email, text message, Internet-browsing-portal, I would hold off on buying the iPhone until it upgrades to 4G LTE (probably in October), especially if you live in a large city, where 4G coverage will arrive first. You just might feel awfully silly with a 3G phone two years from now, considering the booming speeds and multibillion dollar expansion in 4G LTE networks that the four major U.S. carriers are going through right now. If you’re committed to iOS and the iPhone, wait five months to get a new phone.
By
Jason Gilbert
jason.gilbert@huffingtonpost.com
Indra’s Net and the Internet: Arising to the Interconnectedness of Life
Buddha means the “awakened one.” Awakened to what?
The definition of Enlightenment in Buddhism is awakening to the interconnectedness of life. This is illustrated through the story of Indra’s Net from the Avatamsaka Sutra.
A long time ago, in a far away place, there lived a king. His name was Indra. Indra was a great king. In fact, he was king of all the Gods. One day, he called his architect, Johnny.
“Johnny! I am such a wonderful king that I’d like you to make a monument of me for all people to see.” After thinking for a while, Johnny exclaimed, “I’ve got it! Let’s go to the royal treasurer, Sally, because this will be expensive.” They went to Sally and Johnny said, “I want to build a monument for our king, Indra. I want it to be a net that extends throughout all space and time and I want to place a bright pearl at each node of the net. Do we have enough resources to build this net?”
“You’re in luck!” said Sally. “I happen to have an infinite amount of thread spun by spiders and an infinite amount of pearls.” Johnny proceeded to construct the net of pearls so big that it extended throughout all space and time.
Each pearl contains the reflection of every other pearl. Each pearl is contained within every other pearl. If you touch the net anywhere, it is felt everywhere.
Every phenomenon is a pearl in the net. Each of us at a given instant is a phenomenon. Everything at each moment is a phenomenon.
Everyone and everything is contained in me. I am contained in everyone and everything.
Many years later, somebody came along and turned Indra’s Net into the Internet. Instead of pearls, they put computers at each node. They created a physical system of interconnectedness around the world. Then, we started to see languages for communicating across the net. We call them Facebook and Twitter. Soon, we started to see what I call arisings or awakenings around the world. For me, the first big one was the “Arab Spring.” The second big one was the “Israeli Summer.”
Arab Arising
I’ve worked in Jordan, Israel and Palestine. We had Peacemaker staff there. A man that we worked with a lot, Sami Awad, is the nephew of a man known as the Gandhi of Palestine. Sami is one of many people continuing his uncle’s work. They’ve been doing nonviolent peace work in Palestine for years. For many years, they’ve had concerns that their message of nonviolence was not being taken seriously by many people and governments in the area. I feel that they was being marginalized. Now, after the Arab Spring, both Fatah and Hamas are seriously looking at their work. Government leaders are talking to the peace activists about training leaders in nonviolent methods. To me, that is an arising of the energy of Indra’s Net.
I was with Sami about a month ago in Bethlehem, where he is based, making plans to assist him in his nonviolent work in Palestine. He had just finished meeting with his staff. He told his staff that if any of them are blaming anyone as an enemy or as an Other, he doesn’t want them on his staff. It is important to see how we are all affected by the conditions and to see how our work can change the conditions.
He formed this view in 2004 at one of our Auschwitz Bearing Witness Retreats. He’s done two of them. After doing a retreat he said, “I have been doing nonviolent work for years, but now I see that even thoughts and words can still be violent.” He says he’s been transformed from seeing himself as a Palestinian activist to seeing himself as a global activist. He now believes that his work can’t include thoughts or language of Other or it will only generate more violence.
Israel Arising
In Israel, a women in her early 20s, who couldn’t afford her rent, put a tent in downtown Tel Aviv, saying “we need a new system.” A week later, as it spread through Facebook, 10,000 people put up tents. Weeks later nearly half a million people arose with a variety of different messages. It continues and it’s changing the government structure. The military budget has already gone down. Pundits ask “Who is the leader? What is the goal? What is the strategy?” But there is no single leader organizing things.
Then in the United States, something called Occupy Wall Street started. A few months later, nearly 2,000 cities around the world have joined. My hope is that a new paradigm is arising out of Indra’s Net. My faith is that eventually that will be true. However, I’m concerned about what’s happening now.
Occupy Arising?
Are the current arisings awakenings to the interconnectedness of life or will they merely create new ways of creating separations between people?
In the Zen Peacemakers, we follow the precept of Not Elevating Oneself and Blaming Others. Another statement that gets at the Buddhist appreciation for language is the Verse of Atonement:
“All harmful karma ever caused by me since of old,
on account of my beginningless greed, anger and ignorance
born of my body, mouth and thought,
now I atone for it all.”
Including mouth and thought in the verse means that what we say and what we think can be just as harmful or more harmful than physical violence. And our words are connected to our actions. In my view, it is even possible to commit acts of physical violence from a standpoint of interconnectedness as long as it is not done from a standpoint of separation. When we treat cancer, we wouldn’t say that we are attacking something outside of our bodies and we wouldn’t take lightly the side-effects of chemotherapy.
At the Auschwitz Bearing Witness Retreat, we sit on the tracks where inmates were selected for either immediate extermination or slave labor. In the morning, we share in small groups about what comes up. In my group this year, a German man asked, “How could human beings have created such an efficient system for killing other humans?”
My experience is that the first step is through language and thought. First, I identify who is the Other. Then, I convince you of how the Other is so terrible. If I can convince you, we can kill the Other. If I can convince you that those people are rats, you will want to find an efficient way to get rid of rats.
For me, arisings to the interconnectedness of life do not use the violent language of separation. When I look for arisings, I ask: Is the language we use violent? Does it use dualistic thinking that separates one group from another? Do the actions taken reduce suffering? Are there different energies arising and coexisting at the same time? Are each of the groups involved open and accepting to other groups?
When I hear the word Occupy, it makes my blood cringe. Having worked in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, I feel that Occupation has a negative, military connotation: Israel-occupied Palestine. Soviet-occupied Poland and East Germany. Allied-occupied West Germany. The list goes on. To the Native Americans, the United States occupies their land.
When I read “We are the 99% who will no longer tolerate the greed of the 1%” as the Occupy Wall Street website states, I hear: “They are the bad ones.” That’s not the energy of Indra’s Net. I’m not interested in making anyone into an Other.
When we talk about awakening in Buddhism, we talk about awakening to the experience of interconnectedness. Everything is interconnected, but we don’t always experience it that way. The only reason we don’t is that we are attached to our opinions. One particularly powerful opinion that we have is that there is an Other. Through meditation you can let go of your attachments and extend your awakening deeper. And there are other ways. We can see how awakened to interconnectedness we are by the size of the set of people we include as One with ourselves.
I call the energy of interconnectedness “love” — not the love we usually talk about. It’s much more natural and intrinsic. It is automatically taking care of other people because we experience them as us.
I’ve lived through many protests. From my opinion, whenever the language of the arising labels someone as Other — whenever it is against someone — it leads to more violence. When I awaken to the Oneness of myself, I can’t call pieces of myself the Other. I don’t attack myself. I take care of myself. When I see everything, including the social system, as myself, I take actions to reduce suffering. I heal the system as healing myself, not fixing someone else who is to blame for all the problems.
Bermie Glassman
The founder of the Zen Peacemakers, Zen Master Bernie Glassman evolved from a traditional Zen Buddhist monastery-model practice to become a leading proponent of social engagement as spiritual practice. He is internationally recognized as a pioneer of Buddhism in the West and as a founder of Socially Engaged Buddhism and spiritually based Social Entrepreneurship. He has proven to be one of the most creative forces in Western Buddhism, creating new paths, practices, liturgy and organizations to serve the people who fall between the cracks of society.
A video on the social action activities of Zen Master Bernie Glassman
A situation too weird for 99.999% of people to adequately explain.
Every year since 2007, the College Board and Asia Society have joined forces to host the annual National Chinese Language Conference (NCLC). Today it has grown to become the largest conference of its kind in North America, and it has become one of the premier forums for sharing ideas and best practices related to Chinese language and culture education.
Each year the conference attracts its share of dignitaries, and last week’s 2012 NCLC was no different. We were privileged to hear from Ambassador John D. Negroponte, former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel and some of the leading Chinese officials in charge of education, including Vice-Minister Madame Xu Lin, Director General of Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters, and Chinese Ambassador to the United States Zhang Yesui.
These brilliant and worldly individuals came together because they are committed to building a cultural bridge between the United States and China — two great nations that will find their fates more intertwined as the years pass.
There is no doubt that this is a key moment for Chinese language and culture education in the United States.
More than 1.3 billion people in the world speak Chinese. One fifth of the planet speaks Mandarin, making it the most spoken language on the planet. Chinese is ranked as the second most important business language in the world by Bloomberg Media. China is the second largest economy in the world. Over 300 million people study English in China. And it is estimated that by 2025, the number of English-speaking Chinese people will exceed the number of native English speakers.
At the same, the number of Chinese programs being offered across the United States has recently exploded. The College Board has seen it first-hand through the growth of AP Chinese — the number of students taking AP Chinese has more than doubled since the program began, from 3,261 students in 2007 to 7,970 in 2011. In fact, this is the fastest growing AP program. Our challenge and our goal is to keep this progress going, while maintaining the highest level of academic rigor for all students.
Knowing how to speak Chinese and understanding China’s rich history is now recognized as a great asset to any American student who seeks an audience with the world. It’s a sign of enthusiasm, respect, curiosity, and hard work — qualities that define successful people in every profession.
That’s why we need more American schools, educators, students, and political leaders who are just as committed to teaching and learning Chinese at home, and are ready to put forth the hard work necessary to do so.
To help meet this pressing need, the College Board worked with Hanban (the Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language) and others to develop the Chinese Guest Teacher program. And thanks to this collaboration, the program has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
So far, the program has sent more than 600 Chinese teachers to schools in 38 states, touching the lives of tens of thousands of students across America.
One of my favorite Guest Teacher stories comes from Chen Jun, who taught in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Chen did not expect to be so deeply affected by the impact he had on his students’ lives. He was especially touched by one student, a 7th grader, who he was sad to consider his worst student for most of their year together.
When the student was in class he did not do any work. He was disruptive and not well behaved. Mr. Chen tried everything to get through to him, but there was no sign of success. The student was, he thought, a lost cause.
Then one day after class, as Mr. Chen sat in the classroom by himself, the student burst into the room and dropped an envelope on his desk before running out. Shockingly enough, inside the envelope was a letter thanking Mr. Chen for all of the help and guidance he had given him. But what was even more surprising was that the letter was written in Chinese.
Other programs have been similarly successful at bringing our two nations together.
In 2008 the Chicago Public Schools district received a grant to take 20 high school students to China for six weeks to study at Shanghai’s East China Normal University. The group was racially and economically diverse, and truly represented the student population of the district, which is 85% low income families.
It is programs like these that change lives forever. This is why President Obama’s mission to send 100,000 US students to China is of critical important to both the educational and cultural success of the United States.
As we move further out onto the fulcrum of an uncertain world, where old alliances are fraying, a new economy is growing, and a new balance of power is emerging, it is more important than ever that our two countries maintain a healthy relationship.
In the words of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Our success will be based on how well we understand each other, respect each other, trust each other and are open to learning from each other.”
But what does that mean? To me, it means we must understand each other’s languages and customs. We must respect our differences and celebrate our common values. We need to trust one another as partners in an international ballroom dance — taking different steps, but at the same pace, and towards the same goal.
Communication and dialogue will be the building blocks of this relationship. Language will be its foundation. And together, we will bring forth a more prosperous, safer world, where the strong are just and the weak secure.
In the words of former US President John F. Kennedy, “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. [And] we all cherish our children’s futures.”
When he spoke these words, President Kennedy may have been channeling the wisdom of Confucius, who noted that “Men’s natures are alike, it is their habits that carry them far apart.”
So in the end, it must be our habits that bring us together.
I commend the students and teachers who are working hard to make Chinese language and culture a part of communities across the United States. Your hard work will blossom into unmovable bridges between the United States and China for generations to come.
Gaston Caperton is the eighth president of the College Board, a not-for-profit membership association founded in 1900 that consists of more than 5,700 of the nation’s leading schools, colleges and universities, and other educational organizations. Each year the College Board serves over seven million students and their parents, and hundreds of thousands of teachers, school counselors and administrators in more than 23,000 high schools and 3,800 colleges across
America. A former two-term governor of West Virginia, Caperton was appointed to his current position in 1999.
This book is an entire course, an in-depth guide to accomplishing one’s dreams in life. Structured in results-minded lessons and interwoven with keys that offer sudden moments of understanding, the book helps the reader grasp new ways of thinking of, and attaining, wealth. Lesson topics include “Imagine your ideal scene,” “Discover your core beliefs and learn how to change them,” and “Grow at your own pace.” Author Marc Allen offers both a life-changing philosophy and the specific tools — the business plan, the vocabulary, even resources for financing — needed to create the life of your dreams.
An easy-to-implement plan for attaining wealth and fulfillment by doing what we love and adhering to compassionate values.
Contains 12 major lessons and 160 keys to success. A cofounder of New World Library and the author of Visionary Business, Marc Allen is an entrepreneur, speaker, writer, and composer. He lives in Novato, CA.
Marc Allen is a renowned author, composer, and speaker. On the day he turned thirty, Marc cofounded New World Library with Shakti Gawain, and as the company’s president and publisher, he has guided it from a small start-up operation with no capital to become one of the leading publishers in its field. He has written numerous books, including The Greatest Secret of All, Visionary Business, The Millionaire Course, and The Type-Z Guide to Success. He has also recorded several albums of music, including Awakening, Breathe, and Solo Flight. He is a popular speaker and seminar leader based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
From poverty to multi-millionaire – Marc Allen
Christian Cornelius spoke with Barry Wain, South East Asia correspondent of the Asian Wall Street Journal. Wain started his career in the early 60s in Brisbane having worked:
– with Channel Nine, Australian Broadcasting Corporation;
– and later The Australian a national broadsheet;
– and in the 70s the Far Eastern Economic Review and ASWJ in Hong Kong.
He was AWSJ’s correspondent in Kuala Lumpur (1977);
- diplomatic correspondent for Dow Jones in Bangkok (1979) before being appointed editor of AWSJ (1988-92) in Hong Kong, and writing a weekly editorial
column as editor-at-large (1992-2001).
Wain currently works from home in Singapore, filing his stories to both AWSJ and FER by phone and email and “only going to the office once a week”.
How do you perceive the standards of accuracy in newspapers?
I think it does vary enormously and I am still surprised at the standards of newspapers in Asia, the national newspapers in particular. There really tends to be a sloppiness with facts. I was at an ASEAN meeting in Brunei in July (2002) for instance and found that government officials could just say anything and journalists from the region would just write it down without questioning it.
I must say I can’t blame some of the reporters because some simply do not have a background in some of the subjects, but it certainly is not good if you want to provide an accurate picture of what is happening. If you are talking of simply getting the facts right then I have to say that in Asia too there is a lot of that, some of it I think can almost be seen as careless disregard.
The thing that always strikes me when I go back to Australia is the way the papers there mix up opinion and facts. My paper is very adamant that the opinion page belongs inside, but I’ve noticed that Australian papers allow news to be interpreted in a very personal way. I find when I go back that my old paper, ‘The Australian’ is probably one of the biggest offenders in this respect.
Many journalism graduates can’t even write or spell. How do you respond to this general observation made by media practitioners?
Well, I know the American system only and we don’t differentiate between journalism and other graduates with us. Everyone we hire is a graduate. I think we generally go for the qualities in the person and not their particular degree. The AWSJ does not hire entry-level people and so it is quite a while since I last had a look at applications so perhaps I am not in such a good position to answer that. I think it simply varies.
Some people are naturally good writers, others need to learn and pick it up. Some people I know are notoriously bad at spelling but good at everything else. I suppose the suggestion is that journalism schools don’t teach properly, but I really can’t tell.
What type of training does a sub-editor need?
Dow Jones tends to have people who are career editors. A lot of these people become sub-editors and stay that way, although they may move from an ordinary copy-editing desk for general news to more specialized stories or features. Dow Jones has a news wire, which involves a lot of instant reporting and editing. Quite often entry-level people will be given their initial training on the editing side or reporting and editing, and then according to where their strengths are they are assigned.
At the AWSJ sub-editors are former journalists who after a few years of experience show an interest in sub-editing and are allowed to have a go. If it works out they often adopt that as a career. Some people of course will go back and forth between reporting and editing but others are just simply better at one or the other. Editing does not involve going out and making contacts and socializing and there are people who feel they can make a far greater contribution to journalism through editing. I’ve run into some very fine editors in my career who could always suggest a way in which a story could be made better, no matter how good you thought your writing was.
What common problems do sub-editors or editors face daily?
When I first started working for the AWSJ we had a very small staff and I actually worked as a copy-editor for six months. I have to say that I found it very difficult. Previously I had done some copy-editing for the Far Eastern Economic Review, but the more relaxed editing of a magazine in those days was very different from copy-editing for a daily newspaper.
There was more pressure in terms of time and I had to deal with things like different typeface and size, a lot of technical stuff. You were sometimes given a word count and had to re-write stories to fit and in addition you had to make sure that technically it would fit as well. I must say I never found it very easy.
How do you judge a good story?
Again it depends on the publication. I follow the BBC World Service on the radio on a daily basis and I have to say that they are very predictable in what they judge as important. The same goes for Voice of America. It is harder to answer that for general newspaper though. For the South China Morning Post I imagine it’s a matter of the personal feeling or attitude of the editor.
With us at the ASWJ it is not nearly as difficult because we are essentially a business paper. As the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal we would try to balance the worldwide coverage of important story with our locally collected Asian news.
I think the job of judging stories becomes quite easy after a while. In fact as editor I did not really have to make many selections myself because the various levels or editors would start making selections early in the day. After a while it becomes self evident which stories are important so that you hardly think about it anymore.
With other papers I don’t know how it is handled. Some papers for instance have a policy of having at least one off beat story on the front page. Then again if you’re a tabloid you need stories and headlines that jump out at people and you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator in cases.
It’s difficult to put into words but here at the journal if a reporter gets a hold of something and we put it across to each other we instinctively know whether it’s good or not. I suppose that’s an unsatisfactory answer, but when you have been working in the field for a long time and some one asks that question you think why would they ask that, its obvious isn’t it!
What principles or guidelines do you follow in sub-editing?
Well I only spent six months on the copy desk at the AWSJ but in general you need to be very precise. You need to have a firm grasp of language, spelling, grammar and so on. You also need to be very aware of the style that you’re writing in. I can’t really answer that well enough though. I have always been a reporter at heart and sub-editing I found to be very challenging work.
How common is it for sub-editors and reporters to be at odds in the newsroom?
I think that very much depends on the organization you work for and the sort of culture that develops. I think in my company, Dow Jones, things have always been quite different from what I remember working in Australian papers. In fact I remember quite a few unhappy experiences.
Admittedly I was a very young reporter then, but I do remember unhappy experiences including things like having stories changed and then seeing them in print and getting a shock. But the way journalism is practised in our company editors will often suggest, if they think it is appropriate, re-writing a story.
But in every case that is done in consultation with the reporter. So there is always a backwards and forwards, a give and take. Somehow you will have to reach an agreement because in the end no one is going to force a story into the paper against a reporter’s wishes.
But I don’t know how the situation is on British and Australian papers today, whether it is better than it was when I was young and working. I would think that there is always a little bit of tension, but generally it is not unpleasant. For instance in the last few days, after Saturday lots of attention has shifted to Bali. We have guys in Indonesia reporting and I am contributing to it as well.
I have been investigating South East Asian terror stories for the past year so I probably know more about Jemaah Islamiah than any of them. We all filed our stories to the editor in Hong Kong, who then re-writes it into piece about 800 words, called a wrap.
My contribution alone was about 800 words, but this type of thing happens. If you have good reporters and good editors and a reasonable working culture on the paper I don’t think ‘tension’ is a big deal.
Occasionally you’ve got a clash where a reporter has a different idea of what a story should be like and that makes for an awkward time and you might swear under you breath, but overall I would not describe it as love hate generally, not on our paper anyway. Of course you also have to remember that it is also a matter of culture, our organization for instance would not hire a brilliant editor who is a difficult person to get along with and who alienates staff members.
What is your technique in headline writing?
The point of a headline should be reflected very early in the story. There are some very tight rules for headline writing, you can’t finish a line with a preposition for instance. But I still see headlines all the time, even on good newspapers that break the rules. Even on our newspaper. I suppose headline writing it is a bit of an art form. It is a big part of the sub-editors job and some people are employed because they are particularly good at it.
Cornelius reflects on his experience in interviewing Barry Wain:
In answering the first question, Wain highlights how standards of accuracy vary between papers and his surprise at the sloppy standards underlines the importance of accuracy in newspaper reporting.
On the spelling and writing abilities of journalism graduates he remains polite saying that they do not vary from those of other graduates. However, he acknowledges that being a journalist does not require an excellent command of grammar and spelling or a natural ability to write.
Regarding the training required for sub-editing he says that experience in reporting is one factor. He makes a distinction between the reporter’s abilities to investigate stories and make contacts, and the sub-editor’s skill for clear and concise writing.
Commenting on the problems faced by sub-editors Wain cites the difficulty of writing articles within the technical and space constraints of the newspaper. He says that this is indeed a specialized job.
The question on how he judges a good story elicits the same response as that of others in the media. He does not have a set of criteria but rather uses what might be called “intuition”, something that apparently develops with experience. Wain highlights the difficulty in finding objective criteria to judge the relative importance of stories.
Wain points out that organizational culture is a key factor in understanding the relationship between reporters and sub-editors. Putting a newspaper together is essentially a team effort and as such professionalism, good communication and a team spirit are necessary.
He concludes that there are strict rules and specialized skills involved in creating a strong headline, although these rules are frequently broken.
By Wajahat Ali
Playwright, Essayist, Blogger, Humorist and Attorney at Law
Malaysia’s opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who is on trial in Kuala Lumpur on sodomy charges for a second time, spoke to me about the controversy and discusses the country’s ethnic and religious conflicts as well as issues facing the Muslim world.
Wajahat Ali: Dr. Ibrahim, you are currently facing controversial, criminal charges of sodomy in Kuala Lumpur alleged by an ex-aide. The trial is under way as we speak, and the Malaysian press has dubbed this event “Sodomy 2″ since you were convicted on similar charges in 1998 (which were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2004). You also served six years in solitary confinement after being convicted in ’98 for corruption. First, if there was no truth to these allegations then why would the aide under oath swear and testify in graphic detail to such a sordid event and also be subjected to such humiliation, considering sodomy is both illegal and highly disfavored in Malaysia? Second, if these allegations are “trumped up” (by the ruling coalition) and a sham, as you and your followers have said, why?
Anwar Ibrahim: The government today is in survival mode. Sensing its own protracted demise, and bereft of ideas that would enable it to regain popular support, its strategy is to tear down the opposition no matter what the cost. Since our unprecedented victory in the March 2008 polls, there have been relentless attacks to destabilize our state governments, to threaten and intimidate our elected officials and to undermine public confidence in our ability to govern. You name it and it’s been hurled at us…. The charges leveled against me have to be seen in this broader context. The fact that the same plot that was hatched in 1998 is being repeated reflects a certain bankruptcy and lack of creativity on their part. They must still believe some segment of the Malay-Muslim electorate, who will likely determine the outcome of the next General Election, will be alienated by these charges. I doubt that is the case. There is polling to prove it and when we go around the country now the crowds of people number sometimes in the tens of thousands. The Malaysian people are much smarter and more aware today and will not easily be fooled.
As for the swearing of oaths in courts and in mosques — these are theatrics that ignore due process and legal principles. In a normal court of law, a verdict would rest on objective, incontrovertible evidence. But in Malaysia, show trials are being used to defame and discredit those who have fallen out of the favor of the establishment. This gives us all the more resolve to fight for reform.
(The Malaysian government has rejected allegations of wrongdoing and all claims that it has tried to silence Anwar and his political party. The Government has also denied any involvement in the sodomy cases against Anwar.)
Wajahat Ali: Malaysia promotes itself as a peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic, Muslim country. On December 31, a court ruled that non-Muslims, namely Christians, were finally allowed to use the word “Allah” as a term for God, which quickly prompted a government appeal. Following the ruling, nearly 11 churches have been attacked, Christians have been harassed, and even a Sikh temple and several mosques were vandalized. Both the government’s appeal and the conduct of several Malays seem to suggest discrimination towards their non-Muslim neighbors. Many in America assume this is due to an innate Muslim antagonism and elitism towards the “other.” How would you explain this current phenomenon, and why is the term “Allah” only reserved for Muslims?
Anwar Ibrahim: The handling of the Allah issue sent the wrong message to people around the world about Islam. In the current climate of xenophobia in Europe and the U.S., how can we as Muslims say we are any better when we treat our non-Muslim citizens with disrespect and disdain? It is odd that this issue seems relevant only in Malaysia and not in the Middle East or even Indonesia.
Dialogue and engagement are essential. The mainstream media all controlled by the ruling coalition should present all viewpoints and not just the most extreme views supported by the government. Sensitive issues that touch on religious and ethnic sentiments should be handled delicately. Instead the government allowed the case to be dragged through the courts, sanctioned incendiary public demonstrations and only after the situation exploded in violence did its leaders start to make more measured statements and call for calm. I find this deplorable.
In Malaysia such posturing by Muslim leaders has much more to do with politics than religion and ideology. The ruling government hopes that by taking a hard line it will curry some favor with an increasingly radical right wing upon which its party is increasingly based. The recent caning of individuals for illicit sexual relations is likewise part of an effort to boost the perceived Islamic credentials of the government and portray the opposition as soft on morals and subservient to international pressure.
I understand there are broader concerns about the ability of contemporary Islamic societies to deal with issues of pluralism and diversity. Malaysia’s handling of this issue is certainly not helping to abate these fears. But there is a silver lining. We have used this incident as an opportunity to launch a series of interfaith dialogues around the country. And I am very encouraged by statements from Pan Islamic Party of Malaysia, PAS, which has come out strongly in support of the rights of all Malaysian citizens under the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion.
Wajahat Ali: Following on that question, is there space for Muslims and non-Muslims to live harmoniously in Malaysia? If your party had power, how would it handle the current situation and subsequently implement changes that would minimize ethnic and religious conflicts in the future?
Anwar Ibrahim: Southeast Asian Islam is known for its inclusivistic approach. The religion came to this region via traders from Arabia and by Sufi masters who integrated with the existing cultural and social landscape. While Islam gradually became the dominant civilization this was not done at the expense of the other groups. In fact I recall back in the ’90s we convened the first-ever conference on Islam and Confucianism that led to the founding of an entire department at the University of Malaya on this topic. This in my mind represents the vast potential of our multi-ethnic society.
The religious tensions currently on display are a recent phenomenon in that they are largely the result of a political conflict rather than deep-seated religious antagonisms. This is not to ignore the challenges Malaysia faces as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. But for the most part these tensions can be alleviated through efforts to promote greater integration and interaction within the society. Politicians unfortunately have found it expedient to exacerbate ethnic and religious tensions as a means of prolonging a political system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. We see deliberate attempts to provoke religious tensions to give a pretext to clamp down on civil liberties and justify the continuation of the same old race-based policies of the past.
The antidote for this behavior is to restore credibility to the institutions of civil society. The media should be free, politicians must be held accountable through free and fair elections and the judiciary must be able to operate without interference from politicians. Economics also factor importantly into the equation. Income inequality in Malaysia is among the worst in the world. Despite decades of an affirmative action policy designed to uplift the poor and marginalized Malays, in Malaysia the rich get richer while the poor stay poor — and that includes poor Malays, Chinese and Indians.
We need to revisit the design of economic policy and how the country allocates welfare and resources. Affirmative action remains essential to ensure that the poor marginalized are not forgotten. But there is no reason to exclude poor Chinese and Indians from the policy, as has been the case for so long. Endemic corruption has led to the enrichment of a few well-connected businessmen and politicians but the vast majority of their wealth never trickles down.
If we can overcome some of the most basic shortcomings in governance and accountability I am quite confident that Malaysia will be on a better footing when it comes to building a peaceful society.
Wajahat Ali: U.S. President Barack Obama was embraced with rapturous applause, standing ovations, and stunning poll numbers by Muslim communities worldwide last year when he gave his historic speech in Cairo. A year later, there has been a significant dip in his polls numbers both domestically and abroad. How confident do Muslims feel about him and America as a “true partner” in 2010 when compared to Bush’s administration? What will Obama have to do to regain Muslim trust and achieve a true conciliation between America and Muslims around the world?
Anwar Ibrahim: When he won I shared in the optimism expressed by many that his presidency would usher in a new chapter in relations between America and the Muslim world. I did not expect he alone to solve all the problems. After all he is not the Caliph. He is the President of the United States, and therefore bound by significant constraints. But he is certainly better than his predecessor and we appreciated his Cairo speech, which was a historic and bold statement of friendship between two civilizations.
His pronouncements — such as closing Guantanamo, an end to settlement activity in the West Bank and pushing for a two state-solution, withdrawing from Iraq and searching for diplomatic solutions to dealing with Iran — are the right statements. Unfortunately he has yet to deliver on major initiatives. At this point, few see much difference between his foreign policy and that of the Bush administration. I remain optimistic for now — it is too soon to offer a final verdict.
I believe Muslims are willing to give whoever sits in the White House a chance. Muslims respect America as a democracy and want to see its policies as fair, just and consistent. For there to be a real watershed in the Obama administration’s approach he will have to be seen to be acting fairly in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and show more compassion (when) it comes to dealing with Afghanistan, where thousands of innocent people are still being killed. Otherwise I fear the good will he has built will be forgotten.
Wajahat Ali: Why does the Israeli occupation of Palestine overwhelmingly dominate the emotions and anger of Muslims worldwide when Muslims are also suffering tremendously in Iraq, Africa, Russia, Afghanistan and so forth? Can Muslims move “beyond” the Palestine issue?
Anwar Ibrahim: It is often forgotten that Jerusalem holds a special, symbolic meaning for Muslims as the site of the Prophet Muhammad’s ascent to heaven. In fact, Muslims living during the Prophet’s time prayed towards Jerusalem until instructions were later given to switch the direction of the prayer to Mecca. This makes Jerusalem and access to the holy sites very relevant to Muslims around the world.
Certainly there is deep anger over the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The enduring conflicts in other countries, the imposition of dictatorial regimes and the legacy of colonialism and rampant poverty are all factors which affect the relationship. But the Arab-Israeli conflict has come to symbolize the entire grouse of the Muslim world with the interference of foreign powers in our affairs.
Our frustration with the United States stems entirely from its lopsided handling of the conflict. Consider the result of Palestinian elections which were held democratically and brought Hamas into power. America punished Palestinians for voting (with) their conscience. Or consider (Israel’s) blockade on Gaza — another example of collective punishment being used to force a different political outcome. If America is seen to be inconsistent in applying principles of freedom, justice and self-determination in Palestine then Muslims elsewhere are going to have a hard time believing the rhetoric is real.
And the failure to achieve a meaningful peace gives authoritarian Muslim governments an easy opportunity to score political mileage out of the Palestinians’ plight. Stoking the flames of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism is a good distraction from the stench in their own backyard, namely rampant corruption, denial of basic human rights, abuse of power and the suppression of civil society.
Wajahat Ali: Do you think it’s time for Muslims to readjust their grievances and sources of victimization?
Anwar Ibrahim: When Abu Ghraib happened it was rightly condemned as a terrible injustice and came to symbolize what was wrong about the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. But Muslims have to be consistent. The lack of due process, gruesome prison conditions and corruption in law enforcement agencies are very serious problems in Muslim countries that must also be condemned. So when many Muslim governments attacked the U.S. they were being hypocritical.
Muslims have expressed clear views on this matter. The (Gallup) Muslim World Poll demonstrated that the vast majority of Muslims prefer governments that are more democratic, more accountable and more humane than the ones that exist today. Which means many would be quite supportive of a change in the corrupt and authoritarian governments that exist throughout the Middle East. The frustration that many Muslims have with the West is that America often preaches one thing about democracy but turns a blind eye to some of the worst dictators. So they are squeezed on both sides — their own governments and the so-called savior from the West.
I think oppression and injustice has to be condemned whenever and wherever it exists and Muslims should be at the forefront of this call for justice. Otherwise what is it that we hope to tell the world about our values and ethics?
Wajahat Ali: Do you believe that democracy and Islam are capable of coexistence, especially as a functional system of government in the modern age? Judging by the track record over the past century, it seems Islam and politics make volatile bed fellows.
Anwar Ibrahim: The experience of democracy in the Muslim world has not been entirely negative as the question suggests. Independence movements were often based on political parties which organized around principles of freedom and justice. Freedom fighters didn’t expel their colonial master only to want to replace them with ruthless dictators. On the contrary — there were vibrant democracies emerging in places like Indonesia, Iran and even Iraq in the 1950s. The great betrayal happened later, when secular autocrats who, in the name of nationalism, socialism or modernity, hijacked the governments and imposed a level cruelty worse than what existed under colonialism. But let us be clear — these were secular movements which used religion only to buy legitimacy from the people.
It is therefore quite historic to see democracy re-emerging in places like Indonesia and Turkey. The peaceful transformation of Indonesia to the world’s largest Muslim democracy is one of the most important developments in the world. Likewise, Turkey has taken its place as a vibrant democracy. And what is more interesting is that in Indonesia in recent elections the more conservative Islamic parties were allowed to campaign openly — and they were handed defeat. This did not require locking them up in prison. On the contrary it was the people themselves who opted for a system that was inclusive, democratic and at the same time cognizant of the country’s religious and cultural heritage.
Wajahat Ali: You’re an active presence in new media with a popular Facebook profile and a steady stream of tweets from your Twitter account. In fact, you and many of your supporters have been tweeting throughout the trial. Last year, Iranians successfully used Twitter to educate the world about the daily protests against the government crackdowns following the controversial election results. First, what do you hope to achieve by tweeting throughout your trial? Secondly, do you believe new media and the Internet is the transformative vehicle and tool for Muslims in the 21st century to reclaim both their political and religious voices, which have been silenced or hijacked by those claiming legitimacy and power?
Anwar Ibrahim: New media has been a cornerstone of the opposition’s communications strategy. The mainstream press in Malaysia is completely controlled by the government, but the Internet has remained free. An attempt last year to introduce an Internet filter was quickly shot down, not surprisingly, by an overwhelming response of Internet users in Malaysia.
The coverage of my trial has been quite favorable in the international media but locally you would be surprised how vicious and despicable the manipulation of facts has already become. We need to be active online and develop innovative ways of reaching out to online and offline constituencies to compensate for this information deficit.
And we also realize there is a new generation of Malaysians who were too young to remember the Reform movement that started a decade ago. Reaching out to them will happen in large part through technology.
I never believed technology is a panacea. But it is certainly changing the course of politics and policy around the world. The president of the United States ran an effective online campaign and continues to do so while in office, but so too have extremist groups. Opposition parties in Malaysia are actively courting voters online. Who ultimately benefits from technology will depend on two things — the execution of a coherent strategy and the quality of the message. Information tends to travel quickly by whatever means if there is a demand for the content.
Originally published on CNN.com
Description
A U.S. senator and Pulitzer Prizewinner, both experts on Southeast Asia, offer a bold new approach to address radical Islam and fight global terror
The next front in the war on terror is in Southeast Asia, warn Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Lewis Simons, both leading experts on the region. The U.S. has bankrupted its policies in dealing with the Islamic world. As Fundamentalist Islam gains traction in Southeast Asia, backed by Saudi money, the U.S. must act swiftly to re-establish its credibility there and help defuse global terrorism. Bond and Simons present a bold plan to accomplish this key goal by substituting smart power (civilians in sneakers and sandals) for force (soldiers in combat boots) in Indonesia and the other nations of Southeast Asia, home to the world’s greatest concentration of Muslims.
* Introduces a critical new “smart power” approach to combat global terror
* Written by two experts on Southeast Asia with extensive contacts in Washington and overseas
* Tackles a crucial challenge to U.S. foreign policy and President Obama’s administration
* Examines a wide range of views and people, from Osama bin Laden-trained armed terrorists to radical clerics to western-trained officials who plead for Americans to come to their countries to teach, start small businesses, and improve health care
The Next Front offers exactly the kind of fresh, out-of-the-box thinking the United States needs to rebuild its credibility and transcend its foreign policy failures.
About the Author
Senator Christopher S. “Kit” Bond (R-MO) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, the only Republican that year to win a seat previously held by a Democrat. He was re-elected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. In the Senate he has improved care for veterans and service men and women and has built a reputation as an advocate for a strong U.S. military, as a reformer of the intelligence community, and as an expert on Southeast Asia. He is vice chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
Lewis M. Simons has been a foreign correspondent since 1967, reporting from Vietnam and throughout Southeast Asia; India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran; China, Japan, North and South Korea, and the former Soviet Union. He wrote for the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and Knight-Ridder Newspapers and won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the Marcos family’s hidden billions. Author of Worth Dying For, he is a regular contributor to National Geographic and his op-ed articles have appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Summary
With his co-author, Senator Christopher Bond, Lewis M. Simons, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, argues that Southeast Asia, and especially Indonesia, will be the next hot spot in the war on terror. The authors propose that the U.S., having lost credibility with failed military efforts in the Middle East, deploy “smart power” — civilians — instead of soldiers to defuse anger and create alternatives to violent movements.
http://fora.tv/2009/10/24/Lewis_M_Simons_on_Southeast_Asia_The_Next_Front#fullprogram
A British boy of South Asian descent, about eight or nine years old, was pressing the buttons of an interactive display at a new exhibition in London. “Yassin, Zak, come over, you ought to check this out,” he called out to his classmates.
The exhibition, “1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World,” was created with children in mind. The interactive displays are large and colourful, with cartoon-like characters guiding visitors as they explore the history behind some of Muslims’ greatest inventions.
With the support of the Saudi Arabia-based Jameel Foundation, the “1001 Inventions” exhibition is being held at London’s Science Museum until summer.
There are displays describing well-known Islamic contributions to science in the fields of mathematics and astronomy, but there are also interesting facts about a number of unsung heroines in the field. One example is Fatima al Fihri, a ninth-century Muslim woman who inherited a vast sum of money from her merchant father and spent it all on building al Qarawiyin, a university and mosque complex that still stands in Fez, Morocco. It is considered to be the oldest university in the world, not just the Islamic world.
How ironic, I thought to myself as I stood there looking at the display honouring her contributions to religious instruction as well as political and natural sciences education: more than a millennium later some ignorant souls who claim to share her religion want to deny women an education and employment. Have these individuals even heard about Fatima al Fihri?
The truth is that secularism played a large role in the advancement of science in Islam. Because religion was seen as a tool in life — not the objective, as it is often preached today — people were free to create, imagine, and dream without the imposition of artificial boundaries. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars conducted research side by side and thus both Islam and humanity were enriched.
The displays at “1001 Inventions” very much resemble the exhibition on the ground floor of the Sharjah Museum of Islamic Civilisation, where the interactive and child-friendly displays include buttons, screens, and levers. The idea is that children can combine entertainment and learning by pressing, pulling, and rotating the controls to create action in the displays. It is a model quite unlike the adult-orientated but equally fascinating Islamic Arts Museum in Qatar.
What a powerful tool education can be, especially at such a young age. It instils pride for one’s culture, and understanding and respect for others. Imagine the magnitude of the message that such an exhibition would have in countries where Islam is wrongly used to justify crimes against women, which continues to happen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Allowing children to see the great deeds and creations of Muslims who dared to dream denies the evil and the ignorant the opportunity to indoctrinate them.
Inside the hall in London, a teacher called out to two pupils, Michael and Chelsea, telling them to hurry up before a short film began; the story of “1001 Inventions” and the Library of Secrets, starring the Oscar-award winning actor Ben Kingsley, unfolded.
After being approached by three children, the librarian, played by Kingsley, is transformed into Abu Alez al Jazari, the mathematician and inventor who is considered one of the fathers of modern mechanical engineering. The children ask him about the so-called Dark Ages, and al Jazari responds: “Never was a period of history so poorly named.”
Al Jazari introduces them to characters such as Abbas Ibn Firnas, the Berber mathematician known for his early attempt at flight, and Abu al Qasim al Zahrawi, a tenth-century doctor who was one of the most prominent pioneers of surgery of his time. Al Zahrawi is credited with inventing numerous surgical tools as well as using catgut sutures to stitch internal wounds, a technique used in hospitals today.
His name, I thought to myself, is eerily similar to that of another doctor, Ayman al Zawahiri. But whereas the former contributed to the advancement of humanity and saved countless lives across the centuries, the second became a cave-dwelling terrorist. The movie concludes with al Jazari telling the students as they are about to leave the library: “Remember, spread the word.”
No one, adolescent or adult, who has been educated about the scientific history of the Muslim world would be an easy target for the brainwashing of the doom mongers. I hope that the Jameel Foundation takes the “1001 Inventions” exhibition across the world, even to Kabul, where children and adults could learn about Islam away from the indoctrination of the ignorant.
This exhibition, unlike many others, does not include priceless or rare artefacts. Instead, it is made up of panels, projection screens, and child-friendly gadgets that resemble the original inventions. The show could be easily transported across the world and appeal to any child, regardless of background.
It is not only Zak, Yassin, Michael, and Chelsea in Britain who need enlightening about the many contributions of Muslim scientists. Spreading the word to the forsaken children of Kabul, Baghdad, and Quetta, who have a much greater need of this valuable knowledge, would arm them with moderation and protect their minds.
Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi is a non-resident fellow at the Dubai School of Government.
Last week, I was invited to travel to the United Arab Emirates to speak about the Charter for Compassion. The Middle East is, of course, at the center of many of our current political problems and it is obviously not easy for a region, wracked by conflict, to embrace the compassionate ideal. Yet Muslims have been especially active in the promotion of the Charter, none more so, perhaps, than TEDster Badr Jafar, Executive Director at the Crescent Petroleum group of companies, based in the United Arab Emirates.
Badr was convinced that the best way of introducing the Charter into the Middle East was through the UAE, which was far enough from the tragic cycle of warfare to take a more positive and dispassionate view. For nearly a year now, despite his massive business commitments, Badr has spread the word about the Charter throughout the UAE and the Middle East. He is a heroic ambassador of compassion.
In this part of the world, the support of a charismatic leader of known integrity can make all the difference, especially at a time when a project emanating from the West is likely to seem suspect. When Badr presented the Charter to H.H. Sheikh Sultan bin Mohamed al-Qasimi, Ruler of Sharjah, the Ruler, appreciating its relevance in the Middle East, became the first Arab leader to affirm the Charter, and warmly invited me to visit the UAE.
Sharjah is often called the cultural capital of the Emirates and that is in no small part due to the Ruler, whose achievements in the cause of education are already legendary and who is deeply respected in the region. In 1997, in a single year, he built the vast complex known as University City, which has become a centre of excellence in the Middle East. It includes two major universities, a medical school, a teaching hospital, and an institute of higher technology.
It is not often that I am lost for words, but when I arrived on the campus last week to give the first of two lectures and to meet with professors and staff, I was dumbfounded. Instead of the functional buildings I was expecting, I was looking at a vision of beauty. Set in landscaped grounds, almost as far as the eye could see, were white, perfectly proportioned domed buildings, marrying traditional Islamic architecture with state-of-the-art interiors.
The American University of Sharjah has recently been declared the best university in the Emirates — some would argue in the entire Middle East. Forty-four percent of the students, who come from some 45 countries (I met undergraduates from the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia) are women. At the University of Sharjah, next door, men and women from more conservative homes study and live separately, but at my lecture they were sitting quite comfortably together. The Ruler has wisely allowed people to modernize at their own pace.
When I heard that I had won the 2008 TED prize to make a wish for a better world, I knew at once what I wanted to ask for. I asked TED to help me create a Charter for Compassion, which would restore compassion to the heart of the spiritual and moral life and counter the strident voices of hatred and extremism that endanger us all.
It has long been clear to me that unless we learn to apply the Golden Rule globally, treating all nations, all peoples, without exception as we would wish to be treated ourselves, taking their aspirations and difficulties as seriously as we take our own, we are unlikely to have a viable world to hand on to the next generation.
In Sharjah, I met this next generation. It was quite clear that I was talking to some of the future leaders of the Middle East. At both universities, the students were bright, articulate, confident, and asked some of the most intelligent and searching questions I have heard from students anywhere. They understand the global vision of the Charter, not only because University City is an international community, but because many of the students also take part in a project called Global Vision. The project brings students to work in impoverished regions in East Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. They return to their studies with new insight about the problems and pain of the world. Both universities see adopting the Charter as a step toward building a more compassionate world, and have committed to promoting it.
On the last day of my visit, I was privileged to meet H.E. Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak al-Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, at his weekly Majilis in Abu Dhabi. Like the Ruler of Sharjah, the Sheikh gave the Charter his wholehearted support, which is absolutely invaluable to the Charter’s reception in Abu Dhabi, and to the young people who look to Sheikh Nahyan as a religious and cultural role model.
What I learned from my time in the UAE is this: the state of the world we pass down to the next generation depends on the commitment of compassionate leaders. The Charter is essentially a summons to action; compassion is not about pity; it is not about sentiment. Compassion requires a resolute, intellectual, imaginative and moral effort to put oneself into somebody else’s shoes. It requires us to refuse to inflict on others pain that we have experienced in our own lives, and to work tirelessly for a just world and a global democracy, in which all voices are heard, not simply those of the rich and powerful. Thanks to the conjunction of youth enthusiasm and the commitment of their elders, the UAE could become a global leader in promoting the Charter for Compassion.
Speaking of the duty every single one of us has to make the world a better place, Sheikh Nahyan told me a story he heard from an environmentalist. There was once a forest fire. All the animals in the forest gazed aghast, paralysed by the spectacle of the approaching inferno. But the elephant resolutely filled his trunk with water from a nearby stream and repeatedly, tirelessly attempted to douse the flames. When the other animals laughed at him, he simply replied “At least I am doing something to ward off the conflagration.”
Bio
– Reza Aslan is a writer and scholar of religions.
Born in Iran, Aslan is currently a research associate at the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy. He was a visiting assistant professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Iowa and the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction at the Iowa Writer’s Workshop.
A frequent commentator on television, radio, and in print, Aslan is a graduate of Santa Clara University, Harvard University, and the University of Iowa. He is the author of No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and How to Win a Cosmic War: Why We’re Losing the War on Terror.
Though it is the fastest-growing religion in the world, Islam remains shrouded in ignorance and fear. What is the essence of this ancient faith? Is it a religion of peace or of war? How does Allah differ from the God of Jews and Christians? Can an Islamic state be founded on democratic values such as pluralism and human rights?
A scholar of comparative religions, Reza Aslan has earned international acclaim for the passion and clarity he has brought to these questions. In No god but God, challenging the “clash of civilizations” mentality that has distorted our view of Islam, Aslan explains this faith in all its complexity, beauty, and compassion.
http://fora.tv/2009/05/12/Reza_Aslan_How_to_Win_a_Cosmic_War
* On Singapore Being a Model to the Middle East – (06:06)
* On the Economic State of the World (03:34)
* What Should the American President Do in Asia (07:22)
* On China Learning from Singapore (04:57)
* Lee Hsien Loong talks about India and it’s position in Asia.
* On China – US Relations (09:29)
* On North Korea (05:02)
* What President Obama Accomplished at the Nuclear Summit
‘Charlie Rose’ show, host Charlie Rose interviewed Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore about the new global order. (10/23/09)
An hour with Lee Kuan Yew – 2
An hour with Lee Kuan Yew – 3
An hour with Lee Kuan Yew – 4
An hour with Lee Kuan Yew – 5
An hour with Lee Kuan Yew – 6
Asma Uddin
Founder and editor-in-chief, Altmuslimah.com
Last Monday, as I stood in the Indonesian Constitutional Court, the Court released its eight-to-one decision to uphold the Law on the Prevention of Blasphemy and Abuse of Religion, also known as the Blasphemy Act. My colleagues and I at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty had submitted an amicus brief in the case, urging the Court to repeal the Act, which has been used in the past to persecute devout members of a variety of religions. The Court’s decision was deeply disappointing for us and our human rights colleagues in Indonesia and across the world, as it not only failed to repeal a problematic law but also legitimated, if not encouraged, future government incursions into matters of conscience.
The Blasphemy Act makes it unlawful “to, intentionally, in public, communicate, counsel, or solicit public support for an interpretation of a religion … that is similar to the interpretations or activities of an Indonesian religion but deviates from the tenets of that religion.” One of the purposes of the Act is to help the government protect Indonesia’s six recognized religions — Islam, [Protestant] Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism — by punishing those who encourage conversion away from one of these religions or preach “deviant” interpretations of those religions. The six official religions each have government-funded religious bodies who decide what an acceptable belief for that religion is and what is not.
The Act establishes civil and criminal penalties, including up to five years imprisonment, for violators. In the past, it has been used to impose criminal penalties on groups like the Ahmadiyya, which most Muslims do not recognize because they believe it deviates from mainstream Islamic teachings. In 2008, the Indonesian Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Interior issued the Joint Decree on the Ahmadiyya, which orders Ahmadiyya adherents “as long as they consider themselves to hold to Islam, to discontinue the promulgation of interpretations and activities that are deviant from the principal teachings of Islam.”
Similarly, in 2009, police arrested the leader of the Sion City of Allah Christian sect and six of his followers for straying from “correct Christian teachings.” Because the Sect is based on only one book of the Bible (the Book of Jeremiah), the government banned it as an unacceptable branch of Christianity and forbade its followers from attending church till 2011.
These cases underscore the problematic nature of the Blasphemy Act. While private citizens and religious groups should be able to decide among themselves what does or does not constitute the essence of a religion, and while they should be able to exclude certain individuals from membership on the basis of such disagreements, the Act appoints the state, with all of its police power, as arbiter of what a particular group believes and what it should be allowed to propagate.
In some cases, the state will deem a group blasphemous even when the allegedly blasphemed group disagrees. For instance, in the Sion City case, the government charged the sect with blaspheming the Timor Evangelical Church, despite the Church’s statements to the contrary. Instead of ceding autonomy to the Church and allowing it to determine religious questions, including blasphemy, for itself, the state stated, “We hope the church will not interfere in the case.”
Religion, regulated as such, is defined by the state and is necessarily politicized by the state’s involvement. The state-approved version of religion often tempers social justice components of faith, especially in the case of authoritarian regimes, which use religion to protect and legitimate their own power. Religious matters in this way become intertwined with questions of national security and public order.
Indeed, the public order argument played a big role in the Court’s decision to uphold the Blasphemy Act. The idea is that blasphemy — real or supposed, intentional or unintentional — would anger adherents of a given religion, who will then cause destruction or otherwise act violently. This is different from regulating incitement to violence because it limits peaceful, not violent, speech. According to the Court, the state has to control potentially blasphemous statements, peacefully expressed, in order to increase societal harmony.
However, the court’s reasoning in this regard is deeply flawed as it protects the wrong party and provides the wrong incentives. The Blasphemy Act appeases rather than controls violent extremists, giving them license to continue bullying religious minorities while the police look the other way. It creates a culture of impunity where increasingly egregious crimes are committed with little or no consequences for the criminals.
Instead of penalizing the speaker in order to prevent violence, the law should compel potentially violent actors to regulate their own behavior — even, indeed especially, in the face of insults. Violence is far more effectively controlled if states enforce those laws which punish criminal behavior.
This sort of legal scheme makes sense not simply because it’s more effective, but also because it protects the fundamental human right to free religious expression. Individuals have the right to not only hold particular beliefs but also to express them openly in public — as long as they are peaceful and do not contravene the rights of others. This works in favor of the larger society rather than against it, as only in a free marketplace of ideas can those ideas with greater utility or persuasive power prevail.
In upholding the Blasphemy Act, the Court affirmed the power of the state to compel individuals to abide by certain beliefs against their own conscience — all for the sake of keeping at bay a presumably uncontrollable public. The decision is both logically and morally flawed, and a major setback for human rights in Indonesia.
Eboo Patel
Named by US News And World Report as one of America’s Best Leaders
In public, Islam always appears in flames. Sometimes it’s on fire in the movies, sometimes it’s on fire in the newspapers. The most recent example, of course, is on the cartoon South Park, where the Prophet Muhammad was depicted wearing a bear suit.
That gave a platform to a website called “Revolution Muslim” to direct a threat against the South Park writers. Which gave a platform for a couple of scary-looking guys with beards to go on TV and talk about how Muslims are required to terrorize people (how kind the media is to radical Muslims: so much free air time, and they don’t have to pay a PR company). Which gave the industry of Islamophobia a platform to say, “See, didn’t we tell you their religion makes them violent?” Which made Americans scared of Muslims, again.
It’s a too-familiar story, so familiar, in fact, that it just about writes itself.
And that’s the problem, actually. The arsonists want you to associate Islam with flames — that’s why they light it on fire whenever they send it out to the public. They are masters at manipulating media, from newspapers to videos to cartoons.
But there are other Muslims who are mastering media and who are telling different stories. Meet Dr. Naif al-Mutawa, founder of the Muslim cartoon series The 99. He is an Arab educated in America, a psychologist who went to business school, a Muslim aghast at how Islam is viewed as violent and hateful by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, a father of five boys, and one of the most impressive cultural entrepreneurs of our times.
Naif had just been accepted to Columbia Business School when 9/11 happened. There was the horror of the terror that had hit the land that had educated him. There was the double horror of the hijacking of his religion. And there was the triple horror that there was no alternative message about Islam even a fraction as powerful as the ugliness that Al Qaeda was offering.
The fact that even Muslims were starting to believe that Islam was ugly was brought home to Naif in a lecture that he gave to students in Kuwait. He handed out two stories of religious extremism from the New York Times, blanking out the names of the religions and the places. One was a story of a group of thugs who violently shut down Valentine’s Day festivities, the other a story of a religious community oppressing its own women.
“Who did these ugly acts?” Naif asked. All of the students agreed the perpetrators must be Muslim. There was some disagreement over whether the acts took place in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
The actual communities were a Hindu group in India and a Jewish group in New York, respectively. But Naif was astonished. So deep was the belief that Islam violently destroys fun and oppresses women in these young people’s minds that when they saw such ugliness, the image of the perpetrator was Muslim.
Clearly, this was a job for Superman — a Superman inspired by Islam. But that person didn’t exist. Indeed, the whole universe of a contemporary, inspiring, heroic Islam didn’t exist. The standard view is that Islam was heroic at the beginning, in the time of the Prophet, maybe extending a few centuries forward to Medieval Córdoba or Cairo or Baghdad.
In Muslim communities around the world, 60-year-old men with long beards gear up to give lectures that drone on about how great Islam was long ago and how oppressed Muslims are now and how it is the fault of this people or that people. And in all of those Muslim communities, eight-year-olds and twelve-year-olds and eighteen-year-olds, who grow up in a world of iPhones and 3-D movies, dread those lectures.
Enter Naif al-Mutawa, who saw his kids bored by Muslim education lessons but attached to cartoons and comic books. How do you make the teachings of an ancient religion interesting to a twenty-first-century kid? How do you combat the ugly message of Al Qaeda and the Islamophobes? Why not make a comic book series of a group of superheroes inspired by Islam, write into it some age-old Islamic archetypes like the ninety-nine names/qualities of God (the merciful, the compassionate, the just, the creator), and give it a fully twenty-first-century form?
The product is beautiful and compelling. The storylines are nuanced, inspiring, and funny. The illustration is top-notch. The characters are genuinely diverse — women and men, hijabis and non-hijabis, from all national and ethnic backgrounds. And The 99 is no small operation. It’s already translated into eight languages, and Naif just signed a deal with a major American broadcaster to launch a televised animation series that “will set the global standard in animation,” Naif says.
No wonder President Obama gave Naif a shout-out in his speech to the Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship: “His comic books have captured the imagination of so many young people who embody the teachings and tolerance of Islam.”
This is a story about cultural entrepreneurship. It’s a story about changing the discourse. It’s a story about reframing the Us and Them — from America vs. Islam to Heroes We All Admire vs. Violence We All Deplore. But mostly this is a story about a man fighting for beauty against a world peddling ugliness.
Imagine being the father of five Arab Muslim boys. Imagine watching them observe how their religion is made ugly — by Muslims and non-Muslims alike — in every medium possible. You can’t just hide the newspapers, you can’t just turn off the evening news; the ugliness will find them. It will come in the cartoons, on the web, through conversations on the street. Soon, they will begin to believe that Islam is ugly. Maybe they will feel that if they want to be Muslim they must become ugly.
There is a line in the Muslim tradition: “God is beautiful and loves beauty.” God made Islam inspiring. The Prophet Muhammad made Islam heroic. We Muslims are meant to live out that beauty and inspiration and heroism, to live up to the call that God gave to all humanity, to manifest those 99 qualities of Allah.
I have many reasons to thank Naif, as a religion writer looking for a good story, as an interfaith leader seeking to bring people together. But mostly I want to thank him as the Muslim father of two boys, living in a world that seems dedicated to making Islam ugly, desperately wanting his sons to see Islam in its original light of holiness, and inspiring them to be the heroes God meant them to be.
Biography Dr. Naif A. Al-Mutawa
Dr. Naif Al-Mutawa is the creator of THE 99-the first group of superheroes born of an Islamic archetype. THE 99, has received positive attention from the international media including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, Wired, Elle, The Washington Post and The Guardian. Recently, Forbes named THE 99 as one of the top 20 trends sweeping the globe. Read more about the worldwide coverage of THE 99.
A PhD in Clinical Psychology from Long Island University, Al-Mutawa completed a Masters in Clinical Psychology from Long Island University, a Masters in Business Administration from Columbia University and a Masters in Organizational Psychology from Teacher’s College, Columbia University. He earned his undergraduate degree from Tufts University, where he triple majored in clinical psychology, English literature and history.
Dr. Al-Mutawa has had extensive clinical experience working with former prisoners of war in Kuwait as well as at the Survivors of Political Torture unit of Bellevue Hospital in New York.
He has seen first hand the cancer that intolerance can bring to any society. His direct contact with the horrors of prisons and with people tortured because of their religious and political beliefs, led to his writing a timeless children’s tale that won a UNESCO prize for literature in the service of tolerance.
Al-Mutawa was chosen as a CNN/Skype Connector of the Day in 2009. He is also the recipient of The Festival Internacional de Humour e Quadrinhos Comics Award presented at Cartoons & Comics Festival in Brazil, The Ecademy Award from Columbia University School of Business, The Eliot-Pearson Award for Excellence in Children’s Media from Tufts University, The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations “ Marketplace of Ideas” Award, the First “Intersector of Religion’ Award presented by Intersections International and the ‘The Schwab Foundation Social Entrepreneurship Award’, 2009 presented at the World Economic Forum.
His writing has been published in several languages.
Ninety-nine mystical Noor Stones carry all that is left of the wisdom and knowledge of the lost civilization of Baghdad. The Noor Stones lie scattered across the globe-now little more than a legend. However one man has made it his life’s mission to seek out what was once lost. His name is Dr. Ramzi Razem and he has searched long and hard for the missing stones, to no avail. His luck is about to change…
By Eleanor Goldberg
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS) With an open collared baby blue shirt and Dolce & Gabbana jacket hugging his slim frame, Tariq Ramadan appears the epitome of Western sophistication.
But from 2004 until just a few months ago, the Department of Homeland Security viewed him with suspicion.
Ramadan, a 46-year-old Oxford University professor and a golden child of American academia, was banned from the U.S. for six years because of alleged ties to a Muslim charity that supported the militant group Hamas.
“A silly decision from the Bush administration,” as Ramadan prefers to put it now.
Ramadan, the author of more than 20 books on Islam and the grandson of the founder of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, is widely considered a go-to scholar on all things Islam. He’s made enemies on both sides with his criticisms of both U.S. foreign policy and Islamic fundamentalism.
Now, six years after he was blocked from taking a tenured position at the University of Notre Dame, Ramadan is finally in the U.S. after a federal appeals court ruled the DHS had to rescind the ban, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later approved a 10-year visa.
Story continues below
Making the rounds on his first U.S. speaking tour, he’s quick to address the issue that pops up at the top of a Google search of his name.
Speaking to a group of journalists this week, Ramadan said his visa was initially rejected under the Patriot Act in an atmosphere of post-9/11 American nervousness.
When he reapplied and was interviewed at the U.S. embassy in Switzerland, he said, most of the questions related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Iraq war. (He’s critical of the U.S. support of Israel and considers the Iraq war illegal.)
It wasn’t until two years later that he learned the reason for his exile: he had contributed 700 euros between 1998 and 2002 to a charity he thought promoted education for Palestinians but actually supported Hamas. The U.S. blacklisted the charity in 2003.
The ACLU subsequently filed a lawsuit to prevent the U.S. government from banning foreign scholars based on their views.
“I think, for many of us, it was an astonishing thing to see someone as vibrantly engaged in the kind of work we do excluded by the United States,” said Harvard professor Diana Eck, former president of the American Academy of Religion, which joined in the suit.
Rather than revisit the unpleasantness of the past, the Swiss-born academic is more interested in contemporary issues facing Muslims. For one, he says Western Muslims need to integrate better into society and make a concerted effort to “feel at home.”
“This obsession with foreign policy is not helping us to be citizens,” Ramadan said, adding that Muslims do themselves a disservice by constantly focusing on terrorism and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
It’s also a mistake to establish separate Muslim schools, he said, insisting that Muslims need to be involved in all discussions of public policy, from politics to education to the social sciences.
And while American Muslims may remain “suspicious” about the sincerity of President Obama’s overtures to the Islamic world, they are more apt to get involved in the conversation now, according to Ramadan.
“It’s quite clear that the current administration is much more well perceived by Muslims around the world after what we got for eight years,” Ramadan said.
Part of his job, he said, is “trying to promote a shift in the center of gravity of authority in Islam.” If you want to be taken seriously by Muslim audiences, “you should be rooted in the tradition,” he said, which is why he’s trying to develop a network of scholars in the West and in Muslim-majority countries who discuss their interpretations of Islamic scriptures.
When it comes to the controversial topic of liberating Muslim women abroad, for example, Ramadan says many scholars in Muslim countries tell him in private: “We agree with you. But we aren’t going to say it.”‘
Ramadan says dialogue is the most effective approach because it’s what’s worked for him. For 15 years, he said, scholars agreed with Ramadan that female genital mutilation “is wrong and not Islamic.” But it wasn’t until Jan. 12 that 34 Muslim scholars signed a fatwa banning the practice.
His message, after the six-year ban, has drawn large audiences during his Washington debut — even if they also include protestors who view him with lingering unease.
“Lo and behold,” said fellow author Reza Aslan, who also teaches at the University of California, “the earth didn’t open up and swallow us up.”
Correspondent Ahmed Rashid brings the shadowy world of the Taliban—the world’s most extreme and radical Islamic organization—into sharp focus in this enormously insightful book. He offers the only authoritative account of the Taliban available to English-language readers, explaining the Taliban’s rise to power, its impact on Afghanistan and the region, its role in oil and gas company decisions, and the effects of changing American attitudes toward the Taliban. He also describes the new face of Islamic fundamentalism and explains why Afghanistan has become the world center for international terrorism.
New to this updated edition of the #1 New York Times Bestseller with more than 1.5 million copies sold worldwide:
o How the Taliban has regained its strength
o How and why the Taliban has spread across Central Asia
o How the Taliban has helped Al’Qaida’s spread into Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East
o Why the Afghan people feel the United States is losing the war
o A major new introduction and an all-new final chapter
Called “Pakistan’s best and bravest reporter” by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair, Ahmed Rashid was a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review for more than twenty years, covering Pakistan, Afghanistan, and central Asia. He now writes for BBC Online, the Washington Post, El Mundo, the International Herald Tribune, the New York Review of Books, and other foreign and Pakistani newspapers. He has been covering the wars in Afghanistan, as well as the wars in Pakistan and Tajikistan, since 1979. He is the author of Descent into Chaos and Jihad.
OTHER TITLES BY THIS AUTHOR
Jihad
The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia
The terrorist attacks of September 11 have turned the world’s attention to areas of the globe about which we know very little. Ahmed Rashid, who masterfully explained Afghanistan’s Taliban regime in his previous book, here turns his skills as an investigative journalist to the five Central Asian republics adjacent to Afghanistan. Central Asia is coming to play a vital strategic role in the war on terrorism, but the region also poses new threats to global security.
The five Central Asian republics—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan—were part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. Under Soviet rule, Islam was brutally suppressed, and that intolerance has continued under the post-Soviet regimes. Religious repression, political corruption, and the region’s extreme poverty (unemployment rates exceed 80 percent in some areas) have created a fertile climate for militant Islamic fundamentalism.
Often funded and trained by such organizations as Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and the Taliban, guerrilla movements like the IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) have recruited a staggering number of members across the region and threaten to topple the governments of all five nations.
Based on groundbreaking research and numerous interviews, Jihad explains the roots of militant rage in Central Asia, describes the goals and activities of these militant organizations, and suggests ways in which this threat could be neutralized by diplomatic and economic intervention.
Rich in both cultural heritage and natural resources—including massive oil reservoirs—Central Asia remains desperately poor and frighteningly volatile. In tracing the history of Central Asia and explaining the current political climate, Rashid demonstrates that it is a region we ignore at our peril.
Ahmed Rashid is a journalist based in Lahore. He is the Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph. He also writes for the Wall Street Journal.
Rashid’s previous book, Taliban (published by Yale University Press), reached number one on the New York Times bestseller list and has been translated into more than twenty-five languages.
Ahmed Rashid on Punjab, Taliban rising…
Fareed Zakaria interview.
Some of the world’s most baffling social problems, says Peter Eigen, can be traced to systematic, pervasive government corruption, hand-in-glove with global companies. At TEDxBerlin, Eigen describes the thrilling counter-attack led by his organization Transparency International.
Peter Eigen: Fighting Corruption at Every Level (preview)
Preview of Peter Eigen: Fighting corruption at Every Level. Widespread corruption undermines stability and perpetuates injustice and poverty across the globe; Peter Eigen is the founder of Transparency International and has led the worldwide effort to combat it. He examines the toll of corruption; he describes new social, political and legal breakthroughs; and, he explains how everyone can join the growing campaign to eliminate one of humanity’s great causes of injustice.
Preview of Peter Eigen: Champion for Accountability. Peter Eigen left a high-level position at the World Bank to create Transparency International, a watchdog group that exposes and fights corruption worldwide. Transparency International, a coalition of business, government and citizen organizations, with chapters in more than 85 countries, has grown into a formidable anti-corruption force. Eigen tells his story — from his early social awakening to his role at the helm of this global movement. Produced for Ashoka by Rooy Media LLC. To buy films, go to dvd.ashoka.org.
Rich Harwood, President & Founder of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation, talks about what it really means to be accountable as a public leader.
In our annual TIME 100 issue we name the people who most affect our world
by Henry Kissinger
Historians have been debating, it seems forever, whether individuals shape events or are their register. There can be no doubt about the answer with regard to Lee Kuan Yew, 86, Minister Mentor of Singapore.
For 50 years, he has shaped the fate of Singapore. He became Prime Minister when an obstreperous city was ejected from the Malaysian Federation on the theory that it would have to come crawling back. Lee had a different vision.
The mark of a great leader is to take his society from where it is to where it has never been. When Lee took over, per capita income was about $400 a year; now it is close to $40,000. Lee inspired his polyglot population to become the intellectual and technical center of the region.
Because of his leadership, a medium-size city has become a significant international and economic player, especially in fostering multilateral transpacific ties. On his periodic visits to Washington, Lee Kuan Yew is received by the President and leaders of both parties. There is no better strategic thinker in the world today. Two generations of American leaders have benefited from his counsel.
Kissinger is a former Secretary of State
Michael Sandel visits the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts (RSA) to argue for a new commitment to citizenship and the common good.
What are our obligations to others as people in a free society? Should government tax the rich to help the poor? Is the free market fair? Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth? Is killing sometimes morally required? Is it possible, or desirable, to legislate morality? Do individual rights and the common good conflict?
Michael J. Sandel’s “Justice” course is one of the most popular and influential at Harvard. Up to a thousand students pack the campus theater to hear Sandel relate the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of the day, and this fall, public television will air a series based on the course. Justice offers readers the same exhilarating journey that captivates Harvard students.
This book is a searching, lyrical exploration of the meaning of justice, one that invites readers of all political persuasions to consider familiar controversies in fresh and illuminating ways. Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, national service, patriotism and dissent, the moral limits of markets—Sandel dramatizes the challenge of thinking through these con?icts, and shows how a surer grasp of philosophy can help us make sense of politics, morality, and our own convictions as well. Justice is lively, thought-provoking, and wise—an essential new addition to the small shelf of books that speak convincingly to the hard questions of our civic life.
Michael Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980. His books include Democracy’s Discontent, Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, and, most recently, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? His writings have been translated into eleven foreign languages and have appeared in The Atlantic, The New Republic, and the New York Times.
Sandel has lectured widely in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand, on topics including democracy, liberalism, bioethics, globalization, and justice. He delivered the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Oxford University, was a visiting professor at the Sorbonne, and in 2009 delivered the BBC’s Reith Lectures. From 2002-2005, Sandel served on the President’s Council on Bioethics. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Sandel received his doctorate from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar.
Ivan Petrella
Author and associate professor, University of Miami
In foreign policy, the George W. Bush era was the era of Samuel Huntington’s thesis on the clash of civilizations. In an influential essay that became a book, Huntington argued that with the end of the Cold War, future conflicts would be fought between civilizations. The civilization he really worried about, though, was Islam. Islam, he wrote, “has bloody borders.” In the 21st century, he suggested, no border would be bloodier than the one separating Islam from the West.
What’s striking about Huntington’s worldview is that it’s identical to that of Osama bin Laden. A reading of The Clash of Civilizations would confirm the latter’s own views. “You see,” Bin Laden might well tell his followers waving this book in hand, “I’m right, they agree with me. We’re at war with the West.”
Thankfully, President Obama has put an end to the bizarre symmetry between our foreign policy and the views of Al Qaeda. For him, there’s no clash between Islam and the United States. Islam is the United States. As he said last year in Turkey, “The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them.”
True to this insight, the Obama administration is changing the focus of conversation with Muslim countries. Terrorism and radical religion will no longer be the guiding topics. A National Security Council staffer explained that “you take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense.”
I agree: it doesn’t. We can’t let a fanatical-violent minority shape the way we interact with the majority of the Muslim world. Yet I fear that moving away from a focus on religious violence could blind us to the very real clash that fuels many conflicts.
Just because the clash of civilizations is bogus doesn’t mean there’s no clash. There is. But it’s a clash of theologies. Current conflicts are driven by competing theological frameworks, are internal to religions and regions, and at times express themselves globally.
So while there’s no battle between Islam and the West, there is a battle within Islam: a conflict between violent-fanatic understandings of Islam and a broader spectrum of Muslim worldviews over how the religion gets defined. The events of 9/11, which at first glance appear to corroborate Huntington’s thesis, are better understood as an eruption of the fight over the “true” definition of Islam unto the American stage.
