Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

American Influence?

Posted October 26th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

rohdeThe road to hell may be paved with good intentions, as the saying goes, but there’s a lot of understandable suspicion out there about exactly how good American intentions even are when it comes to the Middle East.  That’s the theme of David Rohde’s book ‘Beyond War:  Reimagining American Influence in the Middle East.’

The first step I’d suggest:  do some major reimagining of images, and forget Orientalist stereotypes like the camel-rider on  the cover.  The second step:  question the whole concept of influence.

The Catholic weekly America asked me to review the book, and here’s what I wrote:

When the Egyptian military seized power in June, American pundits instantly rushed to preach about democracy.  This took some hubris considering that two recent American elections – 2000 and 2004 – are still considered by many to be of questionable legality, and that redistricting is rapidly ensuring the minority status of Democratic strongholds throughout the south.

Is the US even in a position to preach democracy?  Especially since as with national elections, so too with foreign policy:  democracy is subject to money, and how it’s spent.

This is the hard-headed reality behind two-time Pulitzer prize-winner and former Taliban captive David Rohde’s new book, which focuses on how the US government spends money abroad, specifically in the Middle East.  It’s an argument for small-scale economic rather than large-scale military aid, and as such is immensely welcome in principle. The question is how to do it in practice.

As Rohde writes, “Washington’s archaic foreign policy apparatus” and its weakened civilian agencies mean that “in the decades since the end of the Cold War, the ability of the White House, State Department, and Congress to devise and carry out sophisticated political and development efforts overseas has withered.”

Whether Rohde is aware of it or not, the problem might be encapsulated in the subtitle of his own book, which assumes not only the existence of American influence, but also its necessity. Many of his sources are well-informed and palpably frustrated employees of the Agency for International Development (USAID) who are basically in conflict with both the State Department and Congress.  Yet the stated goals of USAID are clear:  they include providing “economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the US.” [my italics].

For all the talk about the need for humanitarian aid and intervention (most recently in Syria), the reality is purely political.  What’s presented as humanitarian aid is always a matter of foreign policy.  And American foreign policy is still intensely focused on George W. Bush’s GWOT – the “global war on terror.”

The principle is that US aid should act as a stabilizing force against militant Islamic extremism.  But the very idea of the US as a stabilizing force has been thoroughly undermined by the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the best-considered foreign aid has now been rendered suspect in many parts of the Middle East, especially when there’s “a widespread perception of the American government as a finely tuned, nefarious machine, not an unwieldy cacophony of viewpoints,” and when authoritarian control fosters an intense rumor mill, with conspiracy theories rampant (most recently, for instance, Malala Yousufzai as a CIA plant, or American-backed ‘Zionists’ as the instigators of the new regime in Egypt).  In Egypt in particular, Rohde notes, “Washington faces an extraordinary public-policy conundrum.  Decades of support for Mubarak will not be forgotten overnight.”

Rohde details the conundrum in a series of country-by-country chapters, some intensively well-reported (particularly on civilian contractors’ takeover of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and on the use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others (on Turkey, Libya, and Tunisia) seem more perfunctory by comparison.  But in the light of the June military coup, the chapter on American dollars-for-peace financing and the Egyptian army’s vast business empire is particularly fascinating and uncomfortably prescient.

Oddly, though, there is no chapter on Israel, the largest recipient of American aid.  This seems to me tantamount to ignoring the elephant in the room, since the intense investment in an Israel that seems willing only to prolong and intensify the conflict with Palestine undermines US efforts elsewhere in the region.  In fact you could make a pretty strong argument that American support of Israel, driven by domestic electoral politics, runs directly counter to its own foreign policy interests.  Inevitably, the US is perceived elsewhere in the Middle East as at least tolerating if not encouraging Israel’s land grab in the Palestinian territories;  if its funds do not literally finance the expansionist project, they certainly free up funds that do.

Even assuming the best American intentions, then, they’re all too often interpreted as the worst.  But what exactly are those best intentions?

At root, this book is, or could have been, about America’s perception of itself.  Are we the world’s greatest do-gooders, distributing our largesse (and our arms) where most urgently needed?  Or are we acting to secure a blinkered and out-dated conception of our own interests?

Either way, as Rohde wrote in a New York Times op-ed back in May, “We should stop thinking we can transform societies overnight…  Nations must transform themselves.  We should scale back our ambitions and concentrate on long-term economics.”  His economic recommendations are accordingly small-scale (sometimes to the level of pathos, as in his enthusiasm for an Egyptian version of ‘The Apprentice’).  Yet his emphasis on entrepreneurship may actually undercut his argument that trying to force Western models on other countries will backfire.  And this is the argument that matters.

Like Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, says Rohde, American officials need to listen rather than try to muscle their way in, whether economically or militarily.  A little respect, that is.   Preach less, listen more.  That may not be much of a “reimagining,” but it’s the really important message of this book.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: 'America' magazine, 'Beyond War', Afghanistan, David Rohde, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, USAID | 2 Comments
  1. fatmakalkan says:
    October 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I agree with you Lesley. In reality after Eygptian over throw of Moursi next one was Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Turkey has much older democracy than Israel in Middle East but it is not in the interest of west to have strong Turkey with strong leader. West wants Soudi type regimes that will obey. Gezi park demonstrations at Istanbul in reality was an unsuccessful cue attempt of west. Thanks God it was unsuccessful. It would destabilize Turkey politically and economically and make Turkey again slave of west. Why West and Israil gov. Wants to get rid of Erdogan? Is he radical Islamist? No. Is he planing to bring sharia law back to Turkey ? No. If Turkey was a Christian state they would allow it to became another France or Germany but it is Muslim state very mellow understanding of Islam no treat to anybody but still even that much of Islam is not OK. There fore Turkey must remain as a third world country for western Judeo- Christian politicians.

  2. Jerry M says:
    October 28, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I can understand why the author left Israel out. I may not like our policy in Israel but it is a very different problem than what is happening in the Muslim world. In the case of the Obama administration, I don’t think they have a clue as to what they want to accomplish. Their lack of real preparation has led to them to keeping the mistakes of the Bush administration in effect long after they have left town. For example the spying on Germany has been going on for 10 years.

    Obama is a good administrator when he has a clear goal, but without ideas and without good advisors he is only a little better than an amateur.

‘Silent Majority’ Of Muslims? Not Any More

Posted September 26th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Great conversation on Al Jazeera’s The Stream yesterday:  I was with Lisa Fletcher and Anushay Hossain in the studio — I love her blog Anushay’s Point  — and Omid Safi, Nouman Ali Khan, and Michael Muhammad Knight joined in on Skype.  Plus an excellent video comment from Hind Makki in Chicago, which led to a lively post-show discussion, starting at the 25.15 mark, on reclaiming the narrative from both ‘Islamist’ extremists and Islamophobic bigots.

It’s a good thing Nouman Ali Khan wasn’t in the studio, because I’d only have totally embarrassed him by leaping up to give him a huge hug.  I really do have to figure out how to be cool on TV…

Like I say, hang around for the post-show segment — the silent majority is silent no longer!

