Mondale will win

Note the timestamp of this post. I'm calling the Minnesota election. Victory Mondale.



The GOP had reason to fear a Mondale-Coleman debate. As the Star Tribune points out, Mondale's no-show at the debate originally scheduled last week was because of GOP guerilla warfare:

"As Democratic candidate Walter Mondale's commercial flight was about to take off from Fargo to the Twin Cities, it was ordered to stop. The pilot explained to passengers that a runway had been shut down at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and that the delay might be as much as an hour.



The runway had been closed to all but Air Force One as President Bush flew in for a rally in St. Paul for Republican candidate Norm Coleman. "

well, Mondale was finally ALLOWED to debate Coleman yesterday, since Bush is back in Texas and can't interfere. Here's the transcript. Draw your own conclusions, but the Daily Kos points out that Minnesota Freepers were seriously freaked out. Read the comments on Kos' post for more details.

Election 2002

This story, GOP workers for Cornyn accused of intimidation, is just one example of how the GOP intends to use every tactic possible to win this election by any means necessary. The link is courtesy of the Election Blog, which bills itself thusly:

"For those of you happening upon the site, this is a collection of reports of voting problems, errors, disenfranchisement, and other aberrations in our electoral system. I figured a compendium of the potential debacle would be great to keep for the record, especially as election reform become a more and more vital lynchpin to the functioning of our democratic society."

This will be an enormously useful reference site for the 2004 Election. Bookmark it now!

sorry to disappoint you...

...but wrapping a believer in pigskin does not prevent them entry to heaven, if that's really their destination.



The reason that these murderers are not going to heaven is because they killed innocent men, women and children. They were engaged in harabah, not jihad.



Wrapping them in pigskin to "prevent" them from entering Heaven implicitly gives credence to the idea that these murderers were engaging in jihad, and had performed an act worthy of admittance to Paradise.



Overall, wrapping the bodies in pigskin is a foolish and counter-productive action, because all it has done is lend "comfort" to the terrorists, by giving weight to their arguments.



And people wonder why the voice of moderate Islam isn't heard? Because the voice of the fringe is amplified !

Jews are NOT apes and pigs

I was unsurprised to read in NRO's The Corner the entry by Kathryn Jean-Lopez about the MEMRI "analysis" which purports to demonstrate that the Qur'an calls Jews "apes and pigs".



The verse she is referring to is 5:60 - while I do not deny that the verse has been deliberately misused to justify calling Jews "apes and pigs" - it has nothing to do with Jews. This is a group of ayats that are a kind of dialouge. It is confusing to follow but here is the general gist:



5:57 - (addressing Muslims) - do not choose as *guardians* (actual word

used) those people who follow earlier Revelations but not Islam (ie, Jews

and Christians), and people who are outright disbelievers (in Allah). The

issue of Guardian goes back to 5:55, which has an extensive history in and

of itself, as relates to Ali.



5:58 - Some ignorant Jews and Christians mock you (as a muslim) and your

Azaan (call to prayer) because they do not understand what you are doing

(they do not see it as a form of worship). This should not dissuade you from

doing your actions (duties to Allah).



(personal comment: I have been ridiculed while praying in parking lots. My

wife and I used to go to movies before Baby arrived, and sometimes the

only time we could catch a show was right around sunset. So we would do our

obligatory prayers in the parking lot. To be honest, we are reluctant to do that

nowadays, but this verse demands that we persevere despite that paranoia)



5:59 - addressing Jews and Christians - "is the only reason you hate us

(Muslims) because we believe in Allah, and the revelations that came before

(which you also believe in)? Is this because most of you do not follow your

own scriptures as well as we follow them (the same scriptures) ?



at this point the Muslim understands that they are inheritors to the same

scriptures that Jews and Christians follow. However, they are a target of

ridicule by some in these groups for adherence to these scriptures.



5:60 - addressing Muslims again - Do you want to know who is worse (than

such ignorant Jews and Christians. Note, not ALL, see 5:58)? Those who are

worse are those who Allah has cursed, had wrath upon, had damned to be apes

and swine.. etc . these are far, far worse than Jews or Christians (who mock

the azaan, etc.)



5:61 - The group that is discussed in 5:60 is here revealed to be those who

say (on the surface) I believe in Allah but who actually do not, and seek to

cause dissent and turmoil within the community of believers.



Clearly, the average Jew or Christian who follows their own scriptures, or

who at least does not ridicule Muslim belief, is clearly not the target of

5:59, let alone 5:60.



5:61 is taken by Sunnis to be generally aimed at evil people. Shi'a consider

it aimed at very specific groups of Muslims who subverted the Prophet's

wishes, especially against Ali. This entire section has very little to do

with Jews and Christians per se and has everything to do with the internal

struggles of the followers of the religion against the Hypocrites. These

Hypocrites were a significant threat to Islam at the outset, and saw the

best way to destroy it by trojaning it and working at cross purposes from

within.



Verse 4:91 also has been used by detractors of Islam and by politically-motivated psychotics like OBL. It is commonly represented as enjoining the believer to "kill all the infidels".