This same clash is found in other religions and other parts of the world. In the United States, the Christian Right rails against progressive understandings of religion and the separation of church and state. This struggle also spills onto the global scene, in the unqualified support by sections of the Republican Party for the extremist Jewish settlers of the occupied territories. You’ll find the same conflict within Judaism as well. The New York Review of Books recently reported on links between fundamentalist rabbis and the growing number of religious soldiers who say they would resist orders to remove those same settlers. It’s just a matter of time before this struggle over what it means to be Jewish affects American foreign policy.
Basically understood, a theology is a worldview that determines what actions are considered right or wrong. The Muslim who blows himself up in a market square is guided by a theology that makes suicide bombing a virtuous act. The same goes for the Christian who torches an abortion clinic or the Hindu mob that levels a Muslim shrine. Theology precedes virtue; theology makes right and wrong.
In the world of a clash of theologies, soft power — the ability to persuade others without using force — is more effective than hard power, and the battle over minds is more important than the battle over territory. To focus on theology is to focus on the worldviews that motivate behavior. It requires paying attention to local context and detail. The stakes are high. The whole world has a vested interest in which theologies win in the struggle over the definition of Islam in, say, Pakistan or Iran. The whole world also has a vested interest in which understanding of Christianity triumphs in the United States and which version of Judaism prevails in Israel. Without the right theologies in place, there won’t be peace.
I know that in a time of iPhones and iPads, the word “theology” sounds old and dusty. But it’s not an anachronism — the struggle between theologies is a driver of our turbulent time.
Ivan Petrella (Ph.D. Harvard University) is the author of The Future of Liberation Theology: an Argument and Manifesto, Beyond Liberation Theology: a Polemic, editor of Latin American Liberation Theology: the Next Generation, and co-executive editor of the “Reclaiming Liberation Theology” book series. His areas of expertise include modern theology and philosophy, social theory, and the interplay between religion and politics.
Books b y Ivan Petrella
Haroon Moghul
Executive Director, The Maydan Institute
In the most recent The American Interest, Charles Horner and Eric Brown discuss how and why Communist China is fearful of Muslims (“Beijing’s Islamic Complex”). Inside China, the Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang, or Turkestan, who came onto many people’s radars for the first time after last summer’s riots in Urumqi, might be a threat to the People’s Republic, though I cannot imagine so tiny a minority challenging so giant a state. More plausibly, the authors argue that global Muslim awareness of Uighur oppression jeopardizes China’s outreach to the Islamic world. And China may need Islam to become a true superpower: “The Xinjiang episode drew somewhat less harsh comment from Washington, Tokyo and Sydney, but it engaged official and popular interest in predominantly Muslim countries in an unprecedented way.”
I’ve previously written on how the Uighur crisis became a means by which “the next Islamists” challenge political orthodoxy in their countries of residence. In taking up this angle from a Chinese perspective, the authors provide a deep insight into how identity politics, colonialism, and modern narratives of history can collide. Unfortunately, the authors also make two mistakes. The first is forgivable, but the second is of much deeper concern.
The lesser error concerns their reference to Turkish history. I assume Horner and Brown are speaking about the Ottomans when they write “Turkey’s own multiethnic imperial glory … at its height, abutted contemporary China’s own domains.” So far as I and history know, the Ottomans barely made it to Azerbaijan’s Caspian shore, and the Chinese were never anywhere near Turkmenistan (the opposite end of that sea). But anyway.
More problematic to me was their description of Turkey as “home to one of the Muslim world’s few democracies.” The language is inaccurate. While there are a large number of Muslim-majority countries that are not democracies, the majority of the world’s Muslims live in democracies. Let me count the ways: Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan (right up against China’s Uighur region), Turkey, Lebanon, Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ethiopia, the Maldives, etc. Between them, we have well over half of Islam’s population. Nobody is saying that these democracies are stable, let alone ideal. (Though, to be fair, the idea of a perfect democracy seems absurd: democracies exist in a constant state of tension and incompleteness. Perfection is for dictators, the afterlife and Star Trek.)
Given that, why is it that so many authors paint the Muslim world as undemocratic, whether in theory or practice? Speaking on April 28th at the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy’s annual conference, author Reza Aslan noted that, for years now, huge majorities of Muslims the world over have endorsed democracy as a political ideal — one moreover that they want right now. I cannot presume to know Horner and Brown’s intentions, and I do not desire to impute what might not have been aimed for in an otherwise intriguing essay. Still, let me say this: the demographics contradict their words, and the global distribution of Muslim-majority democracies, from Southeast Asia to West Africa, proves fictional any allergy between Islam and democracy. That in the end could be the foundation of Chinese and Muslim solidarity, or it could repel Muslim populations, tired of the dictatorships in their midst, from more of the same.
Haroon Moghul is Executive Director of The Maydan Institute. A Ph.D. Candidate at Columbia University, he is the author of The Order of Light (Penguin 2006). He has been selected one of over 500 global Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. His sermons are available through the Islamic Center at New York University’s new media services.
Collaborative democracy—government with the people—is a new vision of governance in the digital age. Wiki Government explains how to translate the vision into reality. Beth Simone Noveck draws on her experience in creating Peer-to-Patent, the federal government’s first social networking initiative, to show how technology can connect the expertise of the many to the power of the few. In the process, she reveals what it takes to innovate in government.
Launched in 2007, Peer-to-Patent connects patent examiners to volunteer scientists and technologists via the web. These dedicated but overtaxed officials decide which of the million-plus patent applications currently in the pipeline to approve. Their decisions help determine which start-up pioneers a new industry and which disappears without a trace. Patent examiners have traditionally worked in secret, cut off from essential information and racing against the clock to rule on lengthy, technical claims. Peer-to-Patent broke this mold by creating online networks of self-selecting citizen experts and channeling their knowledge and enthusiasm into forms that patent examiners can easily use.
Peer-to-Patent shows how policymakers can improve decisionmaking by harnessing networks to public institutions. By encouraging, coordinating, and structuring citizen participation, technology can make government both more open and more effective at solving today’s complex social and economic problems. Wiki Government describes how this model can be applied in a wide variety of settings and offers a fundamental rethinking of effective governance and democratic legitimacy for the twenty-first century.
Collaborative Democracy and the Changing Nature of Expertise
chapter one
Peer-to-Patent: A Modest Proposal 3
The Modest Proposal Takes Off 7
Implications for the Future: From Wikipedia to Wikilaw 12
The Core Idea 15
Overview of the Book 21
chapter two
The Single Point of Failure 25
The Closed Model of Decisionmaking 25
New Technologies and Civic Life 29
Participatory Democratic Theory in the Age of Networks 35
Challenges for Collaborative Democracy 40
Contents
viii Contents
part two
Peer-to-Patent and the Patent Challenge
chapter three
Patents and the Information Deficit 47
The Why of Patents 49
Challenges of Patent Examination 51
Patent Examination Today 59
Consequences: The Crab Is Traveling Backward 64
What’s at Stake? 67
chapter four
Designing for Collaborative Democracy 70
Visual Deliberation 71
How Peer-to-Patent Works 73
Reflecting the Work of the Group Back to Itself 80
Granularity, Groups, and Reputation 82
Getting Everyone on Board 90
The Design Process 95
Early Results 99
part three
Thinking in Wiki
chapter five
Social Life of Information 107
Beyond Transparency 108
Beyond Crowdsourcing 110
Bringing Experts and Expertise Together 117
Space, Place, Groups, and Information 118
Linking Information and Action 120
Information Transparency 121
Building toward Collaboration 126
chapter six
History of Citizen Participation 128
Failure of Public Consultation 129
Government Access to Information 133
The Internet Age and Participatory Practices 138
Imagine the Alternative: Poking Our Way to Participation 142
Contents ix
chapter seven
Citizen Participation in a Collaborative Democracy 146
Beyond Peer-to-Patent: Improving Consultation 148
Beyond Notice and Comment 154
Organizing for Innovation 161
The Networked CTO 165
Collaborative Governance iLabs 166
chapter eight
Lessons Learned 170
Ask the Right Questions 172
Ask the Right People 174
Design the Process for the Desired End 175
Design for Groups, Not Individuals 178
Use the Screen to Show the Group Back to Itself 179
Divide Work into Roles and Tasks 179
Harness the Power of Reputation 180
Make Policies, Not Websites 181
Pilot New Ideas 182
Focus on Outcomes, Not Inputs 183
The Bigger Picture: Redesigning Governance 184
East Coast Code and West Coast Code 185
Power and Collaborative Democracy 189
Notes
Biography
Beth Simone Noveck is the United States Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government. She directs the White House Open Government Initiative at http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/.
She is on leave as a professor law and director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and McClatchy visiting professor of communication at Stanford University.
Dr. Noveck taught in the areas of intellectual property, technology and first amendment law and founded the law school’s “Do Tank,” a legal and software R&D lab focused on developing technologies and policies to promote open government (dotank.nyls.edu).
Dr. Noveck is the author of Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful (2009) and editor of The State of Play: Law, Games and Virtual Worlds (2006).
http://fora.tv/2010/03/04/Beth_Noveck_Transparent_Government
Ebrahim Moosa, professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, attributes the fundamentalism of extreme Islamists to a lack of literacy about Islamic law and tradition. He says very few resources are put into studying and understanding the historical context of Sharia, giving way to “demagoguery and rhetoric.”
—–
In a world increasingly governed by ideals of democracy and pluralism, this program explores both the evolution of religion and freedom in Islam — focusing on the recent rise of intellectual reform and the role of the religious intellectual — as well the debate surrounding these changes.
Featuring Baber Johansen, Professor of Islamic Religious Studies at Harvard Divinity School; Ebrahim Moosa, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University; and Abdulkarim Soroush, philosopher, reformer, Rumi scholar, and former professor at the University of Tehran. Talal Asad, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center, moderates the discussion. – CUNY
Ebrahim E.I. Moosa is Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University. His interests span both classical and modern Islamic thought with a special focus on Islamic law, history, ethics, and theology. Moosa is the author of Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination, winner of the American Academy of Religion’s Best First Book in the History of Religions (2006) and editor of the last manuscript of the late Professor Fazlur Rahman, Revival and Reform in Islam: A Study of Islamic Fundamentalism. He was named Carnegie Scholar in 2005 to pursue research on the madrasas, Islamic seminaries of South Asia.
Book overview
Islam as a religion is central to the lives of over a billion people, but its outer expression as a distinctive civilization has been undergoing a monumental crisis. Buffeted by powerful adverse currents, Islamic civilization today is a shadow of its former self. The most disturbing and possibly fatal of these currents—the imperial expansion of the West into Muslim lands and the blast of modernity that accompanied it—are now compounded by a third giant wave, globalization.
These forces have increasingly tested Islam and Islamic civilization for validity, adaptability, and the ability to hold on to the loyalty of Muslims, says Ali A. Allawi in his provocative new book. While the faith has proved resilient in the face of these challenges, other aspects of Islamic civilization have atrophied or died, Allawi contends, and Islamic civilization is now undergoing its last crisis.
The book explores how Islamic civilization began to unravel under colonial rule, as its institutions, laws, and economies were often replaced by inadequate modern equivalents. Allawi also examines the backlash expressed through the increasing religiosity of Muslim societies and the spectacular rise of political Islam and its terrorist offshoots. Assessing the status of each of the building blocks of Islamic civilization, the author concludes that Islamic civilization cannot survive without the vital spirituality that underpinned it in the past. He identifies a key set of principles for moving forward, principles that will surprise some and anger others, yet clearly must be considered.
REVIEWS
“Ali Allawi provides a rare and a wide-ranging survey which seeks to make the Islamic way of life not only compatible but also relevant to modern times. His analysis is relentlessly critical and his approach is watertight. This is an excellent book, demolishing many of the stereotypes of Muslim assumptions about their faith and concepts of Islamic civilisation.” – Dr Abbas Kelidar, formerly professor of politics and history, SOAS, University of London
“Ali Allawi offers both a nuanced analysis of the present crisis in Islamic civilization, and a way forward. This book provides an insider’s map of what has gone wrong across the Muslim world, and what is necessary for Islam to rediscover a route to modernity respecting its distinctive wisdom. Allawi writes with characteristic elegance and incisive reflection – the western world badly needs such interpreters of Islam.” – Philip Lewis, Department of Peace Studies, Bradford University
“Ali Allawi engages in a crucial discussion that is too often missed or misunderstood, as he explores how Islamic civilization appears to him in the early part of the 21st century. His clear and sympathetic arguments make sense of what is happening in the Muslim world today. Rich in detail and full of insights, disturbing yet stimulating, The Crisis of Islamic Civilization is a cry from the heart.” – Ambassador Akbar S. Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University, Washington, DC, and Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies, United States Naval Academy
“Is there still anything like some preserved seeds of true Islamic civilisation? Or has Islamic civilisation been totally absorbed and eradicated by Westernization? This book answers these questions and many more.” – Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, National President of the Canadian Islamic Congress
“The writing is erudite and the conclusions fascinating.”—Publishers Weekly
“. . . [with] intimate knowledge of both Islam and the West, and his unflinching honesty . . . Mr Allawi calmly and methodically deconstructs an Islamic revival which has failed to live up to its promises.” — The Economist
“. . . a challenging and ambitious effort . . . thoughtful, pertinent and informative . . . I have no hesitation in recommending [The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation] to others, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”— Muhammad Khan, Muslim News
“This is an intelligent, erudite work on the travails of Islamic civilisation as it has encountered the expansion of Western power … at once an exposition, a lament … a prescription … and a salutary blast of cultural self-criticism … Allawi’s work is a searing indictment of Islamic societies but not of Islam itself … his expositions of the ideas of Muslim thinkers are exemplary in their lucidity … I learnt a lot from this book.”—Literary Review
“Like many other disappointed politicians, Ali Allawi turned to the consolations of philosophy and religion. The result is a remarkably thoughtful and engaging assessment of the current state and future prospects of the world of Islam.”—Martin Walker, Wilson Quarterly
“A take no doubt burdened by the horrors he’s witnessed on the ground, not to mention the frustration of creating a truly functioning government in Baghdad.”–The Washington Post Political Bookworm
‘Allawi’s contribution remains interesting, thought-provoking and worthy of careful reading.’—Abdelwahab El-Affendi, International Affairs
Winner of the Silver Prize in the 2009 Book Prize competition, presented by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
One of The Globalist’s Top Books of 2009.
CONTENTS
Preface vii
Prologue: The Axes of Islamic Civilization 1
1 Tearing the Fabric 22
2 The Break with the Past 41
3 The Counter-Revolt of Islam 63
4 De-Sacralising Islam 85
5 The Reformations of Islam 109
6 Territory and Power 137
7 Where next for the Islamic State? 157
8 Human Rights and Human Duties 186
9 Wealth and Poverty 206
10 The Decline of Creativity 228
11 The Last Crisis 248
Notes
Ali A. Allawi has served as Minister of Defense and Minister of Finance in the Iraqi postwar governments. The author of the highly praised Occupation of Iraq, he is senior visiting fellow at Princeton University.
One of the most award investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, has accepted the invitation made by the GIJC 2010 to be a keynote speaker in Geneva. Known as early as 1969 to be the journalist who broke the My Lai scandal in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh has more recently exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh has published eight books, including, most recently, “Chain of Command”, which was based on his reporting on Abu Ghraib for the New Yorker magazine. It is the first time that Hersh spoke at GIJC.
Tips from Bob Woodward on Investigative Journalism
Bob Woodward explains the three ways journalists get their information and comments on the future of in-depth journalism in the digital age.
Mark Steyn, a writer, political commentator, and cultural critic, breaks down the numbers and explains why they spell doom for the Western world with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge.
Islam versus democracy…
The Islamization of Europe 2 of 3
May 20, 2010
By Omar Sacirbey
Religion News Service
(RNS) Europe’s burqa debate and a steady stream of media images showing veiled women have led to a widespread impression that all Muslims are obsessed with covering the female body.
It might be a surprise, then, that many Muslim Americans are toasting Rima Fakih, who made history on Sunday (May 16) by becoming the first Muslim crowned Miss USA.
Fakih, who donned a gold bikini and a strapless white dress for the pageant, will return to Las Vegas in August when she represents America in the Miss Universe contest.
“There’s recognition among Muslims that this is not a traditionally Islamic way for a woman to dress,” said Shahed Amanullah, editor at AltMuslim.com, a news and commentary website. “But in its own weird way, its progress.”
Many Muslims are critical of beauty pageants as lewd and degrading to women. At the same time, Fakih, 24, is being hailed as a symbol of Muslim-American integration who shatters the stereotype of the cloaked and dour Muslim woman.
Fakih’s family, which she said celebrates Muslim and Christian holidays, is from Lebanon. After living in Queens, N.Y., where Fakih attended a Catholic high school, the family settled in Dearborn, Mich., home to one of the largest Arab-American communities in America.
Now, Fakih is developing a fan base that includes not only Muslims who are less strict about religious dress-codes, but also those who don headscarves and watch what they wear.
“The crowning of Rima Fakih as Miss USA demonstrates the diversity of Muslims, not just in terms of ethnic diversity, but diversity of opinion and religiosity,” said Tayyibah Taylor, editor and chief of Aziza, a magazine that caters to Muslim women, and always features cover models in headscarves.
“So often, people see Muslims as a monolithic group, and this shows that we’re not all in one camp.”
Laila Al-Marayati, of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Women’s League, also said Fakih reflects the diversity in the Muslim- and Arab-American communities.
“It’s true that many of us would not dress in a similar manner but, at least here in the U.S., it is a personal choice.”
Other Muslims saw additional benefits to Fakih’s coronation.
“People are so happy that the headlines about an Arab-American have nothing to do with terrorism,” said Ginan Rauf, a progressive Muslim activist from New Jersey. “As a community, we’re often targets of ridicule and hostility, so it’s nice to see an Arab-American be the object of adoration.”
But Fakih’s victory wasn’t welcomed by all Muslims.
Kiran Ansari, communications director of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, said beauty pageants degrade women, are un-Islamic and that Fakih does not represent Muslims well.
“The route she took to get this fame is not in line with Islam. A Muslim woman can be beautiful, but walking around in front of millions of viewers in a swimsuit, is not in sync with Islamic values,” said Ansari.
The Quran speaks of beauty and demureness, saying that Muslim women should “lower their gaze and guard their modesty,” and should not “display their beauty and ornaments.” It also cautions women to “draw their veils over their bosoms.”
Still, other Muslim women have participated in beauty pageants, even though Islamic authorities in Malaysia, Egypt, and elsewhere have issued fatwas prohibiting Muslim participation in beauty pageants.
In 2002, Nigerian Muslims objecting to the Miss World contest being held in their country rioted, leaving more than 200 people dead.
Nonetheless, there seems to be a growing number of Muslims who are participating in–and winning–beauty pageants.
Hammasa Kohistani, the daughter of Afghan refugees, became the first Muslim to win Miss England in 2005, beating out another Muslim contestant, Sarah Mendley, who competed as Miss Nottingham.
Representing Turkey, Azra Akin, the Dutch-born daughter of Turkish immigrants, won Miss World in 2002 after that contest was moved to London. Other Muslims have gone into modeling, including Yasmeen Ghauri, who has worked for Victoria’s Secret and Versace, among others.
Given the growing number of Muslim women entering the beauty industry, Fakih’s victory isn’t that shocking to many Muslims. More interesting, they say, is how anti-Islamic commentators have reacted.
Daniel Pipes, who runs the conservative Middle East Forum, suggested on his blog that Muslims winning beauty contests was an “odd form of affirmative action.”
“Don’t let her lack of a headscarf and her donning a bikini in public fool you. Miss Michigan USA, Rima Fakih is a Muslim activist and propagandist extraordinaire,” fumed Debbie Schlussel, a conservative talk-show host, on her blog on May 13.
She also accused Fakih of having relatives that were in Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group. “Hezbollah Muslims believe that Fakih is a tremendous propaganda tool for them,” Schlussel wrote.
To many Muslim observers, the comments veer between sad and absurd.
“That is the most disturbing aspect of this story, since it reveals the abject racism some Americans express towards Muslims and Arabs,” said Al-Marayati. “They refuse to accept that we are part of the fabric of America.”
Arab-American from Michigan crowned 2010 Miss USA
By OSKAR GARCIA, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 16, 7:56 PM PDT
A 24-year-old Arab American from Michigan beat out 50 other women to take the 2010 Miss USA title Sunday night, despite nearly stumbling in her evening gown.
Rima Fakih of Dearborn, Mich., won the pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip after strutting confidently in an orange and gold bikini, wearing a strapless white gown that resembled a wedding dress and saying health insurance should cover birth control pills.
When asked how she felt about winning the crown, she said, “Ask me after I’ve had a pizza.”
Fakih, a Lebanese immigrant, told pageant organizers her family celebrates both Muslim and Christian faiths. She moved to the United States as a baby and was raised in New York, where she attended a Catholic school. Her family moved to Michigan in 2003.
Pageant officials said historical pageant records were not detailed enough to show whether Fakih was the first Arab American, Muslim or immigrant to win the Miss USA title. The pageant started in 1952 as a local bathing suit competition in Long Beach, Calif.
Fakih told reporters she sold her car after graduating college in Michigan to help pay for her run in the Miss Michigan USA pageant.
She said she believed she had the title on Sunday after glancing at pageant owner Donald Trump as she awaited the results with the first runner-up, Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard.
“That’s the same look that he gives them when he says, ‘You’re hired,’” on Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice,” she said.
“She’s a great girl,” said Trump, who owns the pageant with NBC in a joint venture.
In a moment that was replayed during the broadcast, Fakih nearly fell while finishing her walk in her gown because of the length of its train. But she made it without a spill and went on to win.
“I did it here, I better not do it at Miss Universe,” she said. “Modeling does help, after all.”
Fakih replaces Miss USA 2009 Kristen Dalton and won a spot representing the United States this summer in the 2010 Miss Universe pageant. She also gets a one-year lease in a New York apartment with living expenses, an undisclosed salary, and various health, professional and beauty services.
During the interview portion, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly.
“I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said.
Woolard handled the night’s toughest question, about Arizona’s new immigration law. Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person’s immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.
She said she’s against illegal immigration but is also against racial profiling.
“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America,” Woolard said. “So I think it’s perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.”
“The Office” actor Oscar Nunez was booed as he asked the question and asked the audience to wait until he finished the question before they reacted. The panel of judges came up with the questions themselves.
Miss Virginia USA Samantha Evelyn Casey was the second runner-up, Miss Colorado USA Jessica Hartman was third runner-up, and Miss Maine USA Katherine Ashley Whittier was the fourth runner-up.
Most of the field of contestants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were eliminated just after the pageant began and the entire group danced onstage to “TiK ToK” by Ke$ha.
A panel of eight judges, including NBA star Carmelo Anthony, Treasure Island casino-hotel owner Phil Ruffin and Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir, were judging the girls throughout the night.
After 15 contestants strutted in swimsuits, five were eliminated. Another five were eliminated after the evening gown competition.
Miss Nebraska USA Belinda Renee Wright won the Miss Congeniality award, roughly one week after her father was killed in a farm accident. Miss Alabama USA Audrey Moore won Miss Photogenic after an online fan vote.
The pageant aired live to East Coast viewers on NBC.
The competition, which is not affiliated with the Miss America pageant, was hosted by celebrity chef Curtis Stone and NBC correspondent Natalie Morales.
An interview with the Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh about how they built a fantastic service, culture and $1 billion in sales.
Tony Hsieh
CEO, Zappos.com. Cofounder, Venture Frogs LLC.
Wildly successful business innovator, especially in brands and marketing, customer service
and corporate culture.
Highlights
Tony Hsieh (pronounced ‘shay’) is one of the most widely respected and successful business innovators in the new economy. As the CEO of Zappos.com, the online shoe sales company, he has achieved phenomenal company growth through revolutionary approaches to marketing, human resources and customer service. Tony discusses this success in his forthcoming book, Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profit, Passion and Purpose (due June 2010).
For marketing, the company relies on return business and word of mouth, pouring the money that would pay for marketing and advertising into customer service instead.
Extraordinary customer service drives success at Zappos: free, unlimited returns, surprise shipping upgrades, unlimited time on the phone, just to name a few.
But the number one priority is company culture. Get the culture right and success happens naturally on its own.
Tony joined Zappos.com in 2000 and under his leadership, gross sales have grown from $1.6M to $1 billion. He joined Zappos because it was the most exciting and promising company his venture capital firm Venture Frogs was investing in. Other Venture Frog investments include Ask Jeeves, MongoMusic, MyAble, and Tellme Networks.
Before cofounding Venture Frogs, Tony cofounded and grew LinkExchange from a side business located in his apartment to a cooperative advertising network that reached more than half of Internet-enabled households. Microsoft bought LinkExchange in 1998 for $265M.
Tony has a BA in computer science from Harvard University and was a software engineer at Oracle.
Customer Service
What is customer service? First, Zappos.com wants to talk to its customers. Their 1-800 number is on the top of every web page and they encourage reps to stay on the phone as long as it takes to build a relationship with the customer. For repeat customers (75% of their business), they give surprise shipping upgrades to overnight—very expensive, but they view it as their marketing dollars. Also, they only show items on the website that are confirmed as physically present in the warehouse. And all returns are free.
We’re trying to build a life-long relationship with each of our customers one call at a time.
Brands
Four strategies for building a brand that matters:
Vision. Figure out your passion. Chase the vision, not the money. The money will follow.
Repeat customers. Seventy-five percent of Zappos sales come from repeat customers.
Transparency of operations. Maybe the data they share with vendors and other stakeholders ends up in the hands of competitors, but it also adds extra eyes helping to manage the business and feeling like partners.
Communicate core values. Employees have created a list of 10 core values and these are used to hire and fire. They include: deliver “wow” through service, embrace and drive change, create fun and a little weirdness, pursue growth and learning, do more with less, be humble.
Human Resources
It starts with the hiring. Recruits go through two interviews. The first assesses their technical proficiency and the second their ability to fit into the Zappos culture. Fail at either and you won’t be walking in Zappos shoes. After a week of training, they offer candidates $2,000 to leave the company—a standing offer. They want people who are not just there for the job or the paycheck, people who believe in their long-term vision.
Venture Success
Tony’s venture capital firm Venture Frogs, cofounded with Alfred Lin, has invested in a number of extremely successful businesses:
Ask Jeeves—acquired by IAC/InterActiveCopr IACI
MongoMusic—bought by Microsoft, MSFT
MyAble—acquired by Openwave Systems, OPWV
Tellme Networks
Zappos.com
Winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
This autobiography of the world-renowned, visionary economist who came up with a simple but revolutionary solution to end world poverty–micro-credit–has become the classic text for a growing movement
Muhammad Yunus is that rare thing: a bona fide visionary. His dream is the total eradication of poverty from the world. In 1983, against the advice of banking and government officials, Yunus established Grameen, a bank devoted to providing the poorest of Bangladesh with minuscule loans. Grameen Bank, based on the belief that credit is a basic human right, not the privilege of a fortunate few, now provides over 2.5 billion dollars of micro-loans to more than two million families in rural Bangladesh. Ninety-four percent of Yunus’s clients are women, and repayment rates are near 100 percent. Around the world, micro-lending programs inspired by Grameen are blossoming, with more than three hundred programs established in the United States alone.
Banker to the Poor is Muhammad Yunus’s memoir of how he decided to change his life in order to help the world’s poor. In it he traces the intellectual and spiritual journey that led him to fundamentally rethink the economic relationship between rich and poor, and the challenges he and his colleagues faced in founding Grameen. He also provides wise, hopeful guidance for anyone who would like to join him in “putting homelessness and destitution in a museum so that one day our children will visit it and ask how we could have allowed such a terrible thing to go on for so long.” The definitive history of micro-credit direct from the man that conceived of it, Banker to the Poor is necessary and inspirational reading for anyone interested in economics, public policy, philanthropy, social history, and business.
Muhammad Yunus was born in Bangladesh and earned his Ph.D. in economics in the United States at Vanderbilt University, where he was deeply influenced by the civil rights movement. He still lives in Bangladesh, and travels widely around the world on behalf of Grameen Bank and the concept of micro-credit.
Muhammad Yunus was born in 1940 in Chittagong, a seaport in Bangladesh. The third of fourteen children, five of whom died in infancy, he was educated at Dhaka University and was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to study economics at Vanderbilt University. In 1972 he became the head of the economics department at Chittagong University. He is the founder and managing director of the Grameen Bank.
A preview of Muhammad Yunus: Banker to the Poor – one of a series of 16 DVDs created by Ashoka’s Global Academy for Social Entrepreneurship. Dr. Yunus, recently awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, describes his three-decade-long effort to extend micro-credit (small loans for self-employment). Grameen Bank, his creation, now makes small loans to seven million families in Bangladesh, and has helped almost half of them work their way out of poverty. This is the story of his life-long struggle and accomplishments, told in his own words. Produced by Rooy Media LLC for Ashoka. To purchase the films, visit dvd.ashoka.org.
Introduction: Finding My Way
Wow, I thought to myself. The room was packed. I was on stage at our all-hands meeting, looking over a crowd of seven hundred Zappos employees who were standing up cheering and clapping. A lot of them even had tears of happiness streaming down their faces.
Forty-eight hours ago, we had announced to the world that Amazon was acquiring us. To the rest of the world, it was all about the money. The headlines from the press said things like “Amazon Buys Zappos for Close to $1 Billion,” “Largest Acquisition in Amazon’s History,” and “What Everyone Made from the Zappos Sale.”
In November 1998, LinkExchange, the company that I’d co-founded, was sold to Microsoft for $265 million after two and a half years. Now, in July 2009, as CEO of Zappos.com, I had just announced that Amazon was acquiring Zappos right after we had celebrated our ten-year anniversary. (The acquisition would officially close a few months later in a stock and cash transaction, with the shares valued at $1.2 billion on the day of closing.) In both scenarios, the deals looked similar: They both worked out to about $100 million per year. From the outside, this looked like history repeating itself, just at a larger scale.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. To all of us in the room, we knew it wasn’t just about the money. Together, we had built a business that combined profits, passion, and purpose. And we knew that it wasn’t just about building a business. It was about building a lifestyle that was about delivering happiness to everyone, including ourselves.
Time stood still during that moment on stage. The unified energy and emotion of everyone in the room was reminiscent of when I’d attended my first rave ten years earlier, where I’d witnessed thousands of people dancing in unison, with everyone feeding off of each other’s energy. Back then, the rave community came together based on their four core values known as PLUR: Peace, Love, Unity, Respect.
At Zappos, we had collectively come up with our own set of ten core values. Those values bonded us together, and were an important part of the path that led us to this moment. Looking over the crowd, I realized that every person took a different path to get here, but our paths somehow all managed to intersect with one another here and now. I realized that for me, the path that got me here began long before Zappos, and long before LinkExchange. I thought about all the different businesses I had been a part of, all the people who had been in my life, and all the adventures I had been on. I thought about mistakes that I had made and lessons that I had learned. I started thinking back to college, then back to high school, then back to middle school, and then back to elementary school.
As all the eyes in the room were on me, I tried to trace back to where my path had begun. In my mind, I was traveling backward in time searching for the answer. Although I was pretty sure I wasn’t dying, my life was flashing before my eyes. I was obsessed with figuring it out, and I knew I had to do it this very moment, before the energy in the room dissipated, before time stopped standing still. I didn’t know why. I just knew I needed to know where my path began.
And then, right before reality returned and time started moving again, I figured it out.
My path began on a worm farm.
Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Read This Book
10 You want to learn about the path that we took at Zappos to go from nothing to over $1 billion in gross merchandise sales in less than ten years.
9 You want to learn about the path that I took that eventually led me to Zappos, and the lessons I learned along the way.
8 You want to learn from all the mistakes we made at Zappos over the years so that your business can avoid making some of the same ones.
7 You want to figure out the right balance of profits, passion, and purpose in business and in life.
6 You want to build a long-term enduring business and brand.
5 You want to create a stronger company culture, which will make your employees or colleagues happier and create more employee engagement, leading to higher productivity.
4 You want to deliver a better customer experience, which will make your customers happier and create more customer loyalty, leading to increased profits.
3 You want to build something special.
2 You want to find inspiration and happiness in work and in life.
1 You ran out of firewood for your fireplace. This book makes for an excellent fire starter.
Tony Hsieh
CEO of Zappos.com
Over the past 10 years, Zappos.com, the company where I am CEO, has grown from almost no sales to over $1 billion in gross merchandise sales annually, driven primarily by repeat customers and word of mouth, while simultaneously making Fortune Magazine’s annual “Best Companies to Work For” list two years in a row. My first book, “Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose”, will be released on June 7, 2010. Below is an excerpt that describes the lessons that I learned from playing poker and how I apply them to the business world.
I’d played a little bit of poker in college, but like many people, I always just considered it to be a fun form of gambling and had never bothered to actually study it. Back in 1999, poker was not yet a mainstream activity. Most people had never heard of the World Series of Poker, and TV networks like ESPN were not yet broadcasting poker tournaments to the masses.
One night while battling insomnia, I randomly came across a Web site that served as a community hub for people who played poker regularly. I was fascinated by the amount of analysis and information about playing that was freely available, and spent the entire night reading different articles about the mathematics of poker.
Like many people, I had always thought that poker was mostly about luck, being able to bluff, and reading people. I learned that for limit hold ‘em poker (which was the most popular type of poker in casinos at the time), none of that really mattered much in the long run. For every hand and every round of betting, there was actually a mathematically correct way to play that took into account the “pot odds” (the ratios among the amount of the bet, the number of chips already in the pot, and the statistical chances of winning).
With the exception of poker, almost all games in a typical casino are stacked against the player, and in the long run the casino always comes out ahead. I was intrigued by poker because in poker you are playing against other players, not against the casino. Instead, the casino just takes a service fee for each hand dealt (usually from the winner of each hand).
In a casino, each poker table seats up to ten players. As long as at least one of the players is not playing in the mathematically optimal way (and usually it’s several players that aren’t), the players who are playing correctly will generally end up winning in the long run.
Learning the basic math behind limit hold ‘em poker was not actually that hard. I bought and studied a book called Hold ‘em Poker and started going to card rooms in California several times a week to practice what I was learning from the book. (Although California is a generally no-gambling state, card rooms are allowed because poker is not a game against the house.) Within a few weeks, I felt that I had mastered the basics of the mathematics behind playing hold ‘em.
Understanding the mathematics behind hold ‘em and playing against players who didn’t was like owning a coin that would land on heads one-third of the time and tails the other two-thirds of the time, and always being allowed to bet on tails. On any individual coin flip, I might lose, but if I bet on tails a thousand times, then I was more than 99.99 percent guaranteed to win in the long run.
Likewise, when playing a game against the house such as roulette or blackjack, it would be like being forced to always bet on heads: Even though you might win any individual coin flip, if you did it a thousand times, you would be more than 99.99 percent guaranteed to lose in the long run.
One of the most interesting things about playing poker was learning the discipline of not confusing the right decision with the individual outcome of any single hand, but that’s what a lot of poker players do. If they win a hand, they assume they made the right bet, and if they lose a hand, they often assume they made the wrong bet. With the coin that lands on heads a third of the time, this would be like seeing the coin land on heads once (the individual outcome) and changing your behavior so you bet on heads, when the mathematically correct thing to do is to always bet on tails no matter what happened in the previous coin flip (the right decision).
For the first few months, I found poker both fun and challenging, because I was constantly learning, both through reading different books and through the actual experience of playing in the field. I started to notice similarities between what was good poker strategy and what made for good business strategy, especially when thinking about the separation between short-term thinking (such as focusing on whether I won or lost an individual hand) and long-term thinking (such as making sure I had the right decision strategy).
I noticed so many similarities between poker and business that I started making a list of the lessons I learned from playing poker that could also be applied to business:
Evaluating Market Opportunities
* Table selection is the most important decision you can make.
* It’s okay to switch tables if you discover it’s too hard to win at your table.
* If there are too many competitors (some irrational or inexperienced), even if you’re the best it’s a lot harder to win.
Marketing and Branding
* Act weak when strong, act strong when weak. Know when to bluff.
* Your “brand” is important.
* Help shape the stories that people are telling about you.
Financials
* Always be prepared for the worst possible scenario.
* The guy who wins the most hands is not the guy who makes the most money in the long run.
* The guy who never loses a hand is not the guy who makes the most money in the long run.
* Go for positive expected value, not what’s least risky.
* Make sure your bankroll is large enough for the game you’re playing and the risks you’re taking.
* Play only with what you can afford to lose.
* Remember that it’s a long-term game. You will win or lose individual hands or sessions, but it’s what happens in the long term that matters.
Strategy
* Don’t play games that you don’t understand, even if you see lots of other people making money from them.
* Figure out the game when the stakes aren’t high.
* Don’t cheat. Cheaters never win in the long run.
* Stick to your principles.
* You need to adjust your style of play throughout the night as the dynamics of the game change. Be flexible.
* Be patient and think long-term.
* The players with the most stamina and focus usually win.
* Differentiate yourself. Do the opposite of what the rest of the table is doing.
* Hope is not a good plan.
* Don’t let yourself go “on tilt.” It’s much more cost-effective to take a break, walk around, or leave the game for the night.
Continual Learning
* Educate yourself. Read books and learn from others who have done it before.
* Learn by doing. Theory is nice, but nothing replaces actual experience.
* Learn by surrounding yourself with talented players.
* Just because you win a hand doesn’t mean you’re good and you don’t have more learning to do. You might have just gotten lucky.
* Don’t be afraid to ask for advice.
Culture
* You’ve gotta love the game. To become really good, you need to live it and sleep it.
* Don’t be cocky. Don’t be flashy. There’s always someone better than you.
* Be nice and make friends. It’s a small community.
* Share what you’ve learned with others.
* Look for opportunities beyond just the game you sat down to play. You never know who you’re going to meet, including new friends for life or new business contacts.
* Have fun. The game is a lot more enjoyable when you’re trying to do more than just make money.
Aside from remembering to focus on what’s best for the long term, I think the biggest business lesson I learned from poker concerned the most important decision you can make in the game. Although it seems obvious in retrospect, it took me six months before I finally figured it out.
Through reading poker books and practicing by playing, I spent a lot of time learning about the best strategy to play once I was actually sitting down at a table. My big “ah-ha!” moment came when I finally learned that the game started even before I sat down in a seat.
In a poker room at a casino, there are usually many different choices of tables. Each table has different stakes, different players, and different dynamics that change as the players come and go, and as players get excited, upset, or tired.
I learned that the most important decision I could make was which table to sit at. This included knowing when to change tables. I learned from a book that an experienced player can make ten times as much money sitting at a table with nine mediocre players who are tired and have a lot of chips compared with sitting at a table with nine really good players who are focused and don’t have that many chips in front of them.
In business, one of the most important decisions for an entrepreneur or a CEO to make is what business to be in. It doesn’t matter how flawlessly a business is executed if it’s the wrong business or if it’s in too small a market.
Imagine if you were the most efficient manufacturer of seven-fingered gloves. You offer the best selection, the best service, and the best prices for seven-fingered gloves–but if there isn’t a big enough market for what you sell, you won’t get very far.
Or, if you decide to start a business that competes directly against really experienced competitors such as Wal-Mart by playing the same game they play (for example, trying to sell the same goods at lower prices), then chances are that you will go out of business.
In a poker room, I could only choose which table I wanted to sit at. But in business, I realized that I didn’t have to sit at an existing table. I could define my own, or make the one that I was already at even bigger. (Or, just like in a poker room, I could always choose to change tables.)
I realized that, whatever the vision was for any business, there was always a bigger vision that could make the table bigger.
“Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose” is Tony Hsieh’s first book, and will be released on June 7, 2010. The book can be pre-ordered on Amazon. For more information about the book, visit: http://www.deliveringhappinessbook.com
Tony Hsieh, Zappos CEO, Speaks to SOCAP about Customer Care at Zappos
Tony Hsieh discusses how Zappos does customer care with Marjorie Bynum of SOCAP and GenY expert Lindsey Pollak of SOCAP.
As a Muslim and an American, let me say this loudly and clearly — Anwar al-Awlaki is a servant of evil and a traitor both to Islam and to America. He is intent on misleading the world by spreading the lie that Islam permits the killing of civilians. It does not.
Prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of non-combatants and reacted with horror when he heard of civilian deaths on the battlefield. In order to expound his own political agenda, Al-Awlaki is defaming the Prophet and the global Muslim community, which rejects terrorism. And in the process, he is revealing himself to be a modern Jim Jones — a narcissist creating a death cult.
In 1978, Jim Jones led 900 of his devoted followers to mass suicide by forcing them to drink cyanide mixed in a fruit beverage. The term “drinking the Kool-Aid” has since become synonymous with people who blindly follow their leaders to their doom. And it is clear that al-Awlaki’s followers are very much drinking his brand of Kool-Aid. Indeed, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was apparently a follower of al-Awlaki before he turned on his fellow soldiers in an orgy of murder. Like Jim Jones, al-Awlaki has remarkable charisma and uses it to lead his followers down a very dark path.
I say all of this with great grief. Al-Awlaki was once a highly regarded Muslim scholar who taught a message of peace and brotherhood. But his story is like that of the archetypal villain of the movie Star Wars — Anakin Skywalker, a defender of justice, who devolves into Darth Vader, a monster who cares only for his own twisted quest for power.
I have never met al-Awlaki, but those who have tell me that in his early days as a preacher, he espoused a moderate Islam based on scholarship and appreciation for Muslim history. Yet after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, al-Alwaki began to change. He began to see the world in a binary “us versus them” outlook — the hallmark of fundamentalism. After being detained by the Yemeni government in 2006 (apparently under American pressure), he appears to have left his moderate past behind him and embraced a dark vision of Islam at perpetual war with America — and became its most passionate scholarly advocate.
Al-Awlaki’s story could be dismissed as the sad tale of a good man who became lost. And yet his personal moral decline has greater consequences. For he built up a widespread and devoted following among Muslims in his heyday and is now in a position to brainwash many of his followers into following his own descent into darkness.
When I have publicly criticized al-Awlaki, I have received emails from his devotees saying that he is being “set up” by the US government. And yet when I ask them what they mean by this, there is always pin-drop silence. His followers seem to want to believe that the good, charismatic man that they adore is somehow being falsely portrayed in the media as a villain as part of some PSY/OPS manipulation game. And yet when I ask if someone else is posting his increasingly radical and extremist sermons through his website (a CIA agent posing as al-Awlaki, let’s say), there is more silence. It is as if his followers want to keep clinging to the man he once was and selectively ignore his recent calls for the murder of civilians in the name of Islam.
Like Jim Jones, a personality cult has formed around al-Awlaki. It is a personality cult that is blinding his followers into a series of non-sequiturs and conspiracy theories that allow them to overcome the cognitive dissonance of reconciling the good scholar they once knew with the deranged and hateful man he has become.
There is a word for that kind of personality cult in Islam: idolatry. If there are any Muslims out there who believe that a man should be followed unquestioningly, even when his words violate basic Islamic teachings, then they have committed shirk, the worst sin in Islam: ascribing a partner to God. They have given their devotion to a false god, a fallible human being rather than the infallible Creator, the Merciful and Compassionate, the Lord of the Worlds, whose moral commandments cannot be rationalized away by men.
I was sickened and outraged by al-Awlaki’s recent video, where he rationalized terrorist plots to blow up airplanes, saying that the deaths of civilians are just “a drop of water in the sea.” Similar rationalizations were used by pre-Islamic Arabs who practiced female infanticide, burying their newborn baby daughters alive. Such innocent lives were also simply “drops in the sea” for a pagan culture obsessed with male progeny. But when the Holy Qur’an put an end to this barbarism, it said that on the Day of Judgment, the innocent girls will rise from their graves and confront their murderers, and God will ask: “For what crime was she killed?” (Surah 81:8-9). And then the murderers’ excuses will vanish and they will be flung into Hell.
The God of the Qur’an is the God of life, of mercy, of justice, a God that says “no soul shall bear the burden of another” (53:38) when confronted with moral relativists who believe in “guilt by association” and collective punishment.
If Muslims wish to find in their history a true example of a noble warrior, they should turn away from this false teacher al-Awlaki and look at the example of Saladin, the great Muslim leader who conquered Jerusalem in 1187 C.E.
In my new novel, Shadow of the Swords, I show how, despite calls for collective punishment against the Christians of Jerusalem for the crimes of the Crusaders, Saladin showed mercy to the populace. He let the Christian population remain unmolested and gave them freedom of worship and pilgrimage to their holy sites. When Richard the Lionheart led the Third Crusade to expel the Muslims, Saladin treated his enemy with stunning generosity. When Richard fell ill, Saladin sent his personal doctor to tend to the enemy king. When Richard’s horse was killed in battle, Saladin sent his personal horse to his adversary as a gift.
Saladin’s acts of honor and wisdom single-handedly shattered the negative image that many Christians held of Muslims. And for this, he is lauded by both Christian and Muslim historians as a true statesman and moral leader.
I ask any follower of al-Awlaki: which is the greater example you wish to be associated with? The example of your “teacher” who calls you to turn into monsters without empathy? Or Saladin, who reminded the world that Islam stood for justice and moral restraint, not barbarism and rationalization of murder? If you have any hesitation about the right answer here, then you have left your religion and become the very evil that anti-Muslim bigots have long claimed Islam represents.
The confusion al-Awlaki has created among Muslims is in many ways far more insidious than that of his fellow madman, Osama Bin Laden. For Bin Laden does not claim to be — and is not — an Islamic scholar. Bin Laden’s calls for attacking the West are steeped not in Islamic scholarship but in a rather crude “eye for an eye” philosophy that says that because Americans are killing Muslim civilians, Muslims have a right do the same in return to American civilians. Bin Laden has little understanding of, or interest in, Islamic jurisprudence, primarily because he finds its rules against murdering civilians to be inconvenient. Therefore Bin Laden’s appeal is really based on an emotional bait-and-switch. Get Muslims riled up about all the injustices they have experienced so that they follow him and don’t ask too many questions about the justice of his own movement.
But al-Awlaki’s brand of evil is far more sinister. As a trained Muslim scholar, he is an expert in perverting traditional Islamic teachings with strange analogies that have no historical basis, such as his self-serving argument that Americans elected and pay taxes to a government that kills Muslims, so all Americans are complicit and are lawful targets of revenge. Aside from the fact that this is a nonsensical leap of logic, it ignores what Prophet Muhammad himself did when faced with the opportunity for collectively punishing a population for the crime of its leaders.
In my novel Mother of the Believers, I discuss how, when the Prophet defeated Mecca, he was in a position to unleash vengeance on the city that had driven him out and killed his family and friends. And yet the Prophet, to his enemies’ surprise, instituted a general amnesty and not only forgave the general populace, which under al-Awlaki’s argument was complicit in Mecca’s war against Islam, but also its leadership that organized the war. The lords of Mecca — including the villainous queen Hind, who had cannibalized the Prophet’s uncle as an act of terror — were forgiven and incorporated into the new Muslim state as leading citizens.
So I ask the followers of al-Awlaki again: what vision of Islam do you wish to follow? The false Islam of collective punishment claimed by your “teacher”? Or the magnanimous Islam of mercy and wisdom lived by Prophet Muhammad?
Al-Awlaki’s credentials as a former religious scholar are troubling and dangerous. But it should be noted clearly that al-Awlaki does not represent the face of mainstream Muslim scholarship. In fact, in his own country of Yemen, there is a remarkable Muslim scholar who has dedicated his life to defeating extremism: Hamoud al-Hitar, a Yemeni judge who deprograms terrorists by teaching them the truth about Islam.
Judge al-Hitar is living proof of the power of true Islam to defeat the false Islam of the extremists, of light to overpower darkness. Al-Hitar works with the Yemeni government to counsel Muslim extremists who have been brainwashed by men like al-Awlaki. He talks to them about the Holy Qur’an and traditional Islamic law, and demonstrates to them — line by line, point by point — why terrorism is a violation of Islam’s basic teachings. Remarkably, al-Hitar has deprogrammed over 300 extremists and is said to have even won over high-level Al-Qaeda agents, who have repented and turned on their leaders.
Al-Hitar served as the basis of a character I wrote for an episode of the Showtime television series Sleeper Cell. A clip from that episode has been uploaded onto YouTube and has become a global phenomenon, for it shows how a Muslim scholar like al-Hitar argues with — and proves wrong — an al-Qaeda extremist.
I ask the followers of al-Awlaki to look at the clip and let the truth of its arguments — coming straight from the Holy Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad — touch their hearts.
If you still prefer the false words of your “teacher” over the truth of Islam’s message of peace and beauty, then there is no more hope for you than there was for the many misguided souls who followed Jim Jones to their destruction.
With the forces of evil now cloaking themselves in the garb of righteousness, there are two paths before the Muslim community. One of light and one of darkness. And of this moment, the Holy Qur’an says:
“God is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. But of those who reject faith, their patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the Fire, to dwell therein.” (2:257)
My fellow Muslims, the choice between light and darkness is yours.
About Kamra Pasha
Kamran Pasha is a writer and producer for NBC’s highly anticipated new television series Kings, which is a modern day retelling of the Biblical tale of King David. Previously he served as a writer on NBC’s remake of Bionic Woman, and on Showtime Network’s Golden Globe nominated series Sleeper Cell, about a Muslim FBI agent who infiltrates a terrorist group.
Kamran will soon be a published novelist as well. He has secured a two-book deal with Simon & Schuster’s Atria Books to publish Mother of the Believers, an historical fiction tale showing the rise of Islam from the eyes of Prophet Muhammad’s teenage wife Aisha, and Shadow of the Swords, a love story set amidst the Crusades.
And Kamran has also made strides in the video game world. He recently wrote Blood on the Sand for Vivendi Universal, the sequel to hip-hop mogul 50 Cent’s bestselling game Bulletproof.
An expert on the Middle East, Kamran is one of the few successful Muslim screenwriters in Hollywood. In 2003, he set up his first feature script at Warner Brothers, an historical epic on the love story behind the building of the Taj Mahal. He is currently writing an epic film entitled The Voyage Of Ibn Battuta, which follows the adventures of a famous Arab traveler who journeyed to China in the 14th century. This feature is being financed by the Moroccan government and produced by French production company Forecast Pictures.
Kamran holds a JD from Cornell Law School, an MBA from Dartmouth and an MFA from UCLA Film School. He spent three years as a journalist in New York City, writing for media companies such as Knight-Ridder. During his time as a reporter, Kamran interviewed prominent international figures such as Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Books by Kamran Pasha
Shadow of the Swords: An Epic Novel of the Crusades
An epic saga of love and war, Shadow of the Swords tells the story of the Crusades—from the Muslim perspective.
Saladin, a Muslim sultan, finds himself pitted against King Richard the Lionheart as Islam and Christianity clash against each other, launching a conflict that still echoes today.
Mother of the Believers: A Novel of the Birth of Islam
A stunning debut novel illustrating the birth of Islam from the perspective of the prophet Muhammad’s young wife Aisha.
Deep in the desert of seventh century Arabia, a new prophet named Muhammad has arisen.
A candid and remarkable interview with David Hawkins who was one of twenty-two American POWs in the Korean War who was befriended and looked after by members of the People’s Liberation Army. After the war, given the choice to return to the US or stay in China, he choosed the latter and stayed in China for five years before returning to the US to give this remarkable interview as if he was looking into a crystal ball of the things to come in 1957 !, a prophecy by a simple American citizen that is so accurate and playing out today fifty-one years later !
David Hawkins Predictions
Korean War POW David Hawkins talks about his vision on China-US relations.
SINGAPORE : A detailed and candid book on Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, billed as the first extended conversation with a Western journalist was launched on Wednesday.
“Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew” is written by American columnist Tom Plate.
How does an American present an accurate and non—judgemental view of Singapore? For columnist Tom Plate, he took that challenge head—on — and being from Los Angeles, he approached the story as if he was writing a screenplay on a blockbuster that is Singapore.
Tom Plate, author of “Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew”, said: “You come into a room, and you start talking with him and he cracks a joke and you say something. And then you disagree, he agrees, and back and forth, and it’s almost like a movie.
“No footnotes, a lot of dialogue and it’s an intimate but issue oriented profile of a political giant.”
The 200—plus page book covers topics ranging from Mr Lee’s views on China and US presidents to revelations about his family life.
For the author, it was also an opportunity to dispel some Western perceived myths about Singapore.
Mr Plate said: “He’s state of the art political management — I mean this is not a chewing gum, caning environment; this is a serious place, brilliant people.
“We Americans don’t know everything, we’ve made our share of mistakes, but we make a terrible mistake when we write Asia off.”
And what was his most memorable moment with Mr Lee?
Mr Plate said: “At one point, his press secretary felt that Minister Mentor was tired and we should cut the session short and (as a) typical journalist, you’re a journalist, you know what I mean, we weren’t going to let that happen, right?
“We want to squeeze every last minute we could and I said ’No, I’m not moving. You can leave, but I’m not moving.’ And I think Lee Kuan Yew might have overheard the conversation and he came back and he said, ’No I’m staying, we’re going to finish.’ So he was very committed to finishing the project.”
Speaking briefly at the book launch, Mr Lee acknowledged that “on the whole, he (the author) got my point of view across.”
The book was written after two days of intensive interviews held in Singapore, middle of last year. 25,000 copies of the book have been printed, with 23,000 sent to stores in Singapore and Malaysia.
The book is the first in a series published by Marshall Cavendish on Giants Of Asia. The next two will be on former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
Full Transcript: Tom Plate and Jeffrey Cole interview Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore’s first prime minister talks about China, the United States, and international politics as well as the future of media in Asian countries like Singapore and around the world
By Tom Plate
Pacific Perspectives Columnist
This is the complete transcript of Minister Mentor (as the founder of modern singapore is now known) Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with syndicated columnist Tom Plate of the UCLA Media Center and new-media expert Jeffrey Cole of the USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future. It took place on Sept. 27, 2007 in the minister’s private office at Istana, Singapore.
Q: How are you?
Lee: Ageing rather fitfully as we all do, but when you’re past 80, it’s a pretty steep climb.
Q: The thing is you have not retired?
Lee: I think if you retire, the idea of just reading books and playing golf … you just disintegrate.
Q: There’s such a high correlation between people who retire and play golf and die, right? If you don’t play golf and don’t retire … follow the logic!
Lee: You have to have something more than that. You have got to wake up every morning feeling there’s something worth doing and you’re not just lying back and coasting along. Once you coast along, it’s finished.
Q: It’s great to be in Singapore right now because it’s so bustling!
Lee: It’s partly just sheer luck. I would say 60 percent hard work, 40 percent luck. Sixty percent because we put ourselves into this position, went through some very hard times starting with the Asian crisis, SARS and so on — but we have got onto the right track. We could see China growing, India coming on. We’re just at the junction of the two and placed ourselves to take the tailwind of both of them — but keeping all our other bases intact, our connections: U.S., Europe, Japan.
Q: You even have good relations with Taiwan?
Lee: That’s crucial. That’s part of the old — our past.
Q: But that’s not all that easy to do?
Lee: It’s still tough, but it doesn’t matter. The mainland knows these were the terms on which we established relations with them.
Q: One of the first questions I asked you roughly 10 years ago when I started the column on Asia and America was what would be the one thing you would say to the American people about the United States’ role in Asia. You thought for a few minutes and then you said: “Tell the American people that America must get the relationship with China right, because if that relationship is gotten right, it benefits everybody in Asia. And if it’s not gotten right, it’s going to create problems.” Have we more or less got the relationship right?
Lee: I think it’s not bad. Congress is in a fractious mood looking for excuses for what’s gone wrong, believing China’s exchange rate offers unfair advantage. Yes, the Chinese should up the value of their yuan — maybe 10 percent, 15 percent — but it’s not going to help you. It’s not going to solve the problem. It might create problems for them if they do it so suddenly. But if they do it gradually, I think it shouldn’t be a problem.
Q: They probably will do it?
Lee: They’ll do it gradually. They’re scared of unemployment. They’re scared of what happened to Japan when the factories relocated. They need their low-end jobs, making shoes, garments, whatever. If these factories move, you have got unemployment — that’s a real problem for them. They’re scared of it as they’re moving up-market. It’s a new game for them and they’re nervous. Their legitimacy depends upon solving the economic problems and not having riots in the cities even as their old state-owned enterprises retrench.
Q: What would you say to Americans who say if China rises, America has to fall?
Lee: No, I do not see a win-lose, zero sum game here. It was the U.S. that brought China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was George W. H. Bush that opened the door, invited China to start selling to America. That was carried on by President Clinton. Clinton finally, with his then Treasury Secretary Rubin, got the Chinese into WTO.
You have got two choices with China. Keep them out — but the U.S. must have done its calculations, because if you keep them out, then you have them as a spoiler. They’re going to do reverse engineering, steal your patents and where is the profit in that? You slow them down, there’s no doubt about that. You slow down their transformation but at the same time, you are not benefiting from that transformation. If you go back and remember the 1980s and early 90s, you needed that market to grow but you never factored in the speed at which they would grow. That’s scary. That’s happened and I think they know that it’s a difficult transformation for them. It’s not easy. They have got enormous problems — internal problems, disparity within the cities, between the cities and the countryside, and now with cell phones and satellite TV, they have to change track, instead of just going helter-skelter for gold … now they’re talking about achieving a harmonious society.
Q: Do we on the whole know pretty much what the real picture inside China is?
Lee: I think your China-watchers are well briefed, they know.
Q: There shouldn’t be any big surprises? We pretty much know where the tensions are?
Lee: [Nods affirmatively]
Q: You mentioned Bob Rubin and Clinton. The genius of their approach was they convinced the Chinese that it was in their interest to join WTO. They weren’t doing anybody any favors, was it going to be good for China?
Lee: No, I think they had [Chinese Premier] Zhu Rongji to deal with and that made the difference. Zhu Rongji was the man who pushed the Chinese side. He was backed by [President] Jiang Zemin. He did the sums and decided that if China was going to catch up with the world, they had to open up and this will force a continual opening-up, joining WTO and having to abide by the rules — and now they’re in.
Q: You see them still going there — going in that same opening-up direction?
Lee: Their problem now is convincing the world that they’re serious about a “peaceful rise.” These are thinking people. You’re not dealing with ideologues.
I don’t know if you’ve been seeing this or heard of this series that [the Chinese] produced called The Rise of the Great Nations. It’s now on the History Channel. I got our station here to dub it in English and show it. It was quite I would say a bold decision to tell the Chinese people this is the way the European nations, the Russians and Japanese became great. Absolutely no ideology and they had a team of historians, their own historians. To get the program going, they went to each country, interviewed the leaders and historians of those countries.
You should watch the one on Britain, because I think that gives you an idea of how far they have gone in telling their people this is what made Britain great. I was quite surprised. The theme was [doing away with] the Divine Right of Kings, a Britain that was challenged by the barons who brought the king down to Runnymede and then they had the Magna Charta, and suddenly your “Divine Right” is based on Parliament and [the barons] are in Parliament. That gave the space for the barons to grow and the middle class eventually emerged. When the King got too uppity, Charles the First got beheaded.
Now this series was produced in a communist state, you know. In other words, if you want to be a great nation, so, if the leader goes against the people’s interests, you may have to behead him! They also said that because there was growing confidence between the people and the leaders, the country grew.
It is in fact a lesson to support their gradual opening up and their idea of how they can do it without conflict — the “peaceful rise.” They have worked out this scheme, this theory, this doctrine to assure America and the world that they’re going to play by the rules.
Q: You think they’ll be able to do that fast enough to accommodate the middle class who want clean air and so much else?
Lee: I cannot say what they will do. I go there once in a year, I spend one week. I get reports, I read it but I’m not a China-watcher. I have got many other things to watch, I’m a Singapore-watcher! My guess is they’re going to move pragmatically one step at a time and the first thing they are trying to do right at this moment is to get the succession to the next Standing Committee right. [The chairman will] have his team and the next five years will be his policy.
I think the policy will be let’s grow, let’s have more equality in the country and keep the country as one. Let’s have no trouble abroad, let’s make quite sure that Taiwan doesn’t do stupid things which will force the mainland to act. Let’s have a successful Olympics and then we are into a new age, one step at a time.
The first problem is blue skies for the Olympics, and the way to do that is the way they did it in 1999 when I went there for the 50th anniversary and I found blue skies. I asked our ambassador about this: He said they stopped all factories for the last two weeks. I think they’re going to do that, maybe the last four weeks before and the cars will be cut down by half, odd and even numbers and so on. But to go and clean up properly will take umpteen years, retrofit coal mines and so on. That’s a very costly and slow business.
They are engaging us in Singapore, and we’re going to do an EcoCity with them, choosing the site now. They have agreed. They’ve offered us several sites and we’re choosing one where there can be sustainable growth. What we’ve done in Singapore, we recycle water, you keep your air clean, you do this, you do that, higher costs, more social discipline, more engineering, sewers, recycling water, et cetera and so on. It’s a slow process but they want to learn how it can be done. That’s important.
Q: If we could move to the other superpower, the United States. I know you’re reluctant to give out advice, unlike American journalists who always try to tell you what to do, but for America, since you’ve been a friend of America and you’ve seen it over decades, what are two, three things, that you worry about in America?
Lee: I think in the next 10 years you have got to extricate yourself from these problems in the Middle East. It may take you five years to get it stabilized and then after that, you gradually have more time and energy to think about the other big problems in the world. This is sucking up too much of your resources. To solve this, you have got to tackle the two-state problem in Israel because as long as that’s festering away, you’re giving your enemies in the Muslim world an endless provocation from which they can get new recruits for crazy adventures to try and knock you down, to blow themselves up and blow the world up. How you’re going to do that, I don’t know.
Q: Did you follow the Israeli lobby debate in the U.S.? Two professors — from Harvard and the University of Chicago — did this paper about the alleged extreme influence of the Israeli lobby in American foreign policy. Even if the paper overstated or used some unwise language in making its case, is there something to this?
Lee: You have got to settle this issue with the Jewish lobby. If you have this as a festering sore, you get Muslims entangled in hate campaigns. I’m not saying if you solve this, everything will be sweet and harmonious — but if you solve this you will remove a cancer in the [international] system. Then you can better tackle the other problems. You are alone in this [Middle East policy] because the Europeans are not with you. Nobody helps you, but everybody doesn’t want to openly oppose you.
Q: What about inside America itself? Do you see any indices that worry you, whether it’s education?
Lee: For the next 10, 15, 20 years what you have will keep you going as the most enterprising, innovative economy with leading-edge technology, both in the civilian and military field. You have got that already.
You will lose that gradually over 30, 40, 50 years unless you are able to keep on attracting talent and that’s the final contest, because what you have done, the Chinese and other nations are going to adopt parts of it to fit their circumstances and they are also going around looking for talented people and wanting to build up their innovative enterprising economies. And finally this is now an age where you will not have military contests between great nations because you will destroy each other, but you will have economic and technological contests between the great powers.
I see that as the main arena of competition by 2040, 2050 and it’ll be the U.S.; China for sure; Japan, keeping up with the U.S. and trying to retain its separate position from China, closer to the U.S. and hoping to maintain a special position; India, somewhat behind China, trying to catch up. I don’t know about Brazil.
Q: Charles de Gaulle had a great comment about Brazil. His advisers said to President de Gaulle that he had to go to Latin America — Brazil. He said why? They said Brazil has great potential. De Gaulle said, “Ah, yes Brazil has great potential … and always will.”
Lee: I put my money on China, India and Western Europe. If Western Europe can get past the welfare approach to society and get their unions modernized, I think they have got the technological basis and the talent to rise again, not as a military power because I don’t think they got the stomach for that, but as an economic power which they can do. I think they’ll give the world a run for their money.
Can they do it? I don’t know. Their history is so deep, you never know. Under pressure, as they feel they’re being left behind by history, they may decide to do it. I mean, you look at [French President] Sarkozy, he may or may not succeed, but he’s convinced himself and he’s convincing quite a group of the French elite. The CEOs of the big multinationals in France don’t need convincing. They know it. It’s the broad think-tanks, the media, the intellectuals who still feel that they have a superior system. They loath having to give that [welfare approach] up, but they may, you know, because that’s the only way to catch up.
Russia may become a player if they are able to find a way to convert the oil and gas into a more enterprising economy. I don’t know if they can get out of their corruption and the mismanagement of the resources, but they have got talented people.
But long-term for America, if you ask me, say, project another 100 years, 150 years into the 22nd century, say, 2150, whether you stay on top depends upon the kind of society you will be because if the present trends continue, you’ll have a Hispanic element in your society that’s about 30, 40 percent. So, the question is do you make the Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or do they make you more Latin American in culture.”
Q: That is exactly the right question.
Lee: I mean, if they came in drips and drabs and you scatter them across America, then you will change their culture, but if they come in large numbers, like Miami, and they stay together, or in California, then their culture will continue and they may well affect the Anglo-Saxon culture around them. That’s the real test.
But on the [China] side, you can be quite sure that their numbers are so great — the Chinese Hans — they can take any number of new migrants, they will be absorbed. So, long-term, I think the Chinese have figured this out. Then, if they just stay with “peaceful rise” and they just contest for first position economically and technologically, they cannot lose. If they are not Number One, they will be Number Two. If they are not Number Two, they are Number Three. They have figured that out.
Q: Singapore is one of the world’s most wired countries, far ahead of the pack. How do you imagine over time that this will change Singapore? What will be your sense of what happens in an educated country with high standards, when anyone can get anything on the Web, videos and blogs so that the role of a centralized media become less and less dominant?
Lee: Well, it is already on its way because the print media here is not growing the same way, they are stagnating. It’s not declining as fast as, say, it is in America or Britain … And this is happening here.
The young, they read things on the Internet. I mean, I am part of the older generation. Yes, I read some stuff on the Internet, but at the end of the day, I say, well, let’s see what the proper analysis is. So, I look up, I look at the editorial pages and the op-ed pages. I am not sure that the young will do that anymore, but the way the print media can stay in the contest is not to be the first with the news because that’s not possible, but to be the first with the background and the analysis and the ones with the high credibility will stay in business.
You must have credibility because you get so much on the Internet. Whom do you believe? Finally, you’ve got to say, who is saying this? And you don’t know. But if you say, this is The New York Times, this is the Washington Post or the L.A. Times, then you say, well, that is the standard.
I mean, that goes for every country, I think, but we have a different problem here because we are bilingual. English is our first language, well, for the younger generation. The older generation, Chinese was their first language, but the ones below 30 now, below 35, the majority, English is their first language and Chinese or Malay and whatever will be their second language. But with the rise of China, we are already seeing more and more going to China doing business and more Chinese coming here doing business. So, they are going to start reading the Chinese blogs, the Chinese news. It’s already happening. So, the trend will be from print to screen.
Q: China has not given up hope in terms of trying to control the content on the Internet. But my sense since the last time I talked with you and with some of your brightest people, is that you have a sense of inevitably, that this new technology is going to overwhelm efforts to control it, is that right?
Lee: Right, it is not possible. Look, you are going to have a PDA that is also running video and you can have your servers blocked. But if you’ve got a 3G phone, you use another server, and so then you are through.
No, it’s not only going to happen, it’s already happening. Otherwise, how do you get all these pictures of the monks in Myanmar or Yangon or Mandalay coming out? It’s all on cell-phones. Now, there are areas which are blocked out now. They are blacked out, sure, but they are still coming out because you’ve got a 3G phone and I am quite sure Reuters or whatever news agency must have given their correspondents and stringers, saying, here, use this. You take it and you use this and you get it through. Otherwise, how can you get it through because the government is already blocking out [communication]. Many of the areas are now non-functioning, you can’t use the cell-phone. But images are still coming through. I just saw something this morning. So?
Q: Right. So, that the role of the centralized media is less important. Even if you can control the centralized media, that’s less and less valuable than before.
Lee: I don’t know if you’ve caught up with this story. It’s a bit of scandal going on. [Former Deputy Prime Minister] Anwar Ibrahim leaked a video, an old video, way back in 1980, of an Indian lawyer talking to a top judge about how he can arrange to get him promoted to be the “Number One” or whatever. I think it was an eight-minute video and Anwar has now put it on the Internet and it’s on YouTube! So the Malaysian bar — which have already been dismayed at the degradation of their judiciary and the corruption and judge-buying and case-buying — they have demanded a royal commission to inquire into the facts.
So, the government, under pressure now, has appointed a committee of judges and one eminent person, to check on the authenticity of this tape. So that’s bought them some time, but in the meantime, 2,000 lawyers, following what the Pakistani lawyers did, have marched on to the prime minister’s office to deliver a petition to investigate this matter. Now, this would not have happened without the Internet and without YouTube. I mean it is so simple, you see.
Q: That’s a changing world.
Lee: But at the same time, there is the problem of credibility. So, you have a website called Malaysiakini. That means “Malaysia Now” and it’s got some very good articles in it and some of them are signed regularly by the same person. So when we get that, we read it and then we say, okay, circulate it. But you get a lot of rubbish, too, and you have got to filter it. It’s a waste of time.
Q: Well, your earlier point about the credibility of serious newspapers and serious magazines is more important now than ever.
Lee: You’ve got to go by them. You know, it’s like the ratings agencies which put a lot of financial institutions down.
Q: This is the future of professional journalism, if there is any?
Lee: No, you’ll always have it. But if we don’t use this [new technology], then we are just one hand tied behind us: Should we allow our opponents to have that advantage? This is a highly competitive world. But the flood of information leads to overload. Therefore, you’ve got to have somebody filter it for you.
Q: Can I go back to your comment about Myanmar and the video that’s getting out from the hand-helds, where, unlike Tiananmen in 1989, you cannot just pull the plug on all visuals. With regard to Myanmar — and I realize anyone’s guess is as good as anyone else’s — but did you see that it’s plausible to ask China, as it did at the Six-Party Talks, in some way to work skillfully and work behind the scenes to assume a role in moving Myanmar forward out of the Middle Ages and maybe into the real world?
Lee: I’m not sure the Chinese have got that power. And in Myanmar, these are rather dumb generals when it comes to the economy.
Q: They are!
Lee: How they can so mismanage the economy and reach this stage when the country has so many natural resources?
Q: It’s a gift!
Lee: It’s stupid. So I’m not sure. The Chinese, they’ve tried, and, in fact, we have tried to talk them out of isolation. I tried through a general called Khin Nyunt. He’s the most intelligent of the lot. I sold him the idea, or at least he bought the idea, that the way for them to go forward was to get out of uniform and do it like Suharto, form a party — Golkar — and then take over as a civilian party. But halfway through, Suharto fell. So, it ended up as the wrong advice, they back-tracked. Then they chucked Kyin Nyunt out.
Q: Timing is everything!
Lee: Meanwhile, I had advised several of our hoteliers to set up hotels there. They have sunk in millions of dollars there and now, their hotels are empty. But, you know, you’ve got really economically dumb people in charge. Why they believe they can keep their country cut off from the world like this indefinitely, I cannot understand. And you know, you need medicines — they smuggle in from Thailand. It doesn’t make sense.