[youtube=http://youtu.be/mtbsSXe6f2k]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, sanity, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: "Muslim rage", Al Jazeera, Arab spring, bigotry, extremism, freedom of expression, Islamophobic video, Libya, NYC subway ads, The Stream | 9 Comments
  1. Mustapha says:
    September 26, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Assalamu alaiki Lesley.

    I watched your programm with Lisa Fletch today. I then learned from Wikileaks that you a Jew. I am sure you cannot trace your tribe. When I meet you I will definitely hug you. You know that Muhammad Rasulullah married a Jewish lady from the famous tribe of Levi. It is part of the Sunna that his followers marry a Jewish lady!
    Good! I expected you to dispell the hope of a stable and peaceful world based on the history of your ancestors. How can the G-d of Abraham be partial? Do not be deceived for you know very well that after the discovery of the Torah and is promulgation by Josiah, the then Jewish race enjoyed peace and prosperity. The Qur’an has been protected and its Laws are intact. yet those upholding it have turned it into shreds of paper.
    Don’t criticize Netanhayu. Freedom of speech demands you to criticize the followers of Muhammad and expose their hypocrisy.
    Mustapha.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 10:38 am

      “Don’t criticize Netanyahu”? Are you kidding?
      You “learned from Wikileaks” that I’m Jewish? Wikileaks? Really? You could have learned it from me when I said so on the program you say you watched.
      No hugs, thank you.

  2. Imraan says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Reblogged this on Heightened Senses and commented:
    A brilliant edition of ‘The Stream’ speaking of the cartoons and the rage that followed it; is such a shame that more voices of moderation aren’t given this kind of exposure.
    That said, I think the discourse lets-off too easily the greater power-play here – I read it as classical orientalism – a way of subduing the Eastern man because he is quick to murderous rage, necessitating condemnation from Western Governments and schooling in what it is to live in the ‘modern world’ (thank you President Clinton, you very wicked man).
    Nouman Ali Khan was particularly excellent – speaking of the moral imperatives as opposed to the legislative ones which are important. And I think that that moral space should be recognised; as a person of ‘belief’, I wonder if it is a failing on the part of the faithful that this has been allowed to be perpetrated; our world today seems to be blinded by the notion of rights that extend even to the bigoted (which is fine in principle), the only problem being that we are so individualistic that we block out moral voices and moral instruction as soon as it interferes with our whims and desires – isn’t the point of morality (and I speak of universals here) that it should be able to shape or control our impulses for wickedness?

    It’s an unpopular view to have, no-doubt, in today’s world. What do you think?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 10:50 am

      The point about lingering Orientalism is well taken, of course: images of rioting mobs feed into that perfectly, thus the infamous Newsweek “Muslim Rage” cover story. As any African American can tell you, it takes a long time for entrenched images, paradigms, and stereotypes to die. Any Jew, too.
      Re morality, I think a more productive approach might be to focus on the impulse to good rather than to bad. And this is what I understand Nouman Ali Khan to be saying. i.e. religion not as “control” or a system of “curbs,” but as a force that might, in principle, focus on the potential for good. The idea of humans as inherently evil and thus needing to be punished and constricted only creates religion based on fear and hatred.

  3. rehmat1 says:
    September 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Shalom Ms Hazleton….

    You’re one of the three Jewish ladies who adorned by blog. The other two, are – poet and historian Tamam Kahn, and Professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan (Hebrew University). Nurit has not studied Islam, but Tamam did. She authored the book, ‘ UNTOLD: A History of the wives of Prophet Muhammad’.

    http://rehmat1.com/2011/03/14/untold-a-history-of-the-wives-of-prophet-muhammad/

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      I don’t know Nurit, but Tamam is indeed a dear friend.

      • rehmat1 says:
        September 28, 2012 at 5:20 am

        Nurit is daughter of Israeli war hero Gen. Matti Peled. She along with her brother Miko are among the few courageous Israeli Jews who though born and raised in committed Zionist Jewish families – have the moral courage to challenge Israel’s official Hasbara (propaganda) lies about Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Their grandfather, Dr. Avraham Katsnelson, sang Israeli anthem on Israel’s unilateral declaration of a state in May 1948. She lost her 13-year-old daughter Smdari Elhanan in the 1997 bombing in Jerusalem. Nurit turned her grief into quest for justice for the native Palestinians.

        http://rehmat1.com/2009/09/05/israeli-mother-who-refuses-to-shut-up/

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          September 28, 2012 at 8:19 am

          Thank you. But please note that there are far more than “a few” such Israeli Jews. In fact a sizeable proportion of Israelis detest government policies, on political, moral, and Jewish grounds, and Matti Peled was among them. What I most admire about activists like Nurit is that they do not give way to despair or exhaustion.

  4. anon says:
    September 30, 2012 at 2:46 am

    I enjoyed the program and the discussion and agree with much of what was said—but perhaps some assumptions may have been incorrect?

    I agree that excessively curtailing speech legally only makes it go underground depriving people of the opportunity for healthy debate and combating ignorance….but the idea that non-legal/social means of censorship does not make unacceptable speech go underground may be a mistaken idea—-statistics on Islamophobia show that a rise in hate-crimes/speech against Muslims corresponds to a rise in hate-crimes/speech against Jews in both U.S. and Europe. Therefore, it is possible the old anti-semitism is not dead—it just went underground waiting for a more conducive environment to re-emerge. If this is the case, then it is also possible that social censorship will only make islamophobia go underground in the West….unless the West actively discards its ideas of “manifest destiny/white man’s burden” and comes up with a new narrative that acknowledges the equality and dignity of ALL human beings…..and its one that is needed in the East as well…..

    another myth is that the U.S.(government) respects “free-speech” which its citizens seem to hold as sacred. (one only needs to glance at journalist Glenn Greenwald articles….)
    During the time of Hoover, the FBI rounded up all those whom it felt held “subversive’ views (views about communism)…more recently….
    Whislteblower Bradley Manning arrested, Assange taking asylum from extradition to U.S., Penn state student arrested for posting links to bomb-making site, Jubair Ahmed arrested for uploading pictures of Abu Ghuraib—-there are also incidents when peaceful U.S. protestors were teargassed (new York) or pelted with rubber bullets causing injuries (California)—–others such as singer Cat Stevens and Professor Tariq Ramadhan were not allowed in the U.S. because it did not approve their views….During the Bush era—Al-Qaeda videos aired on al-Jazeera were not allowed to be aired in the U.S.—the U.S. also kidnapped and tortured (renditions) people whose views or conduct it did not like……..(these days it uses drones to bomb them….)

    on a larger scale—one might even posit that the whole idea of fighting “communism”—or of “bringing democracy to Iraq” by war….also contradicts the American value of freedom of speech—-because ideas should be fought by ideas—not by nuclear weapons or tanks…..?…….

    —the concept/value of free-speech is one that Americans should grapple with themselves in the American context….Its just that American excuses about how hate-speech is “legal” ring kinda hollow to non-Americans………

The Real Muslim Rage

Posted September 23rd, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Oh what a bandwagon that noxious little anti-Islamic video has set in motion.  There seems to be no end of people eager to hop on it for personal and political gain, no matter how many lives it costs.