But for a full contextual understanding, it is necessary to read 4:88 onwards to 4:91. Also note that 4:91 has been short-quoted by critics, the full verse is:



"Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and

security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility

they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you

peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find

them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."



This is clearly referring to people who keep attacking you, in which case you are

justified in waging war out of defense.



Verse 4:91 itself has no justification for global war against infidels, it is self-contained in discussing other groups who just wont leave you alone. But the entire thread from 4:88 up to 4:91 is worth reading for even more subtlety.



I also sent this explanation to NRO editor John Derbyshire,whom I consider honorable in distinguishing the misuses of Islam by evil people like OBL from the inherent message of Islam itself. MEMRI and Mrs. Lopez have failed to make such a distinction.



UPDATE: Mr. Derbyshire wrote back:

I shall certainly do my best, Aziz. It is shameful that honest Muslims have

to keep explaining their way out of these insults. Most of the shame

belongs to extremists like OBL, but some is shared by my colleagues at NR,

and I shall do my best to speak up for the other side.



Best wishes,



John Derbyshire

Labor grows some stones

The resignation of the Labor party from the Sharon coalition government is a tidal wave through Israeili politics. Had it happened a year ago, perhaps many lives, Israeili and Palestinian, would have been saved. But is it a good thing ? I think, yes, because it breaks the invincible aura of the settlements.



Ha'aretz has a fascinating account of teh negotiations and the final meeting between Ben-Elizier and Sharon. It closes :

Then the real debate began. Ben-Eliezer and Oshaya wanted the word settlement to appear. It was obvious to all that Ben-Eliezer needed the word to get Ramon, Mitzna, and the contrary faction off his back. But that's where Sharon had to dig his heels in. The founder of the settlements was unable, psychologically or politically, to even hint that the settlers would cease to benefit from government largesse.



Finally, Ben-Eliezer stood up pulled the letter of resignation from his pocket, and said, "thank you, Mr. Prime Minister." He laid the letter on the prime minister's desk and the Labor Party left the office and the government.

there's also an editorial in Ha'aretz that discusses what a drain the settlers are on the Israeili economy.



UPDATE: excellent summary of coverage within and outside Israel, at Slate.

Falsafat I: Ideofact on Qutb

Bill Allison's Ideofact blog is one of those rare blogs that serves as a reference site for others, rather than a mere collection of opinions. Bill has blogged on topics ranging from the middle ages to Bosnia, covering literature and history and supported by a formidable library. One of the most important series of posts that Bill has worked on is his ongoing analysis of "Sayyid" ^[1] Qutb's book, Social Justice in Islam^[2]. This book's influence on the radical segment of Islam has been profound, to the extent that Qutb has been called "the brains behind Osama bin Laden" (here are a pair of articles that discuss this influence in detail by Dinesh D'Souza).



What is important about Bill's thorough analysis is that it demonstrates just how far from mainstream Islam that Qutb's ideas and interpretations are - to the extent that even an outsider to the faith can see them (not to impugn Bill - he has deep and personal knowledge of Islam, though he is not muslim himself). I agree completely with him when he says:

I've never been convinced that it is Islam in and of itself with which we are at war, but rather with a bunch of lunatics who believe that Islam justifies flying a few airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Beyond that, I tend to think the main problem of the Middle East is tyranny.

...

Islam shares the concept of the equality of souls before God. It has not found expression in anything like our Declaration, it is not the organizing principle of any predominantly Muslim society, but the concept is there, and is something which perhaps can be built upon.

Following the vein of my previous post, where I discuss how far off base OBL is from Islam, this post is an attempt to catalouge all of the Ideofact entries on Qutb. Thus we can demonstrate that not only is OBL's ideology flawed, but also the lineage of his ideology as well. Taken together, this could be considered the beginnings of a systematic refutation of the OBL version of Islam. I am regrettably not qualified to "deconstruct" Qutb with Qur'anic references but I know this to be possible, and Bill does an admirable job even without turning to the ultimate authority.



Ideofact Qutb Series

1

2:1, 2:2, 2:3

3:1, 3:2, 3:3

4

5

6

7:1, 7:2, 7:3, 7:4, 7:5, 7:6

8:1, 8:2



(Bill hasnt yet finished the series, so I will update this post as he adds new entries.)



So, then, what is the alternative to Qutb? The answer is Ali ibn Talib AS, the chosen sucessor to the Prophet (and the defining figure of Shi'a theology). I will review Ali's AS work, "Peak of Eloquence" (Nahjul Balagha), in the next post in this series.





^[1] As far as I can determine, the title of Sayyid was bestowed upon Qutb by himself.

^[2] For the masochistic, you can buy this book from Amazon. Not recommended unless you have the patience of a sage (like Bill).

The history of Hizbullah

I've posted a new article to UNMEDIA list, called The history of Hizbullah. It's a detailed look at the history behind the Israel/Lebanon conflict and traces the rise of the group. It's also mirrored on the UNMEDIA list archive.



Note you can browse and search the entire list archive. You do not need to subscribe to the list in order to access the archive, either, though I certainly do hope you join and participate!