We will see how it is, but whatever it is, I do not believe that they can survive indefinitely. Look, the day they decided to close down the government in Yangon and go into this Pyinmana, or whatever the place is called where there’s nothing and they are putting up expensive buildings for themselves and a golf course — and the top general had a lavish wedding for his daughter which was then out on YouTube — the daughter was like a Christmas tree! Flaunting these excesses must push a hungry and impoverished people to revolt. But what will happen, I don’t know because the army has got to be part of the solution. If the army is dissolved, the country has got nothing to govern itself because they have dismantled all administrative instruments.
Q: You have a candidate in the coming American presidential election that you prefer? You’d like to endorse whom? I have my candidate, but you’ve got to get American citizenship!
Lee: Who’s your candidate?
Q: You! You’ve helped run this pretty well country for so many years.
Lee: You need to have an American who is not only good on television but he must have the networking that can raise him the funds and the grassroots support.
Q: I notice you said “him”.
Lee: Well, her, him/her. No, [Hillary Clinton is] leading, she’s leading. Will she be good for America?
Q: I don’t know.
Lee: Sorry?
Q: What do you think? I’m too close to her.
Lee: What do you mean you’re too close to her?
Q: I’m right there. I’m American, I’m right in the middle of it. I don’t like any of them. She may be good enough, though she’s not the best that we’ve got.
Lee: She’s good enough?
Q: She’s probably good enough.
Lee: Well, we have to live with whoever wins.
Q: I read somewhere recently that you actually have a bit of a worry about your country’s survivability over the long run? Are you serious?
Lee: Singapore is not a 4,000-year culture. This is an immigrant community that started in 1819. It’s a migrant community that left its moorings and therefore, knowing it’s sailing to unchartered seas, guided by the stars, I say let’s follow the stars and they said okay, let’s try. And we’ve succeeded and here we are, but has it really taken root? No. It’s just worked for the time being. If it doesn’t work, again, we say let’s try something else. This is not entrenched. This is not a 4,000-year society.
Q: You really have a sense of the country’s endangerment.
Lee: Yes, of course.
Q: It’s amazing, you come in here and you walk around here in one of the great cities in the world. Yet you are worried about survival.
Lee: Where are we? Are we in the Caribbean? Are we next to America like the Bahamas? Are we in the Mediterranean, like Malta, next to Italy? Are we like Hong Kong, next to China and therefore, will become part of China? We are in Southeast Asia, in the midst of a turbulent, volatile, unsettled region. Singapore is a superstructure built on what? On 700 square kilometers and a lot of smart ideas that have worked so far — but the whole thing could come undone very quickly.
For this to work, you require a world where there are some rules of international law and there is a balance of forces of power that will enforce that international law and the U.S. is foremost in that. Without that balance of power and international law, the Vietnamese will still be in Cambodia and the Indonesians will still be in East Timor, right? Why are they out? Because there were certain norms that had to be observed. You can’t just cross boundaries. This little island with four and a half million people, of whom 1.3 are foreigners working here, has got to maintain an army, navy and an air force. Can we withstand a concerted attempt to besiege us and blockade us? We can repel an attack, yes. Given the armed forces in the region and our capability, we can repel and we can damage them. Three weeks, food runs out, we are besieged, blockaded.
Q: Who will come after you? Who would come after you?
Lee: There are assets here to be captured, right?
Q: Some unnamed bad regime?
Lee: When [Malaysia] kicked us out [in 1965], the expectation was that we would fail and we will go back on their terms, not on the terms we agreed with them under the British. Our problems are not just between states, this is a problem between races and religions and civilizations. We are a standing indictment of all the things that they can be doing differently. They have got all the resources. If they would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.
Q: Do you think it’s healthy for the citizens of Singapore to feel that pressure, that tension that it all could change quickly? Do you think that makes them run this country more effectively, be better citizens by not getting complacent?
Lee: My generation, the ones above 50, who have lived through the first part, they know. The ones under 30 ,who’ve just grown up in stability and growth year by year, I think they think that I’m selling them a line just to make them work harder but they are wrong. The problem is they don’t believe. They think I’m wrong. That’s a problem that all countries face. You look at the Japanese, I remember their parents. After their defeat, they had great leaders not just in politics but in business at every level. They travel, they work, and they sold their goods like mad to rebuild Japan. Now you look at them … You look at the younger generation, will they work like some of the fathers did? I don’t think so, but in a corner will they do it again? I think yes because it’s a deeply-imbedded culture. They will fight. That’s the difference between an ancient culture and a new one. Theirs is embedded, ours is not. At the same time that ancient culture is preventing them from making rational decisions about migration, immigration and meeting the problems of ageing.
Q: Singapore’s armed forces are in pretty good shape, right? So when are you all planning to invade neighboring Indonesia?
Lee [laughing]: All we want is a quiet peaceful world. We have made something of our lives and we’ll be quite happy to carry on like this and help them get along and do better. We started this LKY School of Public Policy, giving them scholarships to prove to them it’s done by good governance. It’s not by robbing you.
Q: I (Plate) graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. And so I’m a big fan of public policy schools. I think you all are doing a great job at the Singapore policy school. I think you chose a wonderful dean [former U.N. Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani]. I was recently there to offer a humble seminar. The quality of the students knocked me out.
Lee: I think that’s an investment worth making because [students from the region] will go back and they will tell their media chaps and their leaders and say, look this country works because it’s working like this: first, it’s honest; second, it’s rational; third, it makes decisions and follows through on those decisions. The decisions are made after very careful consideration of all options and consequences.
Q: I agree with you and if you look at the course list, it’s a very impressive course list. Now, you were educated in England and many of your top people were educated in America or England, so Western education for a long time has been the cutting edge, has been the leader, the place you wanted to go to. Is it your sense that American higher education is still terrific?
Lee: It will stay like that for as long as you keep on getting talented people into your country and staying on, but will you do that? I think yes for 10, 20 years, but 30, 40, 50 years, I’m not sure because other countries will become more attractive or as attractive. It is the extra inputs you get.
Let me explain how I see it. If Singapore depended on its own domestic talent, we wouldn’t have made it, but we were the center for education in this region from British days and many came to be educated and many stayed behind. Our top layer was drawn from a larger base and in my first Cabinet of 10, there were only two of us who were born and bred in Singapore. The others came from Malaysia, China, Ceylon, from India and elsewhere. It’s a talent pool that was drawn from a bigger region, and that’s the secret of your success. You drew in first your talent from Europe because you offered them opportunities. In the last few decades, you’ve been drawing your talent from all over the world, including Asia. If you can continue to do that, you will continue to succeed.
Not only must you attract them, you must get them to stay.
Q: How are you doing on that?
Lee: We give a lot of scholarships to Chinese and Indians. If one quarter stay on here in Singapore, we’re winners, especially with the Chinese. They come in here, they get an English education, they get our credentials and they’re off to America because they know that the grass is greener there. The Indians, strangely enough, more of them stay here in Singapore because they want to go home to visit their families, America is too far away. We are net gainers for how long? I think in the case of China, maybe another 20, 30 years and then the attraction is gone. We can’t offer them that difference in opportunities and standards. India, maybe longer — 50, 60 years before their infrastructure catches up. Anyway, this is not my worry anymore!
Q: On India, there’s been a lot of hype in America, in foreign affairs publications and so on, about India becoming the next superpower. I was in New Delhi about three months ago — it seems to me India’s got a long way to go.
Lee: They are a different mix, never mind their political structures. They are not one people. You can make a speech in Delhi; [Prime Minister] Manmohan Singh can speak in Hindi and 30, 40 percent of the country can understand him. He makes a speech in English and maybe 30 percent of the elite understand him.
In China, when a leader speaks, 90 percent will understand him. They all speak one language, they are one people. In India, they have got 32 official languages and in fact, 300-plus different languages. You look at Europe, 25 languages, 27 countries, how do you? The European Parliament? Had we not moved into one language here in Singapore, we would not have been able to govern this country.
Q: Minister Mentor, thank you very much.
The Street isn’t dead — but a certain laissez-faire idea of it is. So argues Roger Lowenstein in his new book, “The End of Wall Street,” (excerpted here.)
April 9 (Bloomberg) — “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
– Alan Greenspan, testimony before the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Oct. 23, 2008.
The crash of 2008 put to rest the intellectual model that inspired, and to a large degree facilitated, the bubble. It spelled the end of the immodest faith in Wall Street’s ability to forecast. No better testimony exists than the extraordinary recanting of former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, the public official most associated with the thesis that markets are ever to be trusted.
In October 2008, 10 days after the first round of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) investments, Greenspan appeared in the House of Representatives in effect to repeal the credo by which he had managed the nation’s economy for 17 years:
“In recent decades a vast risk management and pricing system has evolved, combining the best insights of mathematicians and finance experts supported by major advances in computer and communications technology.
A Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the pricing model that underpins much of the advance in derivative markets. . . . The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria.”
Intellectual Red Ink
This remarkable proclamation, close to a confession, was the intellectual counterpart to the red ink flowing on Wall Street.
Just as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Merrill Lynch had undone the labors of a generation — had lost, that is, all the profits and more they had earned during the previous decade — Greenspan undermined its ideological footing. And even if he later partly retracted his apologia (in the palliative that it wasn’t the models per se that failed but the humans who applied them), he was understood to say that the new finance had failed. The boom had not just ended; it had been unmasked.
Too Much Faith
Why did it end so badly? Greenspan’s faith in the new finance was itself a culprit. The late economist Hyman P. Minsky observed that “success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure.” Greenspan’s persistent efforts to rescue the system lulled the country into believing that serious failure was behind it.
His successor, Ben Bernanke, was too quick to believe that Greenspan had succeeded — that central bankers had truly muted the economic cycle. Each put inordinate faith in the market and disregarded its oft-shown potential for speculative excess. Excessive optimism naturally led to excessive risk.
The Fed greatly abetted speculation in mortgages by keeping interest rates too low. Meanwhile, the willingness of government to abide teaser mortgages, “liar loans,” and home mortgages with zero down payments, amounted to a staggering case of regulatory neglect.
The government’s backstopping of Fannie and Freddie, along with the federal agenda of promoting homeownership, was yet another cause of the bust. Yet for all of Washington’s miscues, the direct agents of the bubble were private ones. It was the market that financed unsound mortgages and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that spread their contagion globally; the Fed permitted, but the market acted. The banks that failed were private; the investors who financed them were doing the glorious work of Adam Smith.
Bubbling Mortgages
Rampant speculation in mortgages was surely the primary cause of the bubble, which was greatly inflated by leverage in the banking system, in particular on Wall Street. High leverage and risk-taking in general was fueled by the Street’s indulgent compensation practices.
The system of securitizing mortgages lay at the heart of Wall Street’s unholy alliance with Main Street, and several links in the chain made the process especially risky.
Mortgage issuers, the parties most able to scrutinize borrowers, had no continuing stake in the outcome; the ultimate investors, dispersed around the globe, were too remote to be of any use in evaluating loans. These investors (as well as various government agencies) relied on the credit agencies to serve as a watchdog, and the agencies, being cozy with Wall Street, were abysmally lax.
Penchant for Complexity
Wall Street’s penchant for complexity was itself a risk. Abstruse securities were more difficult to value, and multitiered pyramids of debts were far more susceptible to collapse. Individual malfunctions were indicative of a larger failure: The market system came undone.
What truly failed was the postindustrial model of capitalism. The market’s tools for measuring risk simply did not work. The most sophisticated minds on Wall Street proved no wiser than country loan officers. All in, the big Wall Street banks were stuck with an estimated 30 percent of subprime losses.
Counter to the view of its apostles, the market system of the late 20th and early 21st centuries did not evolve in a state of nature. It evolved with its own peculiar prejudices and rites. The institution of government was nearly absent. In its place had arisen a system of market-driven models, steeped in the mathematics of the new finance.
Setting Odds
The rating company models were typical, and they were blessed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The new finance was flawed because its conception of risk was flawed. The banks modeled future default rates as though history could provide the odds with scientific certainty — as precisely as the odds in dice or cards.
But markets are different from games of chance. The cards in history’s deck keep changing. Prior to 2007 and 2008, the odds of a nationwide mortgage collapse would have been seen as very low, because during the previous 70 years it had never happened.
What the bust proved, or reaffirmed, was that Wall Street is (at unpredictable moments) irregular; it is subject to uncertainty. Greenspan faulted the modelers for inputting the wrong slice of history. But the future being uncertain, there is no perfect slice, or none so reliable as to warrant the suave assurance of banks that leveraged 30 to 1.
Role of Derivatives
In particular, the notion that derivatives (in the hands of American International Group and such) eradicated risk, or attained a kind of ideal in apportioning risk to appropriate parties, was sorrowfully exposed.
When mortgage securities were introduced, they were applauded because they enabled lenders to issue loans without retaining risk. And this they did. They also created new vulnerabilities. The ability of Countrywide Savings & Loan and Washington Mutual to parcel out loans to Wall Street encouraged them to issue more and riskier loans than had no securitization channel existed. The perception of decreased risk to the individual firm thus increased risk for society at large.
Then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson gave voice (on Sept. 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers failed) to the need for reform, and President Barack Obama, as well as Congress, avidly pursued it. In general, there was greater agreement that reform was necessary than there was over what it should entail.
Enter Congress
Legislative attention focused on four areas: protecting consumers of financial products such as mortgages and credit cards; regulating complex instruments such as derivatives; obviating the need for future government bailouts, either by keeping banks from becoming too big to fail or ensuring that big banks did not assume too much risk; and limiting Wall Street bonuses.
The public embraced only the last of these. Early in 2009, after revelations of continued outsize bonus payments at AIG and Merrill Lynch, an uproar ensued. Astonishingly, Merrill had paid million-dollar bonuses to approximately 700 employees in 2008, a year in which the firm lost $27 billion and in which both it and its acquirer were rescued with federal TARP monies. And Merrill was far from alone. Goldman Sachs’ bonus machine barely paused for breath.
Popular outrage was manifest; briefly, a vigilante spirit obtained. A bus tour organized by the Connecticut Working Families Party carried tourists through local suburbs to see the homes of bonus recipients, as if in hopes of dragging the bonus takers to the guillotine.
Merrill Bonuses
A few of those judged complicit were actually sacked. John A. Thain, the Merrill chief, was denied in his quest for a $30 million bonus; his mere asking sealed his end. Kenneth D. Lewis, the Bank of America CEO with whom Thain had previously hit it off, fired him. When it emerged later that the bonuses paid by Merrill had been approved by Bank of America, Lewis resigned as well.
The problem of executive pay did not admit to an easy fix. Well into the crisis period, when banks such as Citigroup were operating on federal investment and when Citi’s stock was in single digits, Vikram Pandit, the CEO, was observed with a lunch guest at Le Bernardin, one of the top-rated restaurants in New York. Pandit looked discerningly at the wine list, saw nothing by the glass that appealed, and ordered a $350 bottle so that, as he explained, he could savor “a glass of wine worth drinking.” Pandit drank just one glass; his friend had none.
Pay and Perks
Bankers vigorously sought to defend their pay, and their perks. Setting wages is a function of labor markets; the best reform would have aimed at making the market work better. (For instance, forcing companies to seek shareholder approval of their executive pay arrangements would have restored proper control over wages and countered the executives’ sense of entitlement.)
The government chose instead to supervise compensation, in various but limited ways. Congress banned cash bonuses for TARP recipients, and a “pay czar,” appointed by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, restricted executive salaries at government-controlled companies such as General Motors and Citi.
The issue of “too big to fail,” which Bernanke had called “a top priority” for reform, hung over Washington like a dark cloud. The crisis had bequeathed precisely the moral hazard that Paulson had feared. Post-crash, markets presumed that the government would, if necessary, bail out important banks.
Secret List
Being among the circle of the protected was considered such a boon that both the administration and Democratic Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who managed the bill in the House, initially proposed keeping the list of “too big to fail” institutions secret. Experts consulted by Congress sensibly advised an opposite tack — that the government discourage banks from becoming (or being) too big by making it undesirable.
They proposed that stricter capital requirements and hefty insurance premiums be imposed as a price for bigness. Greenspan reckoned that regardless of official policy, the market would conclude that every big bank enjoyed a federal safety net. Therefore, the surest way to prevent moral hazard was to break up Big Banking à la Standard Oil. But pending final passage of the legislation, Wall Street institutions emerged from the crisis more protected than ever.
Return to Regulation
The Fed also elevated the role of regulation. At the Greenspan Fed, only monetary policy mattered. After the crash, the agency returned to the job of assessing bank loans and balance sheets, and with a more skeptical eye toward risk models. Daniel K. Tarullo, the first Fed governor appointed by Obama, tartly informed a Senate panel in October 2009 that “things” for banks “are going to change. That means business models. That means the way of assessing risk. That means how you run your institution.”
The central bank emerged from the crash sorely humbled. Bernanke conceded publicly that the crisis had caught him off guard. The Fed has a huge stake in ensuring that it is not embarrassed by a bubble again. Presumably, after the economy does recover, the Fed is unlikely to flirt with ultralow interest rates as it did in the 2000s.
Finance was reborn when the panic subsided, but in many respects it was a changed industry — more sheltered, more regulated, more concentrated, and less competitive. The scrappier, smaller firms that previously challenged Goldman Sachs were licking their wounds or had disappeared altogether. Goldman’s only true rival was JPMorgan Chase, now the king of Wall Street. (Goldman and Morgan were among the first to repay their TARP monies.)
Concentration of Assets
Commercial banking was exceptionally concentrated, with the four biggest banks claiming almost 40 percent of deposits and two-thirds of credit cards. Effectively, the Wild West model was supplanted by a more European-seeming arrangement, in which a few elite players thrived within the government’s embrace. Goldman still took big risks, but now with the backing (if needed) of the taxpayers. The banks were like Fannie and Freddie before the crash: for-profit institutions with a presumptive lifeline to the Treasury.
Post-crash, consumer habits shifted abruptly. Households had heavy debts to work through, a process expected to take years. Americans relied more on income, less on Wall Street financings. For regulatory and also societal reasons (such as high unemployment), expectations downshifted. Wall Street’s impression on American culture seemed to have eroded, its glossy optimism worn to a thrifty nub.
Unease About Future
Higher saving was itself a rejection of the Wall Street credo; it signaled Americans’ unease about the future. For almost their entire adulthood, baby boomers had assumed that even small accounts (or their homes) would build into appreciable savings and provide for retirements. Now they were mere squirrels, storing acorns for winter.
The drop in spending revived an essential puzzle, prevalent in the Depression years and also in Japan in the 1990s: How to create sufficient demand for goods and labor?
As compared with Wall Street’s golden age, government seemed destined to supply more of the answer, bankers less. After all, the recovery had been purchased with massive public- sector spending and loans, and the federal pipeline showed no sign of shutting down. The administration was anointing preferred industries (energy, the environment) for investment, a throwback to the fad for industrial planning of the 1970s.
More Government
Unemployment was higher, the government’s role as a social guarantor larger. Obama, though only with a bruising fight, muscled through a new health-care law, a goal pursued by liberals since the New Deal. Indeed, John Maynard Keynes, the 20th-century British economist and statesman famous for his skepticism of the market, was reinstated to his previous perch in the canon.
A trio of timely books argued that the way out of the recession was to heed Lord Keynes, who emphasized the uncertainty of economic life, and prescribed government fine- tuning as a permanent feature of industrial societies, necessary to balance the ups and downs of the economic cycle. The Obama stimulus itself was pure Keynesian economics, a standard tool of American policy makers through the 1970s that had been shelved during the bubble years.
Spending policies had a dark side — they shredded government finances. Among the Group of 20 nations, deficits soared from an average of 1 percent of total gross domestic product to 8 percent. The U.S. was among the worst offenders, with a deficit equal to 10 percent of GDP. In the year after Lehman’s collapse, America’s debt rose by $1.9 trillion.
‘Very Dangerous Road’
“In our opinion,” wrote Robert L. Rodriguez, CEO of First Pacific Advisors, who had issued early warnings of the bubble, “this is a very dangerous road we have chosen.”
It is arguable that the U.S. government resolved the crisis simply by appropriating Wall Street’s debts, transferring a private-sector problem to the public. In any case, its “solution” further depreciated its international account.
The failure of America’s model stirred a geopolitical realignment. Europe no longer slobbered to imitate the U.S.; Asian economies were ascendant. Americans at the 2009 economic summit in Davos, accustomed to preaching the wonders of the market, were subjected to lectures by the potentates of command economies.
New Normal
The legacy of the bust — what Wall Streeters called the “new normal” — entailed, prospectively, a weaker dollar, a greater government presence, more joblessness and higher taxes. It was a world of pinched horizons. From roughly the 1980s on, no horizon had been deemed necessary. Ronald Reagan had decreed that government was the problem, not the cure. Markets were viewed as self-regulating ecosystems.
The province of regulation shrank, the volume of market innovations commensurately expanded. By the 2000s, the market’s innovations were no longer even questioned: Anything invented on Wall Street was, perforce, good. Complex creations such as securitized assets basked in the presumption of safety.
Greenspan’s 1998 testimony, recall, was that “regulation of derivatives transactions that are privately negotiated by professionals is unnecessary.” The notion that the Street should run a casino, taking bets on which companies will live and which will die, did not strike observers as even mildly objectionable.
What Crash Ended
A generation invested a higher proportion in stocks, fed on the nostrum that risk was outmoded. Just as the fall of the Iron Curtain supposedly ended history, Wall Street’s smooth rise through most of the 1990s and the 2000s was to have ended market history. (No more earthquakes — just steady gains.) The crash of 2008 spelled the end of that end.
Previous to the crash, it was assumed that no statutes or rules were needed to prevent banks from making foolish loans; after all, the theory went, why would institutions ever jeopardize their own capital? This cornerstone of efficient market theory — the view of economic man as always rationally self-interested — was rather embarrassingly upended. Similarly, the faith that bankers know best, that they could be counted on to preserve their firms, was shattered.
It may be too much to expect that, in the future, economists take forecasting models with a grain of salt, or that executives refrain from relying on “liquidity” to bail them out of a jam. But the worst recession in 70 years — unsuspected by most economists even when it had been under way for more than six months — should inspire a modicum of humility. Speculation will return, of course, and so will bubbles. The question is whether Americans will treat them so lightly.
Pricking Bubble
Overseas, the notion that central banks should restrain speculation is hardly controversial. In the U.S., it was. Both Greenspan and Bernanke devoted many words to rebutting the idea that bubbles should be “pricked.”
Instead, they endorsed a policy of cleaning the mess up afterward. This reflected their doubts that mere humans, even Fed governors, could detect whether an elevated market was irrational — whether any market was irrational. Even after the crash, Bernanke could barely bring himself to utter the word “bubble.”
The formative lesson that Bernanke drew on in 2008 had been sketched prior to and during the Great Depression, when, he believed, the Fed had erred in clamping down on credit formation, including the credit used to speculate in stocks. In other words, the Fed had been too restrictive. Future central bankers may draw an opposite lesson from 2008: The Fed let speculation go on far too long.
The End of Wall Street: Part 1 of 3
In the first of this three-part series, Journal reporters explain how the housing bubble inflated and burst, and why easy money led to the collapse of Wall Street’s biggest financial institutions.
Chapter Two: What was going through the minds of CEOs, corporate boards, fund managers and mortgage lenders as they created hard-to-understand derivatives Warren Buffett once called “weapons of financial mass destruction.”
Chapter Three: This final chapter of the crisis on Wall Street tells the story of the $700-billion bailout, as seen through a reporter’s eyes, and looks at what’s ahead for the global economy
The roots of the mortgage bubble and the story of the Wall Street collapse-and the government’s unprecedented response-from our most trusted business journalist.
The End of Wall Street is a blow-by-blow account of America’s biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression. Drawing on 180 interviews, including sit-downs with top government officials and Wall Street CEOs, Lowenstein tells, with grace, wit, and razor-sharp understanding, the full story of the end of Wall Street as we knew it. Displaying the qualities that made When Genius Failed a timeless classic of Wall Street-his sixth sense for narrative drama and his unmatched ability to tell complicated financial stories in ways that resonate with the ordinary reader-Roger Lowenstein weaves a financial, economic, and sociological thriller that indicts America for succumbing to the siren song of easy debt and speculative mortgages.
The End of Wall Street is rife with historical lessons and bursting with fast-paced action. Lowenstein introduces his story with precisely etched, laserlike profiles of Angelo Mozilo, the Johnny Appleseed of subprime mortgages who spreads toxic loans across the landscape like wild crabapples, and moves to a damning explication of how rating agencies helped gift wrap faulty loans in the guise of triple-A paper and a takedown of the academic formulas that-once again- proved the ruin of investors and banks. Lowenstein excels with a series of searing profiles of banking CEOs, such as the ferretlike Dick Fuld of Lehman and the bloodless Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, and of government officials from the restless, deal-obsessed Hank Paulson and the overmatched Tim Geithner to the cerebral academic Ben Bernanke, who sought to avoid a repeat of the one crisis he spent a lifetime trying to understand-the Great Depression.
Finally, we come to understand the majesty of Lowenstein’s theme of liquidity and capital, which explains the origins of the crisis and that positions the collapse of 2008 as the greatest ever of Wall Street’s unlearned lessons. The End of Wall Street will be essential reading as we work to identify the lessons of the market failure and start to rebuild.
View more: http://us.penguingroup.com
Roger Lowenstein
Roger Lowenstein, author of the bestselling Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, reported for The Wall Street Journal for more than a decade, and wrote the Journal’s stock market column “Heard on the Street” from 1989 to 1991 and the “Intrinsic Value” column from 1995 to 1997.
He is also well-known for When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management, which is the gripping story of the Fed’s unprecedented move, the incredible heights reached by LTCM, and the firm’s eventual dramatic demise. He now writes a column in Smart Money magazine, and has written for The New York Times and The New Republic, among other publications.
Books:
The End Of Wall Street, April 2010
Hardcover
While America Aged, May 2008
Hardcover
Origins of the Crash, January 2005
Paperback
When Genius Failed, January 2002
Paperback
When Genius Failed, October 2001
Trade Size
Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, August 1996
Paperback
If you read only one book about the causes of the recent financial crisis, let it be Michael Lewis’s, “The Big Short.”
That’s not because Lewis has put together the most comprehensive or authoritative analysis of all the misdeeds and misjudgments and missed signals that led to the biggest credit bubble the world has known. What makes his account so accessible is that he tells it through the eyes of the managers of three small hedge funds and a Deutsche Bank bond salesman, none of whom you’ve ever heard of. All, however, were among the first to see the folly and fraud behind the subprime fiasco, and to find ways to bet against it when everyone else thought them crazy.
Nor would anyone — including Lewis, I’m sure — claim this is an even-handed history that reflects the differing views of investment bankers, rating-agency analysts and industry analysts, all of whom he holds up to ridicule for their arrogance, their cynicism and their relentless incompetence.
In many ways, this is the same smart-alecky Michael Lewis who brilliantly exposed and skewered the ways of Wall Street 20 years ago in “Liar’s Poker,” written when he was fresh out of the training program at the once-mighty but now forgotten Salomon Brothers. But as he says in his introduction, those days of $3 million salaries and $250 million trading losses look almost quaint compared with the sums made and lost by the most recent generation of Wall Street fraudsters and buffoons.
What’s so delightful about Lewis’s writing is how deftly he explains and demystifies how things really work on Wall Street, even while creating a compelling narrative and introducing us to a cast of fascinating, all-too-human characters.
ad_icon
In “The Big Short,” which publishes Monday, we meet Steve Eisman, a second-generation Wall Streeter whose foul mouth and total lack of social graces made it easy for others to dismiss his relentless criticisms of the subprime mortgage industry as far back as the 1990s, when he first characterized it as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
There’s Michael Burry, a physician turned stock picker with an antisocial personality (later diagnosed as Asperger’s) who becomes the first money manager to buy a credit default swap on subprime mortgage bonds.
There’s Greg Lippmann, a prototypical bonus-grubbing Wall Street bond salesman who early on sees the potential of the subprime swaps market and becomes the leading evangelist for betting on the housing market’s collapse.
And there’s Charlie Ledley, Jamie Mai and Ben Hockett, three young financial hustlers from Berkeley, Calif., who set up a hedge fund in a Greenwich Village art studio, go looking for a long shot and find it in supposedly AAA-rated securities cobbled together from BBB subprime junk.
From their tales, we learn that Wall Street banks think nothing of stealing the trading strategies of their clients and peddling them to other customers. We learn that the investment bankers knew as early as 2006 about the rising default rate on subprime mortgages but engaged in elaborate ruses to hide that reality from ratings agencies and investors. We learn that when investor demand for subprime mortgages outstripped the supply, Wall Street filled the gap by creating “synthetic” mortgage-backed securities whose performance would mirror that of the real thing.
We learn that Goldman Sachs and other banks conspired to inflate the price of mortgage-backed securities well into 2007, even when they knew the true value was falling, only marking them down in value after their own hedging strategies were in place. And we learn that top executives were largely clueless about the risks their organizations were taking.
For me, the most memorable chapter in Lewis’s tale involves Burry’s struggle to keep his fund alive in 2007 and early 2008 as longtime investors lost faith in his strategy to “short” the housing market and began demanding their money back. Although home prices had begun to fall and mortgage defaults were rising quickly, Wall Street’s securitization machine had managed to prop up the price of mortgage securities while forcing down the value of the bets Burry had placed against them. And even after the market crashed and Burry’s strategy was vindicated with a $720 million profit, not a single investor called to say thanks.
“What had happened was that he had been right, the world had been wrong and the world hated him for it,” Lewis writes. “And so Michael Burry ended where he began — alone, comforted by his solitude.”
There is nothing subtle about the dark portrait Lewis creates of the financial community. Through his lens, all bond salesmen are out to cheat their customers, all top executives are clueless and all ratings analysts are second-raters who could not get jobs in investment banks.
ad_icon
Even footnotes drip with sarcasm, such as this one regarding a less-than-forthright statement by Morgan Stanley chief executive John Mack to his investors on how his firm managed to lose $9 billion on subprime securities: “It’s too much to expect the people who run big Wall Street firms to speak in plain English, since so much of their livelihood depends on people believing that what they do cannot be translated into plain English.”
Even discounting for its generalizations and exaggeration and limited frame of reference, however, “The Big Short” manages to give us the truest picture yet of what went wrong on Wall Street — and why. At times, it reads like a morality play, at other times like a modern-day farce. But as with any good play, its value lies in the way it reveals character and motive and explores the cultural context in which the plot unfolds.
What Lewis writes of two of his characters, young Ledley and Mai, might just as well apply to Lewis himself, or to us:
They “had always sort of assumed that there was some grown-up in charge of the financial system whom they had never met; now they saw there was not.”
Steven Pearlstein writes a business and economics column for The Washington Post.
DHARMSALA, India — The Dalai Lama lashed out at China on Wednesday, accusing it of trying to “annihilate Buddhism” in Tibet and rebuffing all his efforts to reach a compromise over the disputed Himalayan region.
China shot back, accusing the Tibetan spiritual leader of using deceptions and lies to distort its policy in the region. The passionate back-and-forth highlighted the distrust, anger and frustration that separates the two sides and leaves little hope for success in recently resumed talks.
Beijing has demonized the Dalai Lama and accused him of wanting independence for Tibet, which China says is part of its territory. The Dalai Lama says he only wants some form of autonomy for Tibet within China that would allow Tibetan culture, language and religion to thrive.
The Dalai Lama spoke Wednesday in an address marking the anniversaries of two failed uprisings against China, one 51 years ago that sent him into exile in India and the other two years ago that was quashed by a government crackdown that is still continuing.
He accused Chinese authorities of conducting a campaign of “patriotic re-education” in monasteries in Tibet.
“They are putting the monks and nuns in prison-like conditions, depriving them the opportunity to study and practice in peace,” he said, accusing Chinese of working to “deliberately annihilate Buddhism.”
The Dalai Lama’s remarks reflect frequent complaints by Tibetan monks that required political study sessions and visitor demands are depriving them of time for religious study. The numbers of monks attaining higher Buddhist degrees are believed to have fallen drastically since the crushing of the 1959 rebellion that resulted in direct rule from Beijing and the imposition of heavy government control over monasteries.
The Tibetan leader said that “whether the Chinese government acknowledges it or not, there is a serious problem in Tibet,” but that attempts to talk to China about granting limited autonomy to the region had gone nowhere.
“Judging by the attitude of the present Chinese leadership, there is little hope that a result will be achieved soon. Nevertheless, our stand to continue with the dialogue remains unchanged,” he told thousands of Tibetan exiles gathered at a temple in Dharmsala, India, where the Dalai Lama leads a government-in-exile.
While the Dalai Lama’s language was strong and indicated the depth of his concern for the Tibetan clergy, his statement did not appear to indicate a change in strategy with regard to his relations with China, said Kate Saunders, communications director for the International Campaign for Tibet.
China’s Foreign Ministry did not have immediate comment, but the official Xinhua News Agency, a government mouthpiece, issued a harsh commentary accusing the Dalai Lama of trafficking in “distorted facts” and “obstinate lies.”
It mocked his claims about the oppression of Tibetan Buddhism as ignorant, telling him to “do some basic research and find out some truth about Tibet before pointing his finger.”
The police presence in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa has been heavy ever since the uprising and crackdown two years ago, but it was stepped up even more in recent days with rifle-toting police guarding intersections and demanding to see ID cards at checkpoints, hotel workers said.
“Because of the March 14 riot anniversary, police are patrolling in the streets every day, and they are conducting more checks,” said Luo Wen, a receptionist at the Lhasa River Hotel.
Despite the tensions, Beijing reopened talks with the Dalai Lama’s envoys in January for the first time in 15 months. But China was incensed when he met with President Barack Obama in the U.S. last month.
In Nepal, about 1,000 Tibetan exiles chanted anti-China slogans and waved Tibetan flags at a temple on the outskirts of Katmandu, the capital, as riot police deployed to keep protesters from marching in the streets.
“Stop killings in Tibet. We want a free Tibet,” the demonstrators chanted. Police detained seven people at the temple for defying a ban on anti-China protests.
Separately, about 15 protesters who tried to break through heavy police lines and storm the Chinese Embassy visa office were stopped and detained by the police.
Waving Tibetan flags, these protesters ran toward the main entrance of the office located in the heart of Katmandu. They were quickly blocked the police and taken away in police vans to detention centers.
China, which sent communist troops into Tibet in 1950, claims the region has been Chinese territory for centuries. Many Tibetans say they were effectively independent for most of that time.
____
Associated Press reporters Binaj Gurubacharya in Katmandu, Nepal, and Anita Chang in Beijing contributed to this report.
No medical advances inspire more media hyperventilation than do those in aging research. Terms like “life extension” reek of snake oil, and despite our frequent forays into wishful thinking, we know in our bones that this stuff is the impossible dream.
Aging’s daunting complexity, coupled with the fact that neither the drug regulators nor the medical establishment regard it as a malady worthy of treatment, long insured that pharmaceutical companies kept their distance from the antiaging business. Biotech’s scientist-entrepreneurs, however, are made of dreamier stuff than Big Pharma executives, and as gerontology began applying the sharp tools of molecular biology to aging, the field’s young visionaries began knocking on venture capitalists’ doors with business plans promising drugs that would block the root causes of aging.
But these early efforts to apply the emerging insights of modern biogerontology” never came close to realizing their founders’ high hopes. Then a miracle happened: Gerontologists began getting hints that all animals, including humans, are born with genetically-encoded systems that can slow aging. By the late 1990s it was clear that certain mutations can switch on these hidden, rarely activated systems and such “gerontogenes” were shown to dramatically extend lifespan in roundworms, fruit flies and mice.
This startling discovery has transformed the antiaging quest. It means scientists no longer need a detailed understanding of the impossibly complex aging process in order to retard it – they need instead to activate the evolutionarily ancient antiaging system we carry in each of our cells. Thus, for the first time medicines that put a brake on aging are clearly on the horizon. The Youth Pill makes the case that they’re coming at us faster than a hardheaded person who’s been around the block a few times would think. And in their wake will come profound effects on our lives, the economy, the practice of medicine, the drug industry.
Writer and science reporter David Stipp covers the burgeoning field of bio-gerontology and he tells the tale of the the race to develop antiaging drugs that convey the command “slow down” in the ancient language of the genes and proteins that regulate the aging process. If researchers can learn to mimic that command, they’ll revolutionize medicine. scientific detection and commercial innovation and change the way we think about our lives and our health.
Read more about The Youth Pill at www.davidstipp.com
Freelance science writer David Stipp was a senior writer at Fortune from 1995 to 2006, where he was the magazine’s chief science and medical writer. From 1982 to 1995 he was a staff reporter at The Wall Street Journal covering science, medicine and technology.
In 1998 David won a National Association of Science Writer’s Science-in-Society award for a Fortune story co-authored by Robert Whitaker. In 1993 he was awarded a Knight science writing fellowship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Now based in the Boston area, he is a cum laude graduate of the University of Kansas. He has undergraduate degrees in math and philosophy and a master’s in journalism.
Book Summary of Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger: Can China And India Dominate The West?
The media is feeding on the boastful self-confidence of a newly invigorated entrepreneurial class in India, and on the growing irritation in the Chinese leadership with the Indian upstart.
To say these two countries will dominate the global economy in fifty years if they stay on their present trajectories is undoubtedly true. But to take for granted that they will succeed in doing so is naive. Both countries are in the early stages of transformation from precapitalist to capitalist societies and this transition is, by its very nature, jarring.
The transition closes old avenues of progress and opens new ones, creating new winners and new losers by the hundreds of thousands. The faster the rate of economic change, the less time given to existing social institutions to adapt, and the greater, therefore, the propensity for violent change.
This book looks at the interaction of economic with political and social change in China and India as they have progressed down the road to capitalism. It examines the social and political conflicts that the market has unleashed, and shows how the course of development in both countries has been determined by the conflict between competing strata of the newly empowered capitalist class.
It concludes that neither country has created the institutions that are needed to reconcile these conflicts. Their future therefore remains uncertain.
Book Launch: Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger
03/23/2010
The rise of the world’s two most populated countries, India and China, is shifting global attention from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Author and journalist Prem Shankar Jha, in his new book, Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger, analyzes the Indian and Chinese economic and political systems with any eye to assessing the future development course of these two giants.
At a 23 March 2010 launch of the new book at the Kissinger Institute, Jha set out his views; Evan Feigenbaum, Senior Fellow, Council of Foreign Relations; Chas Freeman, President, Middle East Policy Council; and Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, then offered comments.
A 2003 Goldman Sachs report, “Dreaming the BRICs: The Path to 2050,” predicted that India and China soon will become the dominant suppliers for manufactured goods and services if, and only if, they are able to maintain political stability.
This caveat precipitated Prem Shankar Jha’s exploration of the subject. Is it safe to base policy on the assumption that India and China will dominate the global market by mid-century despite its contingency on political stability? While Jha concluded India and China will play a larger economic role in a more multi-polar world, he is skeptical they will dominate the world market – each for reasons of their own.
His doubt centered on the difference between economic growth and economic development. China maintains economic growth yet struggles with economic development; India battles economic growth while enjoying economic development. Jha hypothesized both countries have mounting obstacles of their own to overcome before dominating the global economy, thus casting doubt on the Goldman Sachs report that this could occur around mid-century.
What does this mean for the globe and the United States? Ashley Tellis opined that at an abstract level, China has the capability to set, make, and achieve national goals. However, there exists an internal struggle between the central and local governments.
This conflict between the center and locality leads to poor state investment choices, damages growth and dilutes sustainability. Similarly, India faces capacity limitations; however, of a different kind. Likewise, the United States is weakened by such forces as interest groups but unlike India and China, the U.S. has greater latitude for making poor decisions and a higher tolerance for making mistakes already built into the system.
Tellis predicted China will sustain peak performance for some time for various reasons including its low development base but that the Chinese are more susceptible to shocks in the system. India, on the other hand, will experience lower levels of peak performance but ironically this makes it less susceptible to shocks.
While Chas Freeman commended the similarities and linkages drawn between India and China in the book, he thought it overlooked the significance of overseas Chinese and Indians in the economic development of both countries. Ethnic Chinese and Indians from around the world have played a tremendous role by returning to their ethnic homes to invest capital and spur change and growth.
Freeman also expressed less concern about India and China dominating the world as he did about a potential regional conflict between sparked by tension between the two countries, but perhaps also drawing in Japan, Russia, and Pakistan because of their ties to the two.
Evan Feigenbaum focused on three major points: institutions, social transitions, and geopolitical relevance. In examining political institutions, he compared the federalism of India to the federalism of China and concluded the institutions in both countries to be brittle and challenged by social transitions. He opined China is ahead of India in social transitions.
Geopolitically, Feigenbaum hypothesized that, although India and China will not dominate the world, the international system will have to accommodate them. These institutions will undergo restructuring that will ultimately hurt Europe. Such changes are already taking place such as the transition from the G-8 to the G-20. Ultimately, there are great uncertainties regarding the impact of India and China’s emergence as significant actors in world institutions.
When Markets Collide is a timely alert to the fundamental changes taking place in today’s global economic and financial systems and a call to action for investors who may fall victim to misinterpreting important signals. While some have tended to view asset class mispricings as mere ?noise,? this compelling book shows why they are important signals of opportunities and risks that will shape the market for years to come. One of today’s most respected names in finance, Mohamed El-Erian puts recent events in their proper context, giving you the tools that can help you interpret the markets, benefit from global economic change, and navigate the risks.
The world economy is in the midst of a series of hand-offs. Global growth is now being heavily influenced by nations that previously had little or no systemic influence. Former debtor nations are building unforeseen wealth and, thus, enjoying unprecedented influence and facing unusual challenges. And new derivative products have changed the behavior of many market segments and players. Yet, despite all these changes, the system’s infrastructure is yet to be upgraded to reflect the realities of today’s and tomorrow’s world. El-Erian investigates the underlying drivers of global change to shed light on how you should:
* Think about the new opportunities and risks
* Construct an appropriately diversified and internationalized portfolio
* Protect your portfolio against new sources of systemic risk
* Best think about the impact of central banks and financial policies around the world
Offering up predictions of future developments, El-Erian directs his focus to help you capitalize on the new financial landscape, while limiting exposure to new risk configurations.
When Markets Collide is a unique collection of books for investors and policy makers around the world. In addition to providing a thorough analysis and clear perspective of recent events, it lays down a detailed map for navigating your way through an otherwise perplexing new economic landscape.
Mohammed A. El-Erian is CEO of PIMCO, one of the largest investment management companies in the world. He formerly served as president and CEO of Harvard Management company, the firm that manages the university?s $35 billion endowment. He spent 15 years at the International Money Fund, working on policy, capital market and multi lateral economic issues. In 2004, Fortune named him a member of its eight-person `Mutual Fund Dream Team?.
Interview with Pacific Investment Management CEO Mohamed El-Erian
Charlie Rose – Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
Charlie Rose discussed the Bush administration’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with four people knowledgeable about the matter’s significance: Nouriel Roubini, New York University professor of economics; Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of PIMCO; Gretchen Morgenson and Floyd Norris, both with The New York Times. Here’s some of what they had to say.
2010-06-07
MILAN – Over the past two years, industrial countries have experienced bouts of severe financial instability. Currently, they are wrestling with widening sovereign-debt problems and high unemployment. Yet emerging economies, once considered much more vulnerable, have been remarkably resilient. With growth returning to pre-2008 breakout levels, the performance of China, India, and Brazil is an important engine of expansion for today’s global economy.
High growth and financial stability in emerging economies are helping to facilitate the massive adjustment facing industrial countries. But that growth has significant longer-term implications. If the current pattern is sustained, the global economy will be permanently transformed. Specifically, not much more than a decade is needed for the share of global GDP generated by developing economies to pass the 50% mark when measured in market prices.
So it is important to know whether this breakout growth phase is sustainable. The answer comes in two parts. One depends on emerging economies’ ability to manage their own success; the other relates to the extent to which the global economy can accommodate this success. The answer to the first question is reassuring; the answer to the second is not.
While still able to exploit the scope for catch-up growth, emerging economies must undertake continuous, rapid, and at times difficult structural change, along with a parallel process of reform and institution building. In recent years, the systemically important countries have established an impressive track record of adapting pragmatically and flexibly. This is likely to continue.
With government policy remaining on course, we should expect a gradual strengthening of endogenous domestic growth drivers in emerging economies, anchored by an expanding middle class. Combined with higher trade among them, the future of emerging economies is one of reduced dependence on industrial-country demand, though not a complete decoupling.
Distribution as well as growth matter. Emerging economies still need to manage better their growing domestic tensions, which reflect rising income inequality and uneven access to basic services. A failure on this front would derail their strengthening domestic and regional growth dynamics. This is better understood today, with distributional aspects of growth strategy being firmly placed on emerging countries’ policy agendas.
While emerging economies can deal with the economic slowdown in industrial countries, the financial-sector transmission mechanism is more challenging. Today’s low interest-rate environment is causing a flood of financial flows to emerging economies, raising the risk of inflation and asset bubbles. The hiccups in Western banks have served to disrupt the availability of trade credits, and, if amplified, could destabilize local banks.
These risks are real. Fortunately, several emerging economies continue to have cushions and shock absorbers. Having entered the 2008-2009 crisis with sound initial conditions (including large international reserves, budget and balance-of-payments surpluses, and highly capitalized banks), they are nowhere near exhausting their fiscal and financial flexibility – and hence their capacity to respond to future shocks.
Overall, emerging economies are well placed to continue to navigate successfully a world rendered unstable by crises in industrial countries. Yet, again, the decoupling is not complete. A favorable outcome also requires industrial countries’ ability and willingness to accommodate the growing size and prominence of emerging economies. The risks here are significant, pointing to a wide range of potential problems.
The flow of knowledge, finance, and technology that underpins sustained high growth rates in emerging economies is closely linked to an open, rule-based, and globalized economy. Yet this global construct comes under pressure in an environment in which advanced countries have stubbornly high unemployment and bouts of financial volatility. The location of growth in the global economy comes to be seen as a zero-sum game, leading to suboptimal reactions.
As a result, the continued openness of industrial-country markets cannot be taken for granted. Political and policy narratives are becoming more domestic and narrow, while the international agenda and the pursuit of collective common global interests are having greater difficulty being heard.
These challenges will grow in the years ahead. And then there is the issue of global institutions and governance.
Managing a growing and increasingly complex set of transnational connections is an even bigger challenge in a multi-speed world that is being turned upside down. Such a world requires better global governance, as well as overdue institutional reforms that give emerging economies proper voice and representation in international institutions.
In the absence of such changes, the global economy may bounce from one crisis to another without a firm hand on the rudder to establish an overall sense of direction. The result is what economists call “Nash equilibria,” or a series of suboptimal and only quasi-cooperative outcomes.
Where does all this leave us?
Emerging economies will be called on to play an even larger role in a multi-speed global economy characterized by protracted rehabilitation of over-extended balance sheets in industrial countries. Left to their own devices, they are up to the task. But they do not operate in a vacuum. Emerging economies’ ability to provide the growth lubrication that facilitates adjustment in industrial countries is also a function of the latter countries’ willingness to accommodate tectonic shifts in the operation and governance of the global economy. Let us hope that these global issues receive the attention they require.
Mohamed A. El-Erian is CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO and author of the bestselling book When Markets Collide.
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics and Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, chairs the Commission on Growth and Development.
Reviewed by Dr. Muhammad Legenhausen
This work is a true masterpiece, not only of translation and exposition, but of Islamic propagation, as well. The work as a whole provides the best rejoinder yet given to the attack made on Islam from various feminist quarters both in the West and in the Muslim world.
In brief, the answer is that the critics fail to see past the surface of Islam, a surface which is then judged by modern Western standards, while an adequate understanding of the feminine in Islam is impossible without an immersion in the ocean of Islamic spirituality, an ocean whose depths are expertly gauged with translations from no less than forty-eight Muslim sages, including narrations attributed to the Shi`i Imams, Peace be upon them, philosophical pieces from authors such as Ibn Sina and Mulla Sadra, poetry from Hafiz, `Attar, and Rumi, and various `irfani or Sufi works including selections from Ibn `Arabi and those of his school as well as selections from other writers such as Najm al-Din Kubra, Khwajah `Abdullah Ansari and `Ayn al-Qudat Hamadani, to mention but a few.
The translations range over a number of different topics from theology, cosmology and spiritual psychology, stitched together by the gender imagery used by the authors. The result is a demonstration that the gender concepts to be found in Islamic thought stem from its fundamental orientation toward Reality.
The feminist critique of Islam is exposed as simply the continuation of the negatively masculine proselytizing which has dominated Western attitudes toward Islam, and toward non-Western cultures generally, at least since the colonial period. Instead of using Western models to frame her discussion, the author breaks new ground in comparative studies by explaining gender dualities in Islamic thought in terms of the Taoist polarity between yin and yang.
The Tao of Islam is truly a sourcebook of Islamic thought which is destined to become a classic.At the same time, the work is also bound to be controversial and misunderstood. At issue is the treatment of women in Islamic law. By focusing on the symbolic dimension of gender, Murata is sure to be misunderstood by two factions: legalists who do not care to see beyond the letter of the law, and those who are opposed to Islamic law. Members of both groups are sure to misinterpret Murata’s thesis as the claim that the law can be jettisoned in favour of vague statements of symbolic value.
The key to the misinterpretation is the idea that when it is claimed that a term has a certain symbolic or metaphorical reading, nothing else can remain. If `woman’ is read as a code for `the base soul,’ and if this reading is used to derive the statutes of Islamic law, the result will be either nonsense or the denial of the civil code of Islamic law altogether, for to claim that a man is to inherit twice the share of a woman cannot mean that the intellect is to have twice the inheritance of the base soul.
So, the jurists will complain that Murata has abandoned the law, and the opponents of Islamic law will celebrate the alleged abandonment. However, for the attentive eye, even a quick browse through the book will be enough to show that there is no attempt here to replace the law by a set of symbolic relations. Murata repeatedly stresses the great respect for the sacred law of Islam, the shari`ah, which pervades the mainstream of the mystic tradition of Islam.
The figurative is introduced not to replace the literal, but to illuminate it. The traditional differences in gender roles which are canonized in Islamic law are not to be justified by sexist claims of a natural inferiority of women to men, but by showing how these differences fit into a more comprehensive hierarchical understanding of reality.
This is not to say that Islamic values have never been invoked to do injustice to women-they most certainly have; nor is this to say that women do not have rights similar to men according to Islam-they most certainly do, as it is stated in the Noble Qur’an itself (2:228); and no one should deny the importance of scholarly investigations into these areas. But Murata’s work is not a sociology of Islam, nor is it a work in Islamic law.
It is not the place of this work to clear up the misunderstandings among Muslims as well as non-Muslims about Islamic law on the issue of women; rather the aim is to show how gender concepts which are politically very incorrect in the West today, function in the Islamic spiritual tradition along lines in no way congruent with the politics of oppression, subjugation, and individual rights, which dominate so much of Western intellectual discussion of gender today. The book provides us with a different way of thinking about gender altogether.
The author, Sachiko Murata, wrote her M.A. thesis on the topic of temporary marriage and its social relevance at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Tehran, after having obtained a Ph.D. at that university in Persian literature.
While studying in Iran, the author also translated a tenth/sixteenth century classic on usul al–fiqh (theoretical jurisprudence) into Japanese. In addition to her studies of fiqh and usul, the author also studied the Islamic sapiential tradition with such notable authorities as Toshiko Izutsu and Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and has had the benefit of years of collaboration with her husband, the eminent scholar William C. Chittick.
She is currently Professor of Religious Studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
The book includes an Introduction, followed by four parts, the first of which introduces the three central realities to be discussed in the succeeding parts: God, the cosmos, and the human being. There is also a postscript which addresses the feminist critique of Islam, two appendices giving a chronological list of and notes on the authors cited, a bibliography, an index of ayat of the Qur’ an, an index of hadith and sayings, and a general index.
The Introduction begins by pointing out the importance of cultural differences and the way that presumptions rooted in Western culture may prevent the Western student from properly understanding the role of women in Islamic societies.
In order to remedy such misunderstanding, it is necessary to become acquainted with the intellectual tradition in Islam. Ignorance of or a dismissive attitude toward this tradition characterizes the feminist critique of Islam. The author then discusses her own preparations and motivations for writing this book, and explains the central comparison between the feminine and masculine principles of Taoism, yin and yang, respectively, and the gender symbolism to be found in Islamic thought.
It is explained that in Islam, everything is to be understood in terms of its relation with God, and the Islamic understanding of God Himself is to be found between the two poles of negative and positive theology, tanzih and tashbih, compared to the yang and yin elements of Taoist thought.
Likewise, the attributes of God, the so-called ninety-nine names of God, are often divided by Muslim authors into the attributes of majesty (jalal) and the attributes of beauty (jamal), which Murata refers to as the yang Names and the yin Names. Various symbols of the Qur’an, such as the Tablet and the Pen,, may also be interpreted in terms of feminine/masculine duality.
Part One consists of a single chapter called “The Three Realities,” in which the author shows that what she calls the Tao of Islam is made up of three great realities, God, the cosmos, and the human being, and that in the sapiential tradition of Islamic thought these realities are viewed as inseparable from each other. “Each can be seen as a replica of the Tao, with the two fundamental principles, yin and yang, harmoniously present” (p. 18). Both the macrocosm and the microcosm are signs of Allah.
Part Two, “Theology,” consists of two chapters. In the first, “Divine Duality,” it is initially made clear that in so speaking one must not in any way deny the absolute unity of Allah, tawhid. Duality pertains to the nature of human discourse and thought about the Divine.
Likewise, in Chinese thought a distinction is made between the unnamable Tao and a Tao which can be named and spoken about and polarized into the principles of yin and yang. This is elaborated in terms of the difference between the Oneness of Being and the Manyness of Knowledge as discussed by Muslim authors, and the division of the Divine attributes into those of majesty and beauty.
Finally, the social implications of the Divine duality are explained: man’s first duty is to obey God’s law, the shari’ah, for it is only through awe of the attributes of majesty that the way to the attributes of beauty are to be found. In the third chapter, “The Two Hands of God,” we find a more detailed discussion of the relationships among the Divine attributes.
The imagery of the right and left hands is explained with reference to theologians, mystics and interpreters of the Qur’an. God is not only said to have two hands, but to have two feet as well, and there is an extensive explanation of the. significance of the symbolism involved here in the thought of Ibn ‘Arabi, and others of this school of thought.
Part Three, “Cosmology,” has four chapters. In the first of these, “Heaven and Earth,” there are discussions of the creation of the world, the relations of similarity and difference between heaven and earth, the seven heavens, and the four earthly elements.
In the next chapter, “Macrocosmic Marriage,” the relation between heaven and earth is compared to that of husband and wife. Heaven is said to have married the earth because of her beauty and virtue; and Ibn ‘Arabi’s doctrine of a universal marriage which pervades all existence is explained, especially in terms of the Qur’anic symbols of the Pen and the Tablet; then the reflection of these elements as the. First Intellect and the Universal Soul is introduced, illustrated by Sohrawardi’s discussion of the two wings of the angel Gabriel.
The human significance of all this is presented in the next chapter, “Human Marriage,” which focuses on a few key ayat of the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet, may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny, and their interpretations by Ibn ‘Arabi and others.
The final chapter of this part, “The Womb,” discusses the primordial feminine relationship of submission which all creatures bear toward God, and God’s infinite mercy. The womb is a symbol of the Divine mercy inherent in nature through which the individual is nurtured toward completeness and nearness to God.
Part Four of the book, “Spiritual Psychology,” consists of three chapters. In the first of these, “Static Hierarchy,” the correspondence between the macrocosm and the microcosm is discussed, and how this correspondence evidences a deeper correspondence with the Divine Reality, in accordance with the ayah of the Qur’an: “We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and in themselves, until it is clear to them that He is the Real.” (41:53) Murata explains that this correspondence is especially important to a certain sort of esoteric interpretation of the Qur’an, ta’wil.
The correspondence between microcosm and macrocosm allows a ta’wil to be formulated according to which ayat which appear to describe the cosmos are interpreted as pertaining to the human person, so that heaven and earth are taken as symbols for the spirit and soul, for example.
From this exposition of the nature of ta’wil, a more detailed discussion of the intellect, the spirit, and the soul is presented, according to a saying attributed to Imam Sadiq (‘a), which is compared with the views expressed on this topic by Ghazali.
In Chapter 9, “Dynamics of the Soul,” the jihad or struggle on the path to God is described. It is explained that the hierarchy presented in the previous chapter is not merely descriptive, but normative, and as such it marks stages on the way of spiritual progress.
There follows an intriguing discussion of the relation between the descriptive and the normative which goes far beyond the mere denial of the sort of absolute dichotomy to be found in Western ethics after Hume, for the discussion turns to the question of how harmony between the descriptive and normative poles is to be achieved.
The answer is to be found in a spiritual psychology which juxtaposes certain groups of qualities, in God, in the cosmos, and in the human being, attention to which allows people to come to recognize the forces within themselves in the context of the Divine prescriptions. This is followed by a discussion of the story of the fall of man and the way of purification of the soul.
In the final chapter of the book, “The Heart,” we find a great wealth of material about matters of the heart drawn from the Islamic tradition pertaining to the spiritual hierarchy and dynamics discussed in the previous two chapters. For example, `Abd al-Razzaq Kashani uses the term heart to refer to that which makes a human being human. He interprets the Qur’anic verse, “We said, `Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden,’ ” with the claim that the heart’s wife is the soul.
The sufi, Najm al-Din Raze, also compares the heart and soul to masculine and feminine elements, claiming that the heart and the soul are the children of the body and spirit. The soul is the daughter and is similar to its mother the body; the heart is the son and is similar to its father, the spirit. RM goes on to claim that the soul has two inherent attributes that it inherits from its mother, the body, and that these are caprice and anger, and Murata explains that here, too, caprice is itself the feminine or yin element and anger the masculine or yang element of the soul.
Just as the Taoists hold that in everything yin there must be a bit of yang, and vice versa; we find that the feminine soul must contain a masculine anger. The sought for harmony is to be achieved through the work of Islamic law, the shari’ah. The shari’ah requires the loyalty of the wife to her husband, that is, it orients the soul toward the heart:
“The function of the Sharia is to turn all the forces of the soul in directions that will help the soul reach felicity” (p. 286). Kashani, commenting on the Qur’an, explains that God sends down with the Qur’an the differentiations of the discerning intellect, and that this differentiation “will then be a healing for the illnesses of the hearts” (p. .302). The illnesses to be healed are things like ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy, blindness of heart, rancour and envy.
The analytic distinctions set out by Islamic law between the pure (tahir) and impure (najis), the correct (sahib) and incorrect (bath), and the fivefold classification of acts into those which are obligatory (wajib), recommended (mustahabb), neutral (mubah), disapproved (makruh) and prohibited (haram), all are needed for the proper harmonious synthesis of the elements of the soul, which in turn is required for the health of the heart.
The final stages of the perfection of the heart are annihilation (fana) and subsistence (baqa); the former takes place through the manifestation of God’s left hand, the yang attributes of majesty, while the latter takes place through the manifestation of God’s right hand, the yin attributes of beauty.
The relation between the soul and the spirit is often described as one of conflict, with the soul pulling the individual away from the light of guidance (as in Taoism the yin is portrayed as a dark force), while the spirit pulls the individual toward God.
Through the submission of the soul to the spirit, harmony and balance are realized, which is compared to a marriage between the First Intellect and the Universal Soul. The issue of this happy union is taken to be the human heart, a child in the image and likeness of God.
In line with this view of the heart, the perfect man is frequently described as one who possesses a heart. Mawlawi Jalal al-Din Rumi explains that the spirit is simply awareness, and that therefore, whoever has greater awareness has greater spirit. The human spirit is greater than the animal spirit because of its superior awareness. “Then the spirit of God’s friends, the Possessors of Hearts, is even greater . . . . That is why the angels prostrated themselves to Adam: His spirit was greater than their existence.” (p. 305)
Commenting on the cosmic marriage of soul and spirit, Murata writes, “If the perfected rational soul is to be actualized, its parents-spirit and soul-must marry, give birth to it, and nurture it.” (p. 306) In this passage Murata refers to the heart as the `perfected rational soul.’ This term is noteworthy because in the modern Western view, rationality and the heart are seen as being at odds with one another.
In Western literature, the heart symbolizes the emotional side of man and the head stands for the calculative rational dimension. This dichotomy is completely alien to the Islamic spiritual tradition, in which the heart is identified with the rational, and rationality is understood as transcending the merely calculative.
Instead of seeing the soul as containing two warring parts, reason and passion, with art and religion being confined to the emotional, and reason left with nothing to do but juggle numbers, it might be salutary to submit to the more radical procedure of looking at the human being in a way suggested by the tradition of Islam.
According to this tradition it is not the soul which contains the heart and intellect, but rather the soul and reason in proper harmony give rise to the heart.
Prof Murata continues her presentation of the subject with a passage from one of the earliest writers to discuss the marriage of the soul and intellect and the birth of the heart, Shihab al-Din `Umar Suhrawardi. He describes the soul as the animal spirit in man.
This soul and the spirit are attracted to one another like Adam and Eve, and love each other so much that each tastes death in absence from its mate. The product of the union of soul and intellect or spirit is the heart not the lump of flesh, but the subtle heart. Among the hearts of men, – some are inclined toward the soul and some toward the spirit.
At this point in his explanation, Suhrawardi cites a hadith attributed to the Prophet of Islam (‘s) according to which there are four kinds of hearts: the heart of the person of faith within which is a shining lamp, the black and inverted heart of the infidel, the hypocrite’s heart which is bound by attachments, and the layered heart within which are both faith and hypocrisy. Suhrawardi explains these types of heart in terms of their relation to their parents.
To the extent that the heart inclines toward the intellect, it will gain felicity, and to the extent that it inclines toward the animal spirit, the earthly soul, the heart is. wretched. It is noteworthy that Imam Khumayni comments on a similar hadith attributed to Imam Baqir (‘a) and draws out its ethical implications in his Chehel hadith. [1]
The chapter concludes with several insightful remarks on what it means to be a true man and a true woman. A true man is someone whose intellect or spirit dominates over his or her soul, whatever the person’s physical gender.
Thus, the term `man’ is used evaluatively, and likewise, `woman’ is often used to refer to the base elements of the soul which commands to evil. It is in this sense that a woman may be called a man, as Rumi states that sometimes “a hero like Rustam is hidden in a woman’s body, as in the case of Mary.’ Both men and women reach perfection through exemplification of the attributes of God, men exemplify the attributes of majesty more directly and the attributes of beauty secondarily, while with women it is generally the reverse. “Only when she is fully herself by being fully one with God can she be fully human and fully female.” (p. 318)
For the Western reader, this book presents a real challenge and an opportunity to question the prevailing values of liberal culture. For the Muslim, the book also presents a challenge, for it allows us to become reacquainted with an aspect of Islamic culture from which many have become alienated, for Western cultural values are often unconsciously assimilated.
At the same time, the work offers a sound basis from which to defend the penetrating insights which are a hallmark of the Islamic intellectual tradition of which Murata writes, a tradition to which Muslim intellectuals today would do well to aspire.
NOTE:,
[1]. See Forty Hadith: An Exposition, Part 34, by Imam Ruhullah al-Musawi al Khumayni, tr. by A. Q. Qara’i, Al-Tawhid, Vol. XII, No. 1, pp. 13-24, which is also available at http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith
A Thousand Splendid Suns is a breathtaking story set against the volatile events of Afghanistan’s last thirty years—from the Soviet invasion to the reign of the Taliban to the post-Taliban rebuilding—that puts the violence, fear, hope, and faith of this country in intimate, human terms. It is a tale of two generations of characters brought jarringly together by the tragic sweep of war, where personal lives—the struggle to survive, raise a family, find happiness—are inextricable from the history playing out around them.
Propelled by the same storytelling instinct that made The Kite Runner a beloved classic, A Thousand Splendid Suns is at once a remarkable chronicle of three decades of Afghan history and a deeply moving account of family and friendship. It is a striking, heart-wrenching novel of an unforgiving time, an unlikely friendship, and an indestructible love—a stunning accomplishment
ABOUT KHALED HOSSEINI
Khaled Hosseini
Khaled Hosseini was born in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1965. His father was a diplomat with the Afghan Foreign Ministry and his mother taught Farsi and History at a large high school in Kabul. In 1970, the Foreign Ministry sent his family to Tehran, where his father worked for the Afghan embassy. They lived in Tehran until 1973, at which point they returned to Kabul. In July of 1973, on the night Hosseini’s youngest brother was born, the Afghan king, Zahir Shah, was overthrown in a bloodless coup by the king’s cousin, Daoud Khan. At the time, Hosseini was in fourth grade and was already drawn to poetry and prose; he read a great deal of Persian poetry as well as Farsi translations of novels ranging from Alice in Wonderland to Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer series.
In 1976, the Afghan Foreign Ministry once again relocated the Hosseini family, this time to Paris. They were ready to return to Kabul in 1980, but by then Afghanistan had already witnessed a bloody communist coup and the invasion of the Soviet army. The Hosseinis sought and were granted political asylum in the United States. In September of 1980, Hosseini’s family moved to San Jose, California. They lived on welfare and food stamps for a short while, as they had lost all of their property in Afghanistan. His father took multiple jobs and managed to get his family off welfare. Hosseini graduated from high school in 1984 and enrolled at Santa Clara University where he earned a bachelor’s degree in Biology in 1988. The following year, he entered the University of California-San Diego’s School of Medicine, where he earned a Medical Degree in 1993. He completed his residency at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and began practicing Internal Medicine in 1996. His first love, however, has always been writing.
Hosseini has vivid, and fond, memories of peaceful pre-Soviet era Afghanistan, as well as of his personal experiences with Afghan Hazaras. One Hazara in particular was a thirty-year-old man named Hossein Khan, who worked for the Hosseinis when they were living in Iran. When Hosseini was in the third grade, he taught Khan to read and write. Though his relationship with Hossein Khan was brief and rather formal, Hosseini always remembered the fondness that developed between them.
In 2006, Hosseini was named a goodwill envoy to the UNHCR, The United Nations Refugee Agency. His new book, A Thousand Splendid Suns, will be published in May 2007.
Khaled Hosseini discusses A Thousand Splendid Suns
Eye to Eye With Katie Couric: Khaled Hosseini (CBS News)
Khaled Hosseini, the best-selling author of “The Kite Runner,” says that refugees in Afghanistan are doomed without the continued support of the international community.
By NIKHIL HUTHEESING
You can’t keep the rich down for long. Global wealth made a remarkable comeback in 2009, increasing by 11.5% to $111.5 trillion. That’s according to a new report, The Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth 2010 Report, released Thursday by Boston Consulting Group. The report breaks down wealth by region and by country, creating a geographic portrait of where the world’s wealth is accumulating and at what rate.
North America posted the largest absolute gain in households with assets under management. Its wealth totaled $4.6 trillion (a 15% jump over 2008). But the largest percentage gain occurred in Asia-Pacific, where wealth skyrocketed by 22%, or $3.1 trillion. That’s nearly double the global rate.
Latin American household asset growth rose by 16% to $3.4 billion, and Europe, despite the massive debt problems it now faces, was the wealthiest region with more than $37 trillion in assets under management, an increase of 8.8% from 2008.
Millionaires Hold 38% of Global Wealth
Boston Consulting Group’s report includes a revealing list countries with the highest percentage of millionaire households, but before getting to that, here are some interesting tidbits: The number of millionaire households in the world represents less than 1% of all households. Even so, these most fortunate ones owned about 38% of the world’s wealth in 2009, up from 36% in 2008. In North America, Africa and the Middle East, millionaire households represented more than half of the wealth in those regions.
Another juicy morsel: The number of millionaire households rose by 14% in 2009 to 11.2 million, and the U.S. had by far the most millionaire households, with 4.7 million.
But that doesn’t mean millionaires are crowding U.S. streets or that sumptuous yachts dominate the nation’s waterways. In fact, you’re more likely to find those conditions in Singapore, which had the highest percentage of millionaire households in the world.
Yes, that puts Singapore at the top of Boston Consulting Group list of the top 10 countries with the greatest proportion of millionaire households. You may be surprised by the full run-down:
1) Singapore
Population: 4.7 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 11.4%
Who would think the tiny Republic of Singapore would be crammed with so many millionaires? The country, all of just 247 square miles, has emerged from the recession and has rebounded in a big way. Its GDP, exports and manufacturing are all rising, and so, too, are home prices. That has led Singapore to boast the highest concentration of millionaires anywhere on the planet. Among its very rich: Ng Teng Fong, a real estate tycoon, and Wee Cho Yaw, who runs United Overseas Bank, one of Singapore’s big lenders.
2) Hong Kong
Population: 7.1 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 8.8%
Hong Kong, the home of Li Ka-shing, who runs conglomerates Cheung Kong and Hutchison Whampoa, had 205,000 millionaire households in 2009 and takes the number two spot for percentage of millionaire households. Hong Kong’s close relationship with mainland China brings benefits and risks, but it’s been good for many of the wealthiest, who made their money by investing in a real estate market that has no shortage of swanky hotels and malls.
3) Switzerland
Population: 7.6 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 8.4%
The Swiss economy is recovering from slow growth during the recession, but a good many of its citizens thrived during the upswing, bringing it to third place in percentage of millionaire households. The country boasts 285,000 of them, up 19.5% from 2008. Driving the recovery: manufacturing, rising exports and consumer spending. Among the country’s rich: Swiss biotech tycoon Ernesto Bertarelli, who is, perhaps, better known for winning the America’s Cup in 2003.
4) Kuwait
Population: 2.8 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 8.2%
The rising price of oil has led to more millionaires in this tiny country. With some 100 billion barrels of crude, Kuwait has been growing rapidly. But the oil-dependent nation now plans to spend up to $140 billion over the next five years to diversify away from oil and to attract more investment — a move that could help it ascend this list’s ranks. Such a strategy may help billionaire Nasser Al Kharafi, chairman of one of the most diversified and largest conglomerates in the Arab world. His food division, Americana, has the Middle East franchise rights to KFC, Wimpy, TGI Fridays and Pizza Hut, among others.
5) Qatar
Population: 841,000
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 7.4%
Qatar’s economy expanded by about 8.7% last year, thanks to growth in the natural gas business. That helped the country, already the world’s largest gas exporter, to emerge from the global economic crisis pretty much unscathed, leaving many of its millionaire households in good stead. Among its megarich: Bader Al Darwish, with a fortune of about $1.7 billion. Al Darwish runs Darwish Holdings, which operates businesses including real estate, investments and retail services.
6) United Arab Emirates
Population: 4.9 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 6.2%
As the world’s third-largest oil exporter, the UAE’s economic growth is expected to rise to 3.2% this year, after posting a 1.3% increase in 2009,. Like others, its oil business has generated wealth among its citizens. It also helps that UAE isn’t expected to suffer from the eurozone debt crisis. The country is home to Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair and his family, who run Mashreqbank and the second-largest flour milling company in the Mideast, as well as megamalls.