There’s Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, reeling from backlash against his support of Bashar al-Assad’s ongoing massacre of Syrian civilians.  What a perfect opportunity to deflect criticism by calling for more and larger protests — not against the Syrian regime, but against America, in the name of “defending the Prophet.” Except that’s not what he’s doing. To cite the headline of Nick Kristof’s NYT column today, he’s exploiting the Prophet.

There’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she of the soft voice and the compelling back story, who just can’t stop talking about what she calls “the Muslim mentality.” (Pop quiz:  if someone who generalizes about a stereotyped “Jewish mentality” is an anti-Semite, what’s someone who generalizes about a stereotyped “Muslim mentality”?  Click here if you don’t know.)  Hirsi Ali told her story yet again in Newsweek‘s “Muslim Rage” issue (to which the best answer was the often hilarious #MuslimRage meme on Twitter).  Strange to think that the rapidly failing Newsweek was once a reputable publication.

There’s the sophomoric French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose idea of cutting-edge humor is cartoons of politicians with their pants down around the ankles.  This week they ran similar cartoons of Muhammad in order to inject some life into their plumetting circulation by creating controversy.  Oh, and as a beacon of free speech, of course.

There’s Pakistan’s Minister of Railways — the man responsible for the system’s chronic debt, constant strikes, and devastating crashes. What better way to distract people from his total failure than to make himself out to be a “defender of Islam” by offering a $100,000 bounty for the life of the director of that inane video?  There’s nothing quite like incitement to murder to cover up your own corruption.

There’s more — there’s always more of such people, including of course the miserable little bigots who made the video in the first place —  but that’ll do for now. Because none of this reflects the real Muslim rage:  the palpable outrage not only at the killing of Ambassador Stevens, but also at the blatant attempt of Islamic extremists (and their Islamophobic counterparts) to hijack Islam.

Listen, for instance, to Egyptian activist Mahmoud Salem, aka Sandmonkey, who was one of the voices of 2011’s “Arab spring” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.  Violent protests over the video are “more damaging to Islam’s reputation than a thousand so-called ‘Islam-attacking’ films,” he writes, and calls on Egyptians to condemn Islamic fundamentalists as “a bunch of shrill, patriarchal, misogynistic, violent extremists who are using Islam as a cover” for political ambition.

Twitter is spilling over with similar protests and disgust from Muslims all over the world at the way the “defenders of Islam” are destroying it from within.  And this disgust was acted on in Benghazi on Friday when 50,000 Libyans marched to demand the disarming of the extremist militias suspected of attacking the US consular buildings, then stormed the headquarters of two of the biggest militias and forced them out of town.  Two other Islamist militias instantly disbanded.  Yes, if you unite, you can face down the thugs, even well-armed ones.  This, of course, is not something you’ll see on the cover of Newsweek.

As Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, and with especial pain, Syrians know, the “Arab spring” is not a matter of a single season.  The moniker itself is a product of Western media shorthand, of the desire to label a “story” and assign it a neat, self-contained timeline.  But this was no mere story for the people living it.  It was and still is the beginning of a long process.  But one that once begun, cannot be undone.

All over the Middle East, real voices are making themselves heard, unmediated by government control whether in the name of “security” or of an extremist travesty of Islam.

And this is surely the real manifestation of that much abused principle:  freedom of expression.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, Middle East, sanity | Tagged: Tags: anti-Islam video, Arab spring, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Benghazi, Charlie Hebdo, Egypt, Hassan Nasrallah, Libya, militias, Newsweek, outrage, Pakistan, Sandmonkey, Syria, Tunisia | 14 Comments
  1. anon says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    when CNN uses Ambassador Stevens diary—“free-speech” goes out the window. Anything embarrassing to the U.S. government or military and there is no free-speech—-anything insulting to Muslims—and “free-speech” suddenly becomes important to Americans!!!!

    By the way—Muslim-minority countries are also allowing protests in their countries—seems “anti-americanism” isn’t confined to Muslim-Majority countries alone……

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 23, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      Stealing and using anyone’s private diary sounds Murdoch-sleazy to me. Can’t see that it has anything to do with free speech. And as for “allowing” protests, doesn’t that word “allowing” tell you something?

      • anon says:
        September 29, 2012 at 2:13 am

        “sound Murdoch-sleazy to me”—that is exactly my point—Americans may “claim” free-speech”—but it DOES have boundaries—some things are just not acceptable—because they are “sleezy” or unpatriotic, or….etc……There were U.S. muslim students who were arrested because they protested a speech by Israeli ambassador, there was a Judge who banned hateful protests at funerals of American soldiers……

        people in different parts of the world have sensibilities that may be different from an American criteria—for example, in some countries in Asia—speech defaming the monarchy is against the law…..We have to be able to respect each others differences……….Non-Americans need to understand that America has its own criteria—and Americans need to understand that non-Americans also have their own criteria…..

        “Allowing protests”—yes, for much of the rest of the world “freedoms” are still very much a “work-in-progress”—even in the democracies of Asia.

        (by the way—I do agree that moderate/mainstream muslims MUST counter the narrow, extremist ideology that encourages violence)

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          September 29, 2012 at 10:44 am

          You get the difference, though, between what’s acceptable and what’s legal in the US. Expressions of antisemitism and racism are legal, but no longer acceptable in the mainstream. I’m convinced that this will happen too with Islamophobia — i.e. it will be marginalized. The hard thing is that it takes time, and as you say, understanding that we all need to speak out against extremist ideologies and hatred on all sides. Freedom of expression is a terrifically tough concept to get one’s mind around — I still have great difficulty with it, and sometimes find myself raging against the American Civil Liberties Union. But I send my check to the ACLU nonetheless, because next time round, it could be me whose freedom of expression is being threatened.

  2. naveed says:
    September 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    You have correctly pointed out people who have cashed in on ‘muslim rage’ but these are not the real reasons for the rage. From one who is enraged: May I give the real reason for my rage? The American support to its stooges in Muslim countries, the mechanisms of regime change in Muslim countries and the American occupation of Muslim countries are the reasons for ‘Muslim Rage’

  3. Emad Yawer says:
    September 25, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    If the US and Europe so keen on free speech, whay I can not USE the Swastica, WHY I can not critisize ANY jew, jewish thing or deny the Holocost took place, WHY there is so many restrictions on what they call “HATE” , but it is all different against Islam?????????

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 10:28 am

      I don’t know where you live, but the fact is that in most of the world, you can. And in many parts of the Middle East, antisemitic cartoons, images etc are common in school textbooks and newspapers. As I’ve written here before, antisemitism and Islamophobia are mirror images — actually, twinned images — which makes it all the more miserably absurd when there are Muslims who are antisemitic, and Jews who are Islamophobic.

  4. Sohail Kizilbash says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Look Guys, lets us not be naive and banal. USA is THE superpower and she has to do a lot of things to maintain that status. If you don’t like it, you can lump it. Having said that, I don’t know of any other country where people are more free and freedom comes at a price. I totally agree with a Muslim who appeared on the TV a few day ago who said that the best country to practice Islam, is the USA.

    • Naveed says:
      September 30, 2012 at 10:51 am

      You are right USA is THE superpower. Dont forget that not too long ago Britain and then USSR were superpowers. Dont lose sight of the fact that in less than five years China will be a Superpower. Scientific and technological development can neither be halted nor contained sooner or later small countries and even stateless groups will accquire yet to be invented weapons of mass destruction. The survival of mankind depends on realizing that there can be no prosperity without peace and there can be no peace without justice.