7) United States
Population: 310.2 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 4.1%
The 4.7 million U.S. millionaires in 2009 was up by 15.1% over 2008. But as a market percentage, the U.S. falls relatively low on the top 10 list. The country, which is home to two of the world’s wealthiest people, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, saw its economy bounce back in 2009 from the year before as the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 40%. By the end of 2009, the economy grew at its fastest pace in more than six years, even though many businesses put the brakes on hiring.
8) Belgium
Population: 10.4 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 3.5%
Suffering from spiraling debt and political problems, Belgium still managed to hold on to a number of millionaires. The country has set a goal of getting its budget deficit to 4.8% of GDP in 2010, which is far below Europe’s average. But Belgium’s total debt will rise above 100% of GDP, placing it behind only Greece and Italy. The debt crisis in Europe will also likely take a toll on the country’s economy in 2010. The good news is that Belgium has a trade surplus, and household savings are high. Among its richest: Albert Frere, who founded the media, utilities and oil conglomerate, Compagnie Nationale a Portefeuille.
9) Israel
Population: 7.4 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 3.3%
Unlike other markets, the story in Israel wasn’t about rising real estate values or credit, but about gains in technology, which some say will help lead the country to continued economic growth. While 2009 was a good year for the economy, the current eurozone crisis could hurt Israeli exports because about 33% of them go to Europe. Rich man in Israel: shipping tycoon Sammy Ofer, worth north of $6 billion.
10) Taiwan
Population: 23 million
Percentage of Millionaire Households: 3%
Taiwan may be last on the top 10 list — but that’s still quite a feat. The country was hit hard by the recession mostly because its economy depends on trade. But as the world economy skittishly improves, Taiwanese families have seen their fortunes rise. The country now has some 230,000 millionaire households. That’s an increase of 22.1% over 2008. One of its richest is Terry Gou of Foxconn, a maker of electronics for Apple (AAPL), Nokia (NOK), Nintendo and others. That company has been in the news recently because 13 of its workers have committed suicide or tried to.
Sources:
Population figures: The CIA World Factbook
Percentage of millionaire households: The Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth 2010 Report.
Noynoy Aquino was born Benigno Simeon Cojuangco III February 8, 1960. He was the only son and was third child among four sisters, the most famous sister was the youngest: Kristina Bernadette or Kris Aquino who is now a very popular and prominent star in television and film.
Noynoy was a pure breed Atenista from grade school, high school, up to college. He then graduated from the Ateneo University with a degree in Economics. At that time, his father the famous Senator Ninoy Aquino was the lone voice of freedom against the dictator president Marcos and so they were exiled to Boston because of this.
His father decided to return to the Philippines despite threat of assassination to continue the political fight against the dictator. Then of course, he was assassinated sparking the EDSA revolution took place which finally overthrew the Marcos regime.
A while after these events, Noynoy became a member of the Philippine Business for Social Progress then he became got into sales in Nike then for Mondragon Philippines. After that, he became part of the Intra-Strata Assurance Corporation which was owned by the family.
One interesting note about Noynoy Aquino’s life was in danger when he got seriously wounded, getting in the line of fire during the rebellion that was lead by Gregorio Honasan who eventually also became a Philippine senator. The coup d’etat did not succeed though and Noynoy, recovered. Three of Noynoy’s security were killed and the last one who protected him survived. Five bullets hit him and one of these is still inside his neck.
As for the start of his political career he has long been one of the principal members of the Philippine’s Liberal Political party. He soon rose to become Vice Chairman. He is slightly connected with the part of the Liberal Party that is in opposition to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo because of alleged violations on human rights issues. He has also been the representative of the second district of Tarlac. He was re-elected to this post and was in service until a few years ago in 2007.Petrol oil and lubricant oil for the Philippine Army was what he most lobbied for as a legislator.
He was then elected as a Philippine senator and was part of the Opposition coalition whose main issues was the holding back of the Charter Change or the rewriting of the constitution under the control of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It is interesting to note that as a political move during this campaign, he publicly endorsed the bailing out of ex-senator Gregorio Honasan who was then in jail for new charges of rebellion, effectively pardoning the past that almost cost him his life.
Now in 2010, Aquino has been approached by a group of activists and lawyers whose group was called Noynoy Aquino for President. This happened after the death of his mother former president Corazon Aquino. After some weeks of giving the possibility some thought he finally formally announced his bid.
He has been recently elected as the President of the Philippines.
NINOY AQUINO: Worth Dying For (the last interview!) ORIGINAL UPLOAD
Ninoy’s prophetic interview at his Grand Hotel suite in Taipei on August 20, 1983, a day before he embarked on his final journey.
This is in memory of Philippine martyr, Ninoy Aquino who was assasinated in 1983 when he returned to the Philippines after years of exile in the US. By Patrick Henry Bacolor (AKA Kinigtot)
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran
Apple CEO, Steve Jobs introduces iPhone 4 at the company’s World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Features include a new glass and
steel design, a built in antenna and a higher resolution screen.
This week One on One meets the widely-awarded Indian actor known in the East and West for his challenging and sometimes controversial roles.
One on One – Naseeruddin Shah – Part 2
Apple promises that its new iPhone 4 will “change everything, all over again.”
While Apple’s “new baby,” offers some promising new features, like multitasking and a front-facing camera, it also has some major drawbacks.
Before you sign up for two years with AT&T, camp out in front of an Apple Store, and fork over $200 (minimum), check out our rundown of the worst things about the iPhone 4. (For an alternate take, be sure to browse the 9 best iPhone 4 features next!)
What do you think are the biggest drawbacks of the new iPhone? Tell us in the comments section below.
More about iPhone 4:
* Videos of the new iPhone
* Pictures of Apple’s new iPhone 4
* iPhone 4 features: 15 things you need to know about Apple’s new phone
* Early iPhone 4 reviews
* New iPhone 4 commercial
* iPhone 4′s glass screen: Will it break?
* iPhone 4 Pre-Sale MELTDOWN: Orders Exposed Private Info, Charged iPhone To Wrong Users
* The 9 BEST things about the iPhone 4
* Apple reportedly canceling iPhone orders without explanation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/iphone-4-review-the-worst_n_620714.html#s103736
By Ankita Rao
Religion News Service
What you won’t find anywhere is an image of Elamawy herself. It’s not attached to a screed she wrote against Oprah Winfrey, nor a speech she gave on Allah, and definitely not on her Facebook account.
In an effort to be modest in both real and digital life, the 23-year-old Elamawy doesn’t post photos of herself online, and is careful of her interactions with men on the Internet.
“If I could go back in time and not take yearbook pictures, I wouldn’t do that either,” said Elamawy, a marketing consultant who lives in Paramus, N.J.
In the right hands, Facebook can be a powerful social networking hub to keep tabs on far-flung friends, find a job or push a cause. In the wrong hands, it can reveal a treasure trove of dark secrets–photos of drunken coworkers, confessions of stoned preteens, and clues to an unfaithful spouse.
Some Muslims, like Elamawy, also worry it runs afoul of Muslims standards of modesty. Others see it as a home to offensive images like depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, and have personalized Facebook to fit their Islamic beliefs.
“There’s such a thing as virtual modesty,” said Shahed Amanullah, editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com, a popular online magazine. “If you’re modest in the real world, you can be modest in the virtual world.”
While Amanullah says only a minority of Muslims would go as far as Elamawy and remove photos from websites, he said “the best way to gauge how Muslims interact in social networks is to look at Muslim responses to Facebook.”
Online debates ask if Facebook is haram, or forbidden. Facebook has deleted numerous anti-Islam groups; most recently, Facebook was banned in Pakistan and Bangladesh when a group promoted prohibited depictions of Muhammad.
A Pakistan-based website, MillatFacebook.com, cropped up in May as a possible Islam-friendly alternative. Yet despite the controversy, Amanullah said Facebook continues to be the social network of choice in Muslim countries like Egypt and Pakistan, and in the wider Muslim community. He pointed out that some imams even break the 5,000-friend limit and have to switch to fan pages.
Photos of the Canadian comic Hamzah Moin are easy to find online. He’s the funnyman behind the comedy website Maniac Muslim, as well as the “Poking Feels Haram” T-shirt, a reference to the Facebook feature that users love to hate.
While Moin, 25, sees Facebook as a valuable tool for networking and discussion, he also recognizes that it can lead to tainted reputations and bad judgment.”You put the wrong person in front of a car, they can do a lot of damage,” he said.
Farrah Hamid, the editorial director for Elan magazine, agreed that Facebook can be a valuable tool for fostering a conversation between readers and editors, and connecting Muslims around the world.
“It’s kind of like bringing together global voices on a platform where you don’t risk being scrutinized by your government or society,” Hamid said.
But for modest-minded Muslims like Elamawy, it’s the images–not the voices–that cause concern. She’ll browse her friends’ photos and e-mail her photos to friends, but said there’s no way to guarantee privacy once something is posted online.
“You don’t know whose hands they’re going to be in later,” she said. “You don’t know if there’s a guy who is going to be looking at you all decked up, dressed for a party.”
Elamawy’s friend in Dallas, Mehanal Begawala, doesn’t post photos of herself online, and even asked guests not to take photos at her wedding. Begawala allows friends to share pictures where she is wearing a headscarf or full-face veil, like she would in public.
“I’m not sure whether it’s personal or related to my religion,” said Begawala, 28. “I don’t prefer to broadcast my life to everyone or anything.”
The issue of proper attire or image isn’t just a concern for women. Seeing a man in a tank-top and shorts could have the same effect as a woman in a miniskirt, she said.
Begawala worries when she sees Muslim friends post photos in less modest clothing than they would wear in public. That double-standard, along with risqué status updates and photos, can stir gossip in tight-knit communities.
Citing broken marriage proposals and threatened careers that were prompted by Facebook revelations, Moin said “now more than ever,” Muslims should post photos that reflect their personality and values when using Facebook.
“If we’re going around flirting online and in real life we are shy and quiet, it’s kind of a mild schizophrenia,” he said. “As Muslims we should be consistent in how we act.”
Iran’s hard-line government holds fast to the belief that relenting under international pressure is a great blunder because, ultimately, it just invites more pressure. But, apparently, there are exceptions to the rule. In the face of mounting global outrage, Tehran said on Thursday that it would commute the stoning verdict of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old woman convicted of adultery.
The government delivered the news through its embassy in the United Kingdom, where the media first highlighted the case and sparked an international campaign that has resonated from Hollywood to Brazil. “There are forces within the Islamic Republic who want to do away with stoning,” says Shadi Sadr, a prominent human rights lawyer who has worked on stoning cases in the past. “They don’t think it’s worth sullying Iran’s international reputation for the sake of a handful of adulterers.”
In the first comment to emerge from Tehran about the case, Mohammad Javad Larijani, the head of the Iranian judiciary’s human rights council, said Friday that Ashtiani’s sentence is under review. “Our justice system will not change its course due to a media attack,” he told the Islamic Republic News Agency, invoking various internal reasons for the change in course.
The judiciary in Tehran has yet to confirm the commuting of Ashtiani’s verdict, and her lawyer has received no official indication, according to Hadi Ghaemi, of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. It also remains unclear whether Ashtiani will be executed by other means. In 2006, a court in the north-eastern province of Azerbaijan first convicted the widow of “illicit relationships.” As punishment she received 99 lashes in the presence of her teenage son. Short months later, a separate court charged her with adultery committed during the time of her marraige — and sentenced her to death by stoning.
Iran’s penal code, which interprets Islamic law with exceptional severity, stipulates death by stoning for both men and women in cases of adultery. Article 104 of the code even specifies that “the stones should not be so large that the person dies upon being hit by one or two of them; neither should they be so small they could not be defined as stones.”
Ashtiani’s case is no anomaly. Iran is meting out the death penalty more aggressively than ever before, and has executed over 100 people this year alone. But the timing of her announced execution was striking. Just a month after the United Nations Security Council passed a fresh round of sanctions against Iran, the news seemed to signal Tehran’s indifference to mounting international pressure over its nuclear program and deteriorating human rights record.
Officials are well-aware of stoning’s unique ability to generate global revulsion: an internal debate about how punishments like stoning undermine Iran’s reputation in the world has figured among Iran’s elite political circles for at least two decades. The move to stone Ashtiani suggested, however, that radicals within the system were seeking confrontation with the West. “They want to say that they can do what they want, that they are not afraid of the West’s criticism and do not care,” says Muhammad Sahimi, a professor at the University of Southern California who closely monitors Iranian politics.
Pragmatists throughout the Iranian establishment, including prominent conservatives, recognize that such punishments not only tarnish the country’s human rights records, but arm the West with tangible complaints to raise at the negotiating table. “The Iranians were frustrated that they were losing points for behavior they could easily change and didn’t view as strategic priority,” says a European diplomat present at Iran’s negotiations with Europe during the first term of president Mohammad Khatami, a time when Tehran was keen to engage with the West.
That awareness led the chief of Iran’s judiciary, Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, to impose a moratorium on stoning in 2002. But the moratorium never translated into a formal amendment of the penal code, and human rights observes complained that Shahroudi was only placating global public opinion. “Iran has never properly done away with stoning,” says Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace laureate and Iran’s most prominent human rights defender. “It has always been on the books and carried out quietly. If the government truly intended to deal with stoning, it would have changed the law itself.”
While many hard-line judge and clerics in Iran cling to the harsh implementation of Islamic law, a prominent clique of more moderate jurists argue that the Koran itself does not command stoning for adultery, and that there is room within the law to retire the punishment. Moderate clerics have invoked Ayatollah Khomeini himself when making their case, noting that Khomeini made a distinction between Islamic teachings that were immutable, and “secondary” principles that could be modified or suspended according to the changing needs of society.
As a punishment with origins in the hadith, or the records of the Prophet Mohammad’s sayings and practices outside of the Koran, stoning belongs to the second of Khomeini’s categories and could be easily dispensed with, even by Iran’s Islamic government. Key Iranian reformists have made this point in the past, particularly the journalist Abbas Abdi, who has published an account of Khomeini instructing Iran’s judges to either refrain from handing down stoning verdicts, or at the very least, to hold stonings away from the public eye. Khomeini’s justification, in Abdi’s account, was that stoning provided ammunition to Iranian opposition groups in the West.
The international campaign to stay Ashtiani’s execution continues to gain momentum despite news of the reprieve, led by her son Sajad, 22, and daughter Farideh, 17. “Of course it would be in Iran’s interests not to implement this execution and refrain from provoking the international community,” says Ebadi. “But the group that’s in power today doesn’t have Iran’s interest at heart.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002545,00.html/?xid=huffpo-direct#ixzz0tTnR1Hpy
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani will not be stoned. Faced with international pressure, the Iranian authorities have announced that they will not carry out the sentence handed down by the judges. But wait: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is not out of the woods. She still faces the possibility of what is referred to primly in Iran as a substitute punishment. For example, she may be hanged.
What crime did Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani commit? What unthinkable crime caused this 43-year-old mother, four years ago, to receive ninety-nine lashes and later to be sentenced to be buried alive up to the neck while a gang of men pelted her head with rocks until she died? I repeat, what is the crime that, today, after Iran’s embassy in London has announced the exceptional commutation of the sentence of stoning, obliges Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to wait on death row in Tabriz prison while the authorities settle on another sentence, one equally horrifying if seemingly less brutal?
Her crime, her only crime — a crime that she denies having committed and that three of the five judges who have ruled on her case strongly doubt she committed — that crime, for which, as I write, she may be savagely executed, was to have had extramarital relations with a man … several years after the death of her husband!
The accusation would be merely grotesque if its consequences were not so abominable.
It might be allowed to pass quietly into the lengthy record of the feckless and foolish acts of totalitarian states were it not for the fact that at least six persons (five men and one woman) have been stoned since 2002, despite a supposed moratorium on that form of punishment.
I would add that this moratorium, one that does not actually prevent stonings from taking place, is deemed null and void by various religious, political, and judicial authorities in Iran. Keep in mind that Ali Reza Jamshidi, spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, declared in January 2009 that the concept of moratorium had no meaning under Iranian law. Remember, too, that the Revolutionary Guards are fighting tooth and nail to keep image-conscious pragmatists from purging stoning from the new penal code. (Yes, stoning is still in the code.)
For all of these reasons the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is vitally important.
For all of these reasons we must join the wave of opinion that has gathered force in Canada (through the site www.freesakineh.org launched by Heather Reisman, Marie-Josée Kravis, and others), in the United Kingdom (with the appeal that appeared on the front page of the Times of London on July 9, and that I signed), in the United States (thanks to my friend Arianna Huffington and others), and now in Brazil (thanks to the efforts of Luis Schwarcz, head of the Companhia das Letras publishing house).
And it is for all of these reasons that, in Europe, I am urging the friends who have fought alongside me for so many years to join the movement. I am appealing to the readers of my review, La Règle du Jeu and to the men and women of good will who read my weekly columns in the Corriere della Sera, El Pais, the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung or, of course, The Huffington Post. I ask these readers–I ask you–to contact the Iranian authorities responsible for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s case and to request that they rule out execution of the accused by any means, clarify the legal status of the accused and inform her lawyer of that status, and rethink their opposition to removing from the penal code a punishment–stoning–that is a shame for Persian culture, a punishment that enlightened Muslims everywhere know to belong to an age long, long past.
Your appeal should be addressed to Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose e-mail address has been made public by Amnesty International: info_leader@leader.ir. Or you may send a letter through the supreme leader’s website.
Letters should also be sent to Iran’s minister of justice, Ayatollah Sadegh Ardeshir-Larijani, at the following address, as provided by Amnesty International: Office of the Head of the Judiciary, Pasteur St., Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhouri, Tehran 1316814737, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Copies may be sent to the head of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani, at the same address.
These officials must be inundated with communications.
They must be made aware that the world’s eyes are fixed on Iran and on the fate of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and the eleven other individuals (eight women and three men) who wait on death row to know whether they will be stoned.
Iran’s officials must be reminded that a great country, one heir to a great culture, cannot cling to punitive practices of such flagrant barbarism, practices that so clearly contravene the international human rights conventions to which Iran is a signatory.
Act quickly, friends, I implore you. We do not have a minute to lose if we wish to save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and her eleven companions in adversity
By Endy Bayuni
Chief editor of The Jakarta Post and United Nations Global Expert.
The tension between Muslims, the dominant religion, and Christians, the largest religious minority group, in Indonesia is coming to the fore with the open accusations by Islamic organizations in Bekasi, a town outside Jakarta, that churches have been aggressively converting Muslims in droves.
The Muslim groups, which include the local branch of the traditionally moderate Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) as well as the militant Front for Islamic Defenders (FPI), declared war against evangelism at the end of their congress in June. They set up a task force empowered to stop “Christianization” of Muslims in the township.
The congress would not have raised so much of an eyebrow if this was an affair involving the usual suspects like the FPI, which have of late been waging a “jihad” against people of other religions, including razing and vandalizing churches, harassing Christian masses, and attacking “misguided” Islamic sects like the Ahmadiyah. Militant, and at times destructive, these groups have never been seen as representing the mainstream Muslims in Indonesia, and most people would applaud if and when police stopped them from their violent behavior.
But the presence of NU representatives in the Bekasi congress, and the virtual silence of its national leaders as well as of other Muslim leaders who have taken part in many interfaith dialogues in the past, suggests their complicity if not of their shared concern about the activities of Christian evangelism in the country.
This could spell trouble for the relations between the religious communities in Indonesia, and raises questions about the effectiveness and sincerity of these interfaith dialogues, which were supposedly designed to build understandings and dispel mutual fears and suspicions between people of different faiths.
One of the criticisms about these dialogues is that they almost always involved the same leaders. Familiarity certainly helps to improve their communication but these dialogues have mostly excluded leaders of the more vocal or radical groups.
But any notion that the dialogues merely serve to preach the converted may also be far-fetching, as the Bekasi episode now shows. What guarantees do we have that those who participated in interfaith dialogues had seriously carried the message of peace when they went back to their flocks?
The Bekasi affair has opened up the Pandora Box of the fierce competition between different religious organizations in the battle for the soul of Indonesians, particularly between Islam and Christianity. With the 1945 Constitution guaranteeing freedom of faith, there isn’t any law that can stop any religious organizations from conducting their propagation activities with the aim of saving human souls.
A government regulation issued in 1978 forbids any attempt to convert people who already have a religion. This virtually limits evangelism in Indonesia to the eastern province of Papua, where Christian missionaries have been most active. But the regulation does not carry weight as it contravenes the constitution and it has been virtually ignored by all religious organizations, Christians and Muslims alike.
Mosques, churches, and to a lesser extent, temples, have seen their share of converting people into their religions without any interference from the state, in Jakarta as in most other cities across the archipelago. There are no statistics to show who is winning the battle, but Muslim groups lately seem bent on stopping the conversion out of their religion. Religious conversions happen for many reasons, whether through the acts of propagation, through daily contacts or marriages, but there is nothing that the state can do about what is constitutionally regarded as the rights of individuals.
Religious propagation is mostly conducted discretely rather than openly, and this allowed the leaders of different religions to remain courteous with one another as they meet in the interfaith dialogues. Leaders of mainstream Islamic organizations were also able to distance themselves from the violent behavior by the likes of the FPI.
But the Bekasi affair, in which the Muslim groups have declared war against Christianity, and the complicity, if not the silence, of the traditionally moderate Muslim organizations, has now raised the stake. The last thing Indonesia needs is a religious war on a larger scale than the one we saw erupting in Maluku 2000.
While dialogue remains the best and probably the only course to avoid a religious confrontation in Indonesia, it is time that these religious leaders start addressing the serious issues and have a hard and serious discussion, instead of avoiding them. It would help if they were also sincere and honest in these dialogues.
July 23, 2010
Clay Farris Naff
Science Writer, Editor, Broadcaster, and Blogger
Barbara Bradley Hagerty, National Public Radio’s religion correspondent, ruffled some feathers last week when she posed this question: is the Bible more violent than the Quran?
Religion scholar Phillip Jenkins was on hand to answer that question. No contest, he argues in his new book Jesus Wars>. Whereas the violence prescribed in the Quran is mostly defensive, Jenkins says, the Bible is packed with genocidal commands from God. That drew a sputtering response of incredulity from Andrew Bostom, a self-taught scholar of Islam whose writings are most about the malevolence of jihad. “This is just preposterous!” he exclaimed in the same broadcast.
Since most Americans have at most read selected passages of the Bible, I expect they will agree with Bostom. But here are some hard truths: Christianity and Islam are the world’s dominant religions because they have used every possible tactic, including large-scale violence and intimidation, to get that way. There are no clean hands in this quarrel.
Sure, Jenkins make a fine “mote and beam” argument. (In a certain well-known sermon, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”) But the even harder truth is this: it doesn’t much matter what the sacred texts say. Scriptures are magic mirrors. They reflect back the wishes of those who stare into them. If you’re rich, you find justification in them for your wealth. If you’re poor, you find hope that you’ll be rewarded for your suffering.
Harder still: religions are like living beings, and like all living things they are subject to natural selection. Far from being the fixed point in a turning world, every religion evolves and, if it persists long enough, speciates. You can see this at a glance in Christianity and Islam. Each has split into two major species: Catholic and Protestant on the one hand, Sunni and Shi’ite on the other. But even up close, you can observe evolution at work in religion. As often as not, religion evolves toward violence.
Case in point: Quakers. I attended a Friends school back in my youth in Philadelphia and as a young adult flirted with the idea of being a Quaker, but I could not in good conscience declare myself a pacifist. Not that I like war, but imagining myself in my parents’ generation, I could not see sitting out the fight against Nazism. Peace constitutes a defining Quaker value. To be a Quaker is to be a pacifist. So it was not for me. And yet, the president who not only waged but expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos was none other than Richard Nixon, the nation’s only Quaker commander in chief.
Could Nixon have won the presidency as an outright pacifist? Probably not. Look at how he pasted the dovish George McGovern in 1972. Variation and selection bring about adaptation.
Of course, Quakers are not particularly doctrinal, and they have less respect for scripture than for inner reflection. Would it have made a difference if they were more, er, bookish? Not really. Let us not forget that the Ten Commandments, which theocrats are always trying to nail up in public schools, come in multiple versions, most of which include this: “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Pretty plain language, wouldn’t you say? And yet, a pro-death-penalty, war-loving preacher can slice and dice that commandment faster than Pitchman Vince on the Slap Chop. What’s more, even if you buy the argument that this commandment is simply a prohibition against murder, can you show any evidence that it has constrained the faithful? American jails are crammed with violent believers, including a disproportionately high number of Christians. Atheists, at less than half a percent of prisoners, are sadly underrepresented in proportion to their numbers in the real world.
What of the reverse? Do commandments to do violence necessarily result in violence?
To be sure, there are suras in the Quran than can be read as highly aggressive. Take this choice morsel: “Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use …” Of course, the passage ends with an offer of mercy if they convert to Islam, but still …
And yet, consider: Muslims believe the Quran to have been dictated, word by word, by Allah — that is, God. Taken literally, the above sura amounts to a command to go out and kill or convert nonbelievers every year. How many Muslims actually do that? Not even one in ten thousand, I daresay.
Only a minority of Muslims even laud the few who do practice jihadi violence, characterized by the suicide bombing. A 2007 poll of tens of thousands of Muslims in various Middle Eastern countries found support for violent extremism falling even among Palestinians. None of this is meant to dismiss the threat posed by Muslim extremism, which remains all too stark, nor to discount the humdrum violence and oppression that characterize all too much of the Islamic world. Nor do I mean to overlook the violence of Christian extremists such as Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. Till in church last year.
On the contrary, both Christianity and Islam owe their global success not so much to the magic words in their scriptures as to their effectiveness in practicing forced conversions. Oh, yes, we all know about the growth of the Islamic Empire, whose berobed foot-soldiers held a scimitar in one hand and the Quran in the other. But pull that beam out of your eye, dear Christian reader, and remember the Celts, the West Africans, the Indians of the Plains, the Hawaiians, and countless other peoples whose religions and languages were violently suppressed that they might know salvation through “our Lord Jesus Christ.”
There are no clean hands in this quarrel.
Clay Farris Naff is a science writer with a special interest in the rational reconciliation of religions with science. An award-winning journalist and author, he has been a science-and-religion columnist for the Metanexus Institute, an editor for Greenhaven Press, and a freelance writer for various publications, including most recently Earth magazine and The Humanist. He serves as executive director of the Lincoln Literacy Council.
Career Highlights:
1985: Became science and engineering reporter for University of Pennsylvania News Bureau
1987: Moved to Japan as Tokyo correspondent for American Banker newspaper.
1990: HIred as reporter for the Associated Press
1991: Became chief Tokyo correspondent for United Press International. Also begin freelance work for National Public Radio.
1994: About Face, first trade book published, wins National Endowment for Humanities fellowship to Harvard..
1996: Hired as News and Public Affairs Director of KZUM, community public radio in Lincoln, Nebraska.
1997 Awarded the Raglin Media Prize for story on young smoker who contracted lung cancer.
1998 Awarded Associated Press Nebraska Broadcasters Association 1st Prize for Public Affairs for radio series callled “The HIV Diaries,” featuring the life of a young man trying to stave off AIDS.
2000 Begin writing and editing for Greenhaven Press, an imprint of the Gale Group.
2002 Hired as monthly science-and-religion columnist for The Global Spiral online journal.
2006 Accept position as executive director of Lincoln Literacy Council.
The film focuses on Ellberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers, the Dept. of Defense history of the Vietnam War, and the impact of their publication in the New York times on the administration of Richard Nixon and the war in Vietnam.
in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level Pentagon official and Vietnam War strategist, concludes that the war is based on decades of lies and leaks 7,000 pages of top secret documents to The New York Times, making headlines around the world. Hailed as a hero, vilified as a traitor, and ostracized by even his closest colleagues, Ellsberg risks life in prison to stop a war he helped plan.
This is the riveting story of one man’s profound crisis of conscience that shook a nation, its courts, its free press and its presidency to the core. It is also an acutely timely and piercing look at the world of government secrecy in wartime as revealed by the ultimate insider. Marked by a landmark Supreme Court battle between America’s greatest newspapers and its president, this political thriller unravels a saga that leads directly to Watergate, Nixon’s resignation and the end of the Vietnam War.
Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith, co-producers and co-directors of The Most Dangerous Man in America, are nationally known documentary filmmakers whose cogent and inspirational films deal with the themes of personal risk, conscience, dissent and commitment to ideals.
Goldsmith produced and directed the Academy-Award nominated documentary feature Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press, broadcast nationwide on public television and cablecast on the Sundance Channel. The film dissects American journalism throughout the Twentieth Century through the actions of a truly independent newspaperman, and offers a piercing look at censorship and suppression in the media. He recently wrote and edited Soul of Justice: Thelton Henderson’s American Journey – a film on a pioneering and controversial African-American jurist.
Ehrlich co-produced and co-directed the ITVS documentary, The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, a story of men guided by principle to take the unpopular position of pacifism in the face of World War II. This revealing look at questions of war, conscience, activism and the spiritual life of committed individuals was broadcast nationally on PBS in 2002 and rebroadcast in 2007.
In 2003, The Good War won both major US history film awards and was selected for over a dozen major international film festivals.
Collectively, Ehrlich and Goldsmith have produced dozens of prize-winning broadcast and educational films and videos over the last two decades.
Dialogue between Sri Sri Ravi Shankar & Dr. Zakir Naik on the topic ‘Concept of God in Hinduism & Islam – In the light of sacred scriptures’ as shown on Peace TV. Part 12 of 18
DR. ZAKIR NAIK – PRESIDENT, IRF
A medical doctor by professional training, Dr. Zakir Naik is renowed as a dynamic international orator on Islam and Comparative Religion. Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam, using the Qur’an, authentic Hadith and other religious Scriptures as a basis, in conjunction with reason, logic and scientific facts.
Dr. Zakir is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions posed by audiences after his public talks. In the last 12 years (by the year 2008), Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered mo re than 1200 public talks in the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, South Africa, Italy, Mauritius, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong, Thailand, Guyana (South America), Trinidad and many other countries, in addition to numerous public talks in India.
He has successfully participated in several symposia and dialogues with prominent personalities of other faiths. His public dialogue with Dr. William Campbell (of USA), on the topic, The Quran and the Bible in the light of Science held in city of Chicago, U.S.A., on April 1, 2000 was a resounding success.
His Interfaith Dialogue with prominent Hindu Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on the topic The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam in the light of Sacred Scriptures held at Palace Grounds, Bangalore, on 21st Jan. 2006, was highly appreciated by people of both the faiths.
In the issue dated 22nd Feb. 2009 of the Indian Express list of the 100 Most Powerful Indians in 2009 amongst the billion plus population of India, Dr. Zakir Naik was ranked No. 82. In the special list of the Top 10 Spiritual Gurus of India Dr. Zakir Naik was ranked No. 3, after Baba Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, being the only Muslim in the list.
Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, the world famous orator on Islam and Comparative Religion, who had called Dr. Zakir, “Deedat plus” in 1994, presented a plaque in May 2000 awarded to Dr. Zakir Abdul-Karim Naik for his achievement in the field of Dawah and the study of Comparative Religion with the engraving “Son what you have done in 4 years had taken me 40 years to accomplish, Alhamdullilah.
SRI SRI RAVI SHANKAR – FOUNDER, ART OF LIVING
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a renowned spiritual leader and multi-faceted humanitarian whose mission of uniting the world into a violence-free family has inspired millions of people worldwide. The icon of non-violence and universal human values, Sri Sri seeks global peace through service and dialogue.
Born in 1956 in southern India, Sri Sri’s appeal transcends class, race, religion and nationality. Millions of people revere him as their spiritual leader, and look up to him for inner peace and promoting ecumenical values.
In 1981, Sri Sri started the Art of Living Foundation, an international nonprofit educational and humanitarian organization. The Foundation, now active in more than 140 countries, offers educational and self-development programs designed to eliminate stress and foster a sense of well-being. In Europe and the United States, the Foundation’s programs are helping inner city youth turn away from gang violence, drugs and alcohol. Sri Sri’s Prison Programs have helped transform the lives of an estimated 150,000 inmates around the world.
In 1997, Sri Sri founded the International Association for Human Values, a humanitarian nonprofit organization that advances human values in political, economic, industrial, and social spheres. In South Asia, South Africa, and Latin America, the Association’s sustainable development programs have reached more than 30,000 rural communities.
Fahad Faruqui
Freelance writer, TV/radio presenter
After two bombs recently claimed dozens of innocent lives at the shrine of esteemed Sufi Ali Hajviri, fingers were pointed at the al-Qaeda-linked militants who see Sufism as the work of heretics. The New York Sufi Music Festival was brought to U.S. to showcase the spiritual dimension of Islam and the rich heritage of Pakistan, counteracting a view that Pakistan is predominantly a country known for its terror factories. Sadly, the image of militants waging war is overwhelming and hard to supersede.
Hearing Abida Parveen sing Bulleh Shah’s ecstatic poetry, which enriched the centuries-old Sufi tradition of the Indus valley, made me realize how the Islamists have stripped away spirituality from the religion and left believers with rituals, sketchy interpretations of the divine laws and fear of God’s wrath. Sufi Muslims of the subcontinent, who converted to Islam in the pre-partition era, were drawn to the Sufi path of knowledge that has been hijacked by the al-Qaeda ideology of violence.
The rapturous quality of Sufi poetry continues to fascinate me, but the very idea of loving and seeking God while listening to radical mullahs (like the clerics of Red Mosque) is deeply troubling. Prostration to God devoid of spirituality is no different from doing sit-ups. Surely, the label Sufi is not necessary. What’s important is the sentiment. It helps the cause of clarity to call those on the path “Sufis” rather than “mystics,” which will more likely conjure images of Aladdin on his flying carpet.
Islam is the fastest-growing religion but has too few religious scholars with requisite understanding to link rituals and divine laws to creative spiritual ascension. I reached a level of comfort with my faith through good guidance from prominent Muslim thinkers such as Hamza Yusuf, Faraz Rabani and Zaid Shakir, who drink deeply of the Quran’s spring of wisdom.
Faith is ineffable; so is our search for God. Ecstatic poetry and Sufi treatises speaking of “annihilation of self” and “Oneness with the Creator” are merely tools to evoke the Sufi sentiment, which is not peculiar to Islam. Teresa of Avila’s “Libro de la Vida,” Bulleh Shah’s ecstatic poetry, Allama Iqbal’s intimate conversation with God in “Shikwa” (complaint) and Mansoor Al-Hallaj’s proclamation “Anal-Haq” (I am the Truth) are all expressions of the acquired wisdom gleaned from deep introspection.
Though unsuccessful, Iqbal tried to revive the true spirit of Islam. He was quick in identifying that the hardline mullah was a hopeless case. But the Sufis were either consumed in “other worldliness” or digressing from the core of Sufism. For Iqbal, a profound religious experience is one that benefits humanity, which is most unlikely if the seeker retreats to constant seclusion.
Saudi Arabia’s government is often accused of demolishing tombs of the companions of the prophet, fearing veneration of graves, and of discouraging Muslims from praying at prominent sites like the Cave of Hira (where Muhammed received his first revelation). Why they discourage is another column, but one thing is certain: visiting graves and sites mentioned in the Quran will not miraculously lead to divine illumination. The essence of Sufism is to dig into the depths of your soul to seek the One. In the shrines of Sufi masters in the subcontinent, one can expect to find numerous vagabonds pretending to be Sufis, who earn a living by giving false hopes to troubled wives, jobless men and childless couples. This defeats the premise of Sufism — absolute reliance on Almighty.
In a phone conversation, a prominent Sufi scholar, William Chittick, said, “The core of Sufism is to strive for nearness to God.” Even though God is absolutely Other, he presupposes a direct relationship with the seeker. No doubt. Allah says in the Quran (50:16): “I am closer to you than your jugular vein.”
It is our egos that have created boundaries between sects within Islam and ensuring rivalries with non-Muslims. Reviving the spiritual dimension of Islam may be the only way to fight intolerant radical elements internally.
Fahad Faruqui is a freelance writer and a TV/radio presenter. He read Philosophy of Religion and Middle Eastern Studies as an undergraduate at Columbia University and then pursued an M.S. in Journalism from its Graduate School of Journalism. He also studied classical Arabic in Jordan. Follow him on twitter at twitter.com/fahadfaruqui.
My interest in China – her history, her people and her culture – began before I was British Prime Minister. During my time in office, I knew power was shifting East and sought to build strong relations with this fast moving new power.
Since then, I have got to know the country even better still. Today, I am a witness to a new revolution happening here; to the rapid modernization and the opening up of borders, culture and society both internally and externally. And whilst power is still shifting East, there is a fascination about what that means for China and for the rest of the world. I hope the new partnership my Faith Foundation is announcing with Peking University can, in some way, help to explain.
The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has been looking at the issues of faith and globalization for three years now. We’ve been working with some of the world’s leading universities to define and debate these vital questions academically. We started at Yale University in the United States and now have a network of seven leading research institutes, stretching from Mexico to Australia.
I am delighted to be announcing in Beijing that Peking University is the newest member of this group. China’s great wealth of academic, and other, talent is engaging and shaping our world as never before and Peking University holds an esteemed place in the international academic world. I believe the launch of this partnership signifies China’s openness on many levels and willingness to reach out to other universities in a spirit of co-learning and enterprise and to contribute the best of its talent to an international consortium of academics and future leaders. The new course will focus on Western and Chinese doctrinal traditions – looking at different faith traditions in different parts of the world, not just within the Chinese context. This is proof positive of China’s outward-looking perspective. In the future the Peking University and Tony Blair Faith Foundation will co-sponsor a discussion event at the Beijing Forum 2010, under the general theme of “The Harmony of Civilisations and Prosperity for all – commitments and responsibilities for a better world.”
One of the crucial questions for people of faith – and for those who are not – is how does interfaith dialogue impact on international policy-making? How does faith and dialogue motivate and influence decisions on a global scale?
Some in the West may find the idea of debating religion in China strange. They will cite, for example, that proselytising in public places in China remains forbidden. But few are aware that Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and Daoism are all officially recognized and almost one third of Chinese describing themselves as religious – an astonishing figure for an officially atheist country where religion was banned until three decades ago.
According to a 2006 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 31% of the Chinese public considers religion to be very or somewhat important in their lives, compared with only 11% who say religion is not at all important. When asked a somewhat different question in a 2005 Pew poll, an even greater percentage of the Chinese public (56%) considered religion to be very or somewhat important in their lives.
Indeed, the presence of more than 20 million Muslims, for example, places China among the top 20 countries in Muslim population size – almost equal to that of Saudi Arabia and nearly double that of all 27 European Union countries combined.
Cautious but clear liberalization of religious activity by China’s government is starting to take place. The government is starting to realize the role religion can play in ordered, socially aware and successful capitalist enterprises. There is an increasing recognition that religion is a social good both in the sense of providing social cohesion and moral norms in a society troubled by massive economic migration and by healing the social impact of a rapidly developing capitalist economy. For example, as China urbanizes and millions of rural migrants experience the social and economic dislocation of travelling to new cities, Christianity can provide them with an instant, welcoming and familiar community.
I believe that as globalization pushes people together, understanding the role of faith becomes ever more important if we are to make the 21st Century a more peaceful and prosperous one for all the world’s people than was the 20th Century. The new partnership between Peking University and my Faith Foundation gives us an opportunity to build the theory to make that practical experience of different faiths, cultures and ethnicities living together a reality globally, as it is in China.
Tony Blair is Patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
Message from Tony Blair about the aims and ambitions of his faith foundation
Jet Li and Tony Blair launch 1000 village plan to tackle climate change
Tony Blair and Jet Li launch the 1000-Village Solar LED Initiative in China. The joint initiative between The Climate Group and the Jet Li One Foundation, will engage 400 villages in China in the first two years, and 600 villages in China, India and African countries on the second stage.
August 6, 2010
By Omar Sacirbey
Religion News Service
(RNS) The Islamic month of Ramadan, which begins on or around Aug. 10 this year, requires Muslims to fast and abstain from sex and other earthly pleasures from dawn to sunset. It is considered a good time to connect to God, purify oneself of sin, do good deeds, and spend time with family.
A team of business professors thinks it might also be a good time to make money.
Ahmad Etebari of the University of New Hampshire, Jedrzej Bialkowski of New Zealand’s University of Canterbury and Tomasz Piotr Wisniewski of England’s University of Leicester examined stock returns between 1989 and 2007 from 14 Muslim-majority countries and found that monthly stock returns during Ramadan averaged 38 percent, compared to a monthly average of 4.28 percent during the other 11 months of the Islamic calendar.
The implications, the study concluded, were obvious.
“Investors seeking fast profits in the Muslim world should try to profit from the (Ramadan) fast, buying shares prior to the start of Ramadan and selling them at the end of the holy month or preferably after Eid al-Fitr” (the celebration that follows Ramadan).
The researchers attributed the stock spike not to divine intervention, but a collective optimism and euphoria that grips Muslim-majority societies during the monthlong fast. The 14 surveyed countries represent nearly half of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.
“Ramadan positively affects investor psychology, as it promotes feelings of solidarity and social identity among Muslims worldwide, leading to optimistic beliefs that extend to investment returns,” the report authors said.
“We hypothesize that the upbeat mood during Ramadan leads to positive investor sentiment and has a positive valuation effect on equity markets in Islamic countries.”
While investors in Muslim-majority countries might expect a Ramadan stock bump, investors in non-Muslim countries like the United States should be more cautious since Ramadan does not induce the kind of national euphoria in non-Muslim societies, the report said.
“The effects of Ramadan materialize only when the society chooses to participate in this religious experience collectively,” the report said.
Rafi-uddin Shikoh, managing partner at New Jersey-based DinarStandard, which covers markets in both the Islamic world and the West, said he was surprised by the findings because working hours in Muslim countries tend to be reduced during Ramadan.
“I find it a bit counterintuitive,” Shikoh said. “Ramadan tends to be a very slow month.”
Other studies have found that religious holidays and other factors–World Cup soccer matches and even sunshine levels–can alter national moods and influence stock market performance. Several studies have documented stock spikes before Christmas and Good Friday.
Writing in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2004, researchers Laura Frieder and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam found that stock returns are significantly up on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year) and the prior two days, but significantly down on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).
Religion has been used to explain other economic phenomena as well. In 2003, Rene Stulz of Ohio State University and Rohan Williamson of Georgetown University found that religion can explain the differences in creditors’ rights in different countries.
The researchers found that a country’s legal system is “more important” than its dominant religion in explaining shareholder rights, but religion often has more influence than “a country’s openness to international trade, its language, its income per capita, or the origin of its legal system” in determining creditors’ rights.
While its unclear whether they’re aware of religion’s effects on finance or not, some Islamic financial institutions have promoted new financial products during Ramadan.
Last year, the National Bank of Kuwait rolled out special Ramadan offers that included zero-percent interest credit cards and retail loans. In 2008, the Emirates Islamic Bank introduced a car loan “in commemoration of Ramadan” that it touted as “giving its customers an easier way to gift themselves a car during this auspicious time of the year.”
For Monem Salam, director of Islamic investing at Saturna Capital in Bellingham, Wash., which manages Amana Mutual Funds that comply with Islamic law, such garish exploitation of Ramadan seems inconsistent with the spirit of the month and its emphasis on charity to the poor.
Nevertheless, Saturna’s Islamic finance representatives try to take advantage of greater mosque attendance during Ramadan by arranging more mosque presentations during the month.
“There’s nothing wrong with growing your wealth in Islam,” Salam said, “but there is an obligation to handle your money according to Islamic laws.”
Although Etebari concludes in his report that Muslims can profit by buying stocks before Ramadan and selling them afterwards, he stepped back from that assertion in a recent telephone interview.
“We cannot say year after year it’s going to hold up down the road. Just like everything else in finance, once something is discovered, any benefits, profits, are going to be arbitraged out,” Etebari said. “From that point on, there will be no more fast profits.”
In Tim LaHaye—creator and co-author of the world-renowned Left Behind series—and Craig Parshalls Edge of Apocalypse, Joshua Jordans new weapons defense system will secure America against an array of new enemies, including a nuclear strike on New York City by North Korea. But global forces are mounting and corrupt government leaders will go to any extreme to prevent an impending economic catastrophe. As world events begin setting the stage for the end of days foretold in Revelation, Jordan must weigh the personal price he must pay to save the nation he loves.
Huckabee & Tim LaHaye (7.10.10)
Dalia Mogahed
Senior Analyst; Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
True piety does not consist in turning your faces towards the east or the west — but truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends his substance — however much he himself may cherish — it — upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage; and is constant in prayer, and renders the purifying dues; and [truly pious are] they who keep their promises whenever they promise, and are patient in misfortune and hardship and in time of peril: it is they that have proved themselves true, and it is they, they who are conscious of God. (2:177 [Asad])
Many people, and not all of them from other faiths, would define Muslim piety as strictly adhering to Islam’s exterior “rules,” what in the modern West may seem like an endless list of dos and don’ts — and mostly don’ts. While The Law is by no means irrelevant to Muslim piety, this ayah (the name for a verse in the Qur’an, which literally means “miracle” in Arabic) gives a more holistic picture. According to this passage, devotion to God is not merely about the motions — facing towards the east or west — but about the belief in certain ideals and the courage to act on them.
The scholars of Quranic revelation sequence explain that God revealed this verse shortly after He ordered the faithful to change the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. This shift in the rules legislating worship made some people nervous. The ayah was responding by expanding their and our understanding of religiosity.
The verse begins with the foundation of piety — belief in God. Islamic monotheism functionally means making God — not money, ambition, or any other selfish interests — lord of our lives. The implications are profound. It means ethics must rule over impulse, principles must supersede passions. It means that we must treat each other not according to the pull of society’s power differentials, but according to the compassion prescribed by The All-Powerful.
The lifelong process of purifying the heart of its attachments to false deities, and therefore realizing true monotheism, is the very essence of our purpose.
The rest of the verse integrates the “how to” and the “outcome of” this cleansing process. To lead a God-centric life, we need to be grounded in faith, which means believing in that which we cannot see or measure in a laboratory — an idea captured by the belief in angels. We also need guidance, what God’s prophets and revelation provide.
However, beyond the theory, people need hands-on training to put God first. That is where Islam’s devotional requirements or “five pillars” come in. The pillars of Islam, which include prayer, paying the purifying alms, fasting Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca, like other “pillars,” exists to support something, not just to exist. These tools, each in their own way, help free our hearts from the shackles of earthly addictions. Deep and regular connection with God through the five daily prayers gives us perspective and spiritual strength often worn away by the clamor of life’s immediacy.
Sharing our wealth with those in need, though it is dear to us, gives us practice putting God before material gain. By giving some of our money to the orphan and the wayfarer in kinship, not patronage, we empower ourselves to be masters of our material processions, not their slaves, while at the same time building brotherhood in society.
The outcome of this dual-learning approach of principles and practice should be a heart and mind wired toward justice and compassion, and actions to prove it. The Prophet saw this as the core of his mission. He famously said, “I was only sent to perfect good character” — good character demonstrated in trustworthiness, integrity and patience in times of great turmoil, as the ayah goes on to explain.
This is what it means to be truly pious, leading a life of principles, not just ritual prescriptions.
Dalia Mogahed is Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. She writes here in her personal capacity.
In the seventh chapter of the Qur’an, translated into English as “The Heights,” God tells humanity that, before Adam’s creation, He gathered the souls of all who would live to ask them, “Am I Not Your Lord?”
When your Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam their descendants and made them testify concerning themselves, [saying]: “Am I not your Lord?” — They said: “Yes! So do we testify!” [This], lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: “Of this we were never mindful.” (7:172)
It is often called The Covenant of Am I Not, because of the importance of this verse in the Muslim’s sense of purpose. There, gathered before their Creator and Sustainer, all humanity insists that they recognize their Lord. As a Muslim, I must believe that I, too, so recognized God back before I could possibly formally recall, much as I have no memory of my infancy but all the same cannot doubt it happened. That God, the One God, is also confirmed in this moment as humanity’s Lord, and He asks them so that, at the end of time, no one amongst us can claim unawareness. It is a moment when humanity is before God as a mass of individuals, yet all collectively assent.
It is the Muslim belief that the memory of this moment is buried inside of us. Though we do not inherit sin, though we are each born innocent, though no one can be tried for the errors of another, still somehow this memory courses through each of us. It may appear as a flash, a moment of sudden transcendence, as when we see a fantastic landscape, a marvelous setting sun, a beautiful face or take in a rousing and unforgettable score. We are reminded of something higher in us, not that elevates us arrogantly over others — that is a very different emotion — but a memory that unites us and frees us of pains, desperations, worries and anxieties: We were made somewhere better, and have the potential to return there. Our condition here is temporary.
The way the Muslim sees the human being in the world, our mind and heart are prone to getting clouded over. The soul becomes dulled. The mirror, as Rumi might put it, needs to be polished before it can reflect God’s mercy. Persons deeply in awe of their Lord experience, on a daily basis, a sense of peace, contentment and harmony, in concord with all other things that submit to God. That is the very meaning of Islam, and its purpose: to join creation in humble submission to our common Creator. But as Adam and Eve forgot and together ate from the tree and were expelled from the Garden — but forgiven this lapse — so too do we from time to time forget. Some of us more than others. We are always in danger of being overwhelmed by the world around us, consumed by everyday concerns, pedestrian worries and frivolous behavior. So how do we clear it away?
Ramadan is that yearly occasion when God provides a refuge. “The best of all months,” as the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, described it. A month during which Satan is absent, and each woman and man is free to pursue God without the negativity otherwise so pervasive. Ramadan is an opportunity to recharge. For many Muslims, the month is filled with tremendous spiritual energy, such that otherwise lethargic believers (in which category I’d file myself) find themselves with motivation and energy otherwise impossible. The absence of food works backwards: the less we eat, the more we’re capable of doing.
For 29 or 30 days, Muslims abstain from food, drink and sex during daylight hours. At least, we try to. Some of us, for health reasons, cannot. But still, the month is shot through with nightly dinners with family, friends and community; endless exhortations and opportunities for service and charity; and long nights spent in prayer. It’s a chance to make up for previous months, to inculcate new habits and hopefully end negative ones. For those of my readers from other faith traditions and with different beliefs, the opportunity to visit a mosque during a night of Ramadan should not be missed. You’ll take part in the iftar dinner, then have a chance, some time later, to hear a thirtieth of the Qur’an recited in a special nightly prayer, which makes its appearance only in Ramadan. (New Yorkers, check out the Islamic Center at NYU from Mondays to Thursdays.)
As it is, I do not fast. I cannot. For whatever reasons as He has, God has decided not to give me the health to be able to. So excused, my Ramadan seems always a little bit emptier, my eating (and in fact needing to eat) leaving me somewhat hollower. When the sun dips below the horizon and everyone eagerly takes a date and a glass of water, I feel left out. (If you’ve never experienced it, do try: In the mosque minutes before sundown, hunger has its own energy.) It is an odd feeling, in such a sacred time, to feel oneself on the outside, looking in. But I feel all the same the impulse to do more, to try more, to encourage myself to give more time to God and to push out the other thoughts in my way.
I’m 30 this Ramadan, old enough to know that the attitude I take into the month will determine much of how the month treats me. I have squandered Ramadans past, consumed by school or work or whatever other obligations press upon a person. I certainly hope I will not this time. For I have glimpsed, but only for moments, a kind of serenity, a sort of gaze inside myself and beyond myself, to a Covenant that I share with all the persons I walk by on the street, no matter that we have no apparent connection. Many times we’re just shoving past one another to get on the subway. Sometimes, listening to a recitation of the Qur’an, a note holds and breaks and the voice reciting does the same to those of us standing, listening. Perhaps this is the wisdom of Ramadan most concisely put: We must give up in order to gain, and we must pass on the immediate in order to see the permanent.
Haroon Moghul is Executive Director of The Maydan Institute, a consulting and communications project devoted to enhancing understanding between Muslims and the West. He graduated from NYU with a B.A. in Philosophy and Middle Eastern Studies, and he holds an M.A. and M.Phil. from Columbia University in Middle East, South Asian and African Studies. He is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at Columbia, focusing on Islamist political theory in colonial India.
Haroon was Director of Public Relations for the Islamic Center at NYU (2007-09), and has been selected a global Muslim Leader of Tomorrow, participating in the Third Annual Doha Conference. His writings and essays have appeared in a variety of media, including Dawn, The Friday Times, Religion Dispatches and Tikkun, as well as the Tabah Foundation of Abu Dhabi. Through the Islamic Center at NYU new media services, his sermons reach over 30,000 listeners per month in approximately 125 countries.
His first novel is The Order of Light (Penguin 2006; French trans
A Global Conspiracy DOES indeed exist. This opening chapter is intended to alert people to that fact.
The Big Picture 2/9 – The Return of Planet X
The Return of Planet X and where it fits into the world stage.
Focuses mainly on the Global central banking system, WW2 and the creation of the CIA and the UN.
The Big Picture 4/9 – The Long Arm of the Lawless
President Obama, after saying that building a mosque at Ground Zero fit our “commitment to religious freedom,” backtracked, saying he wasn’t commenting on the ‘wisdom’ of building it so close to ‘hallowed ground.’
A Fox News poll showed that while 61 percent of Americans believe that Cordoba House has a constitutional right to build near Ground Zero, 64 percent believe it is not appropriate to do so.
Does Obama’s hedging show a lack of ethical convictions? Does Hamas’ endorsement change the debate? What is behind public opposition to the site? Can you believe in religious freedom but not believe the mosque is appropriate?
When people argue over religion, they tend to forget a simple question: Is it better to be happy or to be right? In societies that practice religious toleration, the answer falls to the side of happiness. Being right on matters of God is left up in the air. That’s a good practical reason to remind people that, of course, anyone who wants to build a mosque has the right to do so, even if questions of zoning, local acceptability, and so on also enter the picture. In the case of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf , a moderate cleric who has openly divorced himself from political issues, he can tolerantly be seen as a force for good — he describes himself as a bridge builder between cultures.
Anyone who tries to make hay out of this issue wants to battle over who is right and who is wrong. Politicians fan public controversy for their own gain, and it’s dubious if they contribute to anyone’s happiness. President Obama deserves credit for making a sane, measured, adult statement about the proposed Islamic center — that has always been his style. His later clarification, in which he said that he wasn’t endorsing the center or agreeing with the wisdom of building it, gave Republicans a wedge for some flip-flop rhetoric. The kerfuffle is just that. Hamas also saw something to gain by wooing Obama, very clumsily, in their endorsement of the project, but it’s an obvious ploy, as is the right wing’s cry that Obama, Rauf, and Hamas are on the same page.
Moderate Muslims chafe at being put into the same box with jihadis and other extremists. Right wingers jump into the box with them, however, because it holds any kind of close-mindedness, propaganda, xenophobia, and intolerance. That’s one of the perpetual ironies of such self-righteous clashes. Both sides need each other, and in their declared hostility they pretend not to notice that each is pulling one end of the same rope. It’s a sign of life returning to normal that most Americans aren’t interested in joining the tug of war. With a majority saying that the imam has a right to build his center, the 39% who disagree or have no opinion amount to the same percentage, more or less, that Republicans, Tea Partiers, and the right in general manage to attract at this moment. In tough times, when people are unsettled already, offering a bogey man works.
If the same Islamic center had been proposed before 9/11, it wouldn’t have attracted the slightest notice beyond zoning hearings. If it had been proposed the day after 9/11, one shudders to think about what Rauf would have been exposed to. But people are in a shadow zone right now, worried about terrorists, suspicious of Islam despite their best intentions, and jumpy about the Muslims among us who are doing nothing more dangerous than seeking a place to worship in their own way. Beneath the surface, it’s really our own consciousness that remains in uncertainty. One looks forward to the day when Muslims are not forced into the same box with their irate counterparts on the opposite side. That box is too full already.
From: The Washington Post.
I
mam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the controversial Islamic center Park51, represents a liberal version of Islam, says biographer Brad Gooch, who shares his memories of a friendship with him going back a decade.
Over the last decade, I occasionally experienced the trompe l’oeil kick of watching a familiar face (and voice) on TV. “I know that guy,” I’d think, catching Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on Sunday morning talk shows. The tickle of recognition began to turn to shock, though, about a month ago, when Rauf, as imam of the proposed Cordoba House (also called the “ground zero mosque”), morphed from talking head to the hot topic itself. As the story popped from a page 3 item on a Community Board 1 meeting in The New York Times to the cover of the New York Post to the cover of Time, from Bloomberg’s comments to Obama’s (three times, and counting), Feisal Rauf is suddenly a household name. For once, everyone was debating about something I knew firsthand. But I have been having trouble connecting their dots with the dots I know.
His weekly prayer group was a Noah’s ark (the Koran has Noah, too), including the grandson of a Syrian president; a Jewish librarian; a Roman Catholic Latina; an African-American radio commentator.
I first met Feisal Rauf in the spring of 2000, while working on my book Godtalk: Travels in Spiritual America. I wished to write a chapter on Islam in New York City, and a friend took me to a lecture Feisal was giving on his new book, Islam: A Sacred Law, subtitled What Every Muslim Should Know About Shariah. (I learned that night what many screaming heads have not yet—there are different schools of Islamic law, as there are denominations in Christianity, and Feisal is part of an extremely liberal one.)
The event was in the basement of a (since vanished) Sufi bookstore on West Broadway. Next door was the Masjid Al-Farah, where I began to attend his Friday talks. This jewel of a mosque was founded in the mid-’80s and is still a commitment of Shaykha Fariha, whose given name is Philippa de Menil, a daughter of the wealthy Houston family of art patrons. I interviewed Feisal at a nearby café. Eventually, he invited me to attend a meditation group in Sufism—the mystical branch of Islam—he led Friday nights at the Upper West Side apartment he shared with his wife Daisy Khan. I frequented the group over four months.
I needed a sympathetic guide to the cosmopolitan, and complex, world of Muslims in New York City. Central Casting couldn’t have done better than Feisal Rauf. I felt some bond because, born in 1948, he was only four years older, and we were both Columbia grads. He talked a language I understood. “Reading a translation of the Koran is like reading a translation of one of Puccini’s operas, in English, without the music,” he said. (Ding! went a bell in my head.)
When asked about homosexuality, while admitting a majority of Muslims would agree with a tirade I recently heard, he argued the issue was behavior “apart from the question of sexual orientation.” I met his father, since deceased—an elegant Cambridge-educated gentleman and grammarian, who started the first Islamic Center in New York City in 1965. His weekly prayer group was a Noah’s ark (the Koran has Noah, too), including the grandson of a Syrian president; a Jewish librarian; a Roman Catholic Latina; an African-American radio commentator.
The book on which I was doing all the gumshoe reporting, Godtalk, is now a time capsule. Yet the chapter that keeps being smash-cut with living history is its last, forcing me at least twice to rethink Feisal Rauf and his American Muslims. Between the book’s writing and publication, in 2002, came the 9/11 attacks. I did a bit of updating of the manuscript, but mostly the group I knew had been jolted beyond recognition.
One of its foreign-born members was recruited to work in media outreach to the Middle East by the State Department. I heard the FBI had tapped Feisal for help in its intelligence operations. A few of the younger American-born Muslims in the prayer circle were shying away, feeling queasy about identifying with their religion.
About a year ago, I revived my acquaintance with Feisal. I went to meet with him at the offices of his Cordoba Initiative, near Riverside Church on Morningside Heights, supported in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. I was about to sign a contract to write a biography of Rumi, the 13th-century Persian poet associated with tolerance; I knew Rumi was Feisal’s “main man” and wanted his thoughts. (Rumi famously wrote “I am not Christian, Jew, Pagan, Muslim/I am not East or West.”) “Did we bring you to Rumi, or did Rumi bring you to us?” joked Feisal.
I subsequently ran into his wife Daisy, the night of the Community Board hearings. “I was struck by just how much grief and pain they are in,” she said of the victims’ families. “No one has really been paying attention to them.” Feisal has since disappeared—under the radar. Ramadan has begun, and he is no doubt fasting 14 hours from sunrise to sunset. Hopefully fasting is granting him clarity on some roiling issues that are surely not giving the rest of us any peace.
Who is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf? When I first met him when he was giving weekly Friday talks as an imam of a small mosque in Tribeca. Here is an excerpt about my experience with him in 2000.
Rauf was a young man in his early thirties with a more traditional Muslim pedigree. Born into a family of seyyed, descendents of Muhammad, Rauf’s father was Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf, born in 1917 in Egypt, a graduate of al-Azhar University with an M.A. from Cambridge and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of London. He was in charge of the Islamic Center of New York City (1965–1970) while negotiations were under way for the purchase of the land for the 96th Street mosque, and between 1970 and 1980 he served as director of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C.
Among several more specialized books, he wrote Islam: Creed and Worship, a basic Islamic catechism in English. As he was helping devise the early circuitry for disseminating Islam in America, his son, Feisal, who’d been born in Kuwait in 1948 and grew up in England, Malaysia, and the United States, earned an undergraduate degree at Columbia University and attended Stevens Institute in New Jersey, where he studied physics in the doctoral program.
For almost 20 years since, Feisal Rauf has been giving the Friday sermons at the Masjid al-Farah. In those weekly talks, his poise and, of course, sweetness are blatantly Sufi, yet there is no hint of a bohemian soft sell. On Friday, June 9, 2000, for instance, he read most of his khutba from a sheaf of white typed pages where he’d carefully prepared the bulk of his remarks, as might be expected from someone whose expertise was Islamic jurisprudence. He looked very gentlemanly, with white hair and a clipped white beard, his brown eyes clear and calm, speaking English with a British inflection, and dressed in a white cotton tunic.
He addressed the usual gathering of about 150 men and women on his topic. “Degrees of Divine Sound,” the women separated at the rear by an ankle-high string run across the long, narrow prayer hall. Given an unofficial two-party system in Sufism between the “sober” Sufis, who observe rules and etiquette in their relations with God, and their “drunken” cousins, who prefer open, swooning union, Rauf definitely seemed on the “sober” side. Yet there was nothing dry or authoritarian in his style.
You would never imagine for a moment you were listening to a fire- and-brimstone orthodox Muslim exhortation. “We begin, my dear brothers and sisters, by entering into a state of submission before the presence and the throne of Almighty Allah,” he said, holding on to the cherry wood rail of the mihrab and putting space around his words so that he seemed like someone who’d suddenly dropped down an atmosphere underwater. “We do this by emptying our hearts of all the distractions, from all the emotional issues which grip us. Empty your minds of all thoughts after a week of work, of issues and debates with other people. Leave that behind you with your shoes. And enter into a space that is sacred.”
Following his talk, we walked across West Broadway to the Franklin Station Cafe, a clean, white triangular restaurant billing itself as a French and Malaysian bistro, which he frequents as a reminder of his years spent in Malaysia, where his father taught before moving to America. Having removed his white tunic, he was now dressed in civilian clothes—a button-down Brooks Brothers-style striped shirt and tan pants. He did carry with him a Moroccan cane several centuries old tipped with beaten copper that had been given him recently by a Moroccan sheikh.
He filled me in on some of the details of his adult life: taught remedial math in the New York City public school system following graduation; manages real estate as a “bread-and-butter” business; lives in North Bergen, New Jersey, with his wife, Daisy Khan, the Kashmiri niece of Faroque Khan who designs office space for a publishing company; and is president of the American Sufi Muslim Association, a member of the board of trustees of the Islamic Center of New York, and of the Interfaith Center of New York, and lectures at the New York Seminary, an institute for training interfaith ministers.
We talked about the reputed magic of the Koran, the magic of sound he hinted at in his sermon, yet that is often missed in flat translation. “Reading a translation of the Koran is like reading a translation of one of Puccini’s operas, in English, without the music,” he said, over a mango salad and a dish of spicy salmon with cold noodles. “The Arabs used to pride themselves on their complex poetry.
It was the only art form a nomadic people could develop and carry with them, so they developed it to the highest possible degree. Yet when the Koran came along it blew the minds of the people of the time. It was as if you had lovely oil paintings and then Monet and Picasso come along and produce something not along these rules but even better. But if you don’t have an artistic sensibility, you can’t appreciate what they’ve done. There are pre-Islamic poems that continue to exist. They’re very desert, very nomadic. You can smell the air of the desert. But the Koran has an entirely different odor, a different smell.”
Relying on lots of qualifications and hypothetical examples and quotations from hadith, Rauf also talked of contemporary social issues. As Sufis often do, he seemed flexible and liberal, especially up against the cliché of Islam as preaching a simple “Boy Scout” moral code. When I mentioned the discussion of homosexuality I’d had with Ghazi Khankan, he said, “If you ask me what the majority of Muslims believe, I would say they believe exactly what Ghazi told you. As in the Old Testament, homosexuality is referred to in the Koran in the story of Lot.
But the primary crime that the people of Lot committed was rejection of God and his prophet Lot. All Muslims assert that God is most merciful, most compassionate. That’s the attribute that opens every chapter of the Koran. Some Muslims therefore believe that for God to create you with a desire then punish you for seeking to fulfill it is inconsistent with an all-merciful and all-compassionate Creator. But Islam condemns promiscuity and adultery, and flaunting one’s sexuality, apart from the question of sexual orientation. We therefore need to be clear on what the nature of the sin is.”
By the time we’d finished our coffees and a light rain was beginning to fall in Tribeca, he revealed that he was now himself a sheikh of a Sufi group, which met on Friday nights for dinner and dhikr at an apartment he and his wife keep on the Upper West Side. When I asked how this came about, he told of a series of encounters that packed some of the spiritual thrill of G. I. Gurdjieff’s Meetings with Remarkable Men, a classic account of meetings with mystics and saints in the Middle East and Central Asia at the turn of the last century: “Eleven years after Sheikh Muzaffer’s death, I was invited to go to a sacred music festival in Fez, Morocco.
Before I left, Heiner, Philippa’s husband at the time, who’s very perceptive, said, ‘Now don’t go and take hands with another sheikh there.’ This was in 1996. After one of the shows, a lady comes up to me and says, ‘Are you a Sufi?’ Well, no one ever said that to me in my life. It was like someone coming up to you at a Woodstock festival or in Central Park and asking, ‘Are you a Sufi?’ We became friends.”
Rauf invited me to attend his circle, which I did over four months during the summer of 2000. If the Islamic Center of Long Island and the WARIS Center showcase the possibility of an American Islam, stripped of djallabahs and of some misogynistic attitudes as well, Rauf’s Sufi group does the same for Sufism, avoiding both Masonic Lodge-style esotericism and hippie feel-good syncretism.
Certainly the location is as normal for New York City as a scene in a Woody Allen film: a 10th-floor apartment in a doorman building a block from Broadway on West 85th Street. One evening the Latino doorman remarked to Daisy Khan, “You have very interesting people visiting you every week, very well dressed.” The arrivals prompting his observation were a Sufi from Africa with a retinue of four men, all dressed in full African regalia, with tall spherical hats. Usually, however, the 30 or 40 gathered blend quite well with the rest of the New York Times-carrying, bike-riding tenants crowded in the slow elevator at the end of a busy work week.
My legal and advocacy work both in the U.S. and abroad has given me the unique opportunity to view challenges faced by the Muslim community in multifarious socio-political settings. What is clear to me is that the challenges faced, and to be faced in the coming century, by the Muslim community require the utilization of the same individual and societal instruments under evaluation. These include the appropriate and permissible application of individual and communal freedoms, the freedom as an individual to study one’s faith and offer new and relevant interpretations of such, and the freedom for a community as a whole to practice its faith in the public and private sphere. And so, I see major challenges faced by the Muslim community in the twenty-first century as coming from two arenas: 1) intra-community differences, such as disparate interpretations of gender roles, or differing theological and historical critical interpretations of the Quran; and 2) extra-community relations, such as variant understandings of how self (Muslim) versus other (non-Muslim) should interact and the responsibilities of each toward the other.
Much of my legal and advocacy work while at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the free expression of all faiths, has been in Muslim communities in the Muslim world, particularly in Egypt and Pakistan, where the central short and long-term challenge is a government that is authoritarian and/or corrupt. State control of religion, whether through monitoring of mosque sermons or prosecution of “deviant” interpretations — Shia, Koranist, Ahmadi, or even Sunni — under national security pretexts, politicizes religion so that “Islam” ultimately becomes a tool to be manipulated by the state to best serve its interests. The realization of religious freedom, free speech, and other fundamental human rights is dependent on adequate checks on government power. With activists routinely imprisoned and harassed, the countercurrent to government restrictions is always struggling to gather momentum.
There is also a deeper misunderstanding among those in power about the nature of human rights. Human rights as articulated in international instruments are all too often dismissed as “Western” and therefore not only irrelevant to Muslims, but also dangerous because they carry with them an imperialistic agenda. Moreover, religious freedom is interpreted as part of not just Westernization but also the Christianization of the Muslim world. Recently in Morocco, Christian expatriates have been deported out of fear that their religious expression is disruptive to the stability of the country and represents the agenda of foreign governments. Similar deportations have occurred with Shias, underscoring again the intra-Muslim element to religious freedom restrictions.
Even among individual Muslims, the vast majority of whom are freedom-loving, there are several ingrained misconceptions about human rights. Religious freedom is conflated with anarchy, particularly of the sexual sort — the misconception being that religious freedom is ultimately about freedom from religion, which for many Muslims is freedom from moral constraints and thus total freedom to succumb to hedonism.
Liberty is, as such, confused with libertinism, whereas in fact these two sorts of freedom are entirely distinct. The freedom to be a human being with rights, duties, and consequences for one’s actions is different from freedom from constraints. Like authoritarian approaches to freedom — the over-application of rules so that individuals are unable to make their own decisions — libertine approaches infantilize people. Rules are needed to help shape and develop society, but if everything is regulated by the state, people can never learn to regulate themselves.
Religious freedom, rooted in human dignity, not only does not create anarchy but also in fact leads to more public order; societies thrive when people are allowed to freely and peacefully express their deepest held beliefs. External oppression of religious expression does not eliminate it but forces it underground, often causing it to mutate into violent, extremist forms.
In the realm of free speech and free religious expression, I have heard all too often that “rights are limited” — that is, that we cannot conceive of rights without also articulating correspondent responsibilities and limitations. While this is no doubt true, and fully accounted for in every international human rights instrument, there seems to be a tendency among the Muslims I meet with abroad to think that the limits are somehow more important than the right itself. The limit — whether in the form of blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, or anti-conversion and anti-proselytization laws — is vaguely and broadly defined, thus leaving it to the whims of the individual, or worse, the government to interpret it as best suits its own interests. While theoretically, limitations make sense, as applied, the limit swallows the right. The push for anti-defamation measures at the United Nations is a good example of an attempt to “protect” the integrity of Islam by placing a restriction on freedom of speech.
To some extent, these biases can be found among American Muslims as well, particularly those who insist on self-ghettoization, which in turn positions them against or in contrast to the American majority rather than comfortably integrated within it. Even among the relatively better integrated members of the community, the biggest challenge when it comes to religious freedom is the articulation of proper strategies to overcome Islamophobia. Too often, Muslims resort to advocating legal sanctions on, for example, hate speech, rather than trying to understand approaches that are in the community’s strategic interests. The result is that Muslims continue to be leveled with accusations of being anti-free-speech and anti-religious -freedom.
As a religious freedom attorney, especially one regularly involved in media, I am very aware of the need to address the issues facing the international and domestic Muslim community by helping Muslims understand both the international human rights framework and the American constitutional framework. There is a need to translate these frameworks into terms that make sense culturally and theologically for Muslims.
While barriers to understanding and implementing human rights are the biggest challenge facing the community from within, particularly in the international context, from without, Islamophobia is a huge problem. The Danish cartoon controversy is a prominent case in which there was a marked failure of communication. An undoubtedly offensive portrayal of the Prophet led to an international fiasco as the Muslim community struggled to express the hurt and offense the cartoons had caused. However, language failed, and a segment of the international Muslim community turned to violence to express its anger.
The Muslim community often fails to successfully articulate to a non-Muslim audience its understanding of common norms. For example, it remains alienated largely on questions related to gender, whether it be veiling, women’s rights, gender roles, and so on. At the same time, the community struggles within when it comes to realizing true gender equality. With forums such as my web magazine, Altmuslimah.com, it is possible to strive to fill that communication gap by fostering meaningful, compelling dialogue that is illuminating not just for Muslims, but also non-Muslims seeking to learn more about gender issues in Islam.
Altmuslimah’s contributors argue passionately for what they believe, and the comments section is always alive with constructive feedback and sincere attempts at dealing with tough issues and finding workable solutions. Altmuslimah is, in this sense, uniquely probing. Its readers and contributors rarely engage in identity politics, instead focusing on a clear articulation of Muslim beliefs and socio-spiritual experiences. By taking control of their own narratives, Altmuslimah’s writers make it less likely that others may attribute motives to them. They are sincere, but not apologetic, and are ultimately comfortable with disagreement.
In the coming century, the Muslim community in the U.S. and abroad will be faced with challenges that require a concerted and critical response. There is a great burden on community leaders to meet these challenges with an eye to the future, rather than simply predicating current behavior on past examples. A burden of proof has been placed on the Muslim community to prove that its religious tenets stand up to the scrutiny of international human rights standards. In addition to a general mistrust of the perceived heritage of such standards, variant interpretations of Islam and conflicting cultural identities complicate such a task. To adequately meet the challenges ahead, the Muslim community must be willing to actively and openly engage both its members as well as outside communities. The Muslim community must not be afraid to ask the question, “What does it mean to be a Muslim today?”
Article originally published in Patheos and featured in their “Future of Islam” Series.
As a leader of alternative medicine who was born in India and raised as a Hindu before opening a wellness center in California, what led you to write your new book, “Muhammad,” a fictionalized biography of the Muslim prophet?
I had previously written “Jesus,” and I grew up in an environment where the kids in my school were either Muslim or Jewish or Zoroastrian. New Delhi has a very eclectic mix. There wasn’t any animosity. Having said that, my grandparents were prejudiced and Islamophobic. If a Muslim’s shadow crossed my grandmother’s body — she lived with us — she would go and take a shower.
No!
Yes! My father was a doctor, an army cardiologist. He was very secular, and we discussed how prejudiced my grandparents were and how we would never be like that. So that was my upbringing. I was always interested in going deeply into the life of the Prophet.
The Muhammad who emerges from your book is not completely admirable. He’s a fearful and illiterate orphan who runs from his visions before he finally becomes a warrior. Are you concerned someone will issue a fatwa against you?
I wrote the book factually and with respect. Beyond that, I can’t control anyone’s reaction.
You are pretty inventive in a chapter narrated by Eli, a Jewish scribe who is employed by Muhammad to follow him around and write down his every observation.
Medina had a Jewish population. The Jews were the ones who knew how to read and write. The Arabs, including the Prophet, were mostly illiterate. A writer of historical fiction has poetic license.
Do you think it is possible that the Koran was actually written by Jews?
How come there are so many references to Moses and the prophets in the Koran? I would not be surprised if Jewish scribes inserted a lot of that.
The Persians, too, were very literate. They gave us the poems of Rumi, the Sufi mystic.
Everyone says there are no Muslim moderates, and if there are, they never speak up. The Sufis are indeed the reformers. Imam Rauf and his wife are Sufis and reformers and have been doing great work for years.
You refer to Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is overseeing the planned Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. Are you saying Sufism represents the reform branch of Islam?
Yes. Traditional Islam is a mixture of all obedience to Allah, and if that requires militancy, so be it. Whereas Sufism exalts beauty, intuition, tenderness, affection, nurturing and love, which we associate with feminine qualities.
Do you see any parallels between Sufi and New Age philosophies?
New Age is such a mixed bag. I don’t like the term because in many ways it bastardizes some of the great traditions.
How do you define your practice?
I was trained as a medical doctor. I went to medical school because I wanted to ask the big questions. Do we have a soul? Does God exist? What happens after death? And so I gradually moved in the direction of what I can only call a secular spirituality.
Do you think God exists?
Yes, but not as a dead white male.
How would you define spirituality as opposed to religion?
Self-awareness and awareness of other people’s needs.
If someone asks what religion you are, what do you say?
I say God gave humans the truth, and the Devil came and said, “Let’s organize it, we’ll call it religion.”
At least religion is free to worshipers. Isn’t it costly to attend a meditation retreat at the Chopra Center?
I hardly break even. It’s very labor-intensive, and insurance does not cover it, although there is some progress. Religions take donations and don’t pay taxes. Look at the wealth of the Vatican!
Should insurance companies cover meditation classes?
Yes. If insurance companies paid for lifestyle-management classes, they would save huge sums of money. We need to see that alternative medicine is now mainstream.
INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED.
NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran — The European Union on Tuesday condemned the stoning to death sentence passed against an Iranian woman convicted for adultery, saying it was “barbaric.”
In his first State of the Union address to the European parliament in Strasbourg, France, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he was “appalled” by the news of the sentencing, and called it “barbaric beyond words.”
The sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was put on hold in July after an international outcry over the brutality of the punishment, and it is now being reviewed by Iran’s supreme court.
Ashtiani’s lawyer has said there are still worries the delayed execution could be carried out soon with the end of a moratorium on death sentences for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Ashtiani’s case points to larger divides between the West and Iran, which staunchly defends its legal codes and human rights standards as fully developed and in keeping with its traditions and values.
Iranian authorities have repeatedly bristled at Western criticism – including U.S. State Department rights reports – saying foreign governments overlook shortcomings in their own systems and fail to hold Western ally Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinians.
Barroso’s comments came shortly after Iran on Tuesday scoffed at European concern over the case.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Ashtiani faced charges of murder and infidelity and the case shouldn’t be linked to human rights. Europeans who believe freedom for murderers serves human rights, he said, should release their own murderers from jail.
Offers of talks with Iranian officials were welcome, but only on bilateral and international issues, not the Ashtiani case, he said.
France and Italy have urged Iran to show flexibility in the case. The Vatican has raised the possibility of using diplomacy to try to save her life.
Mehmanparast said both cases of Mohammadi are still under review by the Iranian judiciary.
Demonstrators holding banners to support Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who was sentenced to death in Iran, at the Trocadero square in Paris, Saturday, Aug. 28, 2010. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two, was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. After international protests, Iran last month lifted the stoning sentence, but she could still face execution by hanging. Eiffel tower is seen in the background. Banners read, ‘neither stoning, nor subjugation’. (AP Photo/Michel Eul)
Sherman A. Jackson is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies,
Visiting Professor of Law, and Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan. He is a former member of the Fiqh Council of North America and former president of the Sharî’ah Scholars’ Association of North America. In 2009 he was named among the top 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman, Jordan and the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
It’s 10:30 p.m. You’re a black male driving along the back roads of Anywhere, USA. Your car breaks down just as your cell-phone battery dies, so you’ll have to get out and knock on someone’s door for help. You come upon a patch of houses, some proudly boasting American flags, the others flagless. Which of these houses shall you approach? While it may come as a shock to some, most blacks to whom I have posed this scenario opt for a flagless house.
This has nothing to do with any lack of patriotism. Outside these circumstances, they proudly stand for, salute and wave the flag. In fact, that Ralph Lauren gear with the chic little American flags as emblems — you can’t keep ‘em on the shelves in some black communities! History, however, and the political symbolism that the deeds and rhetoric of some have attached to Old Glory have simply transformed it under certain circumstances from our national flag into a red flag.
The same applies to shariah. Most Americans have no idea what it really means or stands for. But the deeds and rhetoric of some have produced a similar effect: shariah has come to constitute a red flag, even without the misrepresentations of so-called Islamophobes. Many Muslims dislike this logic and are actually as offended by it as some Americans will be by the insinuation that our flag can double as a symbol of racism. Both groups would do well, however, to note that people are not going to ignore their actual experiences just to make others comfortable in their ideologically constructed world of ideals.
And yet only the naïveté of the most crass and cynical utopianism would deny the validity of an ideal based solely on the reality of an experience. We don’t conclude that the ideal of eradicating hunger is bogus simply because so many hungry people continue to exist. Rather, if those who have the resources and opportunity to eradicate hunger consistently fail to do so, we conclude that they are either not fully committed to this ideal or that they are woefully blind and inept in their attempts to realize it.
At the most basic level, shariah is the Muslim universe of ideals. It is the result of their collective effort to understand and apply the Quran and supplementary teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (called Sunna) in order to earn God’s pleasure and secure human welfare in this life and attain human salvation in the life to come. While the Quran and Sunna are transcendent and unchangeable, shariah itself is the negotiated result of competing interpretations. In fact, most Muslims tend to speak not of shariah but of fiqh, which literally means “understanding” and underscores the distinction between God’s prescriptions on the one hand and the human attempt to understand these on the other.
This in turn explains two other unavoidable characteristics of shariah: diversity of opinion, and inevitable change. In Sunni Islam (and to do Shiism justice would require a separate treatment) there are four “schools” of fiqh, all equally orthodox, all equally authoritative. This is because Sunnism never established a single ecclesiastical authority or “church” to decide doctrine. Instead, the only doctrines deemed binding on the community as a whole were those on which the community’s scholars reached a unanimous — not majority! — consensus. In the absence of this, competing parties would simply have to agree to disagree, as no school or individual — not even the Caliph or temporal ruler — could claim the infallible right to impose a doctrine as unassailable truth.
As for change, the rules of shariah are divided into two categories: religious observances (prayer, fasting, etc.) and civil-criminal matters (marriage, sales, adultery, jihad, etc.). While religious observances are relatively static and fixed, the rules on civil-criminal matters are subject to change in accordance with circumstances.
Here, in fact, we come to a fourth important feature of shariah: in addition to interpreting scripture in order to apply it to reality, shariah also includes the attempt to process reality to determine how scripture, Prophetic teaching and the cumulative tradition of deliberation would have one respond to it. In this capacity, shariah may end up sanctioning, or even including, all kinds of ideas and institutions that were not dictated by scripture.
For example, there were no domes, schools of fiqh or minarets in the Prophet’s Arabia. Likewise, the fact that there was no democracy or “human rights” does not automatically render these “un-Islamic.” In short, shariah includes the attempt to proffer God-conscious responses to an ever-changing reality. And in this capacity, many of its rules are subject to change with changes in the circumstances to which it seeks to respond.
Having said all of this, shariah is not just “rules.” While the common translation, “Islamic law,” is not entirely wrong, it is under-inclusive, for shariah includes scores of moral and ethical principles, from honoring one’s parents to helping the poor to being good to one’s neighbor. Moreover, most of the “rules” of shariah carry no prescribed earthly sanctions at all. The prescriptions covering ablution or eating pork or how to dress are just as much a part of shariah as are those governing sale, divorce or jihad. Yet there are no earthly punishments prescribed for those who violate these dictates. Like the bulk of shariah’s “rules,” reward and punishment in these areas are the preserve of God in the Afterlife.
Unfortunately, many Americans have been led to believe that shariah equals not only rules but criminal punishments — floggings, for example. Three quick points: First, criminal sanctions constitute a tiny sliver of shariah. Of the 1,081 pages of the two-volume Arabic text from which I studied shariah, only 60 pages were devoted directly to criminal sanctions! (Jihad, incidentally, took up only 19.)
Second, the criminal sanctions of shariah did not emerge as the property or instrument of the Muslim state but functioned in fact to impose limits on the use of state power. Third, the punishments for criminal behavior cannot be separated from the evidentiary rules — equally shariah! — that provide for their application (e.g., multiple eye-witnesses).
In practical terms, in other words, short of confession, rules on such things as adultery or fornication function almost entirely as moral exhortations. God-consciousness spawned by shariah, not fear of being punished, sustains these ideals. Of course, many Americans will object that such issues should not be subject to any rules or religious exhortations at all. But given some of our increasingly worrisome realities (out-of-wedlock births, etc.), perhaps this would make for fruitful conversation.
Why does shariah matter? It matters for Muslims because it represents the ideals that define a properly constituted Islamic existence. Islam without shariah would be Islam without Islamic ideals. While most non-Muslim Americans may think of Islam without shariah as simply Islam without rules or criminal sanctions, for Muslims Islam without shariah would also mean Islam without prescriptions on ablution, prayer, alms, sales, diet, filial piety, civics, etc.
While the discourse in America around shariah will probably continue to succumb to the self-serving tendency to “compare my ideals with your realities,” shariah itself will continue to inspire Muslims, especially in their personal lives, to strive, with hope and humility, to narrow the gap between the unacceptable “is” and the ever-elusive “ought.”
Sherman Jackson on Islam and Liberal Democracy
The Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and the Berkley Center sponsored a seminar with leading scholars to address how tradition matters in Islamic political thought today. The wide-ranging discussion considered how the Islamic tradition – including the Qur’an, the life and sayings of the Prophet, and diverse legal schools – relates to the idea of a liberal democratic state.
Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.
Making a relatively rare television appearance on Sunday, Imam Feisal Rauf, the man behind the controversial Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan, said that if he were forced to move the project it could spur terrorist activity among radicals abroad.
“My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be ‘Islam is under attack in America,’” said Rauf. “This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment, this will put our people — our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens — under attack in the Muslim world and we [would] have expanded and fueled terrorism.”
In the interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Rauf said he was not making threats to the American public in hopes that critics would change their tune on the construction of his project. He was merely offering insights into how the debate was playing out in the Muslim world. His interview touched on topics beyond the Cordoba House project, dealing additionally with the broader perception of Islam within American. Asked, for instance, about Sarah Palin’s infamous tweet that “peaceful” Muslims should “refudiate” the “Ground Zero Mosque,” Rauf noted the heavy political hand that had made its way into a basically settled constitutional debate. There was, he added, “growing Islamophobia in this country.”
“How else would you describe the fact that mosques around the country are now being attacked? We are Americans, too. We are treated and talked about today as if American Muslims are not Americans. We are Americans. We are doctors. We are investment bankers. We are taxi drivers. We are store keepers. We are lawyers. We are part of the fabric of America. And the way that America today treats its Muslims is being watched by over a billion Muslims worldwide.”
When pressed about a Florida pastor’s now-canceled plans to burn Qurans in protest of radical Islam, Rauf expressed a bit of relief that the burnings didn’t take place and horror at what could have been sparked by such an image.
“[The Quran burnings] would have created a disaster in the Muslim world. It would have strengthened the radicals,” he said. “It would have enhanced the possibility of terrorist acts against America and American interests.”
Does the truth need to pass a litmus test? When you tell the truth about anyone’s religion, the answer isn’t so clear. Before I engaged in writing a novel on the life of Muhammad, the risks were only too apparent. Islam was a hot-button issue. Tempers were running high. Looming large were the fatwa and Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel, The Satanic Verses, and the worldwide uprising among Muslims over a cartoon in a Danish newspaper that was thought to blaspheme against the Prophet. Therefore, simply to set down the events of Muhammad’s life — events that are by turns gripping, exciting, disturbing, and inspiring — leads directly into an inflamed debate.
To me, the danger of writing about Muhammad are, frankly, a red herring. You can’t know what is safe to say these days and what isn’t. Before he backed down at the urging of President Obama and others , an obscure Florida pastor with less than a hundred in his congregation, proposed, against all sense, decency, and caution, that everyone join in Burn-a-Koran Day to commemorate 9/11.
Terry Jones feels perfectly safe to incite potential violence, because he has prayed over it, and apparently his God can’t stand Allah (I thought they were the same God) and favors ignorant intolerance. By lineage, Jews, Christians, and Muslims share The Book, meaning the same antecedents in the Old Testament, which each faith interprets so that it comes out number one. Being “people of The Book,” a term frequently used when discussing the relationship between Islam and Judaism, hasn’t stopped historical feuding and bloodbaths.
To keep their claims of absolute divine truth, each religion has learned to moderate its criticism of other faiths. It’s not so much live and let live as people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Your founder walked on water? Yours heard a voice in a burning bush? Yours was visited in a cave by the angel Gabriel? From inside the faith, these are articles of belief that cannot be questioned. If you stand outside the faith, they seem unreasonable, to use the mildest term possible
In times of crisis people seek strong leaders and simple solutions. But what if their solutions are identical to the mistakes that caused the very crisis? This is the story of the greatest economic crisis of our age, the one that awaits us.
Overdose – The Next Financial Crisis 2/3
Overdose – The Next Financial Crisis 3/3
watch?v=_17ck3Vti8A&feature=related
THE ▀█▀ █▀ █_█ ▀█▀ █▬█ Я Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N
An ABC – Four Corners documentary about the coming economic crisis, featuring Gerald Celente and Peter Schiff. Original air date: 23rd August, 2010.
Explore how brain and behaviour research is increasingly being incorporated into political and policy debate. Watch Matthew Taylor’s lecture, which inspired this Animate.
Untold: A History of the Wives of Prophet Muhammad is a mystical demystification of the women who were present at the founding of Islam. Bold in conception, shivery in detail, it sheds light on the influence of women who centuries ago were caught in intrigue, war, clan concatenations, jealousy, and a whole host of other exigencies of the human condition.
The Prophet Muhammad didn’t start out as a prophet; neither was Jesus the Christ from day one. These divinely-inspired men became what they were meant to be. And right alongside both, there were women. Women who witnessed, women who comforted, women who tended, women who loved, women who suffered.
Taman Kahn, a Sufi, has written a remarkable book. Just as Anita Diamant gave us the Jewish matriarchs in her The Red Tent, and just as Marion Zimmer Bradley gave us the perspective of the women in the Arthurian legends in her The Mists of Avalon, Taman Kahn teases out, uncovers, and reimagines the women who surrounded Muhammad.
Written in a prose/poetry form known as prosimetrum, she combines hadith [transmissions] with poetical imaginings. Consider this from the opening poem: “Conversation with these women / Will never end.” She’s right. As I read her book, I wished that every single one of them was alive to weigh in on the dreadfully policitized issue of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. I am sure each one of them would have had some trenchant and accurate to say.
His first wife was Khadija, the White Shade Cloud. It was she who saw Muhammad through the roughest years in his becoming a prophet. It was to her that he brought his fears of madness, and his tears of wonder. She simply began to balance everyday life with Divine Wonder as part of ordinary reality. Known for her business acumen, she gave up everything—her wealth, her prestige, her everything—to believe in her husband as her prophet.
His second wife was Aisha, Matchfire in the Backlight. She was his only virgin wife, a woman who studied law and learned the entire Qur’an by heart. His third was Zaynab, the Beautiful. It is she to whom responsibility for the creation of hijab [curtain, veil] falls. She was on display on her wedding night, and it was given: “And when ye ask of them [the wives of the Prophet] anything, as it of them from behind a curtain.” Hijab means both to separate and to protect.
My favorite of the wives is Umm Salama, the Mother of Peace. Umm Salama means Mother of Salama; she was called The Wise. Her wisdom arises from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, a “crucial moment in Muhammad’s life where he enacted a peace treaty with the leaders of Mecca.”
There were two Jewish wives: Rayhanna and Safiyya; and Mariya from among the Christians. Kahn writes the anguish of her heart over these women: “How can we have the name of the mule that came with her [Mariya] to Arabia—Dudul—and lack so many fundamental facts about the woman who was to becomes the mother of Prophet Muhammad’s son? Indeed. Mariya calls herself “the one-woman-peacekeeping bride from Egypt.” There are seven others whom I will leave you to discover in this special book.
The word Islam comes from etymological roots meaning “peaceful surrender.” A verse from the Qur’an says it beautifully: “It well may be that Allah will put love between you and those of them who are your enemies.” [Q. 60:7] “Matrimony,” chimes the author, “rescued widows and was a kind of peace plan.”
Tamam Kahn’s book goes a long way toward peace and surrender to the truth that Islam is a religion of the Book just as are Judaism and Christianity. Read Untold, learn about these strong, miraculous women, and weep for the years of peace we have all lost.
Reviewed by Vibha Arora
Mikel Dunham’s Buddha’s Warriors is not a Shangri-La story about Tibet, but a sensitive historical account of the valiant warrior Khampas armed resistance to Chinese colonialism: a tribute to Tibet’s freedom fighters. This heart-rending and gripping account is based on interviews of persons who actively participated in the armed resistance in Kham and are now living in refugee camps and settlements in India and Nepal.
The fierce, independent, and intimidating Khampa brigands are anything but the gentle stereotyped image of a peace-loving religious Tibetan group, nevertheless “To be a Khampa was [is] to be a Tibetan Buddhist” and whole monasteries in Kham armed themselves and waged war against the Chinese forcible occupation of Tibet (pp. 8, 10). The Bhutias among whom this reviewer conducted research in Sikkim migrated from Kham to Sikkim in the fourteenth century; they are Khampas. During my own fieldwork in Sikkim I inadvertently heard stories of Tibetan resistance, the flight of the Tibetans in 1959, and their subsequent settlement into Sikkim as refugees.
These stories prompted me to compare the fate of Tibet with that of the Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim, which became an Indian state in 1975 (see Vibha Arora, “Changes in the Perception of Tibetan Identities in Contemporary Sikkim, India,” in Tibetan Borderlands, edited by Christian Klieger, 31–52 [Leiden: Brill, 2006]; and Vibha Arora, “The Roots and the Route of Secularism in Sikkim,” in Economic and Political Weekly 16: 38 [2006], 4063–71). In 2005, China officially acknowledged Sikkim as part of India, and during the Chinese Premier’s visit the Tibetans vociferously protested. It has taken more than forty-four years for Sino-Indian internal trade to be resumed through the Nathula pass of Sikkim. Yet the solution to the Tibet problem has not been found. Will Tibet ever become free?
The loss of Tibet is epic and monumental. Despite prima facie evidence of genocide in Tibet, economic interests between Western nations and China have precluded any strategic criticism or questioning of this totalitarian occupation and monumental violation of human rights. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, nearly 95 percent of the monasteries and temples of Tibet were razed to the ground and about 1.2 million Tibetans died.
There are now over 7.5 million Chinese in Tibet compared with an indigenous population of 6 million (p. 6). What led to this sordid state of affairs? Did the Tibetan government and people oppose the Chinese annexation? What was the reaction of the international community to the Tibet issue? Organized into eight chapters with an epilogue, this enthralling book seeks to provide us with a historical account of the events and negotiations leading up to the annexation of Tibet, the flight of the Dalai Lama in 1959, as well as the lesser-known resistance in Eastern Tibet.
The book begins by giving us insights into the history and functioning of the Tibetan religious polity, the history and geography of Kham, and the Khampa psyche and lifestyle—along with biographical sketches of the key men who participated and led the CIA-backed Khampa armed resistance. Aptly titled “Leopard Cubs,” the first chapter introduces General Gonpo Tashi, Athar Lithang, Kalsang Gyatotsang, and Wangdu Gyatotsang; the men who formed the core of Khampa resistance.
The second chapter describes the Chinese occupation of Eastern Tibet in 1950 and the weak and strategically damaging response of the Tibetan government of Lhasa to this invasion. The third chapter narrates the ineffective efforts of Tibet to get international support for their cause, the shunning response of the United Nations, India, Great Britain, the US and other countries to the Tibetan appeal, the complicity of some members of the Tibetan nobility, and the tragic events leading to the Dalai Lama’s acceptance of the May 1951 17-point Agreement with China that recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet.
The fourth and fifth chapters discuss the treacherous manner in which the Chinese overpowered the Tibetans, neutralized Tibet’s Kashag (Cabinet) while following a policy of “divide and conquer” with the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama, and provide strong evidence of Tibetan resistance not merely in Lhasa but on the part of armed rebels in Amdo, Golok and Kham in Eastern Tibet.
The non-violent Buddhist monks of Eastern Tibet rose as warriors and defenders of the Buddhist faith, taking on the responsibility to check the Chinese plunder and destruction of their monasteries, religious scriptures, sacred objects and art. According to Dunham, history now recognizes Indian Prime Minister’s J. L. Nehru’s monumental error in ignoring Tibet’s pleas and recognizing Tibet as a legitimate part of China, as well as his being seduced into signing the Sino-Indian Pancsheel agreement of 1953.
The revolting brutality and inhuman torture of Tibetan men, lamas and monks, the rape of women and nuns, and the killing of innocent children by the Chinese, is sordidly described and detailed in these pages. As Dunham writes: “The horrors went on and on. The Han Chinese introduced whole new worlds of cruelty. And there was no one to stop them. If there was hell on earth it was in Eastern Tibet in 1956″ (p. 168). Recognizing the importance of Tibet in checking communism and being humanely concerned about the people of Tibet, the American government decided to indirectly and secretly support the Tibetan cause through the CIA.
The sixth chapter explains the charismatic and valiant Gompo Tashi’s efforts to gather necessary funds and equipment and inspire, organize and rally an army of Tibetans freedom fighters under the banner of Chushi Gangdruk (“land of four rivers and six ranges,” i.e., Kham) to fight the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. In 1957, Roger E. McCarthy of the CIA trained select six Khampas into the ways of modern guerrilla warfare so that they could give strategic leadership and organize the armed resistance in Kham, Amdo and Golok.
One of the biggest problems the Tibetan freedom fighters faced was the complete absence of any modern communications network, making coordination of resistance extremely difficult. As Athar, who was trained by the CIA, states, “With American airplanes supporting us, it felt like we really had a chance” (p. 246). Tibetan expatriates residing in Darjeeling, Kalimpong and Sikkim played a critical role in disseminating news about the Chinese atrocities in Tibet, gathering international support for Tibet, and logistically supporting Tibetan resistance.
“Buddha’s warriors” fought valiantly to the death but ultimately lost to the militarily superiority of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Dunham’s graphic description of the carnage and violence inflicted by the PLA on the Tibetan population transports the reader into the streets of Lhasa and the “impregnable” mountain bastions of Kham: and yet, “the violation of Tibet was complete” (p. 298). The odds were levelled against Tibet.
Rendered powerless, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama’s escape into exile in India in 1959 was seen as the only way to sustain the cause of the Tibetan people. This historic escape of the 23-year old Dalai Lama was not in fact engineered by the CIA but is attributed by Dunham to the ingenuity of a few select Tibetans (p. 289).
In chapters nine and ten, Dunham describes the reaction of people around the world to the annexation of Tibet, the CIA-sponsored armed resistance in Tibet and Nepal, and the Dalai Lama’s sustained non-violent efforts to get sympathy and support for a free Tibet. As the Chinese atrocities multiplied and destroyed nearly all Buddhist monasteries, many Tibetans fled to India and Nepal.
It was genocide, plain and simple, as only a few thousand Tibetans escaped Tibet and survived the journey into the exile and life in the refugee camps: “there were no great victories to be recorded, but the disruptions the Khampas created allowed untold thousands of Tibetans to make their way safely to the border—a major contribution overlooked by Western scholars” (p. 341, emphasis added).
The cause of a free Tibet has taken deep roots in the international arena under the charismatic leadership of the 14th Dalai Lama (who was himself born in Amdo, Eastern Tibet). This scintillating and lucidly written account is enlivened by numerous photographs that together provide us with knowledge about the processes and events culminating in one of the greatest horrors of modern times: the ethnic genocide of the Tibetan population and the Chinese attempts to efface Tibet’s rich culture, religious heritage, and political integrity. Mikel Dunham has done a commendable job and his book is an important contribution to scholarship on the history and culture of Tibet and Central Asia, as well as international politics..
CIA in Tibet – Mikel Dunham (Buddha’s Warriors) remembers March 10th 1959
Currently in production, CIA IN TIBET is an inside look at the CIA’s covert backing of Tibet’s guerrilla war with China in the 50s and 60s. This documentary project is being produced by the daughter of a former CIA case officer who worked on the Tibetan Task Force in India and Nepal. Combined with rare archival and personal footage, her father’s never-before-told stories mix with other key player’s accounts and diverse perspectives in this timely examination of a seminal event in Tibet’s continuing struggle for independence from China. * 1 feature-length documentary * video blog and website photo galleries
From the beginnings of the Communist Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1950, to the end of the CIA’s operation in 1972, CIA IN TIBET recounts an epic era where an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans died in the Resistance, and seeks to reveal how the events of the past have shaped the ongoing issues today. * How did the Tibetan resistance deal with with the conflict between their Buddhist belief in non-violence, and the need to fight for their country’s freedom? * From top-secret training in guerrilla warfare, to midnight overflights dropping weapons, supplies, and Tibetan freedom fighters into Chinese-occupied Tibet, what finally brought an end to the CIA’s 15 year operation? * What impact did the CIA ultimately have in Tibet’s ongoing mission to be an independent nation?
Mikel Dunham spent 7 years collecting first hand stories from the Tibetan fighters in the resistance against the Chinese, as well as former CIA officers who worked on the Tibetan Task Force. His book “Buddha’s Warriors” was the first one I read while researching the CIA’s operation in Tibet, and he was one of the first people I interviewed. In acknowledgment of the 51st anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day, here’s a clip from my interview with Mikel that gives a vivid retrospective of March 10, 1959, and sets the tone of the times leading up to it.
Unfortunately my archival footage is non-existent when it come to photographs and film that depicts the actual day. I used film of the Dalai Lama, from the CIA collection at the National Archives (which also makes is public domain so I can show it here for free). The library’s notes don’t say who shot the film, but it’s most likely Tibetan CIA trainees who were taught to shoot film to gather intelligence for the CIA.
A few years back, long before 9/11, one of our Religious Studies majors told me that she had taken my course to learn why she should hate Islam. As a normal young American growing up on Long Island, she had no doubt that she should hate Islam, but she still wanted to know what was so bad about it.
There are many historical, political, and cultural reasons for the negative stereotypes of Islam that permeate American society. One of the more obvious is that people confuse religion and ideology.
Scholars often distinguish between “Islam,” meaning the religion as taught and practiced over the centuries, and “Islamism,” meaning the various ideologies that have appeared over the past century claiming to speak on its behalf. As one of these scholars put it, “An ideology is a clear blueprint that requires only mechanical implementation. … It offers easy answers to the most difficult and fundamental questions. … [It] renders redundant the human processes of constantly thinking, evaluating, facing hard choices, and balancing” (Farhang Rajaee, Islamism and Modernism, p. 4).
For those open to the idea that “Islamism” in no way represents the mainstream teachings and practices of the Islamic tradition, it is worth reviewing what the word islām, “submission” or “surrender,” means in the Quran.
As noted in my previous post, one of the Quranic meanings of this word is the universal obedience of all things to the natural laws that govern the universe. These laws make free choice impossible. Everything fits into its own niche and does exactly what God wants it to do. All things are “submitted” by definition. Human beings, however, are also free by definition. In effect, part of their compulsory submission, their “predestination” if you prefer, is that they must face up to their own freedom.
The Quran and other scriptures assume that people are free enough to make a difference in their lives. In the Quranic view, God sent prophets to every people in order to tell them how to take advantage of their freedom so as to ensure a congenial posthumous becoming. This is the second Quranic meaning of islām: voluntary submission to God’s guidance as given to the prophets (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Jesus). This, I would argue, is by far the most common meaning of the word in the Quran itself.
The third Quranic meaning of islām is the practices designated by the Quran as a means to follow prophetic guidance. This is islām in the narrowest sense of the term, generally defined as observance of God’s commandments. These are summarized as “the Five Pillars”: public acknowledgment of God’s unity and Muhammad’s prophecy, praying the daily prayers, fasting during the month of Ramadan, paying the alms tax, and making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Each pillar is a specific ritual act, similar to ritual acts found in other religions, but unique in detail.
None of these three meanings of the word islām corresponds to what the Quran sometimes calls “the religion,” meaning the specific guidance provided by itself and Muhammad. One can argue that the Quran does not in fact use the word islām as the proper name of the religion, though this usage certainly became established over the centuries.
“The religion” as described by the Quran addresses three universal concerns: practice, understanding, and virtue. Or: doing the right thing, seeing things in perspective, and participating in God’s beauty and goodness. Or: conforming to the Ultimate Reality in body, mind, and heart. Or: law, understanding, and love. Or: ritual, wisdom, and compassion.
Islamic texts typically list these three concerns in this order — from the most external to the most internal — because that is the way people develop. First the body appears, then awareness and understanding, and finally, God willing, human goodness.
A child can be taught what to do, but it takes a while before the child understands why it is the right thing to do. The stance of the parent — “because I said so” — may be enough to begin with, but part of growing up is to learn how to make your own choices. Both understanding and spiritual maturity are individual tasks. No one can understand for you, and no one can love for you.
Religion based on authority — the pronouncements of parents, priests, rabbis, and mullas — may seem to be the rule, but most people sense that it is not enough. Blind obedience is religion for Sunday school, not life.
As children develop, they learn that they are not the center of the universe. Education has always been as much about enculturation as anything else. There used to be a common notion that the ultimate aim of education is to help people achieve the status of a true human being. If you can act correctly and really understand the way things are, you may be able to develop love for God and sympathy and compassion for others.
These three dimensions of universal concern — activity, understanding, and love — are the topics of the Quran. It is true that Islam is commonly represented as a religion of law, but this is based on a superficial reading. Any broad historical perspective will show that law itself, the shariah, has always played a subsidiary role in the Muslim understanding of the text. The rules, after all, are kindergarten stuff. The general position has been that people should learn enough law to perform the rituals, but they should leave the details to the lawyers. Doing the right things is important, but it is far more important to grow up in mind and heart and to develop wisdom and compassion. “How easy to become a mulla,” as the Persian proverb has it, “but how difficult to become human!”
During the first three centuries after Muhammad, the three dimensions of the religion coalesced into distinct fields of scholarly endeavor, one of which was law. Lawyers did come to play a prominent role in Muslim society, not least because any society is built on law, but lawyers had nothing to say about the wisdom and love that underlie both the worldview and the ethos of Islam. These were explained and elaborated upon by thinkers, sages, saints, and poets.
Islamic society generally recognized that lawyers tended to be a conniving bunch, always ready to compromise with the powers that be in order to enhance their prestige and influence. Criticism of their worldliness has been a common theme throughout Islamic history. When the religion of Islam in its full breadth and depth is reduced to law and put into the service of ideology, and when the law is then enforced by technological means undreamed of by the despots of old, the shariah becomes a powerful tool for social and political manipulation.
The current prominence of law and politics in public discussion of Islam should not blind us to the fact that the shariah remains the most external and rudimentary dimension of the religion. If it is employed as an ideological tool, “a clear blueprint that requires only mechanical implementation,” it quickly turns into coercion. If it is combined with understanding, love, and compassion, it can and still does provide a stable ritual and social environment for spiritual growth.
William C. Chittick is professor of Religious Studies in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies at the State University of New York, Stony Brook.
Born and raised in Connecticut, he finished his B.A. at the College of Wooster in 1966. He then studied Persian for a summer at the University of Texas and went to Iran. After receiving his Ph.D. in Persian literature at Tehran University in 1973, he taught comparative religion at a technical university in Tehran and continued to study Islamic thought at the Iranian Academy of Philosophy. He left Iran just before the revolution, served for a time as an editor with the Encyclopedia Iranica at Columbia University, and along with his wife, Sachiko Murata, joined the Religious Studies faculty at Stony Brook in 1983.
He has lectured around the world and published 30 books and numerous articles on Islamic intellectual history, concentrating on the interface between Sufism and philosophy. His books include The Sufi Path of Love (SUNY, 1983), The Sufi Path of Knowledge (SUNY, 1989), The Heart of Islamic Philosophy (Oxford, 2001), Ibn Arabi: Heir to the Prophets (Oneworld, 2005), Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul (Oneworld, 2007), and, with Sachiko Murata, The Vision of Islam (Paragon, 1994). For the past ten years, he has worked along with Murata and Tu Weiming investigating the uniquely Chinese form of Islamic philosophy that flourished among the Huiru, the “Muslim Confucians.” The latest result of their research is The Sage Learning of Liu Zhi: Islamic Thought in Confucian Terms (Harvard, 2009).
Show full bio
Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad entered the courtroom today with a mission of self-proselytization.
“If I am given 1,000 lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah,” said Shahzad.” … Decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree regarding the life of this world,” he proudly stated to the court.
This is a precursor of the rhetoric that the world can expect to hear from apprehended terrorists everywhere. These words are a powerful trifecta: they are a warning, a calming maxim, and a recruitment vehicle for al-Qaeda.
As a warning to his enemies, they are an effective tool to demonstrate Mr. Shahzad’s level of commitment to his cause. As a calming maxim, they allow Shahzad to take comfort in the idea that his suffering is finite. And finally, as a recruitment tool, they strike at the heart-strings of all Muslims. Every Muslim wants to sacrifice for God. Isn’t every act of charity, at its fundamental level, a sacrifice of personal wealth to the poor for God’s sake? Here we have someone who was ready to sacrifice his life (and others) for God.
Doubts can easily creep into a Muslim youth’s heart. There must be something we don’t understand, how can he be evil when he’s suffering for no selfish cause, no personal gain? Here we are enjoying good food and good times, and he is in a prison cell.
What Shahzad means to emphasize is that suffering doesn’t matter to him; he is unaffected no matter what the court would throw at him. His hope isn’t for material gain or a comfortable life in this world, he is after the afterlife. When it is convenient and in the public eye, Shahzad wears the pious cloak of the martyr, ready for torture or death.
However, there are tremendous contradictions in his few public statements. They demonstrate a deep confusion of basic orthodox Islamic principles and outright hypocrisy.
When the Sufis said similar words about the fleeting nature of this worldly life, they embodied that understanding in totality. They universalized that concept to allow people to understand that personal suffering was transient. Whether it was a mother who lost her child or someone stricken with bankruptcy, everyone found benefit in considering their own mortality. This is the faith that allows Muslims to face terminal illnesses with perseverance, acceptance and strength.
Yet, Shahzad rebels against universal suffering:
“If you call us terrorists … then we are proud terrorists … and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace,” Mr Shahzad also stated in the courtroom.
So while it has been established that he, ostensibly, doesn’t care for his own personal welfare in this world, he is clearly enraged at the suffering of some land and unnamed people.
One wonders if Shahzad will rage against God, should he finally become aware that God permits many to suffer?
These types of contradictions shine through Shahzad’s words even when dealing with himself. In one breath the court can do him no harm, yet in another he complains, ” … I asked for the Miranda. And the FBI denied it to me for two weeks, effecting harm to my kids and family, and I was forced to sign those Mirandas.”
Shahzad’s words reek of a disconnection to the truly spiritual elite of Islam, and even the accomplished warriors of Islamic history. They are remembered not for their hypocrisy (a grievous sin in Islam) or their proud proclamations which they acted contrary to. They are remembered for their consistency in faith and practice, and results which delivered Muslims into a closer relationship with their Lord.
Newsday states:
In other comments, he brushed off a question from the judge about the oath of loyalty he took when he became a U.S. citizen last year — “I did swear but I did not mean it”.
So Muslims say:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
“They (hypocrites) swear to you by Allah in order to please you, but it would be more fitting for them to please Allah and His Messenger if they are believers.” (Holy Quran 9:62)
By Vishal Arora
Religion News Service
MALE, Maldives (RNS) Can a nation that considers itself 100 percent Muslim also be a democracy without risking its Islamic identity and ideals?
That’s what this tiny island nation off the southern coast of India is trying to do. Two years after the country embraced democracy, a literary festival imported from the West shows the promise — and peril — of that experiment.
This weekend (Oct. 14-17), the Maldives will host the Hay Festival of Literature and Arts, originally a Welsh event that has branched out to other countries, including Lebanon, Kenya and now, the Maldives.
President Mohamed Nasheed, a moderate Muslim who has won Western acclaim for his environmental activism, offered his retreat island, Aarah, as the Hay Festival venue; the festival plans to return in 2011 and 2012.
Every year, an estimated 700,000 tourists flock to this postcard-perfect chain of about 1,100 islands. Before they can hit the beach, however, they must complete a customs form that includes a list of “prohibited and restricted” imports, including “materials contrary to Islam,” “idols for worship,” pork products and alcohol.
The Hay festival, which Bill Clinton once described as “the Woodstock of the mind,” will also face rigid religious censorship, project director Andy Fryers said. British novelist Ian McEwan, Chinese author Jung Chang and other speakers have been briefed on the censorship laws.
The restrictions are lingering vestiges of the 30-year rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a conservative authoritarian who yielded power in the country’s first democratic elections in 2008.
Yet even with the change in government, there’s been little desire for a change in policy on religious restrictions.
The Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994 outlaws the promotion of anything that represents a religion other than Islam, or any opinion that disagrees with Islamic scholars. It also prohibits use of any media to speak against the tenets of Islam.
While a new 2008 constitution provided for elections, separation of powers and a bill of rights, it also enshrined the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law, and stated that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.”
As a result, all Maldivian citizens are deemed Sunni Muslims, and citizens are reluctant to challenge that assumption — the only two who did paid a heavy price.
Last May, 38-year-old Mohamed Nazim was attacked after he publicly declared his disbelief in Islam. When he sought police protection, he was arrested. Five days later, he read a declaration of the Muslim faith on national television and was released.
Later, Nazim told Minivan News, a Maldivian news website, that many Maldivians were “depressed” and “collapsing inside under the weight of the silence enforced on their questions of belief in Islam.”
“Both the state and non-state agencies need to, at the very least, acknowledge that there are a substantial number of Maldivians who think about their faith and, sometimes, question it,” he said.
Two months later, 25-year-old Ismail Mohamed Didi committed suicide inside the control tower of Male International Airport where he worked. He was reportedly hounded by colleagues, friends and family for expressing doubts on Islam.
To be sure, the Maldives is not the only Muslim-majority country to enshrine Islamic law in civil statutes. But its geographical isolation and small size make policy implementation easier, and perhaps harder to change.
Azima Shakoor, former attorney general and member of the 2008 constitution drafting committee, said rights must never rise above or replace the nation’s official faith.
“I studied in the U.S. but I don’t think the (religious) freedom should be given (to the citizens),” said Shakoor, a member of the main opposition party, led by Gayoom.
Advocating for individual rights is seen as a Western import that threatens Islam. Abdulla Yameen, another opposition leader and Gayoom’s half-brother, said, “We do not want to give the right to establish churches.”
There hasn’t been much appetite for change in the country’s politically splintered parliament. Nasheed’s moderate Maldivian Democratic Party lacks an outright majority, and coalition partners remain resistant to change.
The coalition partner Adhaalath Party, which controls the government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, rejected a new mixed-gender education policy as “a failed Western concept inconsistent with the teachings of Islam.” In June, opposition parties tried to sack the education minister for proposing that Islam and the national Dhivehi language no longer be mandatory for senior students.
Nasheed’s governing party seems open to some reform, but lacks the necessary votes. “A proper review and study need to be made” on reforming the religious restrictions, said MDP chairperson Mariya Didi.
Political observers say democracy and Islam can co-exist peacefully side by side, but the right to choose leaders should also mean the right to choose faiths.
“There is nothing against democracy in Islam and therefore it is possible for a 100-percent Muslim nation to have democracy — but not when people are forced to be Muslim,” said Asghar Ali Engineer, who chairs the Center for Study of Society and Secularism think tank in Mumbai, India.
David Korten’s classic bestseller, When Corporations Rule the World, was one of the first books to articulate the destructive and oppressive nature of the global corporate economy. Now, ten years later, Korten shows that the problem runs deeper than corporate domination—with far greater consequences.
In The Great Turning, Korten argues that corporate consolidation of power is merely a contemporary manifestation of what he calls “Empire”: the organization of society by hierarchies of domination grounded in violent chauvinisms of race, gender, religion, nationality, language, and class. The result has been the same for 5,000 years, fortune for the few and misery for the many. Increasingly destructive of children, family, community, and nature, the way of Empire is leading to environmental and social collapse.
The Great Turning makes the case that we humans are a choice making species that at this defining moment faces both the opportunity and the imperative to choose our future as a conscious collective act. We can no longer deny the need nor delay our response. A mounting perfect economic storm is fast approaching. A convergence of climate change, peak oil, and the financial instability inherent in an unbalanced global trading system will bring an unraveling of the corporate-led global economy and a dramatic restructuring of every aspect of modern life.
We cannot avoid the unraveling. We can, however, turn a potentially terminal crisis into an epic opportunity to bring forth a new era of Earth Community grounded in the life-affirming cultural values shared by most all the world’s people and eloquently articulated in the Earth Charter.
The Great Turning is an essential resource for those who understand this need and are prepared to engage what Thomas Berry calls the Great Work. It cuts through the complexity of our time to illuminate a simple, but elegant truth. We humans live by stories. We are held captive to the ways of Empire by a cultural trance of our own creation maintained by stories that deny the higher possibilities of our human nature—including our capacities for compassion, cooperation, responsible self-direction, and self-organizing partnership.
Changing our future begins with changing our stories. A work already underway, it ultimately calls out for the participation of every person on the planet. The Great Turning points the way to the inspiring outcome within our reach.
Table of Contents
Chapter Summaries
Prologue: In Search of the Possible
Part I: Choosing Our Future
1. The Choice
2. The Possibility
3. The Imperative
4. The Opportunity
Part II: Sorrows of Empire
5. When God Was a Woman
6. Ancient Empire
7. Modern Empire
8. Athenian Experiment
Part III: America, The Unfinished Project
9. Inauspicious Beginning
10. People Power Rebellion
11. Empire’s Victory
12. Struggle for Justice
13. Wake Up Call
14. Prisons of the Mind
Part IV: The Great Turning
15. Beyond Strict Father Vs Aging Clock
16. Creation’s Epic Journey
17. Joys of Earth Community
18. Stories for a New Era
Part V: Birthing Earth Community
19. Leading from Below (excerpt)
20. Building A Political Majority (excerpt)
21. Liberating Creative Potential
22. Change the Story, Change the Future
Transparency and accountability are critical to restoring trust and turning back the tide of corruption
<a href="“>
In times of crisis people seek strong leaders and simple solutions. But what if their solutions are identical to the mistakes that caused the very crisis? This is the story of the greatest economic crisis of our age, the one that awaits us.
When the world’s financial bubble blew, the solution was to lower interest rates and pump trillions of dollars into the sick banking system. “The solution is the problem, that’s why we had a problem in the first placeâ€. For Economics Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, the Catch 22 is self-evident. But interest rates have been at rock bottom for years, and governments are running out of fuel to feed the economy. “The governments can save the banks, but who can save the governments?†Forecasts predict all countries’ debt will reach 100% of GDP by next year. Greece and Iceland have already crumbled, who will be next?
The storm that would rock the world, began brewing in the US when congress pushed the idea of home ownership for all, propping up those who couldn’t make the down payments. The Market even coined a term, NINA loans: “No Income, No Assets, No Problem!†Enter FannieMae and FreddieMac, privately owned, government sponsored. “Want that vacation? Wanna buy some new clothes? Use your house as a piggie bank!†Why earn money to pay for your home when you can make money just living in it? With the government covering all losses, you’d have been a fool not to borrow.
The years of growth had been a continuous party. But when the punchbowl ran dry, instead of letting investors go home to nurse their hangovers as usual, the Federal Reserve just filled it up again with phoney money. For analyst Peter Schiff, the consequence of the spending binge was crystal clear: “we’re in so much trouble now because we got drunk on all that Fed alcoholâ€. Yet along with other worried experts, he was mocked and derided during the boom.
Have you taken out a mortgage, invested capital or bought shares? If you have, likelihood is you lost out in the latest bust. Governments promised decisive action, the biggest financial stimulus packages in history, gargantuan bailouts: but what crazed logic is this, propping up debt with…more debt? This documentary brings an entirely fresh voice to the hottest topic of today.
What the Federal Reserve is up to, and how we got here.
President Obama’s 10-day Asia trip includes visits to India and Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country.
The president chose not to visit the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar during his time in India because it required a head covering that his advisers feared would fuel speculation about his faith. A Pew study showed that nearly 20% of Americans believe falsely that the president is a Muslim.
The more Obama reaches out to Muslims, the more his critics are likely to slander him, implying that he is not a Christian.
An example is his April 2009 speech in Turkey, in which he said, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” The president’s critics have seized on that statement, insisting that he rejects the Christian foundations of America.
Is Obama stuck between a rock and a hard place? If you were the president, how would you handle this dilemma?
There’s a certain honor in holding your head high when others are persecuting you. If President Obama serves as an example, I think it’s fine with him. We are telling gay kids, in the “It Gets Better” campaign, to hold their heads high. We’ve apologized to the Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II; they had to hold their head high for a long time until the apology came. It may be too precarious for Obama to tell American Muslims to hold their heads up high — or to enter a Sikh temple for fear of know-nothing persecution back home. But he was perfectly correct to tell the Islamic world that America isn’t a country founded on any religion, Christian or otherwise.
To me, there’s only so much fighting against persecution that works. We’re only human, and it’s inevitable that 20% of people believe that the President is a Muslim. Demagogues form the right — and many speakers at Tea Party rallies — never fail to call him “Barack Hussein Obama,” and when you apply propaganda that continually, somebody is likely to believe it. Facts don’t alter the case. Just as the birthers already hated Obama before they promoted their ridiculous claims about his birth certificate, people who believe that Obama is a Muslim fly in the face of reason for emotional reasons. (As the old quip goes, “Don’t bother me with the facts. My mind is already closed.”)
I often ponder the sad fact that a majority of whites do not approve of the president’s job performance, to which one can add the fact that religious voters, meaning regular church goers, overwhelmingly supported Bush, the Iraq War, and the Republican Party in general. It bothers me that people who march under the banner of God, “values,” and their own self-appointed moral superiority can be so blinkered in areas where morality really counts.
For a generation the Republicans have counted on bigots and the intolerant. This isn’t something they patented. Before the Civil Rights Act drove the South into the arms of the Republicans, it was the Democrats whose allegiance to the most racist part of the country marked them with shame. Adults have to learn about ambivalence, which means making friends with other people, even loving them, despite their weak and bad side. The opposite of ambivalence is to idealize heroes and paint situations in only two colors, black or white.
President Obama is clearly an adult, and he has resisted the temptation to portray his enemies in black and white. This even-handedness led him to call for bipartisan cooperation since his first day in office, an attitude that drives political operatives crazy. After the shellacking of the midterms, he continues to call for cooperation across the aisle, and for a very good reason. It’s the only way out of gridlock.
Only time will tell if ideals have been defeated by human nature. Some would claim that Obama’s mildness did him in already, leading unscrupulous opponents to get away with lies on every front, beginning with “death panels,” “the death tax,” and of course, the birthers’ idiocies about his country of origin. We’re only human, and those things can’t be stopped. But I secretly wish Obama was only human. As much as I admire his adult behavior, it would be understandable if he stood up to the bullies on the right. It gets better, not by waiting and wishing but by making it clear that you demand the right to hold your head up high.
By Deepak Chopra | November 8, 2010; 4:33 PM ET
Yes, believe it or not, there is such a plan
a business plan that always works. And believe it or not, you’re going to learn how to create such a plan, your plan, in the next few moments.
For those of you who believe deep down in the recesses of your cynically disposed hearts that there can’t possibly be anything that always worksespecially a planthe following is going to be a bit of a stretch for you. But hang in with me here. The Business Plan That Always Works is so devilishly simple and straightforward you’ll wonder why you didn’t see it before.
That’s the beauty of it, this Business Plan That Always Works: It’s so very simple. And that’s probably the primary reason it always works. The Business Plan That Always Works is so simple that anyone who understands it can do it. Despite what you’ve learned over the years, planning is only hard when it’s done the wrong way. And to develop a plan easily requires that you approach the whole subject of planning in a completely different way than you are accustomed. But I’m getting ahead of my story.
The Business Plan That Always Works is built upon one fundamental principle that all the plans that never work fail to understand. I call the fundamental principle the “Heart-centered Principle of Planning.”
Now, bear with me here. I know this could begin to test your hidebound impatience. You’re world-wise and world-weary. You’ve seen everything, done everything, been beaten up by everything. You know with every close-to-cynical breath you breathe that language used capriciously can be a dangerous thing. After all, don’t you do that for a livinguse language to produce results? Well, of course you do. Don’t we all? And it can get us all into serious trouble.
The Heart-centered Plan is so distinctly different than its opposite, the Head-centered Plan, that it’s important to define the distinctions carefully. There are seven essential rules of heart-centered planning required to create the Business Plan That Always Works. They are:
Rule One:
Heart-centered planning begins and ends with a feeling, while head-centered planning begins and ends with a thought. To understand this rule, it is critical that you know the difference between a thought and a feeling. Most people don’t. (Don’t laugh, they really don’t!) Most people confuse their thoughts and their feelings. How do you know the difference? A feeling resides inside your body; a thought resides inside your head.
Most of what you’re doing as you read this article is a thought that will turn into a feeling rather than a feeling that will turn into a thought. Heart-centered planning starts with a feeling, turns into a thought, and ends with a feeling. Head-centered planning begins with a thought, turns into a feeling, and ends with a thought. The rule here is that any plan that ends up in your head is a thought, and because of that, won’t work.
The Business Plan That Always Works is dominated by your feelings, not by your thoughts. And because of that, it is propelled forward because you want it to work, as the expression says, with all your heart. The point I’m making here is that despite everything you’ve been taught to the contrary, cerebral motivation has no momentum of its own. Thoughts die cold and lonely.
A plan that describes the future with no heart is a plan destined to fail. The Business Plan That Always Works, therefore, is a plan that begins and ends in your heartwhich means that it is a living plan, not a dead one; which means that it possesses an enormous amount of energy, often described as passion. And we all know what passion can do when it’s poured into a personal cause. That is what the Business Plan That Always Works is, after alla personal cause filled with passion.
Rule Two:
Because heart-centered planning begins and ends in your heart, the second rule is that the plan must be your plan and no one else’s. It must begin with you and end with you. Any plan created by someone else on your behalf will absolutely never work. And no matter how hard you try to implement someone else’s plan, no matter how hard you work at it, even if you succeed at fulfilling its objectives, you will ultimately feel like you failed.
Winning with someone else’s plan has always felt like losing. In short, the Business Plan That Always Works is always the product of the person who is following the planoriginal to him or her, personal to the max, born in the heart, and, because of that, very, very private. The second rule says, “Don’t go outside of yourself for your plan because you can’t find it there.”
Rule Three:
The way to know what your heart wants is to stop thinking about it. To discover your plan, stop thinking about it. Pursue something else. Spend a day, two days, a weekit doesn’t matter how longbut accomplish this objective: Spend free time doing something you truly love to do that you don’t ordinarily do because you can’t afford the time or the money to do it, whether skiing, boating, fishing, dreaming, hiking, running, or something else. For each of us it’s different, but it does matter that you know what it is.
The truth is, we spend little time truly loving what we do or doing what we love. Instead, we spend most of our time wishing that what we are doing could be more fulfilling. The reason for this is that we are mostly disconnected from our hearts, and we spend the preponderance of our time actively pursuing thoughts about what we would be doing if we were happy rather than experiencing what it means to be joyful in our hearts in the moment.
So, to create the Business Plan That Always Works calls for us to experience, as fully as possible, the end product of an exciting plan, which is the experience of joy that your plan must create for you in order for it to work for you. And to experience that joy requires that we spend more time before we create our plan, tasting the emotional fruits of it.
Rule Four:
Most people think of a business plan as a series of benchmarks or objectives. There is such a plan, but that’s not what I’m talking about. A series of benchmarks or objectives delineates actions to be taken in a progressively completed process, but fails to provide the inner motivation essential for a plan to become a realization. While the steps must be identified before anything purposeful can be done, the essence of the Business Plan That Always Works is always able to be summarized in a brief, declarative statement that begins with “I want…,” and ends with an experience of having moved forward from where you are.
It can be demonstrated by your new ability to do something you love to do more often than you are able to do it now. For example, “I want to be able to spend eight days white-water rafting in Montana on the…, etc., etc.” Note that the objective here is not something to have, but something to experience. To feel yourself experiencing something you love before you actually experience it is tantamount to experiencing it.
Experiencing the experience is core to the successful realization of the Business Plan That Always Works because it distracts you from your head (where thoughts reside) and puts you squarely in your body (where feelings reside). Put another way, the experience at the beginning of the plan, tied to the experience at the end of the plan, creates an emotional bridge for you to cross. Without that emotional bridge, most of us find ourselves sweating around among the stones, boulders, and mud beneath the bridge, completely oblivious to the fact that the bridge even exists!
Rule Five:
Having created an emotionally exciting picture of what you want, it is critical that you create a series of frames of reference within which you achieve it over a specific amount of time. A frame of reference is like a landing reached on your way up a mountain. It enables you to taste the climb, while resting with a look back and a look forward. Anyone who has ever done this (and we all have to some degree or another) knows the personal inner joy that comes from resting on the way forward, while getting a clear sense of where we’ve come from and a new picture of where we’re going.
As a boy, I used to go to Yosemite with my parents. We would climb for a few hours at a time up the long sloping trail of one mountain or another, stopping from time to time to sit on granite boulders by the side of the traillooking out over the valley, tasting the cool fresh air, and listening to the waterfalls off in the distance. There has been very little I’ve experienced in my life that is permeated by such sweetness as those experiences. Those climbings and stoppings. Those moments of looking back and looking forward.
The Business Plan That Always Works must allow for those precious, sweet moments, those continuous frames of reference, because without them, there is just the incessant climbing, the reaching for the top, the obsession that comes from an impatient thought, the drive to reach a conclusion. Most plans are like that. They drive us, but they don’t renew us. They compel us, but they don’t reward us. Such plans may move us forward, but every part of our body ends up resisting the movement even while obeying its dictate. This is the planning of “you should,” and “you’d better,” rather than the planning that comes from an inner desire, a taste of freedom, a wish for renewal.
Rule Six:
The plans we create reflect the life we live rather than the life we want to live. This may seem opposite of everything I’ve been saying up to now, but, in fact, it is not. To create the Business Plan That Always Works, we must be passionately interested in who we are and what it is that moves us. To do this, we must every day ask ourselves this question, “Who am I?” and then answer it!
The fascinating thing about creating the Business Plan That Always Works is that it calls for us to go inside more deeply than we would imagine. This planning has more to do with who we are than with who we are going to become. The fact is that anyone who has done this work, that is, pursued their inner reality with a passion, has discovered that in the process of becoming more who we truly are, we discover what we want.
And in that discovery, our plan becomes self-evident. “Oh, so that’s what I want,” this experience says. Or, put another way, “Oh, so that’s who I really am.” The sixth rule says that we must do this thing again and again until it’s a permanent fixture in our lives. Only then will the Business Plan That Always Works become self-evident.
Rule Seven:
Until we are able to accomplish rules one through six with ease, anything we do that closely resembles them is better than anything that doesn’t. In short, rule seven is a mantra“Follow your heart, or your head will destroy you.”
The most productive business planning is not thinking about ends, but experiencing means. It’s not about the objective, it’s about the process. It’s not about getting things, it’s about becoming more human. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about sitting on the edge of the mountain on the way up, neither going forward nor backward, to savor the intensely sweet joy of the moment. It’s not about pushing yourself, but about experiencing yourself.
And that is what the Business Plan That Always Works is essentially all about: To put you into a truer, more meaningful relationship with yourself.
The Business Plan That Always Works will put you there every single time. Who could ask for anything else?
Michael Gerber is Chairman of The E-Myth Academy. A business visionary, entrepreneur, and best-selling author, he speaks to audiences throughout North America about “how to bring the dream back to American business.” Gerber has written several highly acclaimed books: The E-Myth: Why Most Small Businesses Don’t Work and What to Do About It, The Power Point, The E-Myth Revisited, and The E-Myth Manager: Why Management Doesn’t Work and What to Do About It.
It is possible to do well and do good at the same time in corporate America.
Soul care and the bottom line are not the ‘Odd Couple’ in Corporate America. Business thrives because of the ethical principles of goodness and compassion. Joseph Jacobs in The Compassionate Conservative writes: “In the business world, morality has a pragmatic basisit pays.”
The lie perpetrated by screenwriters that “big business is bad business” simply does not pan out in the corporate world. Sure, there are some bad apples at the office. But there are less than ethical people in politics and religion as well. We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water. Charles Keating and Ivan Boesky are not the norm for the corporate world. Congressman Dick Armey was right when he wrote, “The market punishes immorality. If one is indifferent to the needs of his fellow citizens in a capitalist economy, he will find himself in poverty.”
Ulcers, like unethical behavior, are not a badge of success. Burning out for the boss is bad business practice. It’s a sheer waste of human resources. It is the sign of a life out of balance. As a result of such awareness, programs for self-care have begun to develop in the last decade. Flex time, stress management classes, physical fitness programs at the job site, child-care centers, and careful placement of employees in the right positions are all signs of a kinder, gentler, and profitable business environment. Above all there is a growing awareness of the need for spiritual values in the corporate environment. They may not be billed as an expression of a Judeo-Christian faith but with words such as integrity, values, and a purpose in living.
One bottom line, profit for the shareholders, can now be satisfied with a healthy workforce. But what about the care of the soul? Does that mean a chaplain in every office? Not necessarily. Care of the soul is not just the domain of religion. It has more to do with an attitude of mind that values soul care. What then is this soul and what does it have to do with our occupation?
Soul is almost entirely neglected by psychology (psyche=soul), medicine, and business. It is relegated to clergy, new age gurus, and those who practice ‘alternative medicine.’ James Hillman’s book The Soul’s Code gives a profound exposition of the soul, the very essence of our human nature. Words like destiny, genius, depth of character, creativity, heart, and fate all are soulish expressions. Traditionally soul has been part of the intellectual and philosophical domain of theological studies. It is used to describe the human need for relatedness with the God of the universe. However, for the sake of the present discussion soul is viewed as our God-given calling or destiny expressed with joyful creativity. Descriptions of soul include:
A Divine Calling
Business is a calling. Most people are in business because it’s a calling and not just “for the buck.” They want to make a difference in the world. They want a reason to be alive. Other words for calling include vision and “purpose” and can be articulated in either sacred or secular terms. David Packard of Hewlett-Packard writes of our real reason for being in the following way.
“We have to go deeper and find the real reasons for our being… a group of people get together and exist as an institution that we call a company so that they are able to accomplish something collectively that they could not accomplish separatelythey make a contribution to society, a phrase which sounds trite but is fundamental.”
Intuitively most people recognize the hand of divine providence when they say “Touch wood”, “God willing”, and “There but for the grace of God go I.”
The word vocation comes from the Latin ‘vocare’ which literally means ‘to be addressed by a voice.’ We are fortunate when we can say “My job is a divine calling.” As the acorn is to the oak tree so the soul is to our destiny. Why can’t this be true for all? It is such a pity that so many people dislike their work as reflected in bumper stickers that say, “I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.”
We all have a divinely appointed destiny. Ella Fitzgerald was destined to be a singer. General Patton a military leader. Og Mandino the author of inspirational novels. Does that mean that our abilities are inbred and not made? An oversimplification of the invisible world of “calling” misses life’s complexities. After all there is our part, (the hero taking charge and shaping the future). Then there is the unseen divine hand guiding the soul to the fulfillment of a destiny. Genius is perspiration and inspiration. It reminds me of the general who told the troops as they were crossing the river “Trust God, but keep your powder dry.”
A sense of a call gives our lives meaning. If the President called and asked me to be an ambassador for the United States I would be thrilled at the honor. Imagine what it would do for our self-image if we could see ourselves as divine representatives in our work. It is not crazy or pompous for all of us to affirm that we are on a divine mission at the office.
An Expression of our Best
The human potential movement without a soul becomes an empty shell. We can only pull ourselves up so high by our bootstraps. A wise man once said that there is no profit in gaining the whole world and losing a soul. Now that is a pretty bankrupt bottom line. In contrast, we reach our very best when our soul is lived with a consciousness and connection to the One who called it into being. All great people have walked the path of faith as expressed in ethical behavior.
The soul cannot be quantified or measured. However, it’s impact on the corporate world is obvious. The qualities of character, kindness, loving relationships, faith, and ethics show themselves in the bottom line. We speak of “good” or “gentle” or “generous” or even “bad” souls. And those are not just inward looking, monastic qualities. The soul is at its best when it is involved in the betterment of the community.
The bell curve cannot always be used to analyze soulish success. If we fall in the middle by some measure like size, earnings, or numbers does that make us mediocre? If I am not above the ninetieth percentile of money earners does that mean that I am not a success? What is the measure of the person? We dare not compare ourselves with the small percentage of superstars. I cannot be Dr. Norman Vincent Peale. Not every speaker will be able to give the keynote at the Political Party Convention. Can the small corner pharmacist or storekeeper not be successful in his/her own right? The business may never become the national chain but still be satisfying to the owner and help people in the neighborhood. Bigger is not always better. The divine calling is that we become our best selves, or in the words from the film Rob Roy, “Honor is the gift you give yourself.”
Strength of soul is manifest in character, integrity, creativity, service, and goodness. Our job is to carefully identify, develop, and express our souls and let the chips of success fall where they may. Some expressions of soul could be:
* Doing a good job in a world where mediocre is the norm.
* Asking “How do we enhance human dignity in the workplace?”
* Asking “How do company profits weigh against social considerations?”
* Finding a job that fits my soul.
* Measuring wealth by rich relationships and compassionate action.
* A carefully chosen gift or a thoughtfully written letter.
* A nurturing moment with one’s child.
* The inspiration to solve a tough problem with creativity.
* A playful and humorous approach to life.
* A capacity to balance tenderness with toughness.
Secure in the Hands of God
We are told that job security is now a myth. Has not the world of downsizing and corporate mergers taught us this fact? In the midst of the three certainties of life, death, taxes, and change how can our vocation be secure? Well, if it is a divine calling then who is our boss? It’s at this point that some cannot make the leap of faith. It’s here that ulcers happen. Why pray when you can worry? It’s easy to be a fair weather believer.
Og Mandino tells a wonderful story in his book Mission: Success! An American bombardier finds himself stationed in England during the second world war. For rest and relaxation he visits a retreat/hotel in London. The wise and loving host treats these war weary fliers with love and homespun wisdom. A painting in her living room that sustains these young fliers, who constantly live with death, is one of the divine hand. The inscription underneath, from the Bible is “See, I have you engraved on the palms of my hands.” Many of the young men signed their names on the hands in the painting to signify their need for divine protection. It is in the place where we have no control over our external circumstances that we can see ourselves sustained by “the good hands people.”
Security does not mean a dependency manifest in passivity. God is not an irresponsible foundation that keeps on giving to people who are not good stewards of his resources. Providence is not a welfare system that exchanges responsibility for cash handouts. We have to keep our skills current, we must retool or retire, we are always in school, and we have to risk failure by venturing into new territory. After all, we cannot sail the seven seas if our ship never leaves the harbor.
A Matter of Contribution
I had a professor once who used to put the following slogan on his exams “I don’t have ulcers, I just give them.” Business environments that make a contribution to the welfare of employees, community, nation, and world tend to prevent ulcers. A corporate mission statement that includes words like “quality” and “excellence” and “profit” must also include “service”. That’s just good business practice. Customer satisfaction is just the beginning of contribution. A Realtor said to me, “My customers are better off personally and financially after they have worked with me.” Can the community say that about our business? Is the world a better place because of our business philosophy and practice?
The sense of satisfaction of a job well done comes from character not exploitation and a life that reflects the nature of the creator that called it into being.
Michael Novak in his book Business as a Calling reflects on the moral responsibilities of corporations. They are.
* To establish within the culture of the firm a sense of community and respect for the dignity of persons.
* To protect the political soil of liberty.
* To exemplify respect for the law.
* To win the allegiance of the majority.
* To overcome the principle of envy.
* To communicate often and fully with their investors, shareholders, pensioners, customers, and employees.
* To contribute to making the surrounding society, its own habitat, a better place.
Neglect the soul of business and we will get ulcers, bankruptcies, the work environment will become spiritually and emotionally toxic, and human relations as laborious as us trying to run through quicksand. Feed a soul and grow a productive individual, business, family, community, and nation.
Dr. Cedric Johnson is a professor at the University of Phoenix, author of four books on spirituality and emotional health, and has been a psychologist in private and hospital practice for two decades. Leader of the popular Doing What You Love and Success Without Ulcers Seminar series, he has served as a success coach for corporate executives and leaders in the entertainment industry, and has been a radio talk-show host for 12 years. For information call Dr. Johnson at 707-642-8043 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 707-642-8043 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 707-642-8043 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or email: cofocus@concentric.net
This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA’s Benjamin Franklin award.
Thousands of Americans and over 1.5 million Muslims have been murdered so far and millions more are injured and dying. Reality of the Phony wars in the name of Democracy, Freedom, terrorism. NOW The Oil Thirsty Liars, their secret agenda and their crimes are being exposed; Corrupt Politicians, Profiteers, Cooperative greedy culture, world domination by any means possible; Barbarism, false flagging, accusing others of having Weapons of Mass Destructon while allowing criminal Zionist state like Israel to keep building than lying and denying.
Just in the shadow of false flag (9/11), they murdered over 1.5 million Muslims and thousands of Americans so far and still counting. Enough is enough!!! .
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question “Why?” His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers — and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.
Black Friday was indeed a dark day for America.
Please consider protecting yourself & your loved ones with Physical Silver and/or Gold.
Mr. William Pawelec was a U.S. Air Force computer operations and programming specialist with numerous credentials in security technologies and access control systems. He gave this interview with Dr. Greer prior to the 2001 National Press Club Disclosure event and asked that it not be released until after his death. We recently found out that Mr. William Pawelec passed away on May 22, 2007 and we received permission to release it in December 2010.
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Sandy Powell, Director of Balboa Press (a new supportive self publishing division of Hay House Publishing). In our discussion, Sandy describes the biggest area that most authors get stuck – finishing their manuscript. She talks to many people at conferences around the world and they tell her they are writing a book but they haven’t finished it. It is sitting in a pile on their desk or in a drawer somewhere. Her advice to these authors can be summed up in this list.
1. Set a Date to Hold Your Book in Your Hands. Just imagine the first moment in which you are holding your completed book. Target a particular day. It could be a holiday, birthday or speaking engagement which will be the first time you share your beautiful book with others. Then create a timeline. You need to work with someone to hold yourself accountable. Set milestones and plan to celebrate your success.
2. Find Outside Editing Resource. Everyone needs editing. I have not seen a manuscript yet that does not need editing. A book is judged by its mistakes so make sure you put your best book forward.
3. Create Quality Design. Take the advice of whatever publisher you go to and listen to experts within the industry. Don’t be stubborn when it comes to integrating their suggestions into your original design concepts. What sets a book apart is quality design, from book cover to paper quality and print font.