      • Sohail Kizilbash says:
        September 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm

        Absolutely no argument there, Naveed. The seeds of destruction are embedded in the fabric of an empire. All empires, until now, have degenerated into dictatorships, arrogance, conceit, intolerance, superiority complex and gone into a comfort zone, bringing about their demise. Hopefully this will not happen to the USA as it adapts to changing times. See the change from a slave owning society, to a country where a half black is President. Now people proudly declare that they have native blood. One has to live in the USA and read history to see the change. The self critical nature of the Americans is one of their biggest strength.That is just my humble opinion.

        • naveed says:
          October 1, 2012 at 4:35 am

          Very well written Sohail. I had the privilege of living and working in USA as an alien resident for several years. I whole heartedly agree that America is a great country; the vast majority of Americans are forthright, honest and fair-minded people. We in the third world owe America and Europe a huge debt of gratitude for the benefits of science and technology. Unfortunately Americans are themselves the victims of a foreign policy influenced by lobbies whose allegiance lies outside its shores. For the sake of people of America and the people of the world. For the sake of peace on earth, we can only hope and pray that the future leaders of America will be great people like Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, people who would base their decisions on principles of right and wrong rather than on opinion polls, oil money and directives of foreign lobbies. Kissinger said “ Real politick not a moralistic approach to foreign policy would best serve American interests” ( perhaps he really meant Israeli interests ) Americans are being led by neo-cons and evangelists who base their foreign policy on biblical prophesies.

          • Sohail Kizilbash says:
            October 1, 2012 at 7:36 am

            Alas. Sometimes the tail wags the dog.

  5. Sohail Kizilbash says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    By the way Lesley, if you are on the FB you might enjoy the comments on my recent posts on this issue.

  6. irfan says:
    October 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    .hope the peaceful message will get more support

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Blasphemy-in-Islam-The-Quran-does-not-prescribe-punishment-for-abusing-the-Prophet/articleshow/16631496.cms

Could That Video Be Self-Defeating?

Posted September 15th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Could that pernicious video have ended up working against itself?  Could this be the tipping point for both Islamophobia and its mirror image, militant “Islamist” extremism?  Is this where both are revealed for the ugly con game they really are?

Perhaps the one good thing about the video is that it is so upfront in its ugliness.  It’s no longer just you and I saying it;  it’s also the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, whose anger was palpable:  “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”

Now we know who made the video:  a convicted con man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, indicted on multiple charges of bank fraud and check-kiting.  And he may indeed end up back in jail, since by posting his work to the Internet he violated the terms of his probation.  That’s little consolation, of course, for the multiple deaths he’s caused — at least a dozen so far.  And none at all for those who don’t understand that the principle of freedom of speech, no matter how hard it is to accept, applies to all. Under a different administration, the same principle by which they demand that he be jailed could then be turned around and applied to them.

But we know more.  We know that the protests against the video have been used and manipulated by Al Qaeda and Salafi types, who manipulated the sincere outrage and insult of protestors to further their own political agenda and try to destabilize newly elected governments.  In the process, they also furthered the agenda of their Islamophobic blood brothers, providing graphic images of Muslims doing everything Islamophobes expect — rioting, burning, killing.  But for the first time, all countries involved seem to have clearly recognized this and given voice to it, perhaps none more perfectly than Hillary Clinton: “”The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob.”

We know that Twitter is alive with condemnations of the violence from Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians, and more.  Mainstream Muslims, both religious and secular, will no longer tolerate being intimidated into silence by those who claim to speak in their name for a violent, extremist travesty of Islam.  They are speaking out in unprecedented volume and numbers.

And we know this:  the new governments of Libya and Yemen instantly condemned the violence and apologized for the death of Ambassador Stevens.  In the words of the president of the Libyan National Congress, it was “an apology to the United States and the Arab people, if not the whole world, for what happened.  We together with the United States government are on the same side, standing in a united front in the face of these murderous outlaws.”  Residents of Tripoli and Benghazi staged demonstrations to condemn the attack on the Benghazi consulate and to express their sorrow at the death of Stevens, who was widely admired for his support of the revolution that ousted Qaddafi.

Even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt finally realized that this was not a matter of defending Islam against outside enemies, but of defending it against its own worst enemies on the inside.

All this, it seems to me, is new.  As is the reaction of the US administration, led by Obama and Clinton — calm, measured, determined, and in the spirit of Ambassador Stevens himself,  the opposite of the heavy-handed American imperialism of the past.  Imagine if this had happened under Bush, or under Romney, and shudder at how they would have reacted.

Could it be, finally, that more and more people are getting it?  That both the Islamists and the Islamophobes are losing?  That sanity, however high the cost in lives, might actually prevail?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, Middle East, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: Al Qaeda, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Nakoula, Obama, Salafis, Tunisia, Twitter, Yemen, YouTube video | 9 Comments
  1. Yafiah Katherine says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    It’s so refreshing to read such a clear-headed account of the situation. I’ve been feeling so down-hearted throughout this awful mess and I hope too that it will become clearer to everyone how Islamophobes and extreme Islamists are mirror-images of each other. But surely there is a line between freedom of speech and hate speech that incites to violence? I’ve been so frustrated at the BBC reporting on ‘a video that Muslims find insensitive’ instead of saying loud and clear that it’s totally unacceptable as much as the manipulation of the protests is totally unacceptable. I’m tweeting your post and sharing it on FB. Thank you.

  2. Sandra Peters says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Lesley,

    Thank You for such an excellent perspective of how the world is reacting to the video. Violence and destruction are not the answer. “Calm, measured, determined, and in the spirit of Ambassador Stevens himself” as you so wrote will prevail.

  3. burhan says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Lesley hazleton, Im your biggest fan and I wish I could ever come to the same intelligence level as you one day! Burhan Adhami

  4. Herman says:
    September 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Amazing,
    In Egypt they televise a series based on the fictitious Protocols of the elders of Zion, in Iran a conference is held regarding the non happening of the Holocaust, Christians are murdered all over Muslim Africa and Egypt and you are blaming everything on Al Quaeda.
    You are kidding right?

  5. Qaisar Latif says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Well said.

  6. Meera Vijayann says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:34 am

    Thank you for this great read Lesley. Honestly, when I watched the video, I first thought it was absolute nonsense, and was surprised that such rubbish could be taken seriously. In fact, if the movie was indeed to be taken seriously, it was perhaps a good opportunity for the Muslim world to ignore it and refuse to stoop so low by giving it the attention it intended to garner.

    As you rightly said, I am glad too that the Bush government isn’t in power. I shudder to think of what would’ve happened if it were.

  7. Meezan says:
    September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Silver lining to a very very dark cloud.

  8. Tea-mahm says:
    September 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    You go girl! Good piece. Sending love from Istanbul where the call to prayer wakes me in the morning…..

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      Sooooo envious! One day I will make it to Istanbul!

Blood Brothers

Posted September 12th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Once again, the extremists have fed each other.  Once again, with other people’s blood.