4. Determine the Best Time for You to Write. Block this time off on the calendar and in your daily planner. Most people know when they are the most productive (early morning, evenings) but not many people will actually block out that time.
5. Start Planning Promotion Before Manuscript is Finished. Determine your audience — who are you writing for, what audience are you going after? What is the best way to reach them? How are they most likely to find your book? This will help you establish and start building your platform which you can do yourself or get help from others.
6. Plan an Event to Celebrate the Publication. Established book launch events are key motivators in getting a manuscript completed. You can’t have a party if the book isn’t done. You really need to envision the end celebration and plan the journey to get there.
7. Research Publishing Options. Traditional Publishing, Do It Yourself Self Publishing (you do everything — buy your own ISBN, etc.), Supportive Self Publishing (Balboa Press, for example).
The key elements to consider are:
* Who owns the content? Traditional publisher owns the content. With Do It Yourself (DIY) and Supportive Self Publishing you own the content. The importance of owning your own content is you can repurpose it however you want. If you have a big platform, chances are you will be approached by people to create and share your content in different ways with various partners.
* Investment of time and money. DIY requires a large time investment with a savings of money because you are building your house yourself and not hiring a contractor.
* Speed to market. DIY and Supportive Self publishing will be quicker than Traditional publishing.
This is all great information. Are you looking forward to your book launch celebration? Stay motivated and take that manuscript out of the drawer today!
If you want the advantages of self-publishing but you don’t think you can do it on your own, you should check out the services offered at Balboa Press and I can offer you a discount: Now through January 31st they are offering you a 20% discount on any of the self-publishing packages. Go to BalboaPress.com and use this coupon code at check out: 20FORD to access the discount.
Sandy Powell has worked in the self-publishing industry since 2001. Over the past nine years, her positions include Director of Production, Online Director and Business Development. She has worked with several major traditional publishers to launch new publishing models and continues to develop new partnerships in the independent publishing arena. Sandy is Director of Balboa Press, a Division of Hay House. Launched in May 2010, it is the only self-publishing imprint focused exclusively on titles with positive, self-help messages.
Arielle Ford has launched the careers of many NY Times bestselling authors including Deepak Chopra, Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Neale Donald Walsch & Debbie Ford. She is a former book publicist, literary agent and the author of seven books. To learn how to get started writing a book please visit: www.HowToWriteMyBook.com
As a new and social media group, we often get questioned and asked about the power of social media, how it works and how it can help either their cause, or business. Most of the questions are really about the fringes of the media and about frankly somewhat esoteric uses of the media.
What we usually try and do is two things.
First, we explain that as tools and technologies develop, they are not fundamentally changing what we as humans have always done. What I mean is that the WHY has not changed. For example, the Cornell Lab Of Ornithology is one of our clients and ‘birders’ have always been about communities; ‘birders’ have formed small or large birding groups in their communities going back since the first person wrote a note about seeing a bluebird on a winter feeder.
But now, the HOW has changed, the tools one can use to create a birder group are not flyers on the wall of a local store, or writing letters to friends. Now, we can create a Facebook group and the community is global, instant and free to join. How does it work? Well, the Cornell Group is just a few months old and has over 17,000 members.
Or Twitter. Yes, it’s only 140 characters and no, I am not sure about the revenue model. But over the weekend, if you wanted the best real time updates, going onto Twitter and searching #egypt was the way to go. You could see reactions from all over the world, and even some coming out of Cairo. Was it perfect journalism? No, but it was real.
As regards Egypt, or any powerful country that has relied on the holding of information as a key to power, the Internet, again in its fundamentals, is very powerful. It allows for information to be exchanged quickly, freely and easily. It allows people in Egypt to communicate with people around the world — we did a live blogger chat for our client Human Rights First a few months ago with a blogger who was on the ground in Egypt.
Imagine if the uprising had tried to take place a generation ago? How would the people in Cairo communicated with the people in Alexandria? Far less London? It would have been far harder, more time-consuming, more dangerous and more expensive.
Today, there’s a story about evening news anchors ‘rushing’ to Egypt to cover the story. Why? Being on the ground five days later, are they really going to bring anything to the conversation that we haven’t already seen, tweeted, YouTubed and Facebooked? I don’t think so.
Every day we see groundbreaking technologies and cutting-edge tools emerge online. But we still are far more likely to be reminded that every day, the power of what is happening around the world is not at the edges but at the core.
I just finished reading an excellent article by Ted DeZabala — the national leader of Deloitte’s Security & Privacy Services — on Forbes.com titled, “Are You Focused On The Wrong Security Risks?” It poses several good questions about what organizations are doing to protect their corporate identity, employees and personal data. Ted raises some excellent points around the necessary procedures for how to protect your company, however I think there is a bigger picture worth addressing.
For companies that are knowledge leaders, the rise of mobile devices, new applications, social media and ubiquitous broadband are the foundation for the next wave of business management and employment change. Companies that adapt quickly and actively change the relationship between IT and end users will be better able to attract talent, execute new business models and evolve management capabilities to improve competitiveness. This is truly the first generation where employee technology is the most important and crucial business value.
It’s in this context that organizations are rapidly driving change. IT is loosening its control over employee technology and letting a new generation of smartphones, tablets and employee-owned devices into the enterprise. As business drives these changes, IT end user policies and security procedures need to be broadly reevaluated.
In particular:
* As employee information becomes public on personal social networks companies need new security models to fight pretexting, targeted phishing attacks and other security threats. CIOs need to be absolutely sure that the identity of every person or device accessing company resources is legitimate. It’s important to note that this threat can’t be addressed by limiting work use of social media: even if these tools are banned, employees who put work information in their personal social media profiles or feeds create these same risks. You can view a copy of Dell’s personal employee social media policy here.
* It is crucial that company employees protect the data on their personal owned devices. This means that they will need to establish tools to containerize and secure corporate data, password rules and enable a remote wipe. These procedures need to apply to corporate and personal devices that access the network, all data and applications.
* The mobile application gold rush has created many new security vulnerabilities. Many social media applications send clear text user credentials that can quickly be stolen on public networks with a new generation of easy-to-use sniffing tools. When a criminal knows someone’s credentials, they likely have access to their work email address and preferred password. All of sudden, poorly designed social media applications have become an enormous enterprise risk. Few organizations have developed policies and procedures to find and defend against vulnerabilities in third party mobile applications.
* The threat of password theft is made worse by the fact that so many applications can now be accessed directly over the Internet. For example, most software-as-a-service applications – including critical applications that store email or customer data – can be accessed by anyone who knows the URL. With an employee name and a work email address they can begin guessing passwords. If they collect the passwords through phishing or pretexting, most organizations may never catch the data breach. Procedures that “trust” a client by requiring extended credentials such as birthdate or mother’s maiden name can also be overcome using data found on social networks.
The simple fact we may be forgetting is this: companies can no longer control security risks with internal policies that limit the use of devices, applications or data. As new risks continue to evolve, most organizations will need to architect security around an environment they don’t fully control. Instead of fighting to control the ways in which we embrace technology, the only remaining choice for most CIOs is to adapt to it.
Just as in the case of Tunisia, we’ve been caught off guard by the rapid pace of events in Egypt. Commentators are having a difficult time understanding the dynamics of the Arab world and especially the role of religion in this latest apparent revolution. Many wonder why this isn’t an Islamic Revolution, and are audibly breathing a sigh of relief that it isn’t — assuming that somehow Egypt would follow Iran’s rather unique trajectory in 1979 and thereafter.
So why isn’t Egypt’s revolution an Islamic one? And what sets Tunisia and Egypt apart from Iran? Due to the quickly shifting nature of events, I’ve recorded four reasons why Egypt’s uprising isn’t an explicitly Islamic one.
1) The political Islamism that ended up triumphing in Iran was a much more authoritarian interpretation of Islam. It specifically embraced political power and preached a narrative of resistance, though its victory in Iran paradoxically ended any chance of victory elsewhere. That’s because when elites and other, non-religious ideological forces in neighboring Muslim countries saw the purges of prior elites taking place in Iran, they immediately became skeptical of working alongside Islamists in their own country.
Islamic challenges to regimes in Tajikistan, Algeria and Tunisia, among others, were violently supressed even though they pursued their goals democratically. Most Islamists learned from this brutal experience and grew from it; Egypt’s most powerful Muslim group, the Muslim Brotherhood, was one such group. It’s probably safe to say that Iran was the only victory for this style of Islamism, and now, some 30-plus years later, its moment has largely passed. The geopolitical, economic and social reasons for its emergence have disappeared.
2) Iran’s Islamist opposition to the Shah was shaped by the peculiarities of Shi’a Islam and Iranian history. Shi’as have a more organized and powerful clergy than Sunnis, and Iran’s clergy, unlike Egypt’s, were much more independent of the state. In Egypt today, among the main trends in Islamic practice are a quietist Salafism, which seeks a rigorous but non-political personal morality, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And while the Brotherhood is an incredibly large and powerful organization, it is today a product of years of suppression, torture, and intimidation. While it seeks to change society, it does not pursue an explicitly political agenda. Rather, it believes that an ideal politics will be achieved once society is Islamized — in other words, enough introduction of Muslim values into popular culture, and society will simply reform itself — and that includes the state. So while they have political ideals, they certainly don’t have an explicit political program.
That said, it’s no surprise that the Brotherhood weren’t out ahead in the recent protests: They’ve largely eschewed street politics (it ends with their members electrocuted in jails). It’s also worth considering, although this is still conjectural, whether the Brotherhood declined to play a more public role even after they caught up to events on the street precisely because they know a more prominent role for themselves could draw negative attention. I’m sure the Brotherhood knows that Mubarak would love to have Islamists to blame for the uprising. It would make our government support for his crackdown that much easier to obtain.
3) People who study Iran know how vexed the relationship is, and has been, between Persian cultural identity and Islam. While many Iranians before the revolution were religious in a non-political way, the country’s elite tended to see Islam and Persianness as mutually incompatible. On the other hand, Egypt is a proudly Arab society (hint: the Arab Republic of Egypt) which has never seen Islam as incompatible with their specific ethnic and national project.
Arabness and Islam are hard to pull apart, such that the late Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Arab nationalist Ba’ath Party — he was a Christian — praised Islam as an achievement of the Arab cultural genius. (Many Muslims wouldn’t take too kindly to such a reading, but there you have it.) That difference in dynamics between Egypt and Iran needs to be stressed.
While Iran’s Shah campaigned against Islam and sought to erase its role in Persian history and culture, Mubarak never attacked Islam with anywhere near the same vehemence. He’s far more concerned with preserving power for himself than he is with rewriting Egyptian history (unfortunately for his prospects of remaining in power, he’s concerned with himself–and not even for Egypt’s advancement, unlike other Third World dictatorships, which do emphasize and achieve real economic growth). And this brings us to the most important point…
4) Egypt’s revolution doesn’t have to be Islamic because Islam isn’t at the heart of the problem on the ground. In fact, the non-political Egyptian Islam of the last few decades has succeeded in deeply Islamizing Egyptian culture, making Muslim piety interwoven with the everyday rhythms of Egyptian life. We saw this in the protests after the Friday prayers today, in the spontaneous congregational prayers that took place in the heat of demonstrations–and we can see it in the number of Egyptian women who veil (though many don’t and still strongly identify with Islam, whether culturally or religiously, personally or publicly).
Egypt’s society is a deeply Muslim one, and the very success of this non-political religious project has negated the need for a confrontational Islam. Egyptians know their religious identity is not under threat. ElBaradei, for example, joined in Friday prayers today before going out into the streets. Whether Egyptians identify with political Islam or secular democracy, their Arabness and Islam tend to be mutually supportive, and certainly not incompatible.
Where there is a danger is that if the United States does not come out explicitly in favor of the people, subsequent events will become more confrontational, and may even see the introduction of a more cultural and civilizational rhetoric. The Shah monopolized power and sought to erase a culture. Mubarak, for all his brutality, has had no such grandiose presumption.
As an aside, I might also add that Muslim societies often have flourishing religious institutions and practices, organic and varied. But in the case of Iran, the regime paradoxically undermined that popular and organic religiosity when they sought to enforce faith through the state. This is an argument for keeping religion and politics separate in the Muslim world: in the interest of defending both from the negative effects of the other. Egypt’s “secular” dictator, who didn’t meddle too far into his people’s religious life — he was no Shah, and no Ben Ali — hasn’t created a sharp cultural divide in his country (the economic one is something else altogether). So why would Egyptians need, want, or stress, an Islamic Revolution?
MM Lee shares views of S’pore’s future in new book
He gives unprecedented access and time to reporters, in a bid to reach out to younger generation. -AsiaOne
Thu, Jan 13, 2011
AsiaOne
WHAT are the hard truths or facts about Singapore that cannot be changed, and that make it critical for the nation to have a strong, effective government and stable society?
In a new book Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew will share his insights about this issue, together with topics ranging from the future of Singapore’s political system, relations with neighbouring countries, immigration, the rise of China and India, to climate change.
Titled “Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to keep Singapore going”, the book is based on 16 interviews with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew by journalists from The Straits Times (ST).
During the interviews which took place over 10-months, MM Lee also spoke at length about his family, children and grandchildren, offering a unique glimpse into his personal life.
Straits Times Editor Han Fook Kwang, who led the project, said: “This is an important book because it’s the first time MM’s views are being subjected to such extensive questioning and scrutiny in 32 hours of interviews with seven journalists from The Straits Times. He gave us unprecedented access and time because he wanted to reach out especially to younger Singaporeans who may be unconvinced whether his views are still relevant in this day and age.”
The interviews began in December 2008 and continued into October 2009. They were all conducted at the Istana, beginning in the late afternoon and lasting for over two hours. The SPH team took another nine months to write and edit the chapters.
The result is a book that offers readers a first-hand glimpse into the thinking and views of Mr Lee. Each of the book’s 11 chapters start off with an introductory segment that puts an issue in context, and then goes into a Q&A format. This format allows readers to follow the cut and thrust of the conversations with Mr Lee.
The book comes with an exclusive DVD of video footage culled from the interviews. Explaining the team’s decision to include the DVD, Straits Times Press Executive Director Shirley Hew said: “Seeing and hearing the cut and thrust of the conversations at the Istana with MM in the DVD is definitely a plus for the whole book package.
“Every pregnant pause from MM, interspersed with every incisive question from our writers, truly makes the whole read much more rewarding. The book and DVD set also makes for a wonderful gift and keepsake on the history and the making of Singapore.”
The title of the book Hard Truths to keep Singapore going is a reference to Mr Lee’s remark, repeated several times in the interviews, that there are hard truths or facts about Singapore that cannot be changed, and that make it critical for Singapore to have a stable society and strong, effective government.
Former United States President Bill Clinton said of the book: “In this engaging series of new interviews, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew candidly imparts his wisdom, as well as his fears, as he contemplates Singapore’s role in a rapidly changing, and profoundly challenging, global society. An important addition to Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to keep Singapore going illuminates his conviction that a prosperous, sustainable future must be built upon the lessons of the past.”
Younger Singaporeans given early access to the book also praised the book. David Zhang, 24, co-founder of an Internet start-up, found the Q&A format lively, candid and genuine, adding: “The focus on income inequality and his views on egalitarianism and foreign talent strike a very hot spot, especially among Singapore’s youth.”
Julia Chan-Lee, assistant human resource manager, 30, said: “To someone who has grown up abroad, this is a fascinating introduction to MM Lee’s life and ideas. The dialogue made me feel a part of the conversation.”
Undergraduate Chan Yuping, 23, said: “MM recognises that our generation is full of individuals who are not afraid to express themselves through their choice of music, clothing or sexuality. He seems to have softened with age and the understanding that the times change, inevitably so.
Hard Truths to keep Singapore going is the latest in a series of books by SPH on MM Lee. The others are: Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas (1998), The Singapore Story (1998) and From Third World to First (2000).
The making of: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going
Think Lee Kuan Yew and you’ll immediately think of Singapore. In 1965, MM Lee, then Singapore’s prime minister, vowed that Singapore would survive. It seems the more successful Singapore gets, the bigger the legend of Lee Kuan Yew grows.
In 2008, a team of Straits Times journalists were given unprecedented access to MM Lee and challenged him with questions garnered from the public.
What is MM Lee like as a father? Does he believe in fengshui? What was the darkest period in his life? MM Lee gamely answered all personal questions the team put to him.
MM Lee: A mythological figure?
By June Cheong
IN 1965, MM Lee Kuan Yew, then Singapore’s first prime minister, vowed that Singapore would survive as a country. More than 45 years later, he has fulfilled his promise. Singapore is a thriving metropolitan city.
As Singapore’s success grows, so too does Lee Kuan Yew’s legend. Much of the younger generation who never knew Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister, liken the now Minister Mentor to a mythological figure – an image that MM Lee wishes to dispel.
RazorTV traces the beginnings of MM Lee’s political career and how his policies have shaped Singapore.
MM Lee’s hard truths for Singapore (The making of: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going-Part 2 )
IT IS well-known that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is a gifted orator. What happens then when you pit seven journalists and editors against one of the most esteemed minds in Singapore?
As MM Lee put it: ‘You’re gonna cross swords with me, then you must be willing to get stabbed.’
Between 2008 and 2009, a team of seven Straits Times journalists met and challenged MM Lee with questions gathered from the public, fans and critics alike.
Deputy Political Editor at The Straits Times, Lydia Lim, said: ‘He’s particularly combative when he speaks about what I think he considers fundamental issues. When he thinks you don’t get it, then he becomes quite aggressive. During the first few interviews, there were moments when it was a bit rough. I was a bit disheartened because I thought ‘Oh no, this is not going very well. It’s not very conversational.’ I think thereafter it got better. We also got more used to it.’
The interviews spanning more than 32 hours were eventually turned into a book, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going.
Throughout the 16 interviews, MM Lee was combative, forthcoming, jovial and laconic. Watch the exchange between MM Lee and the ST writers on RazorTV.
MM Lee: Singaporeans should grow up (The making of: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going-Part 3 )
MM Lee: Singaporeans should grow up
By June Cheong
IF SINGAPORE does not grow as fast as it can sustain growth, then the government – and its people – are being stupid, according to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
This statement was among the hard truths MM Lee dished out throughout the 16 interviews with The Straits Times team in 2008 and 2009.
One thing which struck the writers of the book was MM Lee’s consistency in his views.
Han Fook Kwang, editor of The Straits Times, said: ‘One thing about MM is that he’s a very consistent person. His views are also very consistent…this doesn’t mean his thinking hasn’t changed. He does take in new developments.’
Watch what MM Lee has to say on Singapore’s economy and other topics on RazorTV.
MM Lee’s private life and thoughts (The making of: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going-Part 4)
PRAGMATISM is not just a tenet Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew holds dear in his public life. He also runs his private affairs in a practical, fact-based manner.
Asked if he believes in fengshui, MM Lee laughed and said it was ‘utter rubbish’ that people think he does.
Many Singaporeans The Straits Times team spoke to were curious about MM Lee’s private life and he gamely answered all personal questions in 32 hours of interviews with ST journalists between 2008 and 2009.
Here are MM Lee’s private thoughts on issues like homosexuality and love.
In America and in Egypt, should a majority religion inspire political life? How will Islam play a role in the struggles for democracy happening now in Egypt and other parts of the Muslim world?
All societies present an entangled mesh of values, with many contradictions that never get sorted out. In America, religion is a particularly tangled strand, and despite the Founding Fathers’ clear intention to provide freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, some Americans insist on re-arguing the point continuously. In their vehemence they contradict another typical value that they hold, an irrational worship of the Constitution. But that’s how society is meant to be when people elect to be free.
The case of Egypt, as it convulses toward becoming a democracy, is similar and at the same time radically different. The sad truth is that a tiny sliver of the rich, privileged, and Westernized — the very people the West thinks are “just like us” — deserve to be overthrown. They took unconscionable advantage of their privileges, imposing repression on the bottom 90% of society. No one seems to dispute that it’s time for Egypt to play catch up with the rest of the world and its long trend toward democracy.
Yet this raises the bugaboo of the Islamist factions, the religious conservatives who see the U.S. as a sworn enemy of their faith. The West was burned by the Iranian revolution and its steady drive toward anti-Western belligerence, along with its support for terrorism and the chimera of a world where every country bows to the Prophet Muhammad. A leading expert of the Arab world, Bernard Lewis, years ago predicted that if popular uprisings succeeded in toppling the dictatorships that span from the top of Africa throughout the Middle East, the new governments would be dominated by religious fundamentalism.
It was a dark prophecy, and it remains the most feared prospect as viewed by the U.S. We called for elections in Palestine, only to punish the Palestinians when they chose Hamas as their ruling party. We fled Lebanon in the midst of religious strife. We stood by helplessly as Iran moved in the wrong direction, and now many see the Shiite clerics gaining a strong hold in Iraq, hiding discreetly behind the scene.
This is a long preamble to saying that Muhammad cannot be kept out of Arab politics. The Westward-looking elites in the Arab world are secular — even Saddam was secular — but they hold power by brutal means. Ironically, it was the economic rise of Egypt and Tunisia in recent years that has largely fueled the discontent in the streets, for suddenly, as in India, the poorest people see a glimmer of hope for achieving dignity and economic progress. Even so, religion will be a big part of the mix.
On one side, Egypt watchers tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood won’t take over the country; one is reminded of Iraq watchers who assured the neocons that invading Iraq wouldn’t lead to religious strife, given how secular that country was.
The root that runs deepest in every Arab country is Islam, and one of the ideals of the faith is that everything in life — art, politics, law, and daily habits — must revolve around God’s strict rules. Having written a book about the Prophet, my immersion into Islam showed me, with regret, that their is a fine line between what the religious conservatives want, which is religious totalism, and what the Taliban delivered in Afghanistan, which is religious totalitarianism.
I have no predictions about Egypt, which was founded by Nasser as a modern secular state on the basis of Arab nationalism. We can only stand by and see how the entangled mesh of values in Egypt unravels. The worst of one system may give way to the worst of its opposite — let’s hope not.
A tourist in Cairo spots three photographs on the wall of a restaurant: one of Nasser, another of Sadat, and the third of Hosni Mubarak. He asks the owner who the first man is, and the owner tells him it’s the man who overthrew the Egyptian monarchy and served as the country’s president. “Who’s the second man?” the tourist wants to know. “That’s Anwar Sadat, our next president,” comes the reply. “He made peace with Israel but was assassinated in 1981.” Next the tourist wants to know who the third man is. “Him?” says the restaurant owner. “That’s my business partner’s father” - A popular joke in Egypt
NEW YORK — In his first speech to the country, the new president of Egypt promised “not to commit myself to what I cannot implement, hide the truth from the people, or be lenient with corruption and disorder.”
That was Hosni Mubarak in 1981, taking the reins of his proud country in the wake of Anwar Sadat’s assassination and expressing a determination to steer Egypt in a new direction. During a crackdown on profiteering by politically-connected wealthy businessmen, Sadat’s half-brother and his sons were jailed and handed steep fines. Several dozen prominent members of Sadat’s circle were slapped with criminal charges for misusing their power and other corrupt practices. Mubarak was known for his “rigid personal probity,” according to a 1990 New York Times profile, which noted that “his family has not profited from his office.”
But over the last 20 years, Mubarak, his family and his close circle of advisers have enriched themselves through partnerships in powerful Egyptian companies, profiting from their political power, according to numerous reports. The 82-year-old leader and his two sons also wield the levers of the government, including the military and the country’s preeminent political party, to reward friends and punish enemies.
Mubarak — who enraged thousands of protesters by refusing to step down in a widely-watched speech to the nation on Thursday night — and his family have a net worth of at least $5 billion, analysts tell The Huffington Post. Recent media reports pegging the family fortune at between $40 and $70 billion are considered to be exaggerated.
Much of their fortune has reportedly been invested in offshore bank accounts in Europe and in upscale real estate. When questioned about Mubarak family bank accounts, which could be frozen under Swiss laws regulating ill-gotten gains, Swiss Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlump announced earlier this week that auditors are looking into whether the family has any such assets in the nation’s banks. Last month, the Swiss government froze the accounts of Mubarak’s ally, ousted Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, whose overthrow inspired the first protests in Cairo.
The Mubarak family reportedly owns properties around the world, from London and Paris to New York and Beverly Hills. In addition to homes in the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh and the upscale Cairo district of Heliopolis, they also have a six-story mansion in the Knightsbridge section of London, a house near the Bois de Bologne in Paris and two yachts.
Largely through Mubarak’s two sons, Gamal and Alaa, the family controls a network of companies that earn money through concessions wrangled from foreign companies that do business in Egypt, according to prominent businessmen and “Corruption In Egypt: The Black Cloud Is Not Disappearing,” an investigative report compiled in 2006 by a coalition of opposition groups. (The report, which names the companies allegedly owned by the Mubarak brothers and details multiple instance of corruption by government officials, has been cited by numerous international good government groups, such as Transparency International, but it was taken offline and is no longer available on the Internet. The Huffington Post obtained a copy, replete with rhetorical flourishes and thinly-sourced allegations, which is available here.)
“Egypt’s state under Mubarak’s regime is an embodiment of corruption,” concludes the report, with descriptions of numerous allegations of corruption involving bribery, undue influence and nepotism.
In the 1980s, Mubarak seemed sincere in his desire to crack down on corruption in an effort to distinguish himself from Sadat, says an Egyptian-American businessman who often does business in the country. “But as time went on, the cronies around him started taking advantage of the system,” he says. “And the other factor was his children got into business, taking commissions out of each and every company that comes to Egypt. The way they have amassed that money is not by stealing but by ensuring that businesses that want to operate in Egypt pay from 5 percent to 20 percent commission to a company formed by Gamal Mubarak. I know businessmen who have been squeezed this way.”
Some of the family’s wealth is also believed to be through partnerships with foreign companies — under Egyptian law, foreign businesses are required to give a local partners a 51-percent stake in their Egyptian operations. “According to this law, any multinational company needs to have a local sponsor, and this local sponsor usually goes through members of the family or powerful people in the ruling party,” says Aladdin Elaasar, the author of “Last Pharaoh: Mubarak and the Uncertain Future.”
A spokesman for the Egyptian Embassy did not return calls for comment and members of the Mubarak family could not be reached for comment.
Privatization initiatives sponsored by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Agency for International Development have been accused of favoritism. When several historic hotels were sold by the government to friends of the Mubaraks, local newspapers complained about the “smell of corruption.”
The wealth of the Mubarak family and other elites stands out in a country where millions toil as low-wage laborers, high rates of inflation make it harder for those aspiring to a middle-class lifestyle and unemployment is a persistent problem — half of all Egyptian men don’t have a job and 90 percent of females remain jobless two years after graduating college, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.
Gamal, who has been groomed to succeed his father before the recent protests, was educated at the American University of Cairo and spent six years working as an investment banker for Bank of America. He then formed his own investment advisory firm, Med Invest Partners, which helped Western investors seeking to purchase stocks and companies in Egypt.
Alaa, the older brother, is a businessman who owns a company that services most of the airlines in Egypt, according to Elaasar, though he reportedly fell out of favor when he was accused of benefiting from privatization initiatives. One persistent rumor making the rounds is that the government enacted a law in 2001 making seat belts mandatory in vehicles because Alaa has a concession to import seat belts.
Close friends of the Mubarak government also prosper. Taher Helmy, adviser to Gamal and Hosni and president of the American Chamber of Commerce, recently bought a $6.1 million apartment overlooking New York City’s Central Park. Ahmed Ezz, a steel magnate and close confidant of Gamal, has been accused of using his connections to monopolize the steel market.
Several former government officials have started to go public with their allegations of corruption. Last week, former deputy foreign minister Ibrahim Yosri and 20 lawyers petitioned Abdel Meguid Mahmoud, the country’s prosecutor general, to put Mubarak and his family on trial for allegedly stealing state wealth. Yosri did not return emails for comment.
In 2005, the most senior official to defect in decades fled to Switzerland and began a campaign to have Mubarak put on trial at Belgium’s International Court of Justice for corruption and human rights abuses. “The Mubarak era will be known in the history of Egypt as the era of thieves,” said Mohammad Ghanam, former chairman of the legal research unit in the Egyptian Interior Ministry. The unlikely whistleblower condemned the regime in a speech to a human rights conference in London, condemning Mubarak and his sons in the strongest terms: “his official business is the looting of public money, and we find that the super-corrupt, ultra-delinquents have attained state posts; extreme corruption and treachery throughout the land has caused the current condition of our country, as all of you know!”
Ghanam’s case turned a strange corner in 2007. Though he was granted political asylum by Switzerland, he later claimed that Swiss authorities were trying to coerce him into infiltrating and spying on the country’s Arab community. When he vehemently refused and some of his comments appeared on jihadist Websites, Ghanam was jailed for what Swiss authorities called his “dangerosite” (French for “dangerousness”).
His brother, Ali, who lives in the United States, says that he has been unable to talk to his brother for more than two years and blames the Mubarak regime for his detention. “He exposed the corruption of the Mubarak family,” Ali Ghanam says, “and look what happened to him.”
As with Easter and Passover, the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad is dated by the lunar calendar. This year it falls on Feb. 15, and the time seems particularly fraught with meaning. Every time there is a crisis in the Muslim world, grudges and resentments going back almost to the beginning of the faith, in the seventh century, seem to resurface. Islam, being an all-inclusive religion, refers every aspect of life back to God. When you feel that God has been affronted or disobeyed by your enemies, time disappears. It’s always a good time to reopen old wounds.
That’s why there are rarely any upsets in society that are not also religious upsets. Traditional Muslim society equates with religious society. In Egypt, where secular rule has been the rule, the chemistry between God and government is still volatile and almost impossible to fathom if you live outside the Arab world. I don’t speak as an insider but as a writer who delved into these issues when researching a book on the life of Muhammad. It is remarkable the extent to which the life of the Prophet set the template for attitudes that persist today.
Among the most marked of these are a sense of being embattled for God, a defensive posture against infidels, a fierce desire to devote one’s life to protect the Prophet, a desire to obey God’s laws down to the smallest letter, and jihad, which in its broadest meaning denotes the struggle of the soul to reach a pure relationship with Allah against the temptations of one’s base nature.
These elements are entangled inside the worldview of devout Muslims. The new guard that tries to provoke change must contend not just with the old guard — in this case the clash is between the youth of Egypt and the ruling military elite — but also there is the rear guard of religious conservatism. A centuries-old worldview is always ready to condemn change as being against the will of God.
What I came to understand is that this worldview has its reasons for being. The Prophet was personally troubled about the messages he received that commanded him to convert the entire world to the new faith. When the early Muslims first fled from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad was welcomed as a peacemaker among warring tribes and faiths. His approach was conciliatory, and all sides recognized him as a fair arbiter.
Islam sees itself as a faith that is far more inclusive than exclusive. Therefore, when Muhammad was forced to lead battles in defense of the faith, and afterwards when he turned on former Christian and Jewish allies, a dangerous rift became part of the Muslim worldview, at once aiming for universal peace and brotherhood but using violent means to get there. Christianity has its own built-in contradictions. This will always occur as long as human nature is divided. “What we say” and “what we do” have been perpetually at odds.
In the present crisis the U.S. also falls between two stools. We say that we promote democracy around the world, but what we do is to defend stability (and the steady stream of Gulf oil) in support of reactionary, oppressive regimes. The layer of contradiction that we don’t have, for the most part, is the religious one. Lurching toward modern secularism, Iraq, Iran, and Bosnia all ran afoul of religious pressures, and each society had to make peace with itself — a very fragile peace at best — in its own way. No doubt the same will happen in Egypt, with whatever convulsions that ensue when people are forced by passion and raging events to examine their innermost beliefs.
Hans Rosling’s famous lectures combine enormous quantities of public data with a sport’s commentator’s style to reveal the story of the world’s past, present and future development. Now he explores stats in a way he has never done before – using augmented reality animation.
In this spectacular section of ‘The Joy of Stats’ he tells the story of the world in 200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes. Plotting life expectancy against income for every country since 1810, Hans shows how the world we live in is radically different from the world most of us imagine.
Recent events in the Middle East have many commentators frantically speculating about what the future holds for Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Iran, Bahrain, Libya, Syria and any other country whose citizens are choosing to rise up in protest. Across the region, people are bravely standing up, with many common demands — chiefly, social and economic reforms, as well as an end to rampant corruption and human rights abuses. Who could find fault with that? Unfortunately, a whole lot of people.
Among Western nations and their respective media outlets, an intense fear has been perpetuated as a result of these protests: namely, that of an “Islamized” (whatever that means) Middle East. In this case, world leaders and commentators seem to be on the same page. They are terrified that more regimes will go the way of post-revolutionary Iran and become Islamic Republics as well. Stop there.
Is Iran really an Islamic Republic? No. The mullahs and ayatollahs have created a brutal dictatorship that is about as legitimately Islamic in nature as the Ku Klux Klan is Christian. In fact, the protests in Iran (both in 2009 after the fraudulent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more recently this week) have shown the world that even the Iranian people aren’t moving in the direction of Iran circa 1979. Far from it.
But does that mean that Iranians are turning away from their Islamic roots? Again, no. In fact, they are turning toward a more Islamic republic, or better put, a true Islamic republic. So too, others across the Middle East (whether they recognize it or not) are turning toward more genuinely Islamic states.
If Western nations understood what a true Islamic republic looked like, I expect that they wouldn’t be nearly as jarred or frightened by the recent wave of popular protests spreading across the Middle East. A bona fide Islamic republic is one that respects the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, one that doesn’t torture, one that eschews institutionalized sexism and honors human rights. But above all, an authentic Islamic republic is one that is both democratic and secular.
The Holy Quran, the only uncontested source of revelation for all Muslims, explicitly states that there should be “no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Key to all Islamic belief and practice is the concept of niyyat or “intention.” And no full, pure and independent intention can be achieved under a theocratic regime, especially (as is the case in Iran) when that regime is trying to force its adulterated interpretation of Islam down its people’s throats.
Thus, the phrase “Islamic republic” is an inherently misleading one, for a theocratic state is, by definition, an un-Islamic state — not merely because it interferes with the establishment of the pure intentions necessary to practice Islam, but also because it assumes the impossible. To become a Muslim, one must make the following proclamation of faith, or shahada: “I bear witness that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is His messenger.”
As much as the leaders of the “Islamic” Republic of Iran would like us to believe that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the voice of God on earth, they are sorely mistaken. Why? Because la ilaha ilallah. Translation: There is no god but God. For Muslims, God speaks through the Holy Quran, which teaches that God is as close to any human being as his or her jugular vein (50:16). As such, Muslims seeking union with the Divine possess no need for an intermediary — no ayatollahs or mullahs or even imams.
Muslims around the Middle East are demanding their rights today — not just as granted by their constitutions or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are demanding the rights guaranteed to them by the Holy Quran itself: rights to freedom, democracy, independence and yes, secular rule
Melody Moezzi is a writer, attorney, speaker, activist, a United Nations Global Expert and award-winning author. She is also the Executive Director of the non-profit interfaith organization, 100 People of Faith. Her first book, War on Error: Real Stories of American Muslims, earned her a Georgia Author of the Year Award and a Gustavus Myers Center for Bigotry and Human Rights Honorable Mention.
Moezzi writes and speaks on a variety of issues, particularly those relating to Islam, Iran and mental health. She is a commentator for National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, a blogger for the Huffington Post and Ms. Magazine, and a columnist for bp Magazine.
Moezzi has written for many publications, including the Washington Post, NPR, CNN.com, Parabola, the American Bar Association, the Yale Journal for Humanities in Medicine, and she has appeared many radio and television programs, including CNN, BBC, NPR and Air America.
Moezzi is a graduate of Wesleyan University and the Emory University School of Law, as well as the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
From Miroslav Volf, one of the world’s foremost Christian theologians—and co-teacher, along with Tony Blair, of a groundbreaking Yale University course on faith and globalization—comes Allah, a timely and provocative argument for a new pluralism between Muslims and Christians. In a penetrating exploration of every side of the issue, from New York Times headlines on terrorism to passages in the Koran and excerpts from the Gospels, Volf makes an unprecedented argument for effecting a unified understanding between Islam and Christianity. In the tradition of Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Islam in the Modern World, Volf’s Allah is essential reading for students of the evolving political science of the twenty-first century.
Book Description
Three and a half billion people—the majority of the world’s population—profess Christianity or Islam. Renowned scholar Miroslav Volf’s controversial proposal is that Muslims and Christians do worship the same God—the only God. As Volf reveals, warriors in the “clash of civilizations” have used “religions”—each with its own god and worn as a badge of identity—to divide and oppose, failing to recognize the one God whom Muslims and Christians understand in partly different ways.
Writing from a Christian perspective, and in dialogue with leading Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world, Volf reveals surprising points of intersection and overlap between these two faith traditions:
• What the Qur’an denies about God as the Holy Trinity has been denied by every great teacher of the church in the past and ought to be denied by Christians today.
• A person can be both a practicing Muslim and 100 percent Christian without denying core convictions of belief and practice.
• How two faiths, worshipping the same God, can work toward the common good under a single government.
Volf explains the hidden agendas behind today’s news stories as he thoughtfully considers the words of religious leaders and parses the crucial passages from the Bible and the Qur’an that continue to ignite passion. Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the “our God vs. their God” premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates strife.
Miroslav Volf
Miroslav Volf is the Henry B. Wright Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School and the founding director of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture. “One of the most celebrated theologians of our time,” (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury), Volf is a leading expert on religion and conflict. His recent books include Against the Tide: Love in a Time of Petty Dreams and Persisting Enmities, and Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation—winner of the 2002 Grawmeyer Award in Religion.
As with Easter and Passover, the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad is dated by the lunar calendar. This year it falls on Feb. 15, and the time seems particularly fraught with meaning. Every time there is a crisis in the Muslim world, grudges and resentments going back almost to the beginning of the faith, in the seventh century, seem to resurface. Islam, being an all-inclusive religion, refers every aspect of life back to God. When you feel that God has been affronted or disobeyed by your enemies, time disappears. It’s always a good time to reopen old wounds.
That’s why there are rarely any upsets in society that are not also religious upsets. Traditional Muslim society equates with religious society. In Egypt, where secular rule has been the rule, the chemistry between God and government is still volatile and almost impossible to fathom if you live outside the Arab world. I don’t speak as an insider but as a writer who delved into these issues when researching a book on the life of Muhammad. It is remarkable the extent to which the life of the Prophet set the template for attitudes that persist today.
Among the most marked of these are a sense of being embattled for God, a defensive posture against infidels, a fierce desire to devote one’s life to protect the Prophet, a desire to obey God’s laws down to the smallest letter, and jihad, which in its broadest meaning denotes the struggle of the soul to reach a pure relationship with Allah against the temptations of one’s base nature. These elements are entangled inside the worldview of devout Muslims. The new guard that tries to provoke change must contend not just with the old guard — in this case the clash is between the youth of Egypt and the ruling military elite — but also there is the rear guard of religious conservatism. A centuries-old worldview is always ready to condemn change as being against the will of God.
What I came to understand is that this worldview has its reasons for being. The Prophet was personally troubled about the messages he received that commanded him to convert the entire world to the new faith. When the early Muslims first fled from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad was welcomed as a peacemaker among warring tribes and faiths. His approach was conciliatory, and all sides recognized him as a fair arbiter. Islam sees itself as a faith that is far more inclusive than exclusive. Therefore, when Muhammad was forced to lead battles in defense of the faith, and afterwards when he turned on former Christian and Jewish allies, a dangerous rift became part of the Muslim worldview, at once aiming for universal peace and brotherhood but using violent means to get there. Christianity has its own built-in contradictions. This will always occur as long as human nature is divided. “What we say” and “what we do” have been perpetually at odds.
In the present crisis the U.S. also falls between two stools. We say that we promote democracy around the world, but what we do is to defend stability (and the steady stream of Gulf oil) in support of reactionary, oppressive regimes. The layer of contradiction that we don’t have, for the most part, is the religious one. Lurching toward modern secularism, Iraq, Iran, and Bosnia all ran afoul of religious pressures, and each society had to make peace with itself — a very fragile peace at best — in its own way. No doubt the same will happen in Egypt, with whatever convulsions that ensue when people are forced by passion and raging events to examine their innermost beliefs.
I said in my last post that Islamic thought divides human beauty into two basic sorts, innate and acquired.
Innate beauty is the harmonious balance of the entire range of divine attributes present in the human substance, such as life, consciousness, desire, power, speech, compassion, justice and kindness. Acquired beauty can also be called “recovered beauty” because it is not a new beauty, simply the innate beauty brought into the open. Although we are innately beautiful, we have lost touch with ourselves.
This is an ancient story, constantly retold in everyday life. Everyone knows that we have lost our beauty. It is so obvious that many people refuse to consider the idea that there is any such thing. No, they respond, human beings are rotten to the core, heartless and soulless, besotted with egotistic illusions, indifferent to the suffering of others. Those who sympathize with this response should wonder why, if we are so bad, we feel bad about being bad.
The Quran explains in many ways that people do not live up to their beauty. As in Genesis, the story begins with Adam, but there are important twists in the Quranic version. God told Adam and Eve not to approach the tree, but they did. They ate the fruit not because their wills became corrupted, as Christian theologians like to say, but simply because “Adam forgot” (Quran 20:115). Why did he forget? “Human beings were created weak” (4:28). How can someone who is weak carry the burden of the divine attributes? No one is strong but God.
In this version of the tale, God in motherly concern for human weakness sent prophets, one after another. With numbers like the traditional “124,000,” the notion is plainly that forgetfulness is endemic to the human race — though we don’t need the numbers to figure that out. The mission of the prophets is to help people recover their innate beauty.
Everyone knows we’ve lost it, but people don’t agree on what “it” is. Descriptions of human ills and recipes for their cure fill the writings of historians, philosophers and social critics. They provide raw material for the daily news and punditry, and they drive political and social movements. If human beings are fine, why all the fuss? “If it ain’t broke…”
But it is.
People offer cures for the disease on the basis of their own diagnoses. In the Islamic context, there are two basic approaches, one focusing on the social context, the other on human nature. The first can be called “legal-mindedness,” the second “spirituality.”
The legal-minded approach is that of the Muslim jurists and their theological allies. They think the disease is human disobedience and claim that we Adamites can straighten things out by obeying the law, by which they mean the instructions of the Quran and the Prophet concerning right activity, as interpreted by themselves. In modern times, this approach has joined up with various ideologies spawned by the Enlightenment, all of which aim to establish paradise on earth. This approach is virtually identical with that of governments and law-makers everywhere; the difference lies in the source of the laws.
The spiritual approach acknowledges the necessity of law but rejects the idea that it can cure the problem. The underlying perspective has parallels in most religions. It first sank into me when I came across it many years ago in my favorite comic strip, Pogo: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” The problem lies in my own self, and the solution is to fix myself. In the ideological approach that has been adopted by the legal-minded, the problem lies with the other guy. “We have met the enemy, and he is them.”
If the disease is forgetfulness, what exactly did Adam forget? He forgot who he was, and then he tried to fix it.
It is fairly clear that law cannot solve the problem, though it keeps lawyers and bureaucrats happy. We would probably get along better if everyone did obey the rules, but the disease would pop up elsewhere. The cure lies in remembering, not in treating the symptoms.
Notice that the notion of forgetfulness points to something we already know, something that has slipped our minds. In one word, Adam forgot “God.” More specifically, he forgot the fact that there is no god but God. Having forgotten, he followed a false god, an idol, whether Satan, or his own desires, or his own ego. All these boil down to the last, because it is we who make the choices. They can’t make us choose what we choose to choose.
Rumi, one of the greatest teachers of the spiritual tradition, tells us that the ego is “the mother of all idols.” He is echoing the Quran’s discussion of what it calls “caprice,” as in the verse, “Who is more misguided than he who follows his own caprice without guidance from God?” (28:50). Muhammad put it this way: “Your worst enemy is your own self.”
In the Quran’s version of this ancient story, Adam and Eve asked forgiveness for eating the forbidden fruit. God immediately forgave them and then sent them into the earth, appointing Adam to be a prophet, that is, a guide for his children. All prophets, the Quran tells us, brought “reminders” (dhikr) to their people. The proper response to a reminder is “remembrance” (dhikr).
In the Quranic viewpoint, all religions established by God acknowledge tawhīd, the fact that there is no god but God. As the Book puts it, “We never sent a messenger before you save that We revealed to him, ‘There is no god but I, so serve Me’” (21:25). “Service” is then appropriate activity in conformity with tawhīd.
Unlike tawhīd, appropriate activity depends to a large degree on historical context. God sends prophets only “in the language of their people” (14:4). This is the Quran’s rationale for the extraordinary diversity of religious teachings and practices.
In short, the Islamic tradition holds that human beings are innately beautiful because of the latent divine image, but they have forgotten God and lost touch with themselves. The goal of life is then to recover the human birthright, and the way to do so is to follow revealed guidance.
(Among the good books that address the excesses of legal-mindedness, one can mention the writings of the Muslim jurist Khaled Abou El-Fazl, especially his Search for Beauty in Islam.)
There is a lovely story from the life of the Prophet Muhammad, remembering that a mysterious visitor came upon him and his companions. The visitor, later revealed to be the archangel Gabriel, proceeded to sit intimately next to Muhammad and quiz the Prophet. He asked Muhammad about three increasingly higher and deeper levels of religiosity, which the Prophet answered sequentially as Islam (wholehearted submission to God), Faith and, lastly, Loveliness (ihsan). This third quality the Prophet identified as worshipping God as if we could see the Divine, and if we cannot, to always remember that God nevertheless sees us.
The sequence is fascinating, as it reveals that what we think of as Islam (the attestation to Divine Unity, the performance of the prayers, the pilgrimage to Mecca, the paying of the alms tax, the fast of Ramadan) mark only the very first layer — though the foundational layer — of religiosity. Above that is faith, and above faith is the spiritual and mystical layer of spiritual beauty, for ihsan is literally the realm of actualizing and realizing beauty and loveliness (husn), of bringing beauty into this world and connecting it to God, who is the All-Beautiful.
Throughout Islamic history, this realm of ihsan was most emphatically pursued by the mystics of Islam, the Sufis. Historically, this mystical realm of Islam formed a powerful companion to the legal dimension of Islam (sharia). Indeed, many of the mystics of Islam were also masters of legal and theological realms. The cultivation of inward beauty and outward righteous action were linked in many of important Islamic institutions. In comparing Islam with Judaism, the mystical dimension of Islam was much more prominently widespread than Kabbalah. And unlike the Christian tradition, the mysticism of Islam was not cloistered in monasteries. Sufis were — and remain — social and political agents who went about seeking the Divine in the very midst of humanity.
After the Prophet Muhammad, many of the most influential of all Muslims were and remain mystics. Mawlana Jalal al-Din Balkhi, known to Turks as Mevlana and to Americans as Rumi, remains the most beloved of all Sufi poets, whose Masnavi was perhaps the only work ever compared directly with the Quran. Ibn ‘Arabi, the Spanish Muslim sage, remains the most widely read metaphysician, and his school of “Unity of Being” (Wahdat al-wujud) has been both influential and controversial from Spain to Indonesia. The most important Muslim theologian, al-Ghazali, identified the realm of Sufism as the highest Islamic quest for knowledge, one that dealt most directly with other-worldly matters.
Nor was the practice of Islamic mysticism limited to intellectuals and poets. At the level of popular practice, some of the Sufi shrines received as many (if not more) annual visitors that the Mecca does for the Hajj pilgrimage. Entire Muslim-majority regions (Iran, Turkey, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.) came to develop understandings of Islam that are and remain inseparable from mystical understandings of Islam. Much of the higher dimensions of Islamic aesthetics (calligraphy and poetry) have been inseparable from Sufism.
And yet, today, the word “Sufi” is a highly suspect one for many modern Muslims, and even thinkers and preachers whose frameworks and anecdotes are permeated with those of the mystical dimension of Islam eschew the mere mention of the word Sufi, either not wanting to alienate their suspicious audience or not wishing to “erode” their authority by connecting their teachings to anything other than the Quran and the example of the Prophet.
So how did such a powerful and beautiful dimension of Islam come to be viewed with such suspicion by so many Muslims?
The marginalization of Sufism came about through an initially unlikely perfect storm, an alliance of European Orientalists and conservative/modernist Muslims, whose agenda in demarcating Islam from Sufism ironically supports that of certain New-Agey Universalists who sought to extract Sufism out of Islam. Let’s explore this somewhat odd association a bit more closely.
The Orientalist scholars (whose approach began in Europe and dominated much of the American scholarly engagement with Islam) based their approach on a study of Islam that privileged “classical” legal and theological Arabic texts from 800-1100 C.E. Of all those texts, the most important ones were held to be the ones closest historically to the “foundational” period. The Orientalists became interested in Sufism very early on, almost as early as their translations of the Quran. They found themselves attracted to the deep beauty and wisdom of Sufi poetry, particularly from Persian.
Quite inconveniently for them, they were also committed to a bifurcated view that divided the world into Semitic (Arabs and Jews, characterized primarily by law, monotheism, and dry deserts) and Indo-Europeans (Hindus, Europeans and Iranians, who lived through philosophy, art, mysticism and logic). The Orientalists had no problem thinking that entire blocks of humanity share certain “mentalities” and “temperaments” connected to their languages.
Even though they admired the poetry of mystics like Sa’di, Hafez and Rumi, they could not admit that Muslims (who were “Semitic” after all) could come up with such beauty, mysticism and poetry. Therefore, the Orientalists decreed that Sufism must be “un-Islamic” and due to Christian, Persian, Hindu or Neoplatonic “influences” — anything but Islam, anything but the experience of Prophet Muhammad in encountering God, which is what the Sufis have always claimed as the primary source of their inspiration!
The Muslim conservative/modernists (what we broadly refer to as the Salafi tradtion) came to have a profound distrust of what might be termed “the tradition(s) of Islam,” believing that the historical tradition of Islamic scholarship — and the scholars who had been the authoritative interpreters of Islam — were increasingly irrelevant to the historical trials and tribulations through which 19th and 20th century Muslims were suffering.
They wanted to remain pious and observant Muslims, but believed that the way to return to the “glory days” of Islam was to “return” to the original spirit of vitality and authenticity of Islam, before the influence of “foreign ideas” crept into Islam, sapping its authenticity. These foreign ideas they equated both culturally (the contribution of Persians, Indians, Turks, etc.) and intellectually (the traditions of philosophy, mysticism and all non-scriptural sciences).
The idea for the Muslim modernists was that the remedy for Islam consisted of a textual return “away from the blemishes … of the later phases” back to “yearning for truth” of the founders of Islam. In this, they found themselves oddly in full-agreement with the orientalists. They came to be suspicious of many traditions of Islamic thought and practice that developed through time, including that of Sufism.
Perhaps most polemically, they identified Sufism as having contributed to a corrupt and inward-looking mentality that allowed the colonial powers to dominate Muslims. Throughout Islamic history, particular Sufi ideas and practices (such as the “Unity of Being,” certain meditation techniques and commemoration of the Prophet’s birthday) had always been contested by other Muslims. It was in this modern and modernist context that the whole of Islamic mysticism came to be viewed with great suspicion as being un-Islamic if not outright anti-Islamic.
So where do the New Agers come into play? It was only in the 20th century that human beings became capable of uttering a sentence like “I’m not religious, I’m spiritual.” Historically all religious traditions have had mystical dimensions, and their mystical traditions have arisen within the very depth of each tradition, partaking of its key symbols and emulating the spiritual experiences of its main exemplars.
It was in this modern context that a deep and new suspicion of the outward forms and institutions of religion was cultivated, with people who believed that they were on the edge (or already inside) a “New Age” of human consciousness. It was these new Agers who, dissatisfied with their own experiences of Judaism and Christianity, turned “East” to the mystical traditions of Buddhism, Hindu traditions and Islam to obtain the mystical truth that they so yearned for — without necessarily wanting to adopt the legal and institutional aspects of those traditions. In many cases, the engagements were complicated by colonial politics, as the “eastern” traditions of wisdom were connected to colonized countries that many of the same Westerners looked down upon, even as they were fascinated by them.
So what we have had for the last few decades is a situation of Orientalists and Salafi Muslims seeking to construct a “real Islam” that is untainted by Sufi dimensions, and many new agers seek to extract a mysticism that stands above and disconnected from wider, broader and deeper aspects of Islam.
Yes we have learned that the human yearning for the Divine, for beauty, for love and for loveliness is too deeply engrained in the human spirit to be partitioned off or exiled. Today, many Muslims world-wide are increasingly dissatisfied with what they see as dry as stale bread interpretations and practices of Islam, and want — and demand — something more spiritual and more beautiful. They know about the deep spiritual experience of the Prophet Muhammad, who came face to face with God, and they too yearn for their own spiritual experiences.
All Muslims seek to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran reminds them that if you love God, follow Muhammad. The mystically oriented among Muslims take the emulation a bit more literally: If Muhammad arose to have his own face-to-face encounter with the Divine, they too aspire to rise in the footsteps of the Prophet, to have their own meeting with God. As it was said of the great Rumi, they too want to be “off-springs of the soul of Muhammad.”
Omid Safi is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He is the Co-Chair of the Islamic Mysticism Group at the American Academy of Religion, and the author of ‘Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters’ (HarperOne, 2009).
Memories of Muhammad
Why the Prophet Matters
By Omid Safi
In Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters, leading Islamic scholar Omid Safi presents a portrait of Muhammad that reveals his centrality in the devotions of modern Muslims around the world. This religious biography offers new insights into Islam, covering such hot button issues such as the spread of Islam, holy wars, the role of women, the significance of Jerusalem, tensions with Jews and Christians, wahabbi Islam, and the role of cyberspace in the evolution of the religion.
Book Description
Who was the historical Muhammad, and how do Muslims remember him—as a holy prophet, a cultural revolutionary, a military leader, or a spiritual mystic? Unending media coverage of extremist fanatics, the controversy over offensive cartoon depictions of Muhammad, and fatwas against journalists and authors are all hard to ignore and have prejudiced our Western perceptions of Muslims and their founder. This definitive biography of the founder of Islam by a leading Muslim-American scholar will reveal invaluable new insights, finally providing a fully three-dimensional portrait of Muhammad and the one billion people who follow him today.
Memories of Muhammad presents Muhammad as a lens through which to view both the genesis of Islamic religion and the grand sweep of Islamic history—right up to the hot button issues of the day, such as the spread of Islam, holy wars, the status of women, the significance of Jerusalem, and current tensions with Jews, Hindus, and Christians. It also provides a rare glimpse into how Muslims spiritually connect to God through their Prophet, in the mosque, in the home, and even in cyberspace.
This groundbreaking book offers the opportunity to move from telling Muhammad’s story to talking about how different Muslims throughout Islamic history have both honored and contested Muhammad’s legacy.
This video is a Webby Award winner. Amnesty International supporters have used the power of words to demand freedom and justice for countless human rights defenders around the world. Our words are proof that when you stand up for human rights, you never stand alone.
Muslim Cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed in 2010.
CAIRO — Muslim clerics said Monday that Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea was a violation of Islamic tradition that may further provoke militant calls for revenge attacks against American targets.
Although there appears to be some room for debate over the burial – as with many issues within the faith – a wide range of Islamic scholars interpreted it as a humiliating disregard for the standard Muslim practice of placing the body in a grave with the head pointed toward the holy city of Mecca.
Sea burials can be allowed, they said, but only in special cases where the death occurred aboard a ship.
“The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don’t think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration,” said Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical cleric in Lebanon.
A U.S. official said that the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. There also was speculation about worry that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants.
The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters, did not say where the burial took place.
U.S. President Barack Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial.
But the Lebanese cleric Mohammed called it a “strategic mistake” that was bound to stoke rage.
In Washington, CIA director Leon Panetta warned that “terrorists almost certainly will attempt to avenge” the killing of the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Bin Laden is dead,” Panetta wrote in a memo to CIA staff. “Al-Qaida is not.”
According to Islamic teachings, the highest honor to be bestowed on the dead is giving the deceased a swift burial, preferably before sunset. Those who die while traveling at sea can have their bodies committed to the bottom of the ocean if they are far off the coast, according to Islamic tradition.
“They can say they buried him at sea, but they cannot say they did it according to Islam,” Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai’s grand mufti, said about bin Laden’s burial. “If the family does not want him, it’s really simple in Islam: You dig up a grave anywhere, even on a remote island, you say the prayers and that’s it.”
“Sea burials are permissible for Muslims in extraordinary circumstances,” he added. “This is not one of them.”
But Mohammed Qudah, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Jordan, said burying the Saudi-born bin Laden at sea was not forbidden if there was nobody to receive the body and provide a Muslim burial.
“The land and the sea belong to God, who is able to protect and raise the dead at the end of times for Judgment Day,” he said. “It’s neither true nor correct to claim that there was nobody in the Muslim world ready to receive Bin Laden’s body.”
Clerics in Iraq – where an offshoot of al-Qaida is blamed for the death of thousands of people since 2003 – also criticized the U.S. action. One said it only benefited fish.
“If a man dies on a ship that is a long distance from land, then the dead man should be buried at the sea,” said Shiite cleric Ibrahim al-Jabari. “But if he dies on land, then he should be buried in the ground, not to be thrown into the sea. Otherwise, this would be only inviting fish to a banquet.”
The Islamic tradition of a quick burial was the subject of intense debate in Iraq in 2003 when U.S. forces embalmed the bodies of Saddam Hussein’s two sons after they were killed in a firefight. Their bodies were later shown to media.
“What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims,” said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad’s famous Abu Hanifa mosque. “It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him.”
Prominent Egyptian Islamic analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said bin Laden’s sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave.
“They don’t want to see him become a symbol, but he is already a symbol in people’s hearts.”
___
Associated Press writers Barbara Surk in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Jamal Halaby and Sameer N. Yacoub in Amman, Jordan, and Zeina Karam in Beirut contributed to this report.
The man who whose team took down Osama bin Laden is a 1977 graduate of the University of Texas-Austin. His degree from the school? Journalism.
William H. McRaven, a San Antonio native, commanded the special forces operation that eventually killed Osama bin Laden.
“I was fascinated that somebody with a journalism degree had gone to special forces and been a SEAL,” Bobby Inman, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, told the Daily Texan. “He has demonstrated that he is truly a distinguished graduate of the university.”
McRaven is a Vice Admiral in the Navy, a Navy SEAL and was a participant in the Naval ROTC program while at college. In the course of his career, he has won the Bronze Star and Defense Superior Service Medal.
Clearly, McRaven has used his communications degree to his advantage.
Newsweek reported on McRaven’s fortitude in 2004:
McRaven also literally wrote the book on Special Ops, a 1995 history of surgical strike teams from the Nazi rescue of Mussolini in 1943 to the 1976 Israeli raid on Entebbe. And his thesis at naval postgrad school is now mandatory reading for Special Ops commanders. “Bill is reputed to be the smartest SEAL that ever lived,” says a former commander who knows McRaven well. “He is physically tough, compassionate and can drive a knife through your ribs in a nanosecond.”
Traveling across three continents, Justin Rowlatt investigates the spread of Chinese influence around the planet and asks what the world will be like if China overtakes America as the world’s economic superpower.
In the first of two films, he embarks on a journey across Southern Africa to chart the extraordinary phenomenon of Chinese migration to Africa, and the huge influence of China on the development of the continent. While many in the West view Africa as a land of poverty, to the Chinese it is seen as an almost limitless business opportunity. From Angola to Tanzania, Justin meets the fearless Chinese entrepreneurs who have traveled thousands of miles to set up businesses.
The Chinese Are Coming Pt 2
The Chinese Are Coming Pt 3
The Chinese Are Coming Pt 4
WASHINGTON (RNS) Often accused of ignoring religion as they craft foreign policy, the White House and State Department are trying to show that religion is a rising priority for U.S. diplomacy.
The most recent case in point: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Istanbul last week (July 15) promoted a new U.S.-backed international agreement to protect freedom of speech and religion, an accord described by her department as a “landmark” change.
“These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places,” Clinton said, “and they are certainly essential to democracy.”
Elsewhere in the State Department, its school for Foreign Service officers rolled out a new course last month on how diplomats can practice “religious engagement.”
And the National Security Council is touting a new partnership with the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which represents a “renewed focus on the intersection of religion and foreign policy across the United States government,” faith-based director Joshua DuBois wrote in a July 11 blog post.
Skeptics, however, say religion must be a key consideration at all levels of statecraft, and recent efforts, however admirable, only begin to address that shortfall.
The agreement Clinton touted in Istanbul aims to replace what has been the prevailing international response to acts considered defamatory against Islam, such as Quran burnings and inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Muslim-majority countries, working through the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, have often introduced and passed resolutions in the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, and its predecessor body, banning speech that defames religion.
In March, however, the U.S. and other Western nations convinced the OIC to back a plan that instead prescribes education, public debate and interfaith dialogue to counteract religious intolerance.
“It’s making the world safer for religious minorities who want to be free to practice their religion and express their views without fear of being accused of blasphemy,” said Suzanne Nossel, deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations.
In Istanbul, Clinton met with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, head of the OIC — which calls itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world” — to discuss ways of implementing the March agreement.
“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression,” Clinton said. “We are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.”
Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs, welcomed the new approach. The former diplomat was a guest instructor in June at the Foreign Service Institute, where about 30 diplomats signed up for a three-day seminar on religion and diplomacy.
Farr supports legislation introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., however, that would make religion a mandatory part of Foreign Service training, and more frequent for Foreign Service officers. Wolf has long criticized the State Department for failing to vigorously address religious intolerance abroad.
Farr also welcomed the partnership between the NSC and the faith-based office, which the White House heralded as “the first-ever Interagency Working Group on Religion and Global Affairs.”
Still, Farr said, the faith-based office is primarily a domestic agency that’s not designed to tackle international relations, and “the State Department has not and still does not do religion very well.”
As for the so-called Istanbul Communique on freedom of speech and religion, “it’s wonderful to address this issue at the U.N. but it doesn’t address the problem at the national level.”
“At the root of Islamic extremism there seems to be an idea, broadly accepted through the Middle East,” Farr said, “that God is pleased by the punishment and the killing of those who offend Islam.”
Former U.S. Ambassador Randolph Bell, who runs the First Freedom Center, a Virginia-based religious freedom watchdog group, similarly welcomed the latest moves to take religious considerations more seriously in American diplomacy.
“Anything that’s done to increase the overall familiarity of Foreign Service officers with the relationship between freedom of religion and U.S. interests is a plus,” said Bell.
But he also cautioned that the interfaith dialogue called for in the Istanbul agreement does not diminish Americans’ responsibility to doggedly defend religious freedom, both at home and abroad.
“We are by no means inimical to interfaith dialogue,” said Bell. “But it should never be a substitute for the monitoring of rights.”
Why are so many women named “Mary” in the Gospels? The Aramaic name Maryam (Miriam in Hebrew) was popular among Jews in Palestine during the first century; being named after Moses’ sister was auspicious. Maryam in Aramaic became Maria in the Greek Gospels, a short step to Mary in English.
To distinguish one person with a common name from another, place names could be used. That is why Jesus (from the Aramaic equivalent of Joshua) was called “of Nazareth.” So we have, in addition to Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala — or Mary Magdalene.
Unattached to husband, father or brother, the Magdalene stood out within Jesus’ fellowship in a culture where women were expected to live under male protection. When Jesus said that prostitutes had a better chance of entering God’s Kingdom than his opponents did (Matthew 21:31), some people came to the conclusion that Mary Magdalene fit the category.
Medieval imagination took that possibility and exploited it. Mary Magdalene was conflated with a much later Mary (Mary of Egypt), and given an itinerary that took her to Jerusalem, through conversion, and then on a trip on a rudderless ship guided by an angel to the south of France. There, it was said, after winning souls to Christ and destroying idols, Mary Magdalene retreated to a mountain cave, where she levitated when she said her prayers, and ultimately died on July 22, her feast day.
Another legend has it that, unattached as she was, Mary became Jesus’ concubine. That was a claim asserted by the Cathars, Christians who became the objects of an internal Crusade declared by Pope Innocent III. His zealous executioners destroyed the entire city of Beziers for the insult to Mary Magdalene, carrying out the genocide on her feast day in 1209. Yet the idea lost none of its appeal; later Martin Luther embraced the Cathar view of Jesus’ liaison with Mary Magdalene.
Imagination did not end with the Middle Ages. Pierre Plantard, a right-wing and anti-Semitic pretender to power in France after the Second World War, tried to provide evidence – in the form of faked parchments he deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale – that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had born a child. Plantard’s claims ultimate gave us the appealing fiction of The Da Vinci Code.
History is also a form of imagination; its power lies in its insistence on evaluating evidence and its refusal to bend to a preconceived program of what the findings should be. History reveals a stronger Mary Magdalene than the predominantly male projections that have reigned from the time of Jesus’ critics to her sexualized portraits in New Age fantasies.
Mary Magdalene is the only person in the Gospels named as being exorcized by Jesus, freed of seven demons (Luke 8:2). During this prolonged cure, Jesus initiated Mary into his particular understanding of exorcism. For Jesus, people taken on their own were as clean as God had made Adam and Eve. If a person became unclean or impure, that was not because of contact with exterior objects. To his mind, impurity was a disturbance in that person’s own spirit that made them want to be impure, a disturbed desire to pollute and harm themselves.
Uncleanness had to be dealt with in the inward, spiritual personality of those afflicted. Mary Magdalene had reason to understand these principles better than most people, and it is not coincidence that the most detailed stories of exorcism in the Gospels come from places near Magdala, where she was active as a teacher both before and after Jesus’ death.
Anointing, in addition to exorcism, was a signature ritual of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel (6:13) reports that, when his disciples went out to offer Jesus’ healing therapy in his name, “they threw out many demons and anointed with oil many who were ill, and healed them.” Anointing conveyed Spirit to Jesus’ mind, and he wanted his followers to anoint people.
When Mary anointed Jesus near the end of his life the other disciples were angry with her (Mark 14:4-5). But Jesus explained the significance of what Mary Magdalene had done. Anointing the dead was a traditional part of Judaism, and he saw that Mary – by anointing him – connected the spiritual healing of his days in Galilee with the possibility of his execution in Jerusalem. Just as human life could be transformed by the inflowing of Spirit, so death itself could become the vehicle of God’s presence. Jesus insisted, “Wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has will be spoken of in memory of her” (Mark 14:9). The full insight that suffering can become a medium of divine presence came to Jesus through Mary’s anointing, and he ordered it as part of his message.
Mary’s dedication to the ritual of anointing extended beyond Jesus’ death. To complete the dutiful care of their dead rabbi, Mary and other women made their way to the tomb. Perfumed oil for rubbing on the dead was scented with the resin of myrrh and the leaves of aloe (John 19:38-39). Mary’s vision at the tomb of Jesus marks his separation from his flesh and his entry into a resurrected existence. “He is raised, he is not here,” an angel says (Mark 16:6). Jesus himself described those raised from the dead as “like angels” (Mark 12:18-27; Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38). Mary Magdalene’s vision, precisely because it was a vision in the earliest account (Mark 16) and not the inspection of an empty tomb, placed Jesus in the realm of heaven.
Beneath the complicated legends of medieval hagiographers and the conspiracy theories of their modern revisionist counterparts, Mary Magdalene’s signature sacraments of exorcism, anointing, and vision persist. Her three gifts of Spirit are her inheritance: dissolving what is impure or evil, offering ointment for sickness and discernment, and vision to perceive the spiritual truth of resurrection.
Whether Jesus and Mary, two unattached people, ever entered into a sexual relationship is not a historically answerable question. But their intimate connection in the world of ritual is as plain as the continuing power of the practices they pioneered.
Bruce Chilton is the Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College and author of Mary Magdalene. A biography (Doubleday).
From the last word with lawrence o’donnell rewrite 09-26-2011
full clips of the clash between demonstrators at occupy wall street and the police:
This guy is awesome, please share this video and if you can get involved, the time is NOW.
CIA owns Facebook
PART ONE: WHATS A FAIR START?
Is it just to tax the rich to help the poor? John Rawls says we should answer this question by asking what principles you would choose to govern the distribution of income and wealth if you did not know who you were, whether you grew up in privilege or in poverty. Wouldnt you want an equal distribution of wealth, or one that maximally benefits whomever happens to be the least advantaged? After all, that might be you. Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesnt go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted cant claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawlss point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.
PART ONE: MIND YOUR MOTIVE
Professor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher. Kant rejects utilitarianism. He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences.
When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth. Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out. According to Kant, the shopkeepers action has no moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada.
At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired FBI Agent Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by its participants involved. [Bonus John De Camp interview after the 60 minute mark.
Occupy Yourself Movement
Oct 28th 2011
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY AS POSSIBLE…WE DO NOT HAVE MUCH TIME!
A momentum is occurring
People are uniting across the world
They are sending a message
The next step is fast approaching
On Oct 28th 2011
WE SHUT THE SYSTEM DOWN.
For one day we peacefully protest in a symbol that will be felt across the globe.
We step out of the system and step back into ourselves.
Turn off all lights
Unplug all electrical devices
Abstain from using TV, radio and internet or phone.
Abstain from making any purchase of any kind
Choose that morning to cancel any services you feel you no longer need
That morning call in sick to work
Do NOTHING that generates money into THE SYSTEM.
We will send a message
We will unite
Most importantly, for one day…
We live without distraction
Read a book
Meditate
Play
Sing
Dance
Create
Frolic in nature
Love
On Oct 28th 2011
Step out of the system and get back to yourself
Spread the word!
SHUT IT ALL DOWN!
Join us on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=275706552463169¬if_t=event_ph…
This lively RSAnimate, adapted from Dan Pink’s talk at the RSA, illustrates the hidden truths behind what really motivates us at home and in the workplace.
www.theRSA.org
I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR HERE! I DID NOT SAY THAT THE WORLD WILL END AT THIS DATE.
IT IS JUST A NEW TIME AND AGE. I THINK WE WILL LOOSE THE ELECTRNICS AND HAVE TO HELP EACH OTHER TO START AT A NEW AGE. NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
THE MAYAN SAY NOTHING ABOUT AND END TIME, IT IS UP TO US THE CREAT A NEW TIME. DON`T WORRIE, BUT BE PREPARED ANYWAY. BUY SEED, FOOD, WATER AND STUFF YOU NEED TO CREAT A NEW AGE 
SO DON`T FEAR THIS DATE.
Watch this video before it is taken down forever. This might be your last chance!
SUMMARY:
“How could I have been such an idiot?” If you’ve never asked that question of yourself, you’re not an investor. There may be nothing in life that makes so many people feel as stupid as investing does. Yet while many books describe the mistakes investors make, only one draws on the latest scientific research to explain why smart people can be so dumb about money – and how they can do better. In YOUR MONEY AND YOUR BRAIN: How the New Science of Neuroeconomics Can Help Make You Rich, Jason Zweig reveals in clear and accessible terms what actually goes on inside our brains when we make decisions about money. More importantly, he highlights practical steps that beginning and advanced investors alike can easily follow to improve their financial performance.