The blood is that of one of the best friends the new Libya could have had:  US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, killed yesterday, the evening of 9/11, along with three of his staff as they tried to evacuate employees of the American consulate in Benghazi.  The evacuation was necessary because protestors had been whipped into violence by a 14-minute farce of a video attacking the prophet Muhammad.  Or, as now seems possible, the protest was used as an excuse for a planned attack, since RPGs and automatic weapons were involved.

Al-Qaeda-type extremists are apparently the ones who pulled the trigger, using the insult to Islam as an excuse. But they could not have done so without the help of their partners — their Jewish and Christian brothers-in-arms right here in the United States. That’s who provided the ammunition, in the form of a shoddily crude and absurdly amateurish “movie trailer” portraying Muhammad as a fraud and his early supporters as a bunch of goons.

I’m deliberately not linking to the video here since I refuse to link to such tripe. This isn’t an insult to Islam;  it’s an insult to human intelligence. If you feel sufficiently masochistic, you can find it on YouTube by typing in the title, ‘Muslim Innocence’ (the director’s idea of irony).

You’ll see that it’s made by ignorant fanatics for ignorant fanatics. Nobody else would pay it the blindest bit of attention. In fact nobody else did (even the director, an Israeli-American who goes by the name of Sam Bacile, which may or may not be a pseudonym, admits that the whole movie has been shown only once, to a nearly empty movie theater in California). Nobody else, that is, until Florida’s tinpot Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones — the one who once hanged President Obama in effigy and will apparently do anything to get himself back in the news — decided to showcase the trailer as part of his annual 9/11 Islamophobic rant.

I’ll write more about this very soon (I’m just back from a trip, and jet-lagged). But for now, two things:

1. Rest in peace, Christopher Stevens.

2. As for Terry Jones and the man calling himself Sam Bacile: if such a thing as hell exists, may you both rot in it, alongside your blood brothers in Al Qaeda.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: 'Sam Bacile', Al Qaeda, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, bigotry, Islamophobia, Libya, Muhammad, Terry Jones, YouTube | 13 Comments
  1. lavrans123 says:
    September 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    I think it was a Libyan politician who said that the film was like crying fire in a movie theater; you’re free to say it, but once said you may have to pay the consequences. Too bad the wrong people always seem to pay the consequences for these type of people’s actions.

    Another sad facet to the whole thing is how 9/11 rouses so many bigots, and how this sort of thing seems to convince more people to become bigots because they won’t see Terry Jones & Sam Bacile as being complicit. Although I’m sure they’re the same people who really complained about the flag and Christ being immersed in urine…

  2. Zahida Murtaza (@zmurrad) says:
    September 13, 2012 at 4:55 am

    Thanks Lesley, for speaking up once again like so many other times when many of us just cringe and feel upset at such things. There are no words to describe the actions and methods some people choose to show their dislike for someone or something. They must be feeling defeated that’s why they have to keep coming with new ways to show their anger and frustration.
    What I don’t understand about the people who react so violently to such provocations and filth if they really ‘KNOW’ the man they think they are defending by their actions. The man ‘Prophet Muhammad’ suffered so much insult and abuse at the hands of ignorant and misguided people in his own lifetime, but never reacted this way. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. He was most forgiving and used such actions as teachable moments.
    What do we learn from his ‘sunnah’? We will be hurting him more by killing innocent people in his name. I beg all those muslims who respond to hate with more hate to go back to the teachings of Prophet Muhammed and follow his practice. As Allah calls him the ‘ ‘blazing, bright sun’ in the Quran, so what happens when we trying to spit at the sun? I will come back on our face. We should wait for that moment. It will come back on ‘their face’.
    Thanks

  3. Trying God's Patience says:
    September 13, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Always sensible, always well-informed, and isn’t it always not-that-complicated really – thank you, as always. xo

  4. Susan Jackson Weirauch says:
    September 13, 2012 at 10:39 am

    I absolutely agree with you and Jones makes me embarrassed to live in the same state as he does. He is a terrorist and should be arrested and tried as such.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 13, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Obviously I detest the man as much as you. He’s a dangerous big-mouthed loose-cannon bigot, but terrorists are defined by their actions, not their speech. He feeds terrorism, but he does not commit it, nor directly urge people to commit it, and thus, however abhorrent the idea may be, he is not legally liable. If that seems wrong, then answer this: do you really want to live in a country where it’s possible to jail people for what they say? Where under a different administration, you could then be jailed for what you say?

  5. Imraan says:
    September 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Unfortunately this fellow seems to have the usual axe to grind. Following from what you wrote, I did not watch the trailer as you’re right, it’s rather masochistic to willingly engage in such ignorance (if I understood you correctly).

    But I don’t see this as particularly controversial – historically, various sainted characters have been villified, defamed, insulted. But the test of one’s faith is, importantly, whether it can stand criticism. I think Islam fundamentally can. Scholars, Imams, sheikhs historically have been known to respond to various criticisms in the seminaries – and no one had to get killed (in general). Moreover, the voice of the Qur’an has rebutted, in its own days, the claims made against it and the Prophet – so following on in its example, I would hope that Muslims would do the same.

    Now whether (we) Muslims can, is a different question. Of course, and this isn’t legitimising the violence, in a society where the religious culture is more apparent, where religious sentiments are heightened and people hold dear (not in a hagiographic sense always) a truly great and charismatic personality, I can understand how the sentiments spill over.

    This isn’t considering who actually committed the acts of barbarism – if they’re from the mujahid persuasion (and I suspect they might be as automatic weapons were apparently used) then of course their logic is rather different and perhaps needs to be contextualised in a more third-world (lack of literacy, poor socio-economic means, different religious culture?), anti-hegemonic, anti-imperial/postcolonial situation – again not justifying it, and ironically enough these groups tend to be funded from the West or its client states. Unfortunately the actions of those in arms will give fodder to those who think such a film is timely.

    I can understand the anger – what is curious to me is that the US government and its representatives are still, at least in Libyan eyes (and I could be misreading the situation) conflated with both anti-Islamic sentiments, and perhaps even with either a Jewish/Zionist anti-Arab/anti-Islamic conspiracy – and though I don’t tend to conflate Judaism with Zionism, I can certainly understand why in that part of the world they do.

    “[109:5] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith.”

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm

      Re “in Libyan eyes,” it seems the majority of Libyans, as well as the Libyan government, are sincere in their denunciation of this murder, not least because they appreciate the role of the US — and in particular of the assassinated ambassador — in helping oust Qaddafi. Paranoid rhetoric about US imperialism in the post-Bush/Cheney era seems to be the much reduced province of militant extremists like Salafis and Qaeda, not the mainstream. As has been noted endlessly in the past 48 hours, Libyan politics are still, in the word of choice of the NYT, “volatile,” but I get the impression that many more citizens of Muslim countries are sick and tired of the way militant fundamentalists distort Islam and manipulate it to serve their own interests.

      • Imraan says:
        September 13, 2012 at 6:24 pm

        Fair points. Thank you for responding. I hope that you’re having a blessed and peaceful night.

        I should have been more specific – In some Libyans’ eyes – but even that, you are correct, is a rather broad generalisation.