Zweig writes: “I’ve been a financial journalist since 1987, and nothing I’ve ever learned about investing has excited me more than the spectacular findings emerging from the study of ‘neuroeconomics.’ Thanks to this newborn field – a hybrid of neuroscience, economics, and psychology – we can begin to understand what drives investing behavior not only on the theoretical or practical level, but as a basic biological function. These flashes of fundamental insight will enable you to see as never before what makes you tick as an investor.”
By Kerry Hannon, Special for USA TODAY
Ever wonder what pulses through your brain when money comes your way —— $300 on the sidewalk or when your 401(k) perks up?
Jason Zweig explores that topic in Your Money and Your Brain: How the New Science of Neuroeconomics Can Help Make You Rich.
Now, you may not get rich reading this book. But you might slow down to the point where emotion and intellect co-exist happily, the perfect money mood.
Zweig is a senior writer at Money magazine and the editor of the revised edition of Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor, the classic text about investing.
The new science of neuroeconomics is a combination of neuroscience (study of the molecular and cellular levels of the nervous system), economics and psychology.
Zweig explores answers to such questions as: What makes investors overconfident? Why does emotion overrule reason?
Zweig gamely offers his own brain as a guinea pig and heads to laboratories operated by leading neuroeconomists at Stanford, Emory, Duke and other universities. He undergoes MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) to monitor his brain activity while he plays investing video games.
The scanner pinpoints changes in the level of oxygen as blood ebbs and flows within the brain, enabling researchers to map the regions engaged by a particular task, he explains.
And here’s the rub. There is a battle between the “reflexive brain” (emotion-driven biological circuits that make us crave rewards) and the “reflective brain” (analytical circuits).
Your brain becomes intensely aroused when you anticipate a financial gain: “Your brain treats potential investing (or gambling) profits as a broad class of basic rewards, like food, drink, shelter, safety, sex” or drugs.
That hot state of anticipation cools down as soon as you earn the money, yielding a lukewarm satisfaction in the reflective brain.
As evidence, there are images of Zweig’s brain when he’s feeling greedy after getting a chance to win $5, compared with the milder satisfaction when he wins $5.
“Making money feels good, all right; it just doesn’t feel as good as expecting to make money. In a cruel irony that has enormous implications for financial behavior, your investing brain comes equipped with a biological mechanism that is more aroused when you anticipate a profit than when you actually get one,” he writes.
And that, readers, sets you up for chronic disappointment.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett is the prime example of the balanced approach to investing. One story about Buffett is that he read the annual report of Anheuser-Busch every year for 25 years, familiarizing himself with the company while he patiently waited for the stock to become cheap enough for him to want to own it, writes Zweig. Finally, in 2005, the stock dropped, and Buffett, who knew the business inside and out, snapped up a major stake.
The most powerful and reassuring lesson from new research into happiness is that you don’t have to be rich to be happy, concludes Zweig.
“When it comes to increasing your sense of well-being, managing your emotions and expectations is at least as important as managing your money. There are many small steps you can take, and a few big ones, to get the maximum happiness out of your money with a minimum of effort,” he writes.
One way: Make your own luck. That’s what Zweig did.
“In 1998, out of idle curiosity, I bought a copy of Scientific American in an airport bookstore and read an article on neuroscience, purely because it opened with a pretty picture,” Zweig says.
“If I had not ventured beyond my usual reading list that day,” he says, “this book would never have come into being.”
Ilya Zhitomirskiy, one of the young co-founders behind social network Diaspora*, passed away suddenly on Saturday, TechCrunch has confirmed.
No details about Zhitomirskiy’s cause of death had been issued at the time of this writing. He was 22 years old.
Zhitomirskiy and three fellow NYU students announced plans for their open-source Facebook-challenger in April 2010. They set up a Kickstarter fund that raised just over $200,000 for the project.
The service, currently under development in its “alpha” phase, is designed around personal privacy and gives users the option of controlling of their own servers, allowing them to manage how their online data are shared with their contacts. As opposed to Facebook, which centralizes and stores user data within its own network, Diaspora lets users create their own social graph or build off existing social networking connections from inside Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook.
During an interview with the New York Times in 2010, Diaspora co-founder Raphael Sofaer offered the following explanation of the project:
In our real lives, we talk to each other. We don’t need to hand our messages to a hub. What Facebook gives you as a user isn’t all that hard to do. All the little games, the little walls, the little chat, aren’t really rare things. The technology already exists.
The Diaspora’s goals drew praise from many following its announcement. Even Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated money to the project.
“I think it is cool people are trying to do it,” Zuckerberg told Wired in May 2010. “I see a little of myself in them. It’s just their approach that the world could be better and saying, “We should try to do it.”
UPDATE: CNNMoney now reports that Zhitomirskiy committed suicide, according to “a source close to the company.”
The long-hidden story of a family we thought we knew—and of a power-making apparatus that we have barely begun to comprehend.
After eight disastrous years, George W. Bush leaves office as one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Russ Baker asks the question that lingers even as this benighted administration winds down: Who really wanted this man at the helm of the country, and why did his backers promote him despite his obvious liabilities and limitations? This book goes deep behind the scenes to deliver an arresting new look at George W. Bush, his father George H. W. Bush, their family, and the network of figures in intelligence, the military, finance, and oil who enabled the family’s rise to power.
Baker’s exhaustive investigation reveals a remarkable clan whose hermetic secrecy and code of absolute loyalty have concealed a far-reaching role in recent history that transcends the Bush presidencies. Baker offers new insights into lingering mysteries—from the death of John F. Kennedy to Richard Nixon’s downfall in Watergate. Here, too, are insider accounts of the backroom strategizing, and outright deception, that resulted in George W. Bush’s electoral success.
Throughout, Baker helps us understand why we have not known these things before. Family of Secrets combines compelling narrative with eye-opening revelations. It offers the untold history of the machinations that have shaped American politics over much of the last century.
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a complete turkey! It’s the supercommittee!
By next Wednesday, the so-called supercommittee, a bipartisan group of legislators, is supposed to reach an agreement on how to reduce future deficits. Barring an evil miracle — I’ll explain the evil part later — the committee will fail to meet that deadline.
If this news surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. If it depresses you, cheer up: In this case, failure is good.
Why was the supercommittee doomed to fail? Mainly because the gulf between our two major political parties is so wide. Republicans and Democrats don’t just have different priorities; they live in different intellectual and moral universes.
In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment. But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and slashing government spending is a job-creation strategy. Try getting a leading Republican to admit that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit or that sharp cuts in government spending (except on the military) would hurt the economic recovery.
Moreover, the parties have sharply different views of what constitutes economic justice.
Democrats see social insurance programs, from Social Security to food stamps, as serving the moral imperative of providing basic security to our fellow citizens and helping those in need.
Republicans have a totally different view. They may soft-pedal that view in public — in last year’s elections, they even managed to pose as defenders of Medicare — but, in private, they view the welfare state as immoral, a matter of forcing citizens at gunpoint to hand their money over to other people. By creating Social Security, declared Rick Perry in his book “Fed Up!”, F.D.R. was “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” Does anyone doubt that he was speaking for many in his party?
So the supercommittee brought together legislators who disagree completely both about how the world works and about the proper role of government. Why did anyone think this would work?
Well, maybe the idea was that the parties would compromise out of fear that there would be a political price for seeming intransigent. But this could only happen if the news media were willing to point out who is really refusing to compromise. And they aren’t. If and when the supercommittee fails, virtually all news reports will be he-said, she-said, quoting Democrats who blame Republicans and vice versa without ever explaining the truth.
Oh, and let me give a special shout-out to “centrist” pundits who won’t admit that President Obama has already given them what they want. The dialogue seems to go like this. Pundit: “Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?” Mr. Obama: “I support a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.” Pundit: “Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?”
You see, admitting that one side is willing to make concessions, while the other isn’t, would tarnish one’s centrist credentials. And the result is that the G.O.P. pays no price for refusing to give an inch.
So the supercommittee will fail — and that’s good.
For one thing, history tells us that the Republican Party would renege on its side of any deal as soon as it got the chance. Remember, the U.S. fiscal outlook was pretty good in 2000, but, as soon as Republicans gained control of the White House, they squandered the surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars. So any deal reached now would, in practice, be nothing more than a deal to slash Social Security and Medicare, with no lasting improvement in the deficit.
Also, any deal reached now would almost surely end up worsening the economic slump. Slashing spending while the economy is depressed destroys jobs, and it’s probably even counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction, since it leads to lower revenue both now and in the future. And current projections, like those of the Federal Reserve, suggest that the economy will remain depressed at least through 2014. Better to have no deal than a deal that imposes spending cuts in the next few years.
But don’t we eventually have to match spending and revenue? Yes, we do. But the decision about how to do that isn’t about accounting. It’s about fundamental values — and it’s a decision that should be made by voters, not by some committee that allegedly transcends the partisan divide.
Eventually, one side or the other of that divide will get the kind of popular mandate it needs to resolve our long-run budget issues. Until then, attempts to strike a Grand Bargain are fundamentally destructive. If the supercommittee fails, as expected, it will be time to celebrate.
TORONTO – Stephen Hawking says the colonization of outer space is key to the survival of humankind, predicting it will be difficult for the world’s inhabitants “to avoid disaster in the next hundred years.”
WHERE TO GO? SEE OPTIONS BELOW
The renowned astrophysicist explores some of the most remarkable advancements in technology and health with the new U.K.-Canadian series “Brave New World With Stephen Hawking,” debuting Saturday on Discovery World HD.
Before its premiere, he discussed the earth’s most pressing concerns in an email interview with The Canadian Press from Cambridge, England, declaring space exploration to be humankind’s most urgent mission.
“We are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history,” said Hawking, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease, leaving him almost completely paralyzed and unable to speak.
“Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million.
“Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.”
Hawking said this is why he favours manned — or as he puts it, “personed” — space flight and encourages further study into how to make space colonization possible.
Hawking’s five-part TV series touches on that theme, while putting the spotlight on scientific breakthroughs that promise to transform the 21st century. He introduces each episode while a team of experts travel the globe to delve deeper into various innovations.
The experts themselves represent a wide range of disciplines — they include naturalist Sir David Attenborough, author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, biologist and broadcaster Aarathi Prasad, and Canadian astronaut and neurologist Roberta Bondar.
More Canadian content comes by way of a segment set at the SNOLAB in Sudbury, Ont., an underground science lab specializing in neutrino and dark matter physics.
By email, Hawking says he’s excited by work underway at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ont., which he visited in June 2010 and was named its first distinguished research chair.
“Perimeter is a grand experiment in theoretical physics and the institute’s twin focus, on quantum theory and gravity, is very close to my heart and central to explaining the origin of the universe,” said Hawking, also director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at Cambridge University.
“I am hoping, and expecting, great things will happen there. And I hope to visit again soon.”
In September, the institute expanded with a new wing called the Stephen Hawking Centre but the cosmologist was unable to attend in person and sent his regards by video.
Marvels featured in his new TV series include a computer in Switzerland that is powered by the brain, a driverless car that is smart enough to navigate the crooked streets of San Francisco and a baby-like robot in Italy that learns like a child.
Later episodes investigate the way brain disorders could be treated using laser light and genetically modified brain cells, how mobile phones can give experts access to our every habit and action and lasers that print objects in 3D.
“I have so much I want to do,” Hawking says of his boundless curiosity about the world. “There are so many questions still to answer.”
“Brave New World With Stephen Hawking” debuts Saturday on Discovery World HD.
So, we need to get off the earth, like yesterday. What are the options?
UK ready for an up coming war China V America anyone, China nearly owns America already a war would mean no debt repayments for a broke America, plus they can push the one world government, and a one world army, a one world army can not fight against its self? or would it fight against the people…..
Glorious capitalist competition leading us to the 3rd World War.
Folks, you have to see this short video at the link below if you have any type of business or know someone in business and needs free advertising… this is going to blow your mind!!
http://www.leadnetproincome.com
While all the talk is about gold bullion right now, silver is still a bargain and will be playing catch up very soon. China is dependant on buying USA’s depreciating dollars so that it’s own currency doesn’t become more valuable- thus affecting export affordability. China is trying to hoard as much gold as it can because it knows that the US dollar is eventually going to crash. Luckily China is a huge producer of gold bullion.
In the narrowest sense, a superpower has the military might to force the world to acquiesce to hegemonic resolve (for example, the Soviet Union). Then there are economic superpowers that influence capital flows and global growth rates. When they struggle, the world does too. Finally, there are soft superpowers, nations that “own” universal values.
American strengths and weaknesses. In response to the brouhaha over the American debt ceiling, a correspondent for the German newspaper Die Welt wrote in July, 2011: “Out of the American twenty-first-century crisis could come the downfall of the dominant power of the twentieth century.” His sentiments, perhaps overheated, are a reminder that nothing lasts forever. It is to be hoped that America’s disorientation, triggered by the rise of China, political polarization, and a hangover of material self-indulgence, is not permanent. Even if GDP growth slows due to protracted deleveraging, the combination of a growing population and high per capita income ensures continued economic sway. America’s military budget, currently eight times that of China, will continue to underpin geopolitical clout, even as the country’s status of as an 800-pound gorilla diminishes in a multi-polar world.
American values — as opposed to its political system — will have global appeal for generations. Individualism — the encouragement of society to define oneself independent of society — does not travel well, but respect for the dignity of the common man touches all hearts. Iconic American brands such as Nike and Coke, vessels of hope, will never go out of style. American pop culture will not be challenged. Superstars — from Lady Gaga to Michael Jackson to Angelina Jolie to Johnny Depp — epitomize self-actualization, an aspiration that transcends culture.
China’s soft power gap. China will undoubtedly evolve into an economic superpower. Its economy, within decades, will become the world’s largest. Per capita disposable income will be constrained but aggregate spending power will be massive. China’s industrial tentacles will be felt everywhere; traditional Chinese medicine will become more popular; and university students will learn Mandarin.
But China will not easily capture hearts and minds. The Chinese are ethnocentric. In large ways and small, an instinct to narrowly defend interests can be off putting:
First, the country maintains a chip on its shoulder regarding indignities suffered at the hands of foreigners between the Opium War and the establishment of Communist China in 1949. Strident outrage erupts whenever any country “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people.”
Second, in a pinch, the government lapses into bullyboy petulance, throwing economic and military weight around the region. Diplomatic relationships with Japan and India are tetchy, largely because China remains brittle and insecure. Decades-long territorial disputes are unresolved.
Third, although Chinese society is more civil than a few years ago, daily life is still dog-eat-dog. Charity organizations are underdeveloped due to the party’s reluctance to grant authority to any entity not under its direct control. Families, unprotected by rule of law, fend for themselves at the expense of individuals outside the clan. Anyone who fails to conform to convention — for example, the handicapped or mentally ill, homosexuals, and AIDS patients — is socially ostracized. Spitting and burping in public is commonplace. In crowded elevators and airplanes, mobile phone users lack volume control.
Fourth, Chinese, a language in which written and spoken forms are completely unrelated, remains a temple of linguistic exclusivity, a walled garden, frustratingly off limits to everyone but the most disciplined and determined foreigners. Every character requires memorization; every sentence must conform to structural imperatives.
When in Rome? Despite fascination with the world, the Chinese do not assimilate easily. China tries hard to be open — road signs are bilingual, English is a passion, trade links are robust, macroeconomic policies during financial crises were constructive — but, emotionally, the nation stands apart. Information is controlled. Defensive instincts militate against free and easy exchange of ideas. Until trust is established, foreigners are treated with polite suspicion. Manufacturers that acquire Western companies have difficulty integrating domestic and international management teams. The global footprint of China’s state-controlled English-language news outlets is growing, but broadcasts are so dull international viewers tune out. The opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, impressive in scale and moving in ambition, lapsed into mawkish cliché when gears shifted from celebrating China’s glory to preaching “One World, One Dream.”
China’s ability to leverage the assets of other cultures is peerless. Its superhighways are modeled after America’s and major web portals are copycats of Western sites, tweaked for local users. The Party has also integrated itself into the fabric of the global trading system as a check against domestic weaknesses (for example, poor corporate governance, pliable standards of financial transparency). But, unless deemed “safe,” foreigners are still confronted with awkward silences and robotic smiles. Bonding at the national level is a long ways off.
China will be an economic superpower only. There will be more than one tiger on the mountain.
Note: This article is adapted from my upcoming book, What Chinese Want: Culture, Communism and China’s Modern Consumer, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in May, 2012.
Tom is one of Asia’s most respected advertising professionals and also a leading expert in Chinese consumer psychology. Born and bred in America’s Detroit and educated in Chicago, he took a detour to Hong Kong in 1994 and never quite made it back to the States. His unique combination of pan-Asian work, plus more than a decade based in China, has made him a leading expert in the cross-border management of brand architecture and brand building.
He has appeared regularly on CNBC, NBC’s The Today Show, Bloomberg and National Public Radio and is frequently featured in publications ranging from the Financial Times and Business Week to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Furthermore, he is a sought after keynote speaker for events such as the International Advertising Association’s global symposium, University of Chicago’s Global Management Conference, the China Luxury Summit and the JPMorgan Asia Pacific Equities conference.
Tom started his advertising career at Leo Burnett in Chicago but jumped ship to JWT (Chicago). In 1994, he moved to Hong Kong as Regional Business Director for clients such as Pepsi, Philip Morris/Kraft and Citibank. In 1998, he landed in China as the Managing Director of JWT Shanghai. In 2002, he was appointed Northeast Asia Area Director (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea) and Greater China CEO. Through diversification into customer relationship marketing (CRM) and trade marketing, promotion network management and brand identity/design, JWT Northeast Asia has emerged as one the most synergistically integrated, creatively dynamic communications networks. Some of JWT China’s key clients include: Unilever, DeBeers, HSBC, InBev, Ford, Nokia, Microsoft and Nestle as well as several leading local enterprises such as Lenovo, COFCO, China Unicom, Yili dairy and Anta shoes.
Tom is the recipient of the “Magnolia Government Award (白玉兰政府纪念奖),” the highest honor given by the Shanghai municipal government to expatriates and was selected to be an Official Torchbearer for the Beijing 2008 Olympics. He is also the author of the best-selling book “Billions: Selling to the New Chinese Consumer” and his most recent title, “What Chinese Want,” to be published in April 2012.
Tom completed his undergraduate studies at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and his MBA at the University of Chicago.
Show full bio
During a recent Friday sermon, a young Muslim sitting next to me took out his Blackberry and started to check his messages (while the Imam was giving his speech). I was quite stunned. The young man then put away his smartphone, but 10 minutes later took it out again and typed a few things. That gave me a good indication of both his (short) attention span and the addiction to cyberspace that youngsters have fallen victim to these days.
I could not shake off this little scene from my mind, so I later googled “Twitter and religious services”, and lo and behold, I found pages titled “Tweeting during church services gets blessing of pastors” (an article in the Houston Chronicle two years ago) and “Does God Tweet?”, an online forum organized by the Washington Post two years ago, where 16 contributors presented their thoughts on whether a relationship with God can be established through Twitter. Can prayer be reduced to a 140-character statement? Can we no longer free our minds, quiet our inner selves, focus on our spiritual dimension, and establish a meaningful religious state of being?
I thus wondered how Twitter, Facebook, and current and future social networking and micro-blogging tools will affect religions in general and Islam in particular. My worries were heightened when I found an article titled “25 Reasons Why Twitter Is Spiritual,” but none of the reasons were remotely convincing.
Facebook poses another set of challenges and concerns for Muslims. First and foremost is the freedom of speech that either can be much greater than many Muslims are accustomed to (in their countries) or can be abused to the point of becoming hate speech. There have already been a number of instances where a page was set up to publicly and crudely “criticize” Islam, and last month an Egyptian was jailed for “insulting Islam” on Facebook.
In reaction to this, some Muslims have either waged Facebook-boycott campaigns or just went ahead and created Muslim social networks, e.g. Muslimsocial.com, Muxlim.com, or Naseeb.com.
Other concerns that many Muslims have with Facebook relate to the loss of “virtual modesty,” of “correct behavior” and of privacy. The concern over “modesty” refers to images that can be deemed indecent. “Correct behavior” decries the loss of inhibition that people exhibit online, often in stark contrast to their everyday personalities, and the hypocrisy of voicing views online that are quite different from one’s beliefs and practices in “real life”. And the issue of privacy online is well known.
Finally, there is the huge problem of time waste in social-networking activity. Two years ago, a study was conducted among evangelical Christian college students; these were found to spend an average of 18.6 hours a week on social media, half of that on Facebook. Interestingly, 54 percent of these religious students reported that “they were neglecting important areas in their life due to spending too much time [on that activity].” On the other hand, 43 percent of the students stated that this helped alleviate stress in their lives, and 35 percent reported that their social relationships were improved by that. The authors of the study warned against the negative impact that this time waste will have on the religious activities (prayer, Bible study, attending services, serving others, etc.) of the users of social media.
And indeed, as I mentioned in my last column, an important Iranian cleric recently warned his students of the “dangers and temptations” of the Internet and advised them to “spend more time praying and less time clicking through cyberspace.”
Two conferences have recently been devoted to exploring the impact of ‘new media’ on the discourse among Muslims (worldwide) and with other religious communities (interfaith dialogues).
Last April, an online “conference” was organized on “The Future of Islam in the Age of New Media,” which consisted of 60 speakers, who each spoke for one minute on the topic. Most of the speakers spoke enthusiastically about the effects that the new media are having on the Islamic discourse and culture. Some participants, however, expressed some interesting concerns.
The most important effect that was highlighted is that the new media are allowing a larger exposure of ideas regarding Islam and giving people new freedoms to discover or express thoughts that have often been hidden from view. Muslims are becoming more aware of the diversity within their tradition and can now shape their opinions in a more informed way. This democratization of the Islamic opinions, however, has turned into a “fragmentation,” a plethora of views with no core or reference frame. Moreover, a “ghettoization of views” has occurred (as has been observed with other obscure views or groups): liked-minded people linking up and reinforcing each other’s views.
There is also much greater female participation in the discussions concerning Islam, as Muslim women have avidly taken to blogging, even in the more conservative countries.
The new media also offer interesting opportunities for exchanges with “others,” a chance to counter Islamophobia or just plain ignorance, provided that one gets out of his/her “ghetto” or bubble of similar views.
However, one must be careful not to give these new tools more credit or power than they actually have. After all, only a small fraction (10 to 15 percent) of Muslims worldwide has access to the internet, according to the 2011 Global Information Technology Report. Moreover, the internet and the new media, require a certain level of education and sophistication. Thus, the impact that the new media are having on Muslims’ views and understanding of their religion is — for now — largely confined to the well-educated segments of society.
The organizer of this online conference has now started a second phase of the project, where some of the speakers are brought back for more in-depth interviews. They will be exploring the main themes that emerged in Phase 1.
The other conference I wish to highlight is one that was recently devoted to the exploration of the effect of social networks on interfaith dialogues: “Social Media and Inter-Religious Dialogue: A New Relationship,” which was organized in October 2011 in Doha, Qatar.
The conference aimed at addressing a number of themes, including: social media as a tool for dialogue instead of hateful attacks, and how to develop religious frameworks and ethical regulations to protect society from the misuse of these tools — a ‘Global Code of Conduct’ for respecting sanctities and religions.
Clearly, the new media and social networks have created a new dynamic within religious communities, including Muslims. Some effects are already being felt, both in the practice and in the formulation and understanding of the religion itself. This is one of the most important developments of our times.
An astrophysicist, Professor Nidhal Guessoum is currently Professor of PHysics and Astronomy at the American University of Sharjah, UAE.. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California at San Diego (USA). He spent extended periods of time as a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and has had on-going collaborations with various institutions, particularly in France.
In addition to his technical papers, Prof. Guessoum has published many articles on issues related to science, education, and Islam. He has authored or co-authored several books (in Arabic, French, and English), the latest one being: Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim tradition and Modern Science (IB Tauris, 2011).
Every time Eïd al-Adha rolls around I find myself having to explain the holiday to people who are not Muslims. I bring this up because an acquaintance of mine posted an extremely inflammatory picture of animal slaughter during this holiday and has inferred from it that Muslims are barbaric because of it. This is completely untrue.
Non-Muslims have little trouble accepting a holiday that commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as part of his covenant with God. This is part of the Abrahamic tradition. I am not a Muslim but I have participated as a guest in the rituals of Eid el-Kebir, as it is known in Morocco, and can attest that it is the single most important holiday in the Islamic world. It is a conglomeration of Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter all rolled into one. It is a celebration of joy and also an important occasion to reach out to one’s neighbors to make sure that they too are fed.
In the week leading up to the holiday people purchase live sheep and keep them in unlikely places such as on rooftops, on terraces and in courtyards and wherever they have space. Sheep can be seen peeking out of the back of taxis, straddling bicycles and even on top of buses making their way toward their final destination. The build up to the big day is enormous. Families gather together from far and wide to celebrate the most sacred of days. At the appointed hour, the leader of the family takes a whetted blade in hand, turns the animal to face Mecca, speaks the ritual words: Bismillah, in the name of God. The blade is then swiftly drawn across the animal’s throat. This death, while assuredly not painless, is often quicker than blasting a metal bolt into an animal’s skull as is done here in western slaughterhouses. For westerners, especially Americans, the problem always comes around to the ritual slaughter of an animal. It is a practice that is wrongly vilified as barbaric by people who fail to realize its significance. Whether one is religious, agnostic or atheist, there is something of great importance in this ritual that we can all learn from.
The secular significance of the sacrifice
Aside from the religious basis of the holiday, it is also implicit in the celebration that eating meat means taking a life. In our everyday lives here in the west we are insulated from the fact that every mouthful of meat, fish or fowl requires that an animal die for our nourishment. This unsavory aspect of life is kept hidden and generally unthought of in our daily meals. Meat is purchased in sanitary little plastic wrapped packages that have absorbent pads under the meat to soak up any errant blood that might upset us. We are thus able to absolve ourselves from any personal responsibility for that animal’s life and I think this is part of what allows us to ignore the deplorable conditions on our feedlots and in vast batteries of hens across America.
If you had to kill your own cow or chicken you would take much better care of it than a factory of mass production. An animal wallowing in its own filth is not appetizing in the least. It is this failure to take on responsibility that leads us to the factory system of food production that ends with mass poisonings from food borne illnesses such as E. coli and salmonella. Grinding one diseased cow with one hundred others allows thousands of people to get sick and die every year. But this failure to participate in an animal’s slaughter does not, in fact, absolve us of responsibility. Any time you consume meat, fish or fowl, you are benefiting from that animal’s death whether or not you accept it. To deny that responsibility is a failure of ethics and morals, whether you believe in God or not.
Our Covenant with the Animals
As a lifelong professional cook, I am mindful that countless animals give their lives for me to earn a living. When I was 21-years-old and fresh out of culinary school, I worked briefly for a Greek chef who raised sheep in Northeast Ohio. When he told me that he had to cull his herd I volunteered to help as I had never slaughtered an animal. That day I became personally responsible by wielding the blade myself. We slaughtered three sheep, skinned them and then butchered them into serving portions. Afterward, we took the pieces and distributed the meat to various friends and relations. Slaughtering an animal is not inherently beautiful or glorious but neither is it horrible if done with respect. All kosher meat is slaughtered in the same way and yet it draws no outrage from anyone. This is part of our covenant with animals: we are responsible for their proper husbandry and humane treatment. When we take their lives to put meat on our tables we should all share that responsibility. If you eat the meat that I cook, you are part of that animal’s death, like it or not.
In biblical times this was understood as God’s gift to Adam, that he made mankind the steward of the animal kingdom. In the modern, secular age this is still true but our actions are even more detrimental to the planet. We devastate the oceans with overfishing and kill dolphins in nets, raise cattle that must wade in their own feces while eating food that is not part of their natural diet, raise hens in vast batteries that rain their waste down on the heads of birds in the cages below them. The slaughter of these animals takes place behind closed doors and it is not bloodless and it is not painless. Whether or not you participate directly by wielding a blade, you are responsible for meat unless you are a vegan.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Matthew 7: 1-2
When you consider the matter of ritual sacrifice in the practice of Islam, do not judge it by the fact that blood is spilled. In the Western world, more blood is spilled every day to put more meat on every table than is, or ever has been, consumed anywhere else in the history of the world. In the celebration of Eïd al-Adha, the life of that animal is considered very precious and is treated with greater reverence than any hamburger ever eaten. When I sat down to eat the lamb during the Eïd al-Adha, I was mindful of what a great privilege the gift of meat is. I thank my Muslim friends for letting me share this holiday with them. It was truly a sacred meal. Eïd mubarak.
Andrew is a lifelong traveler and cook. Born into a military family, he became used to moving frequently and having to learn new things. He enjoys the rich variety of life. After a first career as a dancer with the Hartford Ballet and Ohio Ballet companies, Andrew did his undergraduate degree at the University of Akron and then went to Kent State for graduate school. All along the way he has been a cook in restaurants from New Orleans to New York City. Andrew also collaborates with his writing partner, Vikas Khanna, on cookbooks in addition to the Holy Kitchens film series.
Julia Roberts is on the cover of the September issue of Elle magazine, and inside she talks about not using Botox and how she is a practicing Hindu.
On Botox and plastic surgery:
“It’s unfortunate that we live in such a panicked, dysmorphic society where women don’t even give themselves a chance to see what they’ll look like as older persons. I want to have some idea of what I’ll look like before I start cleaning the slates. I want my kids to know when I’m pissed, when I’m happy, and when I’m confounded. Your face tells a story… and it shouldn’t be a story about your drive to the doctor’s office.”
On religion (via People):
The entire Roberts-Moder family, goes to temple together to “chant and pray and celebrate. I’m definitely a practicing Hindu.” says Roberts.
[On possible reincarnation] “Golly, I’ve been so spoiled with my friends and family in this life,” she says. “Next time I want to be just something quiet and supporting.”
On her family with husband Danny Moder: “The children became the shooting stars of him, of that thing we have. How lucky we are that we love each other so much that we burst into three pieces.”
She shot scenes of her upcoming ‘Eat, Pray, Love’ in India. She is seen below with with ashram owner Swami Dharmdev at Hari Mandir Ashram in Pataudi on the outskirts of New Delhi, India in September 2009.
And in Elle:
Ani Zonneveld recently invited a dozen families to her Los Angeles home for a festive Christmas party, where guests mingled over shiny red and white desserts while others belted Christmas carols and kids crafted tree ornaments for her family’s brightly lit evergreen.
There’s little unusual about such a gathering this time of year, except for one thing: Zonneveld, a practicing Muslim, had invited mostly Muslim friends, and she had a unique highlight for the evening: a lesson for the kids on the role of Jesus in Islam.
“I think there are a lot of Muslims that celebrate Christmas, but they do it quietly. We believe in not leading that double life,” says Zonneveld, 49. “Celebrating Christmas is not really a contradiction to Islam because Jesus is our prophet, too.”
As the most commercialized religious holiday in the United States, Christmas can be a difficult time for Muslim families with kids who grow up surrounded by the holiday’s traditions, from Santa and songs to Christmas trees and gifts. It’s not uncommon for Muslim parents to take on some cultural aspects of the holiday to help their children feel included. Yet, Muslims such as Zonneveld are taking it further and celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
This is the fourth year that Zonneveld — a singer-songwriter who was born in Malaysia and co-founded a national network called Muslims for Progressive Values — has hosted such a Christmas get-together for her 13-year-old daughter and family friends.
At her party, she says parents talked with their kids about the “similarities and differences between the Islamic and Christian Jesus,” to teach them that Islam is “not all about Muhammad.”
The comparisons and contrasts include Muslims believing in Jesus as a prophet and in his miraculous birth, but not seeing him as divine or the son of God. The Quran, in which Jesus is referred to in Arabic as “Isa,” also says that Jesus was not killed or crucified, but that God raised him to heaven. Similar to the Christian doctrine of the Second Coming, Islamic teaching also says that Jesus will return to earth near the end of time.
“It would be typical of mosques to have a sermon on Jesus at this time of year, praising him as one of the great prophets but distinguishing Muslim belief from Christian belief, as Muslims must believe and love Jesus Christ as a prophet and Messiah,” says Ihsan Bagby, an Islamic Studies professor at the University of Kentucky who researches American mosques. “But in terms of practice and observation of Christmas, that’s an on-going debate among Muslims.”
For Muslims such as Shireen Ahmed, a 34-year-old social worker and mother of four who lives in the Toronto suburbs, the holiday is a time to teach her kids about their religion and how to respect other religions. While Ahmed does not celebrate Christmas at home, she says she is “open and interested” in the idea. In recent years, she has observed Christmas by attending Catholic Midnight Mass at the invitation of friends.
“I love the Mass, I find it inspiring and uplifting,” says Ahmed, who doesn’t have a Christmas tree or decorations but does let her young children take photos with Santa. “I’m not accepting of Jesus as the Son of God, I don’t take communion, but I will attend, I will respect, and I will kneel when they kneel.”
“I look at it from a cultural tolerance perspective. We live in a society that’s diverse,” she says, adding that she recently used the Christmas season as a chance to talk about Jesus to her 7-year-old. “I explained the Holy Trinity, and my son said ‘What do you mean? Allah doesn’t have a father or son.’ I said “that’s what we believe, but others don’t and you have to respect that.”
Islamic doctrine is strictly monotheistic and some Muslim scholars view any significant celebration of any prophet as risky. Nonetheless, in many Muslim countries, large celebrations mark Mawlid, the lunar holiday for the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, so celebrating Jesus isn’t without precedent.
Nouman Safi, a 34-year-old filmmaker who lives in Chicago, says that one reason he doesn’t celebrate Christmas is because of its date. Most Biblical scholars agree that Jesus was not born in the winter. Safi, who has four elementary school-aged kids, says he uses the holiday to talk to coworkers and Christian friends about his Islamic beliefs.
“I have spoken to many Christian Americans who have no idea that we believe in Jesus and that we believe he is the savior. We believe will come back and unite everyone together,” says Safi. “I say to them, ‘I hope you know he is as holy to us as he is to you. We don’t believe he is the Son of God, but he is a very important prophet.’”
What does the Quran say about Jesus? See the slideshow below.
View of Torah and Gospel (of Jesus) 1 of 10
… sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). (Surat ‘Āli `Imrān 3:3, Quran.com)
Maryam’s Purity 2 of 10
And [mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. (Surat ‘Āli `Imrān 3:42, Quran.com)
Reference to Annunciation
3 of 10
He (Angel) said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy.” (Surat Maryam, 19:19,. Quran.com)
Foretelling the Birth of Jesus
4 of 10
… said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. (Surat ‘Āli `Imrān 3:45, Quran.com)
The Annunciation 5 of 10
And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our Ruh - Jibrael (Gabriel)], and We made her and her son ['Iesa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-’Alamin (the mankind and jinns). … (Surat Al-’Anbyā’ 21:91, Quran.com)
Jesus as a Wise Person 6 of 10
And He (Allah) will teach him ['Iesa (Jesus)] the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom, etc.), (and) the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). (Surat ‘Āli `Imrān 3:48, Quran.com)
Jesus as a Prophet 7 of 10
And will make him ['Iesa (Jesus)] a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s … (Surat ‘Āli `Imrān 3:49, Quran.com)
Jesus as God’s Servant and Prophet 8 of 10
[Jesus] said, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (Surat Maryam 19:30, Quran.com)
Jesus’ Prophecy 9 of 10
And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, … (Surat Aş-Şaf, 61:6)
I’m not a big follower of reality television, but was happy to hear about TLC’s new reality show “All-American Muslim.” We know that personal contact is the best way to break down stereotypes, but with Muslims less than 2% of the U.S. population, many Americans will never get to know a Muslim. Meeting us through reality television might not be ideal, but it’s better than nothing.
After watching “All-American Muslim” for a few weeks, I now believe that the show is good for our community beyond the way it might lessen prejudice against Muslims. The additional benefit is that the show has engaged our community in discussing some of the many challenges we face making distinctions between critical religious values and flexible cultural practices. In the fourth episode, the issue of Muslims having dogs in the home came up, and this is worth further discussion.
In this episode, newlywed Arab-American Shadia tells Jeff, her Irish-American convert husband, that she does not want his dog to move with them to their new home. Shadia has allergies, and her asthma is exacerbated by the dog’s hair. This is an understandable and common dilemma. But Shadia bolsters her position with statements about the impermissibility for a Muslim to have dogs in the home. Her father will not pray in the house if the dog is there, she says, because dog hair is impure and a prayer space needs to be pure. Later, Shadia backs off from the religious argument, admitting that the main reason she doesn’t want a dog in the house is “I wasn’t raised with dogs; I’m not used to them.” I appreciated this moment of honesty. The use of a religious norm as a trump card in an argument we want to win is a temptation we all face.
So what is the Islamic position about dogs? In fact, there are a variety of opinions according to different legal schools. The majority consider the saliva of dogs to be impure, while the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs, only considering the saliva of the latter to be impure. The question for Muslims observant of other schools of law is, what are the implications of such an impurity?
These Muslims should remember that there are many other impurities present in our homes, mostly in the form of human waste, blood, and other bodily fluids. It is fairly common for such impurities to come in contact with our clothes, and we simply wash them off or change our clothes for prayer. When you have children at home, it sometimes seems you can never get away from human waste. But we manage it, often by designating a special space and clothing kept clean for prayer.
Some Muslims object to having a dog in the home because of a prophetic report that angels do not enter a home with dogs in it. If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic, it still requires an analysis of context to determine its meaning and legal application. Ordinary people are not recipients of divine revelation through angelic messengers, so it is possible that this statement, although in general form, might suggest a rule for the Prophet’s home, not all homes. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact the Qur’an states that angels are always present, protecting us and recording our good and bad actions.
Whatever the implications of this report, there is no doubt that the Qur’an is positive about dogs. The Qur’an allows the use of hunting dogs, which is one of the reasons the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs – since we can eat game that has been in a retriever’s mouth. But most compelling is the Qur’anic description of a dog who kept company with righteous youths escaping religious persecution. The party finds shelter in a cave where God places them in a deep sleep; the Qur’an (18:18) says:
You would have thought them awake, but they were asleep And [God] turned them on their right sides then on their left sides And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold
This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers. Legal scholars might argue about the proper location of the dog – that he should stay on the threshold of the home, not inside – but home designs vary across cultures. In warm climates, an outdoor courtyard is a perfectly humane place for a dog – its physical and social needs can be met in the yard. This is not the case in cold climates, where people stay indoors most of the day for months at a time.
Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in underdeveloped countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.
I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them. It is one of the reasons why I try to introduce my students and friends to my very sweet, very large dog Ziggy.
Ziggy came into our home to be like the dog in the cave: to keep company to my child who lies in exile from the world because of a debilitating illness. He has been nothing but a blessing – guarding the house while we sleep, forcing me to exercise daily, and showing us, as he happily follows our tiny cat around the yard, that if cats and dogs can get along so well, then we people have no excuse.
There is another reason why I love having my dog around. Ziggy came from Tennessee. He was rescued by an animal control officer who uses her own resources to save dogs who would otherwise be destroyed in a few days. Tina saves as many dogs as she can by bringing them home and putting them up for adoption on the internet. When I called Tina to speak about adopting Ziggy, she had 65 dogs she had rescued out in her yard. After being disheartened by some terrible things that have come out of Tennessee lately – mosque burnings and anti-Shari`ah legislation among them – I love looking at Ziggy and thinking about the woman with the thick southern accent and big heart who saved his life.
Dr. Ingrid Mattson is Professor of Islamic Studies, founder of the Islamic Chaplaincy Program and director of the Macdonald Center for Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, CT. She earned her Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the University of Chicago in 1999. She has written articles exploring the relationship between Islamic law and society, as well as gender and leadership issues in contemporary Muslim communities.
Her introduction to the Islamic sacred text, The Story of the Qur’an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life, has been called “a delicate balance of highly scholarly material and inviting anecdotes.” From 2006-2010 she served as President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); she previously served two terms as Vice-President. She is the first woman elected to those positions. Dr. Mattson was born in Canada, where she studied Philosophy and Fine Arts at the University of Waterloo, Ontario (B.A. ‘87). From 1987-1988 she lived in Pakistan where she developed and implemented
The American dollar bill is probably the world’s best known banknote, but how many people appreciate why the Great Seal of the United States of America is printed on it, or understand what these ancient symbols mean?
“On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress passed a resolution authorizing a committee to devise a seal for the United States of America. This mission, designed to reflect the Founding Fathers’ beliefs…”[1]
Pyramid & eye of U.S. Great Seal on dollar bill: ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’
The symbols of the Great Seal, which are featured on the dollar bill, are clearly intended to embody the beliefs of those who founded the United States of America. The current design of the Great Seal was approved by Congress on 20 June 1782, and the seal was introduced to the dollar bill in 1935. The continued official use of Masonic symbols today indicates that these beliefs remain at the heart of the U.S. establishment.
What were the beliefs of the founders of America? Numerous sources [apparently] outside Freemasonry report that the vast majority of the American founders and signatories of the U.S. Constitution were Freemasons. Anti-Mason material[2] routinely claims that almost all of America’s founding fathers were members of a Masonic Order. Official sources within Freemasonry counter-claim that some but not all of America’s founders were Freemasons, and point out that the Masonic status of many of the alleged Masonic founding fathers cannot be proven conclusively. The aforementioned school of thought is corroborated by well-documented reports from some authoritative Masonic sources; thus, Manly Palmer Hall, a thirty-third degree Mason, wrote: “Of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention, all but five were Masons.”[3]
One side of the Great Seal shows an ancient Egyptian pyramid, beneath a triangle containing a glowing eye. The shining eye in the triangle is a certainly a famous and common Masonic symbol, although some Masonic sources prefer to deny this. The All Seeing Eye (e.g. 1, e.g. 2, e.g. 3, e.g. 4, e.g. 5, e.g. 6, e.g. 7, e.g. 8, e.g. 9, e.g. 10) is one of the most important and spiritual Masonic symbols, and the distinguished Freemason George Washington, first President of the United States of America, wore it emblazoned boldly on his Masonic apron. The front of the Great Seal displays an Eagle, which is also an important symbol in Masonic traditions. The use of the blazing eye in the triangle motif, surrounded by rays of light, in the official seal of the Ordo Templi Orientis, confirms the occult significance of this symbol.
The sacred number 13 is encoded in the Seal, in the the bundle of thirteen arrows, the thirteen stripes on the shield, and the thirteen stars of the constellation that can be joined to form the Star of David shining above the Eagle’s head. The reverse, sometimes referred to as the spiritual side of the seal, contains the thirteen-step pyramid with the year 1776 in Roman numerals on the base, heralding the beginning of the new American era.
Incidentally, every American state has its own official State Seal. For instance, the Great Seal of the State of Colorado bears the ubiquitous radiant eye inside the triangle, together with other relevant symbols.
The motto inscribed beneath the pyramid in the Great Seal of America is “Novus Ordo Seclorum” which is Latin for “New Order of the Ages”, and synonymous with the “New World Order”. The momentous decision to print the Great Seal on the dollar bill was taken in the 1930s by the government minister Henry Agard Wallace (1888-1965), who later became Vice-President of the United States, second in command to President Roosevelt, from 1940 to 1944.
Henry Wallace literally believed that America was chosen by God to lead the world in establishing the New World Order. In his biography of this prominent American politician, D. McDonald wrote that: “Just as Wallace thinks of America as the nation destined by God to lead the world, so Wallace thinks of himself as a Messiah, an instrument through whom God will guide America onward and upward.”[4] Wallace was a prominent Freemason, and he made no attempt to conceal the extent of his true beliefs when in 1934 he wrote, almost with prophetic religious fervour, about the profound esoteric significance of the Great Seal:
“It will take a more definite recognition of the Grand Architect of the Universe before
the apex stone [capstone of the pyramid] is finally fitted into place and this nation in the
full strength of its power is in position to assume leadership among the nations in
inaugurating ‘the New Order of the Ages’.”[5]
It is difficult to elucidate the full meaning of the symbols in the official Great Seal of the United States, because they are occult symbols which carry profound esoteric meaning from a truly ancient secret society which may be older and more far-reaching than the Masonic order. There are various interpretations in the public domain, but the truth is known only to initiated insiders. What is most important in the context of this article is that these are ancient religious symbols which hold special hidden significance, and their use by the American government reveals something about the secret beliefs of those in power.
REFERENCES, NOTES & FURTHER READING
1. Federal Consumer Information Center website, page about the Great Seal of the U.S.
2.a. Still, W. T., 1990. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies Louisiana, USA: Huntingdon House, p 61.
2.b. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2000. The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestrial Life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt. New York, USA: Berkley Publishing Group.
3. Hall, M. , 1951. America’s Assignment with Destiny. Los Angeles, USA: Philosophical Research Society, pp 96-97.
4. MacDonald, Dwight, 1948. Henry Wallace: The Man and the Myth.. New York, USA: Vanguard Press, p116.
5. Wallace, Henry A., 1934. Statesmanship and Religion. New York, USA: Round Table Press, Inc, pp 78-79.
Copyright 2011 The Insider.
BERLIN — German scientists said Monday it may be possible to reconstruct one of two giant 1,500 year-old Buddha statues dynamited by the Taliban in central Afghanistan 10 years ago, which prompted a worldwide outcry and left behind only towering cliff caverns.
Researchers have studied several hundred fragments of the sandstone statues that once towered up to 180 feet (55 meters) high in Bamiyan province, and found that they were once brightly colored in red, white and blue, said Erwin Emmerling of Munich’s Technical University.
The professor of restoration and conservation science, who visited the UNESCO world heritage site about 15 times since 2007, says research has shown that the smaller one of the pair – some 125 feet high (38 meters)_ could be reconstructed with the recovered parts even though there are “political and practical obstacles” to overcome.
“Conservation of the fragments would require the construction of a small factory in the Bamiyan Valley – alternatively some 1,400 rocks weighing up to two tons each would have to be transported to Germany,” the university said in a statement Friday.
Emmerling is to present the findings at a UNESCO conference on the Buddha statues’ future starting Wednesday in Paris. The Afghan government, whose representatives are also attending the expert meeting, will ultimately decide on the statues’ fate.
The Taliban destroyed the towering Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley in March 2001, less than a year before international forces toppled their government.
The Bamiyan Valley, about 260 kilometers (160 miles) west of Kabul at an altitude of some 8,000 feet (2440 meters), once formed a branch of the Silk Road, which contributed to the diffusion of Buddhism from India to the region.
Emmerling’s team says mass spectrometer tests have allowed them to better determine the statues’ age. Organic material in the fragments’ clay layers were found to date from between 544 and 595 for the smaller Buddha and between 591 and 644 for the big one.
The statues’ fragile sandstone fragments left over from the explosions are currently covered on the site or stored in a warehouse in Bamiyan province awaiting the Afghan government’s decision.
What happens when one industry has too much power? Politicians become pawns. Laws are created and prevented. Regulations are bypassed. Information is controlled. Dissent is stifled. Our climate changes. And people die.
GREEDY LYING BASTARDS is a documentary film exposing the shocking lengths the fossil fuel industry travels to ensure maximum profits for executives and shareholders.
In the United States, this industry spends millions of dollars annually to lobby Congress, ensuring the political support necessary to pass supportive or block restrictive laws. Using this control, the industry has managed to dictat…e energy and climate policies in the U.S., working alongside federal administrations. The same industry has spent millions of dollars to fund think tanks, organizations, and scientists who have waged a global campaign of deceit regarding the science of climate change and its dire impacts. Those who have spoken out against the corruption, environmental and health impacts caused by its irresponsible business practices have been assaulted, jailed, tortured, and murdered.
This unchecked corporate drive for profits has come at the expense of workers, families, indigenous peoples, the environment, and threatens our very survival on the planet. It has and continues to undermine democracy in the United States.
Greedy Lying Bastards was filmed on location in the United States, Tuvalu, Fiji, England, Belgium, Denmark, Kenya, Uganda, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Netherlands, and Germany. The film is currently in post production and scheduled to be released in 2012.
You’d better watch out, you’d better cry. You’d better pout, I’m telling you why: North Korea’s punishing insincere mourners, according to the Daily NK.
An anonymous source tells the Daily NK, a South Korea-based publication in opposition of the North Korean regime, that “authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings” to mourn the death of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Il, and to those “who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”
Newser reports that mourners who came off as insincere have already been sent to join the 200,000 other North Koreans already in labor camps. An Amnesty International report published in May 2011 paints a dark picture of what’s in store at those camps — estimates suggest that 40 percent of inmates die of malnutrition.
The exact number of those to be sent to camps is unclear, reports the Daily Mail, but the paper estimates it could be in the thousands.
The punishment news comes shortly after an announcement Thursday that Kim Jong Il’s embalmed remains would go on permanent display in the Kumsusan Memorial Palace in Pyongyang, the Associated Press reports, just as his father and previous North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, was enshrined. AP notes that along with the enshrinement, a new statue and “towers to his immortality” will be erected to salute the late Supreme Leader.
The New York Times points out that the late ruler’s birthday, Feb. 16, will be recognized as “the Day of the Lodestar.” North Korean state media had used the term “lodestar” in reference to Kim Jong Il, as well as for the name of long-range rockets the country tested in 1998 and 2009, the NYT reports.
Since Kim Jong Il’s death announcement on Dec. 19, his son and successor, Kim Jong Un, has made a significant push to establish himself as the reincarnation of his grandfather and North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung, AP reports. The Daily NK’s anonymous source also told the publication that “Every day from 7am until 7pm they have vehicles for broadcast propaganda parked on busy roads full of people going to and from work, noisily working to proclaim Kim Jong Un’s greatness.”
Irish actor Liam Neeson has revealed he is considering giving up on his Catholic faith and converting to Islam.
The Hollywood star, 59, was recently filming in Turkish city Istanbul and became fascinated with the Muslim faith during his stay.
Speaking to The Sun, he said: “The Call to Prayer happens five times a day and for the first week it drives you crazy, and then it just gets into your spirit and it’s the most beautiful, beautiful thing.
“There are 4,000 mosques in the city. Some are just stunning and it really makes me think about becoming a Muslim.”
So he won’t be copying Madonna and taking an interest in Kabbalah or following in Tom Cruise’s footsteps and become a Scientologist?
The actor was raised in Northern Ireland as a Catholic altar boy and was named after his local priest.
On his Catholic beliefs, he said: “I was reared a Catholic but I think every day we ask ourselves, not consciously, what are we doing on this planet? What’s it all about?
“I’m constantly reading books on God or the absence of God and atheism.”
From the book
• This is a crisis of governance born of a convergence of ideological, political, and technological forces behind a process of economic globalization that is shifting power away from governments responsible for the public good and toward a handful of corporations and financial institutions driven by a single imperative – the quest for short-term financial gain.
• A globalized economic system delinked from place has an inherent bias in favour of the large, the global, the competitive, the resource-extractive, the shortterm, and the wants of those with money.
• We are now coming to see that economic globalization has come at a heavy
price . . . The threefold crisis of deepening poverty, environmental destruction, and social disintegration manifests this dysfunction.
• The task ahead is to transform a world ruled by corporations dedicated to the love of money to a world ruled by people dedicated to the love of life.
• Millions of people around the world are awakening, as if from a deep trance, to the beauty, joy, and meaning of life . . . demanding a restoration of democracy, an end to corporate rule, and respect for the needs of all people and other living beings.
From the model of domination (and love of money) to the community of life (David Korten and Earth Charter)
David Korten Interview Part 1
Interview with David Korten on his new book Agenda for a New Economy by Mirian Vilela, Executive Director of Earth Charter International
David Korten Interview Part 2
David Korten Interview Part 3
David Korten Interview Part 4
By Vishal Arora
Religion News Service
DHARMSALA, India (RNS) At least three Tibetan Buddhist monks drank gasoline and set themselves ablaze in January, bringing the count of self-immolations to 15 since March 2011.
Lobsang Sangay, the prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, attributes the deaths to restrictions being imposed by the Chinese government on traditional Tibetan practices.
The U.S. State Department has raised concerns over the self-immolations. However, Beijing, which regards Tibet as part of China, alleges that Tibetan exiles are encouraging the monastic community to take this extreme step, disregarding the Buddhist principle of non-violence.
Sangay, a former scholar from Harvard Law School and the political successor of the Dalai Lama, spoke about religious restrictions and self-immolation in Tibet. Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why are monks and nuns self-immolating in Tibet?
A: Repressive policies of China have pushed them to the brink of desperation. Members of the Communist Party of China dictate what monks and nuns should do, how they should pray, and who should be allowed into the monasteries.
Those who give up worldly life to join a monastery see their follow monks as their world, their family. When they see their associates being expelled because they refused to denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama or to stamp on his photograph, hopelessness sinks in. When they think their sufferings are not being noted, they take such a desperate step.
Q: Does Buddhism allow self-immolation?
A: It’s a complex issue. One could refer to Jataka tales, which concern the previous births of the Buddha. In one story, the Buddha, in a previous incarnation, gives up his body to feed a starving tigress and her four cubs. Some other stories also talk about self-sacrifice by the Buddha.
Although suicide is violent and prohibited in Buddhism, some Buddhists believe it depends on the motivation. If you do it out of hatred and anger, then it is negative. But if you do it for a pure cause … it’s such a complex theological issue. You can’t go either way or have a definitive answer. But the action is tragic, so painful.
Q: Do you discourage monks setting themselves ablaze?
A: My stand on self immolation is the same as that of the Dalai Lama, who has always discouraged drastic actions by Tibetans. He does not even endorse hunger strikes.
Q: Can you stop the wave of self-immolations?
A: I am expected to do something about it, but it has been challenging, difficult and painful. As a human being, it is so difficult to hear someone dying for a cause. And as a Buddhist, it is even more painful.
I went to the United Stated and Europe to get statements of support so that I could send a message of hope to Tibet. I tried my best to get everything I did covered by the Tibetan media. And during my visit — almost until the last leg of my trip — self-immolations stopped. I thought I was able to pass on the message of hope. But when I was in London, I heard there was one more self-immolation. That dampened my mood. I cancelled all my appointments for that morning.
Q: Do you see a solution to the Tibet-China conflict in sight?
A: I do believe so. That’s why I have left Harvard to be in India to lead the movement. The Tibetan struggle has to go on. Had I not moved to India, where I am living on about $300 a month, my life would have been normal and boring.
One Buddhist lesson I have learned is that one who is born has to die. That means what you do is what you leave behind. If you live for yourself, you won’t make much difference. I, as a Buddhist, as a Tibetan, want to live for a cause greater than myself and my life.
Proof that the NEW WORLD ORDER has been planned by the elite. Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today’s problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul’s positions today. This is proof that there are plans in place by the elite to systemically disassemble US sovereignty. I wonder who those elite are.
Mimi Alford on affair with JFK: ‘I was swept away’
Former White House intern opens up about her story in new memoir, ‘Once Upon a Secret
By Mimi Alford
TODAY books
Mimi Alford, the former White House intern who wrote a book claiming she had an affair with then-President John F. Kennedy, opened up this Wednesday with Meredith Vieira on “Rock Center.”
In her first television interview, Alford described her relationship with the president as “exciting,” “glamorous,” and “fun.”
Her bombshell revelations include claims that, on Kennedy’s request, she performed oral sex on Dave Powers, one of the president’s top aides, while he watched.
“The president swam over and whispered in my ear, ‘Mr. Powers looks a little tense, would you take care of it?’ It was a dare but I know exactly what he meant … it was pathetic,” she said, reading from her book.
Alford told Vieira that the affair, which was consensual, began in 1962 when Powers asked her to join the president at a party to welcome a new staffer. Afterwards, she said he gave her a private tour of the quarters, at the end of which they had sex in Jackie Kennedy’s bedroom. It was the first time she’d had sex with anyone, she explained.
“I wouldn’t describe what happened that night as making love, but I wouldn’t call it nonconsensual either,” she said, adding that she was “overpowered in the sense that he was the president … I don’t consider it was rape.”
The encounter was the beginning of an 18-month long relationship, Alford said. She said she would spend nights with him at the White House’s private residence, as well on official trips where she would wait for him in a hotel room until he summoned her. He gave her gifts and even called her while she was away at college.
Looking back, she said that it was an “imbalanced” relationship for a 19-year-old to have. However, she said that “I still wouldn’t say no” and she “wasn’t really in the wrong.” She recalled fond memories of her time with the president.
“He had a collection of little yellow rubber ducks and they were in the bathtub and rubber ducks sort of became part of the game,” she said. “We had races with rubber ducks in the bathtub.”
Not of all her memories were so pleasant.
“It wasn’t a romantic affair,” she admitted. “I don’t ever remember him kissing me.”
At one point, she said she thought she was pregnant and told Powers, who told her he could arrange for her to have an abortion.
“He said he would put me in a touch with someone who would put me in touch with someone who would put me in touch with someone if I should need help,” she said.
Though he was married, she said she “didn’t feel guilty” about the affair and believed the president cared about her.
“I’m not going to say he loved me, but I think he did like me a lot,” she said. “Just the way he was, the way he smiled with me. I feel that he did. I feel that he actually cared about me.”
She also said she was relieved to be finally speaking out on her experience.
“When you keep a secret, and when you keep silent about something, you do it because you think it’s keeping you safe, but in fact, it’s deadly,” she said.
Alford’s book, “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath,” was released on Monday.
Watch more from the interview on “Rock Center”:
46319832#46319832
Mimi Alford on affair with JFK: ‘I was swept away’
Former White House intern opens up about her story in new memoir, ‘Once Upon a Secret
In the summer of 1962, 19-year-old Mimi Beardsley arrived by train in Washington, D.C., to work in the White House press office. Although she started as a lowly intern, Mimi made an impression on Kennedy’s inner circle and, after just three days at the White House, she was presented to the President himself. Almost immediately, the two began an affair that would continue for the next 18 months.
Now, 50 years later, Mimi Alford is opening up about her story in her new memoir, “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath.” Here is an excerpt.
My full name is Marion Beardsley Fahnestock Alford. In many ways, those three surnames tell you everything you need to know about me and where I come from. I was a Beardsley for the first 20 years of my life, which included the time I was intimate with JFK. I was a Fahnestock for the next four decades, taking the name of the man I married in January 1964, two months after JFK’s assassination. Fahnestock is the name attached to the bulk of my adult life and the name my two daughters were born with. I am an Alford now, because of my marriage in 2005 to Dick Alford, the great love of my life, whom, ironically, I would never have met if I hadn’t been outed in 2003. It’s the only name I go by today, the only name on the jacket of this book.
There’s a reason for that. I am no longer the sheltered 19-year-old Mimi Beardsley, who entered into a relationship with the most powerful man in the world. Nor am I the scared, emotionally crippled Mimi Fahnestock who spent a lifetime living with, and struggling to overcome, the consequences of that relationship.
I am Mimi Alford, and I do not regret what I did. I was young and I was swept away, and I cannot change that fact. It’s been almost 10 years since my secret was revealed to the world, and I’ve spent a lot of time in the intervening years thinking about this tender episode of my life, and how to express my feelings about it, or even if I should. I don’t have such doubts anymore. Until that day in May, there had been an emptiness inside me that I didn’t know how to fill. But since then, the happiness and contentment I have come to know as Mimi Alford have freed me — and taught me the importance of taking control of my story.
At first, I wrote letters (never mailed) to my oldest granddaughter, to “set the record straight.” “Dearest Emma,” I began, “I have a story I want to tell you because someday when you are older there’s a chance you might come across my name in a book about an American President. I want you to know the facts. …”
But there was so much more to the story than just getting the facts down for the record. Living with a secret had stunted me emotionally, and I realize now that my letters were only tentative steps at understanding. Taking complete control would demand intense self-reflection, and not just beginning and ending with my time at the White House.
This book represents a private story, but one that happens to have a public face. And I do not want the public face of this story — the one where I will be remembered solely as a presidential plaything — to define me.
It may be hard to accept that a chaste teenage girl can end up in bed with the President of the United States on her fourth day in the White House. But no story is as simple as that.
It begins on a train to Washington, D.C.
Excerpted from “Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath” by Mimi Alford. Copyright © 2012 by Mimi Alford. Excerpted with permission of Random House.
© 2012 MSNBC Interactive
Sean Stone, son of famed director Oliver Stone, is now a Muslim.
According to the Agence France-Presse, the 27-year-old filmmaker converted to Islam while working on a documentary in Iran.
According to the Tehran Times, which relays a report from the Fars News Agency, Stone on Tuesday recited shahada, the Muslim profession of faith that is the first pillar of Islam, at a Shia cleric’s office.
According to Al-Basheer magazine, the shahada creed translates to English as “I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.”
But Stone maintained that his acceptance of Islam should not be seen as a renunciation of other faiths.
“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with,” Stone told AFP by telephone on Tuesday. “It means I have accepted Mohammad and other prophets.”
“Passport,” a blog published by Foreign Policy, notes that this isn’t Stone’s first time Iran. In September, he spent a week in the country working on a documentary about the poet Rumi, according to the Tehran Times.
Upon his return, Stone spoke about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, in an interview with The Wrap.
“He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated,” he told Sharon Waxman. “A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”
Awaken to the world around us, the problems we face, why they exist, and how to truly solve them once and for all. Please rip, share, push and promote this video. Make this viral, and educate the world!
Awakening (Part 2 of 4)
Awakening (Part 3 of 4)
Awakening (Part 4 of 4)
meryl-streep-oscar-win-best-actress-iron-lady-i-understand-streep-fatigue-article-1.1029147
I was a young BBC reporter when I first met Margaret Thatcher on a cold Scottish hillside. She was standing in front of the wreckage of the Pan Am airliner that had exploded over Lockerbie. As the news pack surged forward, I was knocked to the ground, prompting the British prime minister to wade into the scrum, reach down and pull me up. It was a tiny glimpse of Thatcher’s rarely displayed humanity which I was reminded of while watching Meryl Streep’s startling performance in The Iron Lady.
I sincerely hope that Streep wins an Oscar this Sunday for her portrayal of Mrs. Thatcher, not just because she hasn’t won in 29 years of stand-out performances, but because I don’t think I have ever seen someone I know portrayed on screen with such veracity. And I’ve met a lot of politicians in my career, including Nelson Mandela and Tony Blair, whose lives have been dramatized on numerous occasions.
Matthew Paris, a former Conservative MP who worked for Thatcher said Streep’s performance was so realistic, he felt haunted by it, as though a ghostly apparition of his old boss had stepped out of the cinema screen. “It’s as if an old friend had been invaded and inhabited by a stranger, turned into a puppet.”
Even those people who are not fans of the movie agree that Streep has captured Thatcher in appearance, voice and spirit. But I feel the actress should also be commended for her portrayal of old age. This is a contentious issue. A lot of Mrs. Thatcher’s supporters don’t want to see their heroine diminished by the passing of time; they want to remember her at the height of her powers. They object to the scenes in which she appears to forget that her husband is dead or that she is no longer prime minister. But I would argue that Meryl Streep portrays the elderly Thatcher with great dignity.
There is no shame in growing old. Indeed the director of the British Alzheimer’s Society has praised The Iron Lady — and Streep’s performance — for the way dementia is handled. We live in an aging society; most of us will at some point in our lives witness a loved one’s brain muddled by the forgetfulness of old age. It may be painful to watch but it shouldn’t be hidden away like some shameful family secret. I have a friend whose mother is suffering from dementia. She was moved to tears by Meryl Streep’s performance. They were tears of painful recognition.
Streep has described The Iron Lady as King Lear for girls. But the actress also “gets” Thatcher when she was all-powerful and could reduce grown men to quivering wrecks with a glance. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Matthew Parris says watching the movie brought back memories of being “skewered by those intense blue eyes making you feel she was seeing your innermost thoughts and inadequacies.”
Thatcher continues to be an incredibly divisive figure in Britain. I was at university in London during her first term as prime minster and remember taking part in numerous demonstrations where we students would march down the street shouting, “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out.” But my stepfather recalls her years in power with misty-eyed admiration. As a member of the business community he saw her as a savior who rescued a paralyzed Britain from the clutches of the unions.
People either love or hate Maggie Thatcher, but they are rarely indifferent to her. It’s a testimony to Meryl Streep’s abilities as an actress that almost everyone who has seen The Iron Lady is united in the belief that it is a career-defining performance. It would be a tragedy if she didn’t win an Oscar for it.
CHINA AND THE LEGACY OF DENG XIAOPING documents a turning point in the Chinese communist revolution that elevated Deng to a role equal to that of Mao. Michael Marti explores post-Tiananmen domestic political wrangling and offers the first documentation of Deng’s efforts to link all the major elements of society–”the PLA, the party, the revolutionary elders, and the regional governors–”into a coalition whose survival still depends on the success of his economic policies.
Understanding this sense of commitment to China’s long-term goals has significant implications for predicting the outcome of the current struggle between the hard-liners and reformers. By providing a new interpretation of Chinese behavior, CHINA AND THE LEGACY OF DENG XIAOPING adds to the current debate among policymakers and academicians about the future direction of Chinese policy.
National Archives – Interview with Lee Kuan Yew – National Security Council. Central Intelligence Agency. (09/18/1947 – 12/04/1981). – This film is footage of an interview in which the Prime Minister of Singapore spoke on the Vietnam War and the problems of Southeast Asia. – DVD Copied by IASL Scanner Jeremy Baron. – 1967 – ARC 652377 / LI 263.2042
This is truly profound to see — the year of 2011 earthquakes plotted out on a orthographic (globe) map — ANIMATED WITH SOUND INTENSITY for each earthquake!!
In this poignant, funny follow-up to his fabled 2006 talk, Sir Ken Robinson makes the case for a radical shift from standardized schools to personalized learning — creating conditions where kids’ natural talents can
Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we’re educating our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence.
Why you should listen to him:
Why don’t we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it’s because we’ve been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Students with restless minds and bodies — far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity — are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences. “We are educating people out of their creativity,” Robinson says. It’s a message with deep resonance. Robinson’s TEDTalk has been distributed widely around the Web since its release in June 2006. The most popular words framing blog posts on his talk? “Everyone should watch this.”
A visionary cultural leader, Sir Ken led the British government’s 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education, a massive inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy, and was knighted in 2003 for his achievements. His latest book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, a deep look at human creativity and education, was published in January 2009.
“Ken’s vision and expertise is sought by public and commercial organizations throughout the world.”
BBC Radio 4
This animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA’s Benjamin Franklin award.
We witnessed another violent and tragic set of events in reaction to the most recent Quran burning scandal by NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and the dust has yet to settle. Violent protests continue in different parts of the country and several civilians have lost their lives. In our recent history, we have seen several similar violent Muslim reactions when some Muslims feel Westerners have insulted and attacked their sacred images or values. The tragic reactions to Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,” an infamous Danish cartoon and its bloody consequences, an insignificant Florida pastor’s foolish but costly Quran burning show and more. This column is an honest and sincere call to the Muslims who took and have been taking part in these kinds of violent protests.
Fellow brothers and sisters in Islam who, through whatever means, got involved or are planning to get involved in these kinds of violent protests: As an Imam and, more importantly, as a believing, practicing Muslim, I can’t help but think, “what’s wrong with the Muslims who are involved in violent reactions regardless of the nature or enormity of the offense and insult?” There may be some psychological, political or even cultural explanations (which I will not waste any space discussing in this column) for these primitive and violent responses, but I believe there can be no Islamic, religious, ethical or moral justifications for your excessive, lawless and destructive way of expressing disapproval and hurt. Therefore, I condemn and shun all past and recent Muslim reactions with the strongest possible disapproval and dismay. Shame on you!
These violent reactions of yours really do not make sense on many different fronts. For any Muslim who believes the sacredness of the Quran as God’s final revelation to humanity, that very same Quran condemns and rejects such anarchy in many of her verses and teachings. First of all, the Quran invites us to respect and engage with her divine message more so than the actual physical form of the book that is found between two covers. Respecting a physical copy of Quran could be understandable, but violating its central teachings and principles–for example by killing innocent people–just because someone disrespected or insulted a copy of the Quran is unacceptable, barbaric and reprehensible. No physical copy of a holy scripture, including the Quran, is more sacred than the life of a human being. This is what the Quran and our beloved prophet, whom the Quran came through, teaches us over and over.
Secondly, what do many Muslims throughout the Muslim world do when the copies of the Quran get really worn down and become unusable? We burn them! Yes, you didn’t read it wrong: It is a common Muslim practice to respectfully burn old Qurans when they are no longer reparable. It is proclaimed all over the world, including Afghanistan, in many different interpretations of Islamic law that this is an honorable farewell to these old copies of the Quran. So how do you justify your shameless reactions to Quran burning?
Moreover, these unacceptable and indefensible responses only serve to confirm the fabricated, monstrous and scary image of Islam as a religion and Muslims as a people to the fearful world. I really don’t understand how my fellow Muslims do not see that, with their reactions, they actually prove what has been said about them by their enemies. You call my religion evil or terrorism and, in order to “disprove” this insult, I will go kill people, burn embassies, act like a bloodthirsty crazy person…. Don’t you fellow Muslims see the ridiculousness of this logic and actions! The uncivilized images of these violent protests by these irresponsible and violent Muslims shape the image of 1.6 billion Muslims all around the world. These images are so powerful that even education and exposure to real Islam later on is unable to remove these images from the hearts and minds of many non-Muslims.
Maybe more importantly, Muslims themselves are not immune to the images of these ugly and violent scenes created by fellow Muslims. Seeing the actions of Muslim extremists over and over on a daily basis increasingly causes Muslim internalization of biased anti-Muslim propaganda. This creates an atmosphere of perception that all of the world’s extremists are Muslims. Do these angry Muslim protesters not realize how much harm and destruction they do to Islam and to their fellow Muslims all over the world?! Or how much pain and embarrassment they inflict on fellow believers?
Finally, my dear fellow Muslims, you may be thinking that you have been defending Islam and Muslims against their enemies through these violent protests. May God bless you with enough common sense and wisdom to realize that, by protesting in this manner, you are being the worst and most destructive enemies of Islam.
Imam Abdullah completed his basic training and education in his native Turkey. From 1996-2003 he worked on a variety of faith-based humanitarian and relief projects in Myanmar (Burma) and Malaysia with the Association of Social and Economic Solidarity with Pacific Countries. He is the founder and executive board member of the Muslim Chaplains Association and a member of the National Association of College and University Chaplains. From 2003 to 2005 he served as the first Muslim chaplain at Wesleyan University. He then moved to Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, where he was the associate director of the Islamic Chaplaincy Program & Interfaith Relations, as well as an adjunct faculty member.
As the Muslim chaplain at Duke University, he is be one of only a handful of full-time Muslim chaplains at U.S. colleges and universities. His work at Duke focuses on three primary areas: religious leadership for Duke’s Muslim community, pastoral care and counseling for persons of any faith, or of no ascribed faith, and intra- and interfaith work.
He engages students, faculty, and staff across campus through seminars, panels, and other avenues to provide a Muslim voice and perspective to the discussions of faith, spirituality, social justice, and more. As part of this work, Chaplain Antepli serves as a faculty member in the Divinity School and at DISC (Duke Islamic Studies Center), teaching a variety of courses on Islam.
QA Sample:
: Marianne Williamson shares powerful examples of the many triumphs of non-violent movements in recent history.