        I suspect many are pleased with the ousting of Qaddafi, though I hope Libyans will still remember to view US motives with suspicion. I’m no apologist for political thuggery nor dictators, despots or demagogues, but I don’t believe (but am willing to be shown otherwise) that the removal of Qaddafi was sincere, alas, in the same way that the U.S stood by Mubarak until his position was completely untenable, or becoming an embarrasment for the State Department.

        Moreover the US/Western track record on Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran and the Palestinians are rather problematic. As someone from the anti-war movement said, if the major Libyan export was asparagus, would we be so sure that the U.S would have interveined? Rhetoric aside, it did give me pause to consider that question.

        “Paranoid rhetoric about US imperialism in the post-Bush/Cheney era seems to be the much reduced province of militant extremists like Salafis and Qaeda, not the mainstream”

        Do you mean in terms of how the Libyans/Middle Easterners at large might not be as inclined to agree with the suggestion that the U.S’ interests aren’t imperial? Though I don’t agree with the tactics of al-Qaeda and Salafis, nor do I understand their (rather warped) theology, I do believe sincerely that the U.S (particularly, but not exclusively) is perpetrating a rather sharp imperial agenda (though there could be neomarxist readings into that too, which I might be mistakenly be calling Imperialist).

        Moreover, their funding of militants in Syria (and I do pray that the Syrians win democracy for themselves) via client states i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey is highly suspect – I don’t think the concern was so great for the Syrians ten years ago; and as I understand it the Assad and Qaddafi governments were participants in the Extraordinary Rendition project.

        The irony of course was that Syria got suspended from the Arab League – a collection of western-backed totalitarian regimes – for squashing a democratic revolution (!); or that when the Saudi government became one of the leading voices for democracy in Syria, the Obama administration, and Secretary of State Clinton soon realised how farcial it was to call their movement the Friends of Democratic Syria.

        Perhaps I have read too much Chomsky, though!

        Mehdi Hasan (I think) said some months ago, that as a proportion of their population, the Bahrainis have suffered far more repression, torture, imprisonment than Syrians (at least at the time) but of course the arms trade resumed with Bahrain – moreover the 5th Fleet happens to be stationed there so we don’t get as much coverage in the news about it. We (and I say this with some guilt as a British citizen) armed Qaddafi, Saddam, al-Khalifa.

        “http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression”

        If you haven’t seen the reports yet, alternate new outlets, e.g Press TV, as well as al-Manar and Zee News have been reporting today that ‘surveillance’ drones have been dispached to Libya in the wake of the murders at the US embassy (assassinations? I never know how important one must be in order to be assassinated), as well as ships from one of the Naval fleets – this does worry me indeed and seems to be part of a policy that some might call neocolonial. In the same way that the US is shooting fire from the skies elsewhere over foreign territory (Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen), I fear that this could set a rather terrifying precedent.

        • Imraan says:
          September 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm

          I’ve just realised I’ve been writing an argument rather than a response; apologies if my tone was overly-confrontational.

          • Lesley Hazleton says:
            September 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm

            Apologies accepted, but it’s good to have reasoned argument from another point of view. Killing an ambassador does count as an assassination, though. And thus as an international crisis point. So far, Obama seems to be handling it well. I clearly have a lot more faith in his administration than you do. Or maybe I just don’t expect perfection. That is, I never expected him to be the messiah. What I did expect is what he’s been: a sane, intelligent leader doing his best in the face of intense obstructionism here at home. Only ideologues stay ‘pure’ — and ideologues are precisely the problem, both in the US and abroad.

  6. Imraan says:
    September 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Reblogged this on Heightened Senses and commented:
    I seem to be more and more referring to this blog! In response to the events of the last couple of days, Hazleton writes a rather good piece.

  7. Imraan says:
    September 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Firstly – sorry I vanished! Had a weird week healthwise! Indeed, reasoned debate is something I aspire to. I wonder if it’s much harder to have in the states – the political system seems so be one of extremes – even though in many respects, the centre ground appears much closer to both ‘ends’ of the spectrum in the US in general than it it does here.

    Indeed, the ideologues unfotunately have made having any sort of debate with nuance very, very difficult, and at times, a rather tortuous process. I certainly believe that Obama is better than the alternatives, but alas his capacity, even as a self-proclaimed centrist, has been hindered because of (in my perhaps unqualified opinion) operant (I think that’s the word I’m looking for!) power structures and control of both information and resources – I certainly didn’t expect him to be able to change those mechanisms, at least to any degree that would alter the landscape of the discourse dramatically.

    But I’ll give it to him – the man is actually quite intelligent. I wish he had better PR though – those speeches he gave which appeared to have mobilised a generation is what he should have worked on more – brought the country over to his side so that at least if Congress didn’t act /cooperate according to the new political landscape, he wouldn’t be seen as culpable or as easy a target for the Romney bid. I don’t know if that would have help curb the now nearly fanatical the Tea-Party movement – and I understand he had a rather damaged economy to deal with too.

    In terms of foreign policy, thogh, I’m glad on the one hand that his policies on Iran haven’t been as aggressive as McCain’s or (God-forbid Romney) would be, and that though it hasn’t made much of a difference, his attitude toward the Palestinian statehood-bid has been more positive than we’ve seen for about a decade; on the other hand I’m so gravely disappointed at the policies toward, say, Latin America, Cuba/GTMO, and now the ‘hit list’ scandal which is still being written about in our papers here, at the least. But in terms of domestic policy, of course, living abroad, I can’t gauge the political climate on the ground as well as you can. Though in my opinion, his hand in widening the healthcare availability (though certainly not an ideal system by far) is his saving grace in my eyes.

    But unless if his policies are more focussed or he has better success with Congress in the next term, I’m worried that he will have missed some rather large opportunities in terms of creating a more friendly, fair and less imperial image of the US, both at home and abroad. Maybe once he’s in his next term, with the end-point somewhat in sight, he might be able to take greater political risks. As an example, I’m not much of a fan of Clinton but he appears to be remembered quite well in the ‘liberal’ (and I find it rather odd that Clinton’s something of a liberal – or at least in the O’Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh et al paradigm, haha!) press.

    Reading this back to myself – I’m realising that my own terms and references to American politics is one of extremes also – my discourse if framed by the reportage of the international press and Democracy Now! – so perhaps I’m my own problem here!

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 23, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      One of the United States’ many problems: not only is socialism a dirty word (as in the Republican campaign against “socialized medicine”) but so too is the word ‘liberal.’ You’re right in that the mainstream political spectrum here is far narrower than that in the UK and most of Europe. For an ex-Brit like me, it can be… frustrating.

Portrait of a Saudi Criminal

Posted May 24th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

You might think it absurd that a woman driving a car is news.  But then this is the absurdity known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, now frantically trying to censor video clips of Manal al-Sharif driving.  An apparently government-supported online drive is under way to beat women caught driving, and al-Sharif  (this is her, to the right) is being held in detention for “inciting public opinion” and “disturbing public order.”

That is, for driving while female.  DWF.  A crime.

Watch the Al Jazeera report here.  Check out the newly replicated Facebook page here.  Read al-Sharif’s instructions for the June 17 ‘drive-in’ protest here on Saudiwoman’s Weblog.