Conversation with LKY (CCTV) Part 1/2
Are you frustrated by disappointing relationships, missed connections, and the loneliness of the search for someone to spend the rest of your life with? Are you ready, instead, to find “The One”? In Calling in “The One,” Katherine Woodward Thomas shares her own personal experience to show us that in order to find the relationship that will last a lifetime, you have to be truly open and ready to create a loving, committed, romantic union. Calling in “The One” shows you how.
Based on the Law of Attraction, which is the concept that we can only attract what we’re ready to receive, the provocative yet simple seven-week program in Calling in “The One” prepares you to bring forth the love you seek. For each of the 49 days of Thomas’s thoughtful and life-affirming plan, there is a daily lesson, a corresponding practice, and instruction for putting that lesson into action in your life. Meditation, visualization, and journaling exercises will gently lead you to recognize the obstacles on your path to love and provide ways to steer around them. At the end of those 49 days, you will be in the ideal emotional state to go out into the world and find “The One.” An inspirational approach that offers a radical new philosophy on relationships, Calling in “The One” is your guide to finding the love you seek.
Katherine Woodward Thomas is a national bestselling author of Calling in “The One”: 7 Weeks to Attract the Love Of Your Life (Three Rivers Press, 2004) and creator and lead coach of the highly acclaimed Calling in “The One” 7 week transformative process. She is also a licensed psychotherapist, public speaker and the co-creator and co-leader of the Feminine Power transformative courses and the Feminine Power Global Community, a thriving learning community serving thousands of women worldwide.
Katherine possesses a deep commitment to personal and planetary transformation that began with her own spiritual awakening at the age of 14, when she whole heartedly devoted herself to the evolution of love in the world. For the past five years, since the release of Calling in “The One,” Katherine has worked with thousands of students throughout the world who have actively participated in the live and virtual transformative learning community she has co-created along with her teaching partner, transformative educator, Claire Zammit.
Katherine is also the founding director of The Rosewood Center for the Healing Arts & Lifelong Learning, which is dedicated to the evolution and advancement of loving and harmonious relations between all living beings, located in Los Angeles. In 1992, inside of her devotion to actively generate and cause greater levels of love and relatedness in the world, Katherine founded the non-profit “In Harmony with the Homeless.” Through annual songwriting workshops, she brought formerly homeless men and women together with top songwriters to tell their stories of hope and inspiration through music. Some of these events aired nationally on ABC in Concert and, in 1996, she produced an album entitled “In Harmony with the Homeless” featuring such musical greats as Mavis Staples, Rita Coolidge, Carl Anderson and Ritchie Havens.
Katherine has appeared nationally on The Today Show and The Morning Show with Mike & Juliet, as well as hundreds of local television and radio news and talk shows throughout the country. Her work has been written about in The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Cosmopolitan, Ladies Home Journal, The Augusta Chronicle, Tango Magazine and more.
Currently, Katherine is co-facilitator of the highly acclaimed Women on the Edge of Evolution teleseries that she co-created with Claire Zammit. The “WEE Series” which has become an international phenomenon, gathering over 30,000 women weekly to engage the biggest questions facing women today regarding our role in co-creating the future of our world, and featuring many of the world’s preeminent female luminaries, thinkers, artists and agents of change. She is also working on her forthcoming book, Feminine Power: Awakening to the Creative Force of Life (co-authored with Claire Zammit, and with foreword written by Michael Beckwith).
Calling in “The One” Put to the Test on National Television
Click to watch video… tvappearance2-short.html
Fox TV’s “The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet” recently issued an official challenge to Katherine: Can she really help someone to find love in just 7 weeks? Real love, lasting love, the love people dream of having? They invited 40-year old Sunny Barretto onto the show to share her story with Katherine.
At the time, Sunny lived in New York City and was a successful, unmarried career woman. For most of her life, she had been satisfied with the way things were. “I’m independent, I can travel, my time is my own,” she’d say. Yet, when her doctor broke the news that she didn’t have much time left if she wanted children, Sunny realized that something needed to change in her approach to finding love. If she ever wanted to have a family of her own, she’d better do something, and do it now!
“I believed that all the good guys were taken,” she said. “And the kind of guys I was attracted to were trouble.” So, Katherine invited Sunny into the 7-week Calling in “The One” course, and Mike and Juliet scheduled a follow-up appearance two months later to find out what happened.
Sunny thought she was really open to love. Yet, what she discovered in the course was that she actually had a very rigid set of criteria for who she thought “the one” would be. Without meaning to, she was dismissing some very nice men inside of her attachment to her picture of what she thought he’d look like. Even though she believed herself to be open to love, she began to realize that she wasn’t open at all.
“She didn’t even realize she was doing it,” said Katherine. “She was going out on dates like they were interviews. At Calling in “The One” we like to say that she was leading with her resume, and not her radiance.”
The insights Sunny received in the course helped her to clarify and release her inner obstacles to love.
Just a few weeks into the process, Sunny met Robert. Luckily, she’d made the necessary shifts within herself to receive him into her life. Talking about how she’d met him through an internet dating site, Sunny laughingly said, “I almost deleted him because he wasn’t from Manhattan! But, I heard Katherine’s voice in my head telling me, ‘he’s not going to look the way you think he should!’”
It turned out that although Robert didn’t live in Manhattan, he worked in the building right next door to where Sunny lived. When they met, Sunny softened on her approach and let go of her normal interview approach to finding love. She showed up just being herself, deeply present and available to discover if there was a connection. Their attraction was instant. Robert was smitten, as was she, and the relationship progressed quickly.
“I knew almost immediately that she was the one,” says Robert. “Meeting Sunny was like coming home.”
Robert invited Sunny on a trip to Rome over the New Year. When they returned, Sunny and Katherine went back on The Morning Show, where Sunny surprised everyone, Katherine included, by announcing their engagement on live national television! “Katherine, you’re a genius!” exclaimed host Mike Jerrick amidst the applause and congratulations.
University of Texas Professor Robert Jensen spoke at the First Unitarian Universalist Church Public Affairs Forum. In his talk, Jensen examines how the mistaken identities of nation, race, and gender affect our understanding of ourselves, with a focus on the unjust systems of power and privilege in which they are embedded. In each case he argues against the dominant culture’s ideology and for a radical politics that takes seriously not only political but ecological realities.
In this HuffPost Jummah, I would like to reflect on one of the most common and central practices of Islam. We Muslims, 1.5 billion people around the world, have every possible cultural, ethnic, linguistic, theological, sectarian, denominational diversity. Yet there are several practices and rituals common and central to almost all Muslims. One of the most famous one is how we greet one another by saying Assalamu Alaykum (Peace be unto You) regardless of what language we speak, what level of practice we have in our religion, in what cultural zone we live or what school of thought we belong to.
One another such common and central Muslim practice, may others know less, and is what we Muslims say before we do anything or how we start things. Muslims of all different backgrounds say the same thing before we start anything new: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. It literally means, “In the Name of God, The Merciful, The Compassionate.” It is so central to all Ummah to say Bismillah at beginning of things. This is one of the first Muslim rituals we teach to our children. Before we eat, drink, before we go to sleep, before we enter or leave our house, before we start our car, start our day, before we put a new cloth and so on, we say, often the shorter version: Bismillah — In the name of God.
The centrality of this Bismillah as a general Muslim code is often a source of amazement. I will never forget, several years ago in Sydney-Australia, I took a cab. And the Cambodian driver before he started the car he said Bismillah. This symbol of Islam immediately brought our hearts together, became an open door or an invitation for an immediate rich conversation for this Cambodian Muslim and me. We had so many ethnic, racial, cultural and even theological differences. Despite all of that Bismillah took us several steps ahead in our conversation. Ten minutes later we were good friends and an hour later I was having dinner in his house with his family. I was deeply moved to witness the magical effects of Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Why is saying Bismillah is so important that it became a central ritual among all Muslims? What meaning and role saying Bismillah plays at the beginning of everything?
The Holy Quran starts with Bismillah. Every single Surah in the Quran (with one exception in which Bismillah comes as part of the surah not at the beginning) starts with Bismillah. This in itself enough reason for believers to take Bismillah and its layers of meanings and function very seriously. Saying Bismillah at the beginning of almost every action is a very strong Sunnah, (legacy and example of the prophet of Islam). Prophet Muhammad, in any given condition or hardship, hardly ever neglected saying Bismillah before he did anything. So when we start things with Bismillah, we start as the Holy Quran and our beloved Prophet started everything.
It is the genius of Islam to have several built in spiritual practices, like Bismillah, to encourage believers to live a prayerful and God concise lives. Saying Bismillah, “In the name of God,” reminds us our real and most core identity: Being human. This practice takes us to the creation story and reminds us God Almighty’s conversation with Angels. When God said “I will create a Khalifa, vicegerent, representative on earth” which will act in my name. Bismillah reminds us the human uniform that we wear and invites us to honor the meaning and responsibility of that uniform.
Bismillah is a constant practice of believers in the journey to submit themselves to God Almighty. As practice makes perfect in anything, this whole submission journey requires a consistent discipline and practice as well. Bismillah connects us with God and it is a practical discipline to achieve taqwa (piety), God’s conscientiousness and ihsan (worshiping God as we see God) or experience God in the highest level possible.
Bismillah attacks the whole idea of “I am in charge and I am running this whole show called life.” By reminding us that we act in the name of an authority, Bismillah humbles us before God and opens the believers eyes to the reality that ultimately God is in charge. We humans only try to play our minimal given role and task as good as we can. By saying Bismillah at the beginning of a day, week or a year, we acknowledge that the success of this day, week or year is not entirely dependent on us. In this sense, Bismillah functions as a form of prayer and supplication to the sources of all Power and Strength saying: “In your name I will try my very best but the result and the ultimate out come is in your hands, guide me and help me in this process, you are the All High and Most Powerful.”
Bismillah enables us to built muscles of gratitude and thankfulness toward God and to other fellow human beings. It shapes us to be more mindful people. By saying Bismillah we get a chance to reflect briefly that the food that I am about to enjoy, the house that I am about to leave or enter, the business that I am about to start are ultimately not mine. These are all gifts and blessings from the source of All Blessings, Almighty God, who delivered these often through other people to whom I should always be grateful and generous.
Bismillah again invites us to be more alert about life as it unfolds. It cautions us not to fail to see the signs of God in the actions that we are about to do. Pulls are attention to the God’s fingerprints and God’s various possible manifestations in God’s creation.By saying Bismillah at the beginning of a science class, a long trip, a project, the believer reminds himself or herself to look for God in what he or she is about to do, see or hear because everything in the universe, in their own unique languages, points put the creator of the havens and the earth and glorifies God’s beautiful names. Bismillah empowers us to pay attention to those slightly hidden signs and divine manifestations.
Bismillah, saying in the name of God, helps believers to make ethical and moral decisions and warns us from doing evil. By definition, if you act in the name of an authority whatever you do has to be in consistent with your covenant with that authority. It should please that authority. Can anyone imagine a mentally healthy Muslim saying Bismillah before he steals or lies or disrespects his parents? In the same senseb you cannot start a day by saying Bismillah and do things on that day inconsistent or in violation of that authority in whose name you act. You can’t start a day, week, business, marriage or journey with Bismillah and do things to displease God along the way. Bismillah pumps life into our moral and ethical compass.
So I invite myself and others to say heartfelt Bismillahs before we do anything. Hopefully not out of habit but by meaningfully engaging its layers of deep wisdom and very beneficial blessings. Bismillah!
Imam Abdullah completed his basic training and education in his native Turkey. From 1996-2003 he worked on a variety of faith-based humanitarian and relief projects in Myanmar (Burma) and Malaysia with the Association of Social and Economic Solidarity with Pacific Countries. He is the founder and executive board member of the Muslim Chaplains Association and a member of the National Association of College and University Chaplains. From 2003 to 2005 he served as the first Muslim chaplain at Wesleyan University. He then moved to Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, where he was the associate director of the Islamic Chaplaincy Program & Interfaith Relations, as well as an adjunct faculty member.
As the Muslim chaplain at Duke University, he is be one of only a handful of full-time Muslim chaplains at U.S. colleges and universities. His work at Duke focuses on three primary areas: religious leadership for Duke’s Muslim community, pastoral care and counseling for persons of any faith, or of n
Joseph Kony is not exactly a household name in the United States. Of course, few rebel leaders in sub-Saharan Africa are — even ones like Kony, whom the International Criminal Court branded a war criminal. But one American filmmaker is determined to raise Kony’s profile, for the express purpose of bringing him to justice.
Documentarian Jason Russell is shining the spotlight on Kony, who is the leader of the vile Lord’s Resistance Army, a notoriously bloodthirsty group in Uganda that, in an effort to destabilize the government, turns young Ugandan girls into sex slaves and young boys — more than 30,000 of them — into cold-blooded killers in his force.
When the U.S. Congress told Russell that Kony didn’t present enough of a financial threat or a security issue to pursue, Russell decided to form a nonprofit (Invisible Children), produce a film (“Kony 2012″) and create a social-media campaign bent on toppling Kony, he says in the documentary. That strategy showcased its power this week. The film made its online world premiere Monday, and the hashtags #stopkony and the phrases “Uganda” and “Invisible Children” have each been a trending topic on Twitter in the last 24 hours — sometimes two at the same time. Since press time, the film has been viewed more than 32 million times.
Russell founded Invisible Children in 2006, to reveal the suffering of Ugandan children to the world.
He galvanized a community of supporters to share the film with as many people as possible and brought the children forced into Kony’s army to the U.S. to speak. Through fundraising efforts, Russell’s organization was able to build schools, create jobs and develop an early-warning radio network to protect villagers from imminent attacks.
And when he returned to Congress, President Barack Obama moved to act. In October, he deployed 100 American military advisors to Uganda to help capture Kony, according to Russell’s film.
“We used to think that we could not do it and now that I see that we can do it,” Jolly Okot, Invisible Children’s country director, said in the film when Obama announced his decision. “I am overwhelmed.”
Russell’s mission continues to gain considerable traction.
“Kony 2012″ — which details how Ugandan children live in fear of being abducted and are forced, among other horrific acts, to murder their parents — has gone viral. And Invisible Children’s online pledge to bring Kony to justice, which just went up online on Tuesday, has since already collected 105,000 signatures.
But the activist knows he can’t get complacent.
In the film, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) tells Russell, “If we take the pressure off, if we’re not successful, [Kony] is going to be growing his numbers. If interest wanes, it’ll just go away. It’s got to be 2012.”
To fulfill his mission to capture Kony in the Ugandan jungle this year, Russell continues to open the eyes and minds of advocates who can spread the word and pressure the government to work even harder.
Part of the campaign also hinges on encouraging 20 cultural tastemakers and 12 policy makers, including the likes of Angelina Jolie and Oprah Winfrey, to take a stand, Russell says in “Kony 2012.”
“I’d like indicted war criminals to share the same celebrity as me,” said George Clooney in the film. “That seems fair.”
To get involved in the mission to make Kony a household name and a priority of the U.S. government, consider getting involved in the following ways:
Sign the pledge.
Get the advocacy kit.
Donate.
Share the movie.
“If the government doesn’t believe that people care,” Russell said in his film, “the mission will be canceled.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that Kony 2012 is seeking the help of 20 culture makers and 20 policy makers. The campaign is targeting 20 culture makers and 12 policy makers
KONY 2012 is a film and campaign by Invisible Children that aims to make Joseph Kony famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice.
HOW TO HELP:
Visit: http://kony2012.com
Donate to Invisible Children: https://stayclassy.org/checkout/set-donation?eid=14711
For info on Invisible Children: http://invisiblechildren.com
Press For Truth Presents Into The Fire
World leaders and activists from around the world gathered for the G20 Summit. With over 19,000 police officers and security personnel on hand, the results lead to over 1100 arrests, martial law in downtown Toronto, and the most massive violation of civil liberties in Canadian history.
Star Leaders Panel Discussion:
Sir Gordon Wu is the Chairman of Hopewell Holdings Limited. As a civil engineer by profession, he has led the design and construction of numerous property development projects of Hopewell in Hong Kong since the early 1970s, and the hotels, power plant and road infrastructure projects in China and overseas since the early 1980s.
Before the Occupy Wall Street movement, there was little discussion of the outsized power of Wall Street and the diminishing fortunes of the middle class. The media blackout was especially remarkable given that issues like jobs and corporate influence on elections topped the list of concerns for most Americans.
Occupy Wall Street changed that. In fact, it may represent the best hope in years that “we the people” will step up to take on the critical challenges of our time. Here’s how the Occupy movement is already changing everything:
1. It names the source of the crisis.
Political insiders have avoided this simple reality: The problems of the 99% are caused in large part by Wall Street greed, perverse financial incentives, and a corporate takeover of the political system. Now that this is understood, the genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in.
2. It provides a clear vision of the world we want.
We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%. And we, the 99%, are using the spaces opened up by the Occupy movement to conduct a dialogue about the world we want.
3. It sets a new standard for public debate.
Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% will not suffice, nor will claims that the subsidies and policies that benefit the 1% will eventually “trickle down.”
4. It presents a new narrative.
The solution is not to starve government or impose harsh austerity measures that further harm middle-class and poor people already reeling from a bad economy. Instead, the solution is to free society and government from corporate dominance. A functioning democracy is our best shot at addressing critical social, environmental, and economic crises.
5. It creates a big tent.
We, the 99%, are people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs. We will resist being divided or marginalized. We are learning to work together with respect.
6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.
No one is in charge; no organization or political party calls the shots. Anyone can get involved, offer proposals, support the occupations, and build the movement. Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down.
7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.
The call for deep change—not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms—is the movement’s sustaining power. The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options. The occupiers and their supporters will not be boxed in.
8. It combines the local and the global.
People in cities and towns around the world are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. What they share in common is a critique of corporate power and an identification with the 99%, creating an extraordinary wave of global solidarity.
9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.
Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power. Occupy sites are set up as communities in which anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams, and where all can experiment with living in a space built around mutual support.
10. We have reclaimed our power.
Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us. Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.
Like all human endeavors, Occupy Wall Street and its thousands of variations and spin-offs will be imperfect. There have already been setbacks and divisions, hardships and injury. But as our world faces extraordinary challenges—from climate change to soaring inequality—our best hope is the ordinary people, gathered in imperfect democracies, who are finding ways to fix a broken world.
Adapted from the book, This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement ed. Sarah van Gelder & staff of YES! Magazine – Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2011.
Meryl Streep won an Oscar this year for her performance in ‘The Iron Lady.’ After Streep gave a touching tribute to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, many are saying the actress should play the former First Lady in a film.
NEW YORK — Meryl Streep is fresh off her Oscar win for playing Margaret Thatcher. But she had an entire theater at Lincoln Center wondering if an even better role for her would be a political icon closer to home: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The question arose as Streep paid a glowing and affectionate tribute to the secretary of state at the Women in the World summit, an annual gathering of prominent women leaders and unsung heroines from across the globe that closed over the weekend.
“This is what you get when you play a world leader,” Streep said Saturday, hoisting up her best-actress Oscar for “The Iron Lady.”
“But if you want a real world leader,” Streep continued, “THIS is what you get!” Clinton strolled onstage at Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts’ David H. Koch Theater, and Streep enveloped her in a hug.
The three-day summit, now in its third year, is organized by Tina Brown, editor in chief of Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Besides Streep and Clinton, feminist icon Gloria Steinem and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, Brown harnessed the star power of Angelina Jolie, who came to read the words of Dr. Hawa Abdi, a Somali humanitarian facing danger from Islamist rebels there.
Also given star treatment was International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, who delighted the delegates at dinner Thursday when she suggested that the financial crisis might have been averted, or at least been much less serious, if more women had been at the helm of financial institutions.
“If Lehman Brothers had been a bit more Lehman Sisters … we would not have had the degree of tragedy that we had as a result of what happened,” Lagarde said.
She added that recent studies have shown “what the level of testosterone in a given room can produce when you do trading.”
Many global problems were addressed by the dozens of panels attended by some 2,000 delegates each day. But a constant undercurrent was an issue at home: the debate in Washington over women’s reproductive health care.
Clinton and other speakers referred, obliquely and not, to conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh’s insulting remarks about law student Sandra Fluke, who came under attack after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her Catholic college’s health insurance plan to cover birth control.
The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, of Liberia, was the most blunt, saying women had been too passive: “Where are the angry American women?” she asked.
From Liberia to Egypt: Panelists discussed whether the Arab Spring risked becoming an Arab Winter for women, who were central to the popular uprising but now fear being marginalized.
“Tell people there is no spring without flowers and there is no Arab Spring without women,” said Dalia Ziada, Egypt director of the American Islamic Congress.
Other popular lines of the weekend included the definition of “glass ceiling,” from Jane Harman, the former California Democratic congresswoman: “It’s actually a thick layer of men.”
How do you puncture that layer? Kah Walla, a political leader from Cameroon, spoke of empowering women across Africa but added that in the United States, too, the level of female representation in politics was a serious issue.
“Every woman here needs to be involved with getting a woman elected,” she said.
The opposition leader in Israel, Tzipi Livni, of the Kadima Party, spoke about the nuclear threat from Iran. But she said she would not engage in what she called “megaphone diplomacy.”
“Maybe that’s something men do,” she quipped.
And Steinem had a good line – speaking on a panel about women leaders, moderated by Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, she speculated on why some men feel uncomfortable with females in power.
“The last time a lot of powerful guys saw a powerful woman, they were 8,” Steinem said. “They feel regressed to childhood by a powerful woman.”
Yet men played a role in the summit, too, perhaps none more eloquently than Imam Demba Diawara, a village chief from Senegal. In a powerful discussion of the practice of genital cutting, Diawara, whose own family members had endured the procedure, spoke of how he had gradually come to understand that cutting was dangerous and sometimes fatal. He said he had since visited 378 communities to convince leaders of his view.
“By 2015, we will see the end of genital cutting in Senegal,” he predicted.
The conference came to a more lighthearted end with Streep, who spoke humorously of the similarities she shared with Clinton.
They’re roughly the same age, she said. They both have two brothers. They both had spirited, big-hearted mothers. They both went to women’s colleges and then to graduate school at Yale.
“But there our two paths diverged in the wood,” Streep noted, concluding that “I’m an actress, and she’s the real deal.”
Clinton arrived to deliver a call to arms for women around the world to get involved in effecting change. But not before expressing relief that there was one movie Streep had never made.
“I’m just glad she didn’t do a movie called `The Devil Wears Pantsuits,’” quipped Clinton, mixing the title of a Streep film with her favored style of clothing.
I’ve got two tickets to Paradise.
– Eddie Money
One of the most bizarre lottery winners stories in recent years comes out of Shelbyville, Ind.
A man claims to have won a $34.5 million jackpot and supposedly went to great lengths to hide it from the wife he is divorcing.
Then the lawyer for an anonymous woman, said to be over seventy years old, stepped forward to say his client was the winner.
Maybe the lucky one is the person who doesn’t get the winning ticket.
When the body of murdered Florida Lotto winner Abraham Shakespeare was found, his mother said that on many occasions Shakespeare had said he wished he had torn up the winning ticket.
After lottery winner Jack Whitaker, of Hurricane, W. Va., went through a litany of problems, including the drug overdose death of his granddaughter, his wife said she wished he had torn up his record-breaking Powerball ticket.
Seems like a lot of lottery winners want to tear up the ticket.
Some don’t verbalize the thought. They just run through the money as fast as they can.
Having unlimited wealth is a dream for many people. However, I keep running into others, consciously or subconsciously, who hate the idea of being rich.
What is going on?
A lot of “Big Money” misery comes from not having the necessary systems in place. The winners weren’t ready for their fifteen minutes of fame and the hangers-on who would want a piece of them.
People don’t really know what to do with wealth. Some dream of showing off or sticking it to people they don’t like. While “take this job and shove it” probably feels good for a day, revenge won’t keep you happy over the long run.
Money equals security for most people. Or, at least, it should. One of the primary reasons that people become entrepreneurs is to keep big corporations from running their lives. They want to be responsible for their own financial destiny.
Since money is the ultimate security blanket, it seems senseless that people fritter it away. Yet, it has been said that 90 percent of people who get a lump sum do exactly that.
Usually the person with a story isn’t a stranger. It’s family, longtime friends and newly found “romantic interests.” A lot of emotions get brought into play.
And money seems to flow out the door.
The second is having too much money all at once. Most of the lotto winners who get in trouble are the people who took all the cash up front. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t let lottery winners take a “cash option.” If they took the annual payments, they would learn from the mistakes with their first installment or two, and would still have 18 or 19 more chances to get it right.
Most lottery winners eventually figure things out, once the money is gone. Or when they are at the point where they wish they had “torn up the ticket.”
The government figured it out a long time ago. We don’t give people a lump sum social security check at retirement. We don’t want them to run out of the money. The same used to hold true with pension plans. People received an annuity that lasted the rest of their lives.
Today, most pensions are 401(k) plans. Just like the lotto winners, people are running out of retirement money while they are still alive.
When you think about it, almost all of us have our own “lotto moment.” We make decisions about money that will either give us long term security and happiness or bring on pain and regret.
Handling a lump sum wisely can be a “ticket to paradise.” Or it can be a ticket to misery that they wish they would have torn up.
Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is the bestselling author of the book Wealth Without Wall Street: A Main Street Guide to Making Money .
Wealth Without Wall Street: A Main Street Guide to Making Money gives Main Street Americans concrete ways to improve their finances and to reduce the power of Wall Street and Washington over their lives.
Written by award winning syndicated columnist and Huffington Post Contributor Don McNay, Wealth Without Wall Street is an easy to read book loaded with common sense advice.
Its call to action can be summed up in five steps:
1. Tear up your credit cards. Eliminate debt. Stay away from the “legalized loan sharks” such as payday lenders.
2. See if you have what it takes to be self-employed.
3. Get rich slowly. Think about money long term instead of week to week.
4. Move your money from a “too big to fail” Wall Street bank to a Main Street bank or credit union in your community.
5. “Think globally, act locally” is what Wealth Without Wall Street is all about.
By the end of the book, you’ll have a road map for doing both.
Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC
www.donmcnay.com
An award-winning syndicated financial columnist and Huffington Post contributor, McNay has appeared on numerous television and radio programs in the United States and Canada, including the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. He has been quoted in publications around the world, including USA Today and Forbes, Registered Representative, and Financial Planning magazines.
McNay is a Quarter Century Member of the Million Dollar Round Table and he has has four professional designations in the financial services field.
An official from Iran has refuted claims of plans to execute imprisoned pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who has been imprisoned for almost three years on accusations of apostasy, a crime where one disaffiliates themselves from a religion.
The refutation came after human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed delivered a report to the U.N., which, in addition to citing Iran’s “striking pattern of violations of fundamental human rights guaranteed under international law” and the country’s “maltreatment of prisoners, dissidents, minorities and women,” called for the release of Nadarkhani, FOX News reports.
Iran called Shaheed’s 36-page report, which first circulated last week, “false,” “fabricated,” “biased” and manipulated by “certain Western countries and their cronies on the council,” The New York Times reports.
Iran’s insistence that Nadarkhani will not be executed is only the latest development in an ongoing legal nightmare, during which a litany of additional accusations, including rape and extortion, have been made against the Christian pastor by the Iranian government.
In September of last year, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld Naderkhani’s initial conviction of apostasy after he allegedly refused to recant his Christian faith.
Then, in February, the American Center for Law and Justice received reports that Nadarkhani had been sentenced to death for the 2010 charges — a ruling the White House quickly condemned in a statement.
“This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values,” the White House statement read. “The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution — a fundamental and universal human right.”
Leonard Leo, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, told the Religion News Service last year that Iran’s court proceedings can’t be trusted.
“The court continues to demand that he recant his faith or otherwise be executed,” Leo told RNS. “The most recent court proceedings are not only a sham, but are contrary to Iranian law and international human rights standards.”
Despite the reported execution ruling last fall, Iranian envoy Mohammad Javad Larijani told the Human Rights Council that such punishment is not permitted in Iran.
“In the last 33 years after [the Islamic] revolution, no single person has been put to death or executed or pursued for changing his religion from Islam,” he told the council, according to FOX News. “Hundreds of people are changing from other religions to Islam. Why we should be so sensitive about a few people to change their religion from Islam?”
Photo courtesy of Youcef Nadarkhani’s Facebook page.
My homage to the greatest living screen actress Meryl Streep, and her incredible 17 Oscar nominations. This is my way of honoring her, and a look into an incredible 30 year career, and it’s still growing. This 3-time Academy Award winning goddess continues to be an inspiration to us all. This video is also dedicated to my close friend and partner in crime, Carla Bruton. She had the faith that one day we would see her win again. And then there was light. Enjoy.
How would you describe the New Leadership Paradigm
Q 2 What inspired you to write the New Leadership Paradigm.wmv
Q 3 Why is a New Leadership Paradigm necessary.wmv
Why is a New Leadership Paradigm necessary
Forbes’ comprehensive list of the world’s billionaires (there are 1,226) came out recently, and we were curious–are there women on the list?
Turns out, there are. Yes, men far outnumber the ladies. But starting at number 11, women help fill out the ranks of the fabulously wealthy.
Where do these fortunes come from? Uniformly, these top six women have shrewdly managed the companies and fortunes handed to them by husbands and fathers. But most of these women have put in their own hard work into these companies to grow them, especially the woman who is now president of Fidelity Investments. (Because women do make better investors!)
Of course, it took a few generations for these fortunes to build up, and many of the male billionaires on Fortunes’ list are, well, advanced in age, having worked hard for their wealth over a lifetime. We’re looking forward to a few years down the road when the list is populated by many more women and their own companies, instead of those founded by the the men in their lives.
After all, the founder of Spanx just broke into the billionaire list. Who knows what kind of riches she’ll have by the time she retires?
Click on the pictures below to learn more about some of the richest women in the world:
The 6 Richest Women in the U.S.
6. Laurene Powell Jobs
Estimated net worth: $9 billion
Rank: 100th richest person in the world, 36th richest person in the U.S.
Age: 48
Why she’s rich: She’s the widow of Steve Jobs.
Lives in: Palo Alto, California
5. Abigail Johnson
Estimated net worth: $10.3 billion
Rank: 85th richest person in the world, 33rd richest in the U.S.
Age: 50
Why she’s rich: She owns and runs Fidelity Investments with her father, Edward Johnson III.
Lives in: Milton, Massachusetts
4. Anne Cox Chambers
Estimated net worth: $12.5 billion
Rank: 61st richest person in the world, 25th richest in the U.S.
Why she’s rich: She is the primary owner of the media empire Cox Enterprises, which was founded by her father James M. Cox.
Lives in: Atlanta, Georgia
3. Jacqueline Mars
Estimated net worth: $13.8 billion
Rank: 52nd richest person in the world, 22nd richest person in the U.S.
Age: 72
Why she’s rich: She’s the granddaughter of Frank C. Mars, the founder of the candy company Mars, Inc.
Lives in: The Plains, Virginia
2. Alice Walton
Estimated net worth: $23.3 billion
Rank: 17th richest person in the world, 9th richest in the U.S.
Age: 62
Why she’s rich: She’s the daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton.
Lives in: Fort Worth, Texas
1. Christy Walton
Estimated net worth: $25.3 billion
Rank: 11th richest person in the world, 4th richest in the U.S.
Age: 57
Why she’s rich: She’s the widow of John T. Walton, the son of Walmart founder Sam Walton.
Lives in: Jackson, Wyoming
Renowned historian Howard Zinn joins Bill to discuss how democracy relies on the power of people.
Bill Moyers speaks with one of America’s leading educators about finding meaning in the “third chapter” of our lives.
Provided by Investopedia.com
You’ve put in your retirement papers and are ready for the next phase of life. Now unless your financial situation allows for globe-trotting and a carefree lifestyle, you may need to readjust your spending habits to suit your income. However, there’s no reason to cut down on leisure activities and hobbies. We offer a few suggestions that will keep you active and happy, but won’t break the bank.
Photography
Snapping your favorite images was costly when buying film and paying for processing were your only options. However, today’s digital cameras (relatively inexpensive for a non-professional model) allow for unlimited picture-taking, sorting and printing on your home computer or laptop. Name-brand models with 10MP or higher can run for less than $100, a bargain for those starting out.
Extra costs: photo paper runs about $15 for 50 sheets at most office supply stores.
Bonus: You can post and send emails on your favorite website for free.
Genealogy
Tracing your family roots can be a wonderful way to spend your spare time and preserve a little bit of history. Local libraries and the Internet are valuable resources for getting started. Also, there are several government websites where you can access free archived information, such as names and photographs, to trace your family tree. You might also look into forums and other online sources for information searching and sharing.
Cost: free.
Reading and Writing
Want to be the next great novelist? Love poetry? Need to catch up on the latest best-seller? Retirement affords you the time to do all of it, and you needn’t dish out big bucks. Many public libraries participate in exchange co-op programs, so you can access any book, book-on-tape, CDs and DVDs for free. If you’re interested in writing on a casual or personal basis, or if you want to try your hand at making a few extra bucks, try blogging or submitting your work to free sites that accept entries.
Meditation and Yoga
These hobbies are relatively easy and inexpensive, as well as beneficial to your health. You may want to take a few yoga lessons to ensure proper positioning and breathing techniques. Senior centers and local adult school programs may offer lessons at reduced rates, and how-to guides are available in libraries and book stores. Once you achieve a basic understanding of the principles, you can perform the techniques on your own to suit your personal schedule. The best part: your body (and mind) will love you for it.
Cost: yoga mat $20.
Arts and Crafts
The word “retirement” might immediately bring to mind images of rocking chairs and knitting needles. However, today’s retirees have access to a lot more options for their leisure time. While knitting and crocheting are wonderful hobbies and yield beautiful homemade items, yarn, needles and other supplies are not cheap. However, origami and paper crafts, scrapbooking, drawing, woodcarving and floral arranging are inexpensive ways to create wonderful gifts for friends or loved ones. Take a class or borrow how-to books from the library to get started.
Cost: nominal supplies.
Sports and Physical Activities
Golf and tennis are sports that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. However, memberships to exclusive country clubs can set you back a pretty penny. Instead, sign up to play on public golf courses, which charge considerably less for a round. If possible, walk rather than rent a cart (you’ll get extra exercise in, too) and have your clubs cleaned and re-gripped instead of springing for a brand new set. Also, adapt your schedule to play in the off-hours, such as late afternoons or weekdays, when rates are reduced. (Some courses also offer nine-hole rates for off-peak times). The same applies to Tennis. Not only are outdoor public courts free, but you’ll also get some fresh air. If sports are not your thing, dancing, bicycling, hiking and walking are perfect for staying in shape, meeting new people and having fun.
Costs: varied.
Games and Puzzles
Experts agree that playing games like chess, scrabble and cards are beneficial to your mental health and memory, warding off conditions such as depression and Alzheimer’s. Crossword puzzles and Sudokus also help to keep your mind sharp as you age.
Cost: Minimal.
Volunteering
Offering your time and talent is a wonderful way to spend your retirement and give back to the community. Whether with a national organization or a local food bank, volunteers are always needed and always welcome. You also may want to consider tutoring or lecturing in your area of expertise, or doing odd jobs for folks who don’t have the financial means to pay contractors.
Cost: Nothing.
Bonus: You’ll be helping where help is needed the most.
The Bottom Line
Retirement doesn’t mean you have to stay still, and you don’t have to break the bank to have fun and keep busy. Be sure to stay mentally and physically active in order to remain healthy and energetic after your working years are over.
Chief Golden Light Eagle says a Spirit Channel says Obama will win the election.
“The Hunt for KSM: Inside the Pursuit and Takedown of the Real 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” by Terry McDermott and Josh Meyer (Little, Brown, $27.99) describes itself as the “definitive account of the decade-long pursuit and capture of the terrorist mastermind of 9/11.” Drawing on unprecedented access to hundreds of sources, and investigative reporting across different continents, it provides a unique insight into the worlds of counter terrorism and espionage. In this excerpt, we learn about how KSM was finally captured – and the real story behind his famous photo.
Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Spring 2003
KSM was far more careful than most of his comrades about operational security. He seldom risked exposing himself. Others wired money on his behalf. He used cutouts for critical communications. Others sent and received e‑mails for him. He seldom wrote anything down, believing that important information was better delivered face‑to‑face. When he did write, the language was allusive. Other operatives succumbed to the allure of the quick and easy sat-phone call. Just one call, just this one time. Then they were targeted, caught, and taken off the field of battle.
One group of Arab fighters had been captured on the run because they kept going outside the house they were hiding in to smoke cigarettes. They couldn’t help themselves. They wanted smoke breaks and took them, often outside.
Neighbors eventually became suspicious, a team was dispatched, and they were taken away. KSM was irate. He lost not just the fighters but their safe house and several others, as well as the man who arranged them.
As time went on and more and more of his associates were captured, KSM relied even less on modern communications. “These guys were lying low. They were not using electronics. They were not being detected by electronic eavesdropping,” an ISI officer said. KSM instead sent trusted personal couriers. Others could cast their fates into the ether, where electronic detectives roamed. He stayed down on the ground, in the very human muck that was Pakistan. So in the end it was almost inevitable that it was a human who would betray him.
For more than a year, the CIA had been cultivating an asset who had contacted the agency out of the blue. The man was a longtime acquaintance of KSM’s. Mohammed’s family thought they might have met as far back as the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. He was from Iranian Baluchistan, as was KSM’s family. They might have been distantly related, perhaps not, but were fellow Baluch—an extremely strong tie—in any case.
The agency was patient in cultivating the walk-in, whom we’ll refer to here as Baluchi. He spoke Dari, a dialect of Farsi, the principal language of Iran. The CIA had very few Farsi speakers accomplished enough to communicate with Baluchi. His initial handler was an Iranian American agent who was posted elsewhere overseas and flew to Pakistan whenever Baluchi or he wanted to meet. He was vetted over many months, and had passed polygraph tests. He seemed to be the real thing, maybe even capable of doing what he offered—delivering KSM.
Baluchi was paid regularly and provided useful information from time to time. The money was delivered to him in cash during his meetings with his handler. Fewer than a handful of the agency’s burgeoning Pakistan staff were allowed to know the man’s identity, or his purpose. The case was being run directly out of Langley under what were referred to as “restricted handling” rules, which mainly meant limited exposure on a strict need-to-know basis.
When his case officer left the agency in 2002, his new handler—we’ll call him Gino—also flew into the country just to meet with him. The Islamabad station residents were responsible for arranging safe houses for the meetings and sometimes for delivering money—thousands of dollars in bills in a paper bag—but they were not invited in to meet him. One agent caught a glimpse of him through a crack in the door at a safe house, sitting on a bed. He looked short and somewhat frail, much like virtually every other Baluch of his age and economic stature.
Baluchi sought to reconnect with KSM in person for months. The agency devised a plan to lure KSM to him; the bait was information that agents fed to Baluchi, who in turn passed it on to KSM. Finally, in late February of 2003, KSM agreed to meet Baluchi in Rawalpindi, a military garrison town southwest of the capital, Islamabad. He didn’t tell Baluchi the precise location, but said it would be that night, February 28. The CIA readied an attack team, made up primarily of its own agents and select members of the ISI who were not told whom they were going after. The FBI was not invited. The Americans still didn’t know where or if the meeting would occur, and they didn’t tell the Pakistanis the name of the target.
Marty Martin, the voluble head of the agency’s Sunni Extremist Group within the Counterterrorist Center, couldn’t contain himself at the 5:00 p.m. meeting of the executive staff gathered around George Tenet’s conference table on Friday. “Boss,” he said to Tenet. “Where are you going to be this weekend? Stay in touch. I just might get some good news.”
Aside from information about bin Laden himself, there could be no bigger news. KSM had risen dramatically in the agency’s estimation from the days when—except for assigning a single agent in the minuscule Renditions Branch to the task—they couldn’t really be bothered to track his whereabouts. Since then, so much effort had been spent with so little result that a potential breakthrough had begun to seem far-fetched.
KSM had been on the road with his nephew Aziz Ali and had met with Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al‑Zawahiri, the day before, near Peshawar. He arrived at the Rawalpindi safe house, a private residence, by car at about 9:00 p.m. The home, a large, comfortable, single-family residence at 18A Nisar Road in the Westridge district of Rawalpindi, one of its nicer areas, was owned by a prominent local couple. The husband was a scientist; the wife, Mahlaqa Khanum, was a politically active supporter of the Jamaat‑e‑Islami, Pakistan’s largest religious political party and one that had suspicious ties to Pakistani militant groups and even Al Qaeda. The couple claimed utter innocence later, but Mustafa al‑Hawsawi, the Al Qaeda accountant, had been in the house since January. Baluchi was brought to the house not long after KSM arrived. They talked for more than an hour. KSM, who was vigilant about the use of cell phones, for some reason allowed Baluchi to bring his phone into the house. Sometime later in the evening, Baluchi went into the bathroom and quietly texted his agency handlers: “I am with KSM.”
Not long afterward, Baluchi left the house and, once he was by himself, contacted the CIA agents again. This time, he knew how to bring them back to the home. After taking them there, Baluchi was quickly bundled off to the Islamabad airport by CIA officials, who put him on a plane. He was in the air and on his way out of the country before KSM even knew he was in danger.
The attack team took up positions outside 18A Nisar Road. By this point, the Americans and Pakistanis had cooperated on scores of similar raids, several of which were aimed at capturing KSM. This was, in that respect, just another day at the office. The team waited outside in the dark until it felt certain that KSM, a night owl, would be asleep.
The team waited until past 2:00 a.m., then the Pakistanis broke through the gate, through the front doors, and charged through the house, herding the family into a back bedroom. They found KSM sound asleep. They encountered only minimal resistance. KSM, groggy from an apparent dose of sleeping pills, offered to pay his Pakistani attackers to let him go free. When that failed to move them, he asked them if they’d like to cross over and join his team. “Why are you doing this for the Americans?” he asked. “If it’s money, we’ll give you what you want.” That didn’t work, either. KSM, al‑Hawsawi, and the owners’ adult son, Ahmed Qadoos, were taken into custody and spirited away.
Later, the legend of KSM’s capture would grow. There were tales of how he boldly wrestled with his pursuers, grabbed a Pakistani security agent’s rifle, and shot one of the Pakistanis in the foot before finally being subdued. It was said that when the authorities burst in he yelled, “Don’t shoot, there are women and children here.”
But the reality of it is that, in the end, KSM was caught completely unawares, and in his pajamas.
Marty Martin woke George Tenet with a phone call in the middle of the night. Tenet was at Camp David for weekend meetings with President Bush and his senior advisers. There was enough of a ruckus raised during the attack that neighbors were awakened, and the local media swarmed to the scene the next morning. The Pakistani government was forced to respond and acknowledge that three men had been taken into custody; one of them seemed to be a high-ranking Al Qaeda officer. By noon, the Pakistani press was reporting that KSM had been captured. The accounts varied wildly, but the fact of Mohammed’s capture was central to them all. Many ran photographs of KSM taken from wanted posters. Several of the photos showed him as a handsome, rugged young man. One pictured him in a Western coat and tie.
Back at Langley, Martin saw these early press accounts and was distressed at the accompanying photos. “Boss,” he said to Tenet. “This ain’t right. The media are making this bum look like a hero.” He asked Tenet for approval to release a somewhat less flattering photograph. Tenet agreed. A member of the CIA team had taken photos of KSM right after his capture, including one in which he looks into the camera, with his eyebrows raised nearly to his hairline. Still, Martin thought, that initial photo did not make KSM look sufficiently unattractive. Martin asked if there were any other photos available. The agent messed up KSM’s hair and then took another photo. The result was the famous image of KSM—thickset, glowering, wild-haired, half dressed in his nightshirt—his first introduction to most of the rest of the world.
Excerpted from “The Hunt for KSM: Inside the Pursuit and Takedown of the Real 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” by Terry McDermott and Josh Meyer (Little, Brown, $27.99)
Was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being protected?
The Secret History Of 9/11
Author and futurist John Petersen has made a career of studying the future, and this work is his analysis of the forces driving and shaping tomorrow’s world and a glimpse of how the future might unfold. This is a book for business, education, and anyone who is curious about the world of tomorrow.
– Examines trends such as population growth and movement
– Explores new technologies and their implications
– Forecasts the synergistic cross-combinations of trend variables
Contents: Acknowledgments
Preface
Ch. 1. A New Era Requires New Thinking 3
Ch. 2. New Ideas in Science 15
Ch. 3. Extraordinary Technology 27
Ch. 4. Environmental Alert! 73
Ch. 5. Exploding Population 113
Ch. 6. Energy: Big Shifts 143
Ch. 7. Transportation: Moving in New Directions 167
Ch. 8. Space: Linking Everyone 189
Ch. 9. Health: Serious Threats…and Gains 207
Ch. 10. Changing Social Values 223
Ch. 11. Economies: Fundamental Shifts 247
Ch. 12. Political Relationships: Not the Same Old Politics 271
Ch. 13. Crosscuts and Wild Cards 287
Ch. 14. So What Should We Do? 339
Appendix A: Trend Matrix 344
Appendix B: Projected Special Forces Technology 346
Appendix C: Crosscut and Wild Card Matrix 348
Bibliography 350
Resources 352
Index 355
John L. Petersen
President and Founder, The Arlington Institute
John L. Petersen is considered by many to be one of the most informed futurists in the world. He is best-known for writing and thinking about high impact surprises—wild cards—and the process of surprise anticipation. His current professional involvements include the development of sophisticated tools for anticipatory analysis and surprise anticipation, long-range strategic planning and helping leadership design new approaches for dealing with the future.
He has led national non-profit organizations, worked in sales, manufacturing, real estate development, and marketing and advertising, mostly for companies he founded. A graduate electrical engineer, he has also promoted rock concerts; produced conventions; and worked as a disc jockey – among other things.
Mr. Petersen’s government and political experience include stints at the National War College, the Institute for National Security Studies, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council staff at the White House. He was a naval flight officer in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve and is a decorated veteran of both the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars. He has served in senior positions for a number of presidential political campaigns and was an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1984.
In 1989 Petersen founded The Arlington Institute (TAI), a non-profit, future-oriented research institute. TAI operates on the premise that effective thinking about the future is impossible without casting a very wide net. The “think tank” serves as a global agent for change by developing new concepts, processes and tools for anticipating the future and translating that knowledge into better present-day decisions. Using advanced information technology, a core group of bright thinkers and an international network of exceptionally curious people along with simulations, modeling, scenario building, polling and analysis, Arlington helps equip leaders and organizations from many disciplines with tools and actionable perspectives for dealing with uncertain times.
An award-winning writer, Petersen’s first book, The Road to 2015: Profiles of the Future was awarded Outstanding Academic Book of 1995 by CHOICE Academic Review, and remained on The World Future Society’s best-seller list for more than a year. His latest book, Out of the Blue: How to Anticipate Wild Cards and Big Future Surprises, was also a WFS best-seller. His coauthored article, “The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?” was one of the most highly acclaimed writings on Y2K. His 1988 book-length report “The Diffusion of Power: An Era of Realignment” was used at the highest levels of American government as a basis for strategic planning. He has also written papers on the future of national security and the military, the future of energy and the future of the media.
Petersen is a past board member of the World Future Society, writes on the future of aviation for Professional Pilot magazine and is a member of the board of directors of the Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation. He is a network member of the Global Business Network and a fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science. A provocative public speaker, he addresses a wide array of audiences around the world on a variety of future subjects. When he is not writing or speaking, Petersen invests in and develops resources for large, international projects and advanced technology start-up companies and is the developer of a significant multi-use real estate project. He lives in the Washington, D.C. area and the eastern panhandle of West Virginia with his wife, Diane.
Islam is often viewed as an inherently violent and intolerant world religion. This misconception is fueled in part by the miscreant deeds of some Muslims, particularly toward those of other faith beliefs.
That conduct is then unfairly imputed to Islamic doctrine and coreligionists globally.
The imputation is unfair because the individual Muslim’s action may not in fact be supported by informed readings of Islamic legal strictures, nor necessarily be representative of the 2.2 billion Muslims in the world.
This is especially true of violence against religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, like Egypt or in any country, period.
Discrimination, oppression and/or violence against an individual or group based upon religious affiliation — or no affiliation — is fundamentally wrong no matter how you look at it.
This is particularly so from an Islamic perspective.
The Quran is Islam’s foundational text regarded by Muslims as the literal word of God. It constitutes a primary source informing Islamic law. And it articulates several significant principles regarding inter-religious harmony, peaceful co-existence and religious pluralistic success.
Several of these principles bear mentioning here.
First, the Quran asserts that monotheistic religions derive from the Divine: “The same religion He has established for you is as that which He enjoined on Noah — and what We now reveal to you — and enjoined on Abraham, Moses, Jesus, saying, ‘Establish the religion and do not become divided therein’” (42:13).
The Quran further states, “Say, ‘We believe in God and in that which He has revealed to us and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, the descendants and that which was revealed to Moses, Jesus and that which was revealed to the prophets from their Lord, We make no difference between one and another and we bow in submission to Him’” (2:136).
Thus, the Quran makes the belief in all the prophets — from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to Jesus — incumbent upon Muslims. All those prophets should be respected, as should their followers.
Indeed, Islam prohibits oppression in all of its ugly forms, irrespective of the faith, gender, race or economic status of the victim or perpetrator. The Quran instructs, “Help one another in benevolence and piety, and help not one another in sin and transgression” (5:2).
As such, Muslims are spiritually prohibited from oppressing the adherents of other faith groups. Thus, killings, mutilation, burnings, discrimination and violence against minority religious communities by Muslims is wrong.
Next, Islamic doctrine provides for religious freedom. The Quran states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and “Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” (10:33).
In Islamic legal tradition, humankind has free will to exercise choice, including religious decisions. God is believed to be the sole arbiter of religious differences. This is true even in the case of conversion from Islam. A number of Islamic scholars have found that Muslims are free to leave the fold of Islam without suffering retribution for doing so. Capital punishment, the penalty often meted out to such converts, is reserved by Islamic law for the crime of treason and not conversion, they hold.
Finally, Islam mandates Muslim preservation of all places of divine worship: “For had it not been for God’s checking some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the name of God is often mentioned, would have been destroyed” (22:40).
Hence the destruction, desecration or vandalism by Muslims of other houses of worship here or abroad is a gross violation of Islamic legal principles.
These Islamic principles derived from the Quran make clear that all of humankind share the same sanctity of life and honor. Moreover, their application has been in practice since Islam’s inception.
During the advent of Islam, for instance, the Prophet Muhammad negotiated a covenant between the Muslims and the Jews, binding each community to respect each others beliefs and to provide mutual protection.
In another instance during the Prophet Muhammad’s life, a visiting Christian delegation stayed at the mosque where they were permitted to conduct their religious services in one section of the mosque while Muslims prayed in another.
During the reign of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph to assume Muslim rule following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, a Christian woman lodged a complaint alleging that the Muslim governor of Egypt annexed her house without consent in connection with a mosque expansion project.
In response to Umar’s legal inquiries, the Muslim governor explained that the number of worshiping Muslims exceeded mosque capacity necessitating the expansion. He further explained that since the complainant’s house was adjacent to the mosque, the state offered to compensate her for the property. She declined this offer. Consequently, the state demolished her home and placed its value with the treasury for her to retrieve.
Ultimately, Umar ruled in favor of the woman, ordering the demolition of the portion of the mosque built on the site of her house and providing her house be re-constructed as it had previously existed.
During the Islamic rule of the Umayyids and Abbasids, the most qualified people were entrusted significant posts without regard to religious beliefs.
Harun al-Rashid, a famed Muslim ruler, appointed a Christian man as the Director of Public Instruction and all the schools and colleges were placed under his charge. In making such appointments, he considered only excellence in one’s field.
These examples are in contradistinction to the contemporary practice of religious discrimination against the members of minority faith communities reportedly occurring in some Muslim majority countries.
To be sure, religious intolerance, discrimination and violence is not a Muslim problem – rather the disturbing phenomenon transcends faith and geography.
Consider, for example, the status of civil rights of American Muslims, a religious minority which constitutes 1 to 2 percent of the total U.S. population.
From Muslims who are indefinitely detained to those who are sent to be tortured in conjunction with our “extraordinary rendition” program; from unlawful police surveillance to the proliferation of so-called “anti-sharia” legislation around the country and politically charged anti-Muslim, anti-Islam rhetoric by those vying for elected office to record high religious employment discrimination claims by Muslims; from physical assaults and murders of those perceived to be Muslim to Islamophobic bullying and destruction of mosque property to Quran burnings — religious intolerance, discrimination and violence toward a religious minority is dangerously present right here at home.
What message are we — the international role model on religious freedom and human rights — then sending to other governments and populations abroad?
Some of you may still be trying to reconcile the apparent disconnect between the Islamic principles enunciated above with disturbing contemporary practices.
To my mind, this disconnect speaks to the absolute necessity of anti-discrimination laws in Muslim-majority countries together with proper implementation and enforcement of such laws.
It also highlights the need for education, particularly in Muslim societies and local communities where Islam enjoys political, social and moral currency. Along these lines, one word springs to mind which seems instructive. According to Islamic tradition, it was the very first word believed to have been revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad:
“Read.”
Engy Abdelkader is a Legal Fellow with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there’s a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a “filter bubble” and don’t get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us and bad for democracy.
After bringing viewers the news for nearly 23 years, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw gave his parting words on December 1, 2004, expressing gratitude for what he got in return. (Aired on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on 12-01-04)
Transcript:
Well the time is here. We’ve been through a lot together through dark days and nights and seasons of hope and joy. Whatever the story I had only one objective, to get it right, when I failed, it was personally painful and there was no greater urgency than course correction. On those occasions, I was grateful for your forbearance and always mindful that your patience and attention didn’t come with a lifetime warranty.
I was not alone here, of course. I am simply the most conspicuous part of a large, thoroughly dedicated and professional staff that extends from just beyond these cameras, across the country and around the world, in too many instances in places of great danger and personal hardship and they’re family to me.
What have I learned here? More than we have time to recount this evening, but the enduring lessons through the decades are these: It’s not the questions that get us in trouble, it’s the answers.
And just as important, no one person has all the answers. Just ask a member of the generation that I came to know well, the men and woman who came of age in the Great Depression, who had great personal sacrifice, saved the world in World War II and returned home to dedicate their lives to improving the nation they had already served so nobly. They weren’t perfect, no generation is, but this one left a large and vital legacy of common effort to find common ground here and abroad in which to solve our most vexing problems. They did not give up their personal beliefs and greatest passions, but they never stopped learning from each other, but most of all, they did not give up on the idea that we’re all in this together, we still are.
And it is in that spirit that I say, thanks, for all that I have learned from you. That’s been my richest reward.
That’s Nightly News for this Wednesday night. I’m Tom Brokaw. You’ll see Brian Williams here tomorrow night and I’ll see you along the way.
To say that our boxer, Chuck, was excited to see him come home is an understatement. (And if you’re wondering why it says “again” it is because we went through this a year ago as well. That video is also posted.)
Bill Gates previews his fourth annual letter and invites students around the world to submit their own letters addressing what they think is the world’s most pressing issue. Students can submit their letters to annualletter@gatesfoundation.org through February 2nd, 2012.
The other day I scheduled a long-overdue appointment for a dental cleaning. I had called a few days in advance and arranged for an early-morning slot so that I could arrive in the office before the workload got too heavy. Leaving my apartment about 35 minutes before the appointment, I imagined I left enough time to arrive on schedule.
That is, until I got into a small car accident less than 10 minutes later.
As I waited to turn right at an intersection not far from my apartment, the car behind me abruptly drove into the rear of my small hatchback, suddenly jolting me forward and setting back my initial plans.
I pulled over to the curb just beyond the intersection to assess the damage and the profusely apologetic young woman in the car behind me called the police so that we could file a traffic accident report. Once I knew officers were on the way, I called the dentist to reschedule the appointment for another day. My plans for the morning were swiftly unwritten and rather than visit the dentist, I took the police report to my insurance office to file a claim instead.
As the morning rush of traffic hurried passed, I thanked God quietly that the accident hadn’t been more serious. As I did so, I realised that not once the night before and earlier that morning had I said insha’Allah, the Arabic phrase meaning ‘God Willing’ or ‘If God so Wills,’ when discussing my ill-fated plan to visit the dentist that morning.
The main reason for Muslims to say insha’Allah is to recognise that an event in the future will happen only if God wills it. So when I say “I’ll go to the dentist this morning before work, insha’Allah,” I am acknowledging that what I intend to do cannot be fully guaranteed. I concede to the presence of God in my daily life, and His ultimate control over the coordination and course of the minute and substantial happenings of my life.
It is quite easy to forget to say insha’Allah in our everyday lives, partly because the phrase has strayed so far from its intended meaning in popular usage. Insha’Allah has in many cases become a slang way of avoiding commitment to anything. Especially when a person is too cowardly to say “no,” s/he will instead say insha’Allah in order to brush aside the reality: that they do not intend to do a thing, but can’t be bothered to be upfront about it.
In many modern contexts, Muslims and non-Muslims frown upon the use of insha’Allah because it carries with it the meaning that what someone is promising or intending is not reliable, always leaving the door open for escape.
This is quite paradoxical for me because growing up, I was taught that when I say insha’Allah, I am obligated before God to follow through with my word, save for some unforeseen circumstance beyond my control. By saying the phrase, I am giving my word that I will do what I say, unless God makes the event impossible to fulfil due to some unexpected event, such as the accident I was in the other morning.
Two meanings for this phrase, poles apart in their implications, have thus transpired. One very beautifully encapsulates Islam, a state of mind where a person lives in submission to God and respects the time and commitments s/he makes. The other, void of consciousness of God, gives a person a false sense of absolute control over their lives. It is easy to overlook how fragile the progress of our lives actually is. As an ocean has an unstoppable current guiding the movement of things beyond our daily comprehension, it would be egotistical to think that one single person has control over a force that guides the flow of their lives.
Facing the latter meaning in my daily life has led me to, in many cases, refrain from saying insha’Allah, even though I use it with the former intention. Having my schedule shaken up from time to time is always a good reminder of the importance of remembering to say the phrase, regardless.
In the banality of our daily routines, we often get the sense that we have control over the events of our days; that we can do and have anything we want. But the reality is we can never know what the future holds for us. All of our plans, ambitions and goals, indeed every step we take, are at God’s will.
“Never say of anything, ‘I shall certainly do this tomorrow,’ without adding, ‘if God so wills.’ Remember your Lord whenever you forget and say, ‘I trust my Lord will guide me to that which is even nearer to the right path than this.’” (Quran, 18:23-4)
Daliah Merzaban is an Egyptian-Canadian journalist, editor and economic analyst with a decade of experience in the Gulf region, Egypt and Canada. To read more of her views on Islam, spirituality and Arab women, visit http://daliahm.blogspot.com/
Tom Antion shows you what it’s like to work for an Internet millionaire.
Day in the Life of an Internet Multi-Millionaire Tom Antion Part 2
Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi’s unseen photos
17 June 2010: On Saturday 19 June the Burmese human rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi will turn 65. She remains under house arrest in Rangoon, and to mark her birthday the Guardian has been given previously unpublished photographs taken from the private collection of her late husband, Michael Aris, showing the Burmese democracy movement leader as a young bride-to-be, mother and housewife. Proceeds from the pictures are being donated to Dr Cynthia’s Mae Tao Clinic (maetaoclinic.org), a charity that provides free healthcare for refugees, migrant workers and other people who cross the border from Burma to Thailand and Prospect Burma, which helps educate Burmese students, either in exile or within Burma.
Aung San Suu Kyi: BBC Interview (1/2) | November 15, 2010
In her first-ever TV interview after being released from seven years of house arrest, the leader of Burma’s democracy movement and recipient of the 1991 Nobel Prize for Peace, AUNG SAN SUU KYI, lays out her experiences as she endured years of being imprisoned in her own home.
In this BBC Exclusive interview, Suu Kyi shares with BBC reporter John Simpson her aspirations for her people as she takes up the mantle of democratic struggle once again – doing so at great personal cost; as her husband, British academic Michael Aris, was repeatedly denied a visa to Burma by the military regime and was dying of cancer in 1999, she had to heartbreakingly choose to stay in Burma instead, fearing that is she left the country, she would not be allowed back.
Just a few weeks after her release, she has finally seen her younger son, Kim Aris, for the first time in more than a decade; she has never met one of two grandchildren.
Enduring imprisonment – whether in jail or in her crumbling villa in Central Rangoon for fifteen of the past twenty years, surviving at least one assassination attempt, perseverance in the midst of ever-increasing intimidation by the military rulers and her great personal sacrifices – all this, Aung San Suu Kyi did in the name of democracy.
Aung San Suu Kyi: BBC Interview (2/2) | November 15, 2010
Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear joins Thom Hartmann. More than a year into the nuclear crisis at Fukushima – radiation levels have now reached their highest point yet. What does all this mean – and what should nuclear supporters in America be taking away from the continuing crisis?
JERUSALEM — Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Holy Land commemorated the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in prayers and processions on Friday through Jerusalem’s Old City.
In the town of Beit Jala, adjacent to Bethlehem, Palestinian Catholics re-enacted Jesus’ stations of the cross in their olive groves and vineyards. Father Ibrahim Shomali led the Good Friday procession in Arabic, wearing a white tunic and purple clerical shawl. Dozens of believers followed him, bearing Palestinian flags and olivewood crosses.
Several dozen Palestinian Christians conducted prayers on their farmland this year, which sits between two Israeli settlements and along the route of Israel’s planned separation barrier, said Xavier Abueid, a Palestinian adviser, who participated in the prayers there.
The prayers on the farms were conducted to highlight and protest what Palestinians say is Israel’s increasing restrictions on Palestinians accessing their lands, particularly in areas abutting the Jewish state and Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Palestinian grievances are also echoed by prominent rights groups working in Israel.
Israel’s government says it needs to prevent Palestinian access to certain land to prevent clashes in areas where there are poor relations with Jewish settlers. In other places, Israel says it needs the land to build its separation barrier to keep out Palestinian attackers.
For the Roman Catholic and Protestant congregations that observe the new, Gregorian calendar, Good Friday this year coincides with the Jewish Passover holiday, which started at sundown. Orthodox Christians, who follow the old, Julian calendar, will mark Easter a week later.
According to the Gospels, Jesus ate his last supper – a Passover meal – hours before he was betrayed.
In Jerusalem on Friday, Christian pilgrims filled the cobblestone alleyways of the Old City along the Via Dolorosa, Latin for the “Way of Suffering.” They followed his 14 stations, ending at the ancient Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Tradition says the church was built on the site where Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.
There are about 110,000 Arab Christians in the Holy land, along with thousands of Christian foreign workers, asylum seekers, and Russian-speaking immigrants.
Christians believe Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and resurrected on Easter Sunday.
In preparation for Passover eve, Israel’s army announced a general closure on the West Bank. That means no Palestinians can enter Israel except those needing medical care. The ban will be lifted on Saturday at midnight. It does not apply to the hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who live in the West Bank.
Israel routinely closes the West Bank during Jewish holidays when crowds in synagogues and other public places are most vulnerable to potential attacks by Palestinian militants.
A decade ago, 29 people were killed on Passover eve as they sat down to a traditional festive meal at a hotel in the Israeli resort of Netanya.
Thousands of Thai royalists dressed in black on Monday to bid a final farewell to princess Bejaratana. The princess died in July 2011 of septicaemia and was cremated in Bangkok on April 9, 2012.
During the royal ceremony, Thai soldiers in traditional dress pulled the royal chariot carrying the princess’ urn in a procession through the streets of the capital. Members of the Thai royal family attended the cremation.
Princess Bejaratana was the only child of King Rama VI and a close cousin of the current king, Reuters reports.
Thailands-frail-king-makes-rare-public-appearance-cousins-funeral-200-men.html
From one of the world’s leading thinkers and speakers on creativity and innovation, a breakthrough book about talent, passion, and achievement.
The element is the point at which natural talent meets personal passion. When people arrive at the element, they feel most themselves and most inspired and achieve at their highest levels. The Element draws on the stories of a wide range of people, from ex-Beatle Paul McCartney to Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons; from Meg Ryan to Gillian Lynne, who choreographed the Broadway productions of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera; and from writer Arianna Huffington to renowned physicist Richard Feynman and others, including business leaders and athletes. It explores the components of this new paradigm: The diversity of intelligence, the power of imagination and creativity, and the importance of commitment to our own capabilities.
With a wry sense of humor, Ken Robinson looks at the conditions that enable us to find ourselves in the element and those that stifle that possibility. He shows that age and occupation are no barrier, and that once we have found our path we can help others to do so as well. The Element shows the vital need to enhance creativity and innovation by thinking differently about human resources and imagination. It is also an essential strategy for transforming education, business, and communities to meet the challenges of living and succeeding in the twenty-first century.
Ken Robinson – The Element
Christians are directly concerned with and interested in the prophetic biography of Jesus Christ. Muslims are directly interested in the prophetic biography of the Prophet Muhammad and following his example. Muslims believe that both of these Prophets, Muhammad and Jesus, actually met each other.
Different narrations exist of the Night Journey and Ascension of Muhammad. One condensed version of a narration provided by Imam Dr. Usama al-Atar draws on classical sources as follows. It maintains that one night, when the Prophet Muhammad (s) was resting in the house of his cousin in Makkah, the angel Gabriel came to him with a heavenly animal called the Buraq. The Prophet (s) rode on the Buraq’s back and it flew him to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem where he said, “I saw Abraham, Moses, Jesus among many other prophets who lined up for prayers. I performed the call for starting the prayers (Iqamah) and then the angel Gabriel asked me to lead the prayers so I did.” From there the Prophet rode the Buraq, ascended to the Worldly heavens where he saw a tall man, and Gabriel told him that he was Adam. I said to him, “Assalam Alaikum (Peace be upon you),” and he replied the greeting to me. I then prayed for his forgiveness and he prayed for my forgiveness and then said, “Welcome O virtuous son, virtuous prophet, who is sent in the virtuous time.”
(A full description of Islamic doctrines on all the Prophets is too much to include in this short article. However, Imam Dr. Usama Al-Atar provides the following commentary: One of the fundamental beliefs of Muslims is the infallibility of all prophets, which includes them not committing any sin, mistake or any wrong doing of any sort. When prophets pray for forgiveness, it is not because of any sins they committed, but rather for feeling the shortcoming of not doing enough to worship God the way He is worthy of being worshiped).
The Prophet (s) then ascended to the second heaven, where he saw two men who looked alike. He inquired about them and was told that they were the cousins, Jesus (Isa) (Alayhi As-Salaam) and John the Baptist (Yahya) (as). He greeted them with, “Assalam Alaikum,” and they replied to his greeting. He then prayed for their forgiveness and they prayed for him as well and then said, “Welcome O virtuous brother, and
virtuous prophet.”
Further and in a similar way, Muhammad, PBUH, also met other major Prophets. The Prophet (s) was then taken to the highest ranks of Heavens, a place called Sidrat Al-Muntaha where he “encountered” God. (This encounter with God in the Sidrat Al-Muntaha would be enough for at least another article.) Imam Dr. Al-Atar’s rendering of the narrative and embedded commentary should be familiar to Muslims who know very well this story of the Night Journey and Ascension. They will usually commemorate it every year in the mosque. However, I would like to suggest that it is a good time to take another look at the Prophetic example and allow its wisdom to further benefit us. These Prophets, Peace be upon Them all, demonstrated the best example of encounter and relations amongst the most highly developed human beings. This is an example that we ought to remember and reflect upon as Muslims in the wider Muslim community are divided into different groups. It presents the best example for when we meet each other. Sunnis and Shiites, for example, might draw on this example in the story of the Night Journey and Ascension to treat each other in the best way. The implications for better relations extend to all of Islamic pluralism: Sunnis, Shiites and everyone else.
Additional implications of the account of the Prophet’s Night Journey and Ascension could be extended in a benevolent way to relations between Muslims and the non-Muslim followers of the other Prophets. We could consider this an example of the best encounter and relations between the best of all human beings, the example extended to contemporary Christian-Muslim relations. This example may inform ordinary citizens who would like to think and act more in a way similar to the Prophets. Anyone wondering where Christian-Muslim dialogue and relations is headed might consider the content of this prophetic example for inspiration. The splendid prophetic example is there for all to consider for benevolent intentions and improved relations between communities and between individuals.
Kemal Argon is a specialist on Islam in the modern world. He has an MA in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations from Hartford Seminary and a PhD in Arab and Islamic Studies from the University of Exeter, Great Britain. His interests also include contemporary Islamisms, interfaith relations and interreligious dialogue.
President Obama discusses his nomination of Jim Yong Kim, a physician, anthropologist, co-founder of Partners in Health, and leader of the WHO HIV/AIDS campaign, to be President of the World Bank. March 23, 2012.
World Bank Appoints Dr. Jim Yong Kim as President
FREE Breaking News Alerts from StreetInsider.com!
April 16, 2012 1:20 PM EDT
The Executive Directors met today to select a new President of the World Bank Group. The Board expressed its deep gratitude for Mr. Robert B. Zoellick’s outstanding leadership and his dedication to reducing poverty in its member countries, the core mandate of the World Bank Group.
The Executive Directors followed the new selection process agreed in 2011 which, for the first time in the Bank’s history, yielded multiple nominees. This process included an open nomination where any national of the Bank’s membership could be proposed by any Executive Director or Governor, publication of the names of the candidates, interviews of the candidates by the Executive Directors, and final selection of the President.
The Executive Directors selected Dr. Jim Yong Kim as President for a five-year term beginning on July 1, 2012. The President is Chair of the Boards of Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). The President is also ex officio Chair of the Boards of Directors of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the Administrative Council of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
More from the Bank:
We, the Executive Directors, wish to express our deep appreciation to all the nominees, Jim Yong Kim, José Antonio Ocampo and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Their candidacies enriched the discussion of the role of the President and of the World Bank Group’s future direction. The final nominees received support from different member countries, which reflected the high caliber of the candidates. We all look forward to working with Dr. Kim when he assumes his responsibilities.
Dr. Jim Yong Kim is currently President of Dartmouth College. A U.S. national, Dr. Kim is a co-founder of Partners in Health (PIH) and a former director of the Department of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization (WHO). Before assuming the Dartmouth presidency, Dr. Kim held professorships at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health. He also served as chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief of the Division of Global Health Equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and director of the François Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Dr. Kim was awarded a MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship (2003), was named one of America’s “25 Best Leaders” by US News & World Report (2005), and was selected as one of TIME magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” (2006). He was elected in 2004 to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences—one of the highest honors in the fields of health and medicine—for his professional achievements and commitment to service. He has published widely over the past two decades, authoring or co-authoring articles for leading academic and scientific journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and Science.
Born in 1959 in Seoul, South Korea, Dr. Kim moved with his family to the United States at the age of five and grew up in Muscatine, Iowa. Dr. Kim graduated magna cum laude from Brown University in 1982. He earned a medical doctorate from Harvard Medical School in 1991 and a Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard University in 1993. He is married to Dr. Younsook Lim, a pediatrician. The couple has two young sons.
In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.
Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme – collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.
“All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that’s the only way you can hold it together,” warns Griffin.
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.
Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.