And then consider the far greater absurdity of the continued existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which refuses to extend the most basic civil rights (even the vote) to half its population, and whose wealth and power is entirely fueled by the Western thirst for oil.  An intensely repressive Middle East regime, that is, funded directly by Western money.

But that’s only the surface.  This Western oil money is still funding the worldwide Saudi export of the most conservative and repressive form of Islam.  If there is one single country that has enabled violent Islamism, it’s not the perceived enemies of the United States like Libya, Afghanistan, or Iran, but our “good friends” the Saudis — our oil dealers.

The Saudis thought they had escaped “the Arab spring.”  They sent their military into Bahrain to help squelch protests there.  They encouraged the violent suppression of protests in Yemen.  They thought they had things under control.

But another kind of Arab spring may now be in the making.  An Arab summer, perhaps.  Six months ago, a single Tunisian street vendor couldn’t take it any more and sparked a revolution by setting himself on fire.  Now a tech-savvy Saudi woman refuses to take it any more and threatens to spark another revolution by simply taking the wheel.

This is how it starts — with individual acts of defiance, with a refusal to knuckle under, with an insistence on basic dignity.  And with the support of a vast and unsquelchable online community.

The links are above.  Go to it, everyone.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Arab spring, arrest, Bahrain, censorship, driving, Iran, Libya, Manal al-Sharif, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, video, women, Yemen | 12 Comments
  1. Derakht says:
    May 25, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Its good Saudi Arabia doing that which help people in the world to understand and find true Islam.
    In fact nothing wrong with woman driving, just Saudi Arabia want to destroy Islam by this way! but its very helpful for the people think. in a lot of Islamic country woman driving car even van and airplane. but in wahhabism thought NO. they not Muslim, they are anti-Islam, and anti human.

  2. aboalhasan says:
    May 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Really, this is intrior issue for saudi people..
    U R not saudi, so why you are talking about ?
    Every social has thier own traditions, may you know how they save thier family.
    so just keep away from us 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Does that ‘us’ include Manal al-Sharif? Does it include all Saudi women? Does it even include all Saudi men?
      And why, precisely, should I not comment?

      • Abdulrahman says:
        May 27, 2011 at 8:30 pm

        Lesley, I am a Saudi man and I am a supporter of the women right to drive (and so many other rights), actually i think it is stupid law to ban women from driving. However, I do not encourage my female family members to disobey it, simply because it is the law no matter how stupid it is. so in this context I think what manal did is wrong; she broke the LAW. what she should have done is: ask for changing the law through the legal channels. and now if you ask me should we change the law and allow women to drive I would say no, at least not this year. because that would encourage anybody: just go to the street, break any law that you do not like, get the support from all over the world, and there you are: you made it. there are some people who are looking to make weed legal in the US, are they out there smoking weed in public to make it legal? is this the right way to do it? absolutely no. On the other hand, It is purely internal issue, it is up to the society to decide. I was against banning women from driving (and i will be again in the future) but i did respect the opinion of the majority (even women majority). this bring us to how we make the law anywhere in the world. what is right and what is wrong? believe me, people from different parts of the world have different views, what you think is right is not necessary right in the eyes of a group of people in Nigeria for instant. you have to respect that. Did you ask your self how did the goverment in Saudi made this law? it is a long story and i am happy to tell it if you wish.
        to answer your question: why should you not comment, 1. because it is purely internal issue (no saudi has the right to comment on an internal issue in the US)
        2. you do not know the circumstances related to enforce this law in the first place and the issue of 1991 and the issue of conflicting parties in Saudi regarding this issue and so many others.
        3. and believe me when i say that: you are making it harder to us (supporter of the women right to drive) to change the law any time near in the future, and the more you interfere the harder you make it.
        PEACE

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          May 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm

          Abdulrahman, it sounds like you’re between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
          If I understand you right, you’re essentially saying “of course the law is nuts, but now’s not the time to change it.” But to quote an ancient saying: “If not now, when?”
          You’re saying that open discussion will only make things worse. But isn’t that another way to suppress speech and thought?
          You’re saying that we must respect the law. But law is not carved in stone. When it’s manifestly wrong — segregation laws in the American south in the 50s, for instance — it needs to be broken, and those with the courage to do so both need and deserve our support, wherever we are.

      • aboalhasan says:
        June 12, 2011 at 12:25 am

        1- Yes
        2 – also YES
        3 – also YESSS
        4 – I just told that ” U R not saudi ” citizen !!

  3. Abdulrahman says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    it is me again, aha, after posting my last comment i checked you on wikipedia. and i would like to say that my last comment was based on the assumption that your article was just a pure support for the human rights. now after reading about you I think that you are going to criticize this country no matter what. so my comment was a huge waste of my valuable time.
    anyway: PEACE

  4. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    To the best of my judgement, allowing Saudi women to drive will be a negative change in Saudi society because of the high potential for them being grossly mistreated and harrassed, in more ways than you can imagine, by the general male public. That is why the “Saudi Society” is fearful of allowing it. This fact is acknowledged by most opposers as the real reason for continuous ban on women driving and it is why the majority of Saudis do not want it so as to protect their women.

  5. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Correction: This scenario is acknowledged by most opposers as the real reason for continuous ban on women driving and it is why the majority of Saudis do not want it so as to protect their women.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm

      “Their” women? See my latest post “The Virginity Test.”

      • Abu Abdulrahman says:
        June 3, 2011 at 3:43 am

        Please do not perceive my thoughts as contradictory (on one hand, I say the people want to ‘protect’ their women while on the other hand I warn of the potential ill treatment of these same women by the same ‘general public’). Unfortunately, ME societies suffer from high levels of ignorance, hypocricy, lack of education, misconception and non-implementation of the true values of Islam, and the list goes on . . .

  6. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 3, 2011 at 2:52 am

    Yes, “their” men. Likewise, us men are “their” men. Considering who you are and where/how you were brought up, you may never understand the nature of social relations in an Eastern, not necessarily Islamic or Arab, society. And considering you have much insight into the Arabic language, explore the word Haram (حرم)

Can We Please Go Home Now?

Posted May 2nd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

No exultation.  No victorious “mission accomplished.”  No jingoistic “Rah rah, USA USA.”   What a relief that Barack Hussein Obama is the president of the United States.

While students cheered wildly in front of the White House as though their team had just won a major football game, Obama’s announcement last night was characteristically calm and realistic:

Bin Laden’s death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

Obama is clearly aware that the killing of Bin Laden is more a symbolic victory than anything.  “Emblematic” is the word being used.  Al Qaeda is a loose alliance, with no reliance on a single leader.   But the fact that this happened on Obama’s watch and on his orders is a huge shot in the arm for the voices of calm and reason in the United States.  And a brilliantly timed one.  Bin Laden’s death may finally give Obama the respect and authority he merits in Congress, especially since it has to be clear as of last night that he is all but assured of a second presidential term.

We need it.  The US is still reeling from the racist absurdities of the “birther” luantics (how many hours until they start demanding Bin Laden’s “long-form death certificate”?).  It’s still in deep recession.  It’s still enmeshed in Iraq, newly mired in Libya, and floundering in Afghanistan. And, as Steve Coll makes clear on The New Yorker blog, bamboozled in Pakistan, where Bin Laden was hiding out just a thousand feet from a major Pakistani military base, “effectively housed under Pakistani state control.”

So I know this is naive.  I know it’s not going to happen soon.  But really, all I can think right now is this:

Mr President, can we please get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya?

Can we please go home now?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Iraq, Libya, Obama, Pakistan | 4 Comments
  1. AJ says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Lez
    We hardly know
    This war on terror is principled or cost effective.
    One thing we know
    Al-Qaida is not into making the weapons and have no control over Arm Trafficking.
    These terrorists are getting enough resources to execute where they are allowed to execute i.e.Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.
    Although to them biggest culprit is Israel but thats where they are not allowed to execute.
    Amazingly soft targets like Dubai and Saudia and other Gulf puppets are nowhere in the list.
    Thought provoking question is when terrorists have no access to Banking system and money smuggling is also curtailed, how they get the finances and who chose their targets.
    My take is trillion dollars war was not needed in the first place…just cut their roots and access to arms and that was enough at mush less cost.
    Hopefully I am not in violation of allowed quota of words.

  2. Lesley Hazleton says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:53 am

    So far as I know, two major financing sources are 1. opium, and 2. Saudi (partly in protection money?)

    • Shishir says:
      May 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm

      That may not be true. It is known that OBL lived and
      worked in Iran for some time, it’d be wrong to rule out money from Iran. In fact given the whole “nation of islam” thingy I’d be surprised if money wasn’t coming in from almost all Islamic states. The money that was being pumped in Pakistan and Afghanistan, some part of it either in form of technology transfer to Al-Queda or weapons or straight forward money, would also be contributing.

  3. AJ says:
    May 3, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Unfortunately both routs with our permission

Why Libya?

Posted March 23rd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

It’s kind of absurd that I should even be writing this post, since I know next to nothing about Libya.  But I’m writing it because I have the uncomfortable impression that those policy-makers who urged the current American and European military intervention in Libya – aka instituting a “no-fly zone” (a strange formulation when it involves so much use of fighter jets) — know very little more than I do.

I hope I’m wrong about this.  But hope isn’t much of a substitute for reason when people’s lives are at stake.

Why Libya?  Apparently because it seems safe.  Everyone in the west can agree that Qaddafi is nuts, that his regime sucks, and – most important from their point of view – that they have nothing to lose by intervening.  No strategically important naval base to protect, as in Bahrain.  No major oil supplier to coddle, as in Saudi Arabia.  No “partner” in the struggle against the elusive Al Qaeda, as in Yemen.  No close military ties, as in Egypt.

I can almost imagine the decision-makers thinking “Finally, a chance to prove that we really are on the side of freedom and democracy and all the things we keep talking about but don’t back up with action.  Phew!”

Of course the last time they did that – barging with heavy firepower and astounding ignorance into a country where it seemed clear who was Good and who was Bad – the result was disastrous.  Iraq is still a mess.  Afghanistan, an even worse mess.   But this time, you see, it will be different.  This time, we’ll do it right.  From the air,.  No feet on the ground.  So what if we don’t even know who’s who in Libya?  They hate Qaddafi;  what more could one ask for?

When I was a dreamy adolescent, I used to think that if I could only go round the world with a six-shooter and assassinate the worst dictators, the world would be a better place.  I spent hours deciding which six I would target (some weird English sense of fair play dictated that I could only have six bullets), until I grew up enough to realize that those I killed in my dreams would only be replaced by others, that this was not a matter of individuals, but of systemic social and political problems way beyond my grasp. (As for “solving” violence by violence, I’m glad to say I quickly grew out of that too.)

Now, in 2011, it seems that powerful nations are acting like that naïve adolescent that I once was, the difference being that their choice of target is determined not by dumb idealism, but by strategic realpolitik.  So sorry, Bahrain – we know you’re right in your demand for democracy, but our hands are tied.  Too bad, Egypt – we know the military has no intention of giving up power, but we need them.  You’re on your own, Yemen – who knows if you mightn’t threaten our good Saudi friends next?

But Libya?  Thank god for Qaddafi.  A chance to prove how good we are, at last…

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, no-fly zone, Qaddafi, Saudi Arabia, Yemen | 29 Comments
  1. Hossam says:
    March 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @Lesley
    well i can see how many people think this way, and i can see this is happening in the west and here too (i am egyptian) but i think it’s important to note that only Gadhaffi was so vocal in his intent to kill opposition figures, no other country you mentioned did that. Also it’s important to note that this was a UN resolution and not america trying to “export democracy”
    as for why america is taking a leading role, america is the world’s leader in terms of military, but of course we can argue you don’t really need that much strength to bomb libya.
    this is my opinion and i think that america already knows that it is risking its reputation just by interfering, no matter what the outcome is

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Hossam — just one two-bomb example of what can go wrong, from the NYT’s Elisabeth Bumiller yesterday on the rescue of a US pilot who ejected over eastern Libya when his plane malfunctioned:

      “A Marine Corps officer said that two Harrier attack jets dropped two 500-pound bombs during the rescue of the pilot, about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday local time (about 7:30 p.m. Monday E.D.T.). The officer said that the grounded pilot, who was in contact with rescue crews in the air, asked for the bombs to be dropped as a precaution before the crews landed to pick him up.

      “My understanding is he asked for the ordnance to be delivered between where he was located and where he saw people coming towards him,” the officer said, adding that the pilot evidently made the request “to keep what he thought was a force closing in on him from closing in on him.”

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:03 am

        That is scary of course. Of course there is a lot that can go wrong.
        I have to admit i am not looking from an american perspective, but from an arab perspective or an anti-gadaffi perspective, what other solution can be done to stop him from killing his people?

  2. Chad Tabba says:
    March 23, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    While we wish international politics and relationships were based purely on human ideals, unfortunately it is based on specific interests. We do that on a personal level too. A sibling or friend’s mistake always seems less bad than someone else’s. Don’t u think?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      Am not sure it isn’t somehow worse — like we feel more responsible if it’s someone close to us or someone we identify with in any way.

      What do others think?

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:07 am

        i am not sure i am following the relation of this to the topic, but i will take this chance to say something i want to say.
        i agree with Lesley 100% on that it feels worse when someone somehow related to you does a mistake or something “wrong”
        i feel that particularly when i see a fellow Muslim commit a terrorist act or call for a terrorist act, i feel somehow responsible (even though i’m not) and i feel it somehow damages my image
        especially when that person does that terrorist act in the name of my religion

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 24, 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Hossam I agree with what you are saying. What I meant was that international politics are built on interests. USA will be less critical of a dictator who is an ally than one who is not (and so the different standard in treating the “uprisings” in Libya compared to Bahrain or Yemen.) what it shows u is that politicians twist the talk and spew morals, but ultimately every country’s leaders will do what they perceive as in their country’s interest. There is more to gain in supporting a change in oil rich Libya than there is in supporting change in any sub-Saharan poor African country. Which is sad. Who will fend for those people? Who will fend for Palestinians? Who will fend for every oppressed people in the world who don’t have oil or who are oppressed by an ally of superpower countries. I hope I’m not too long with this reply?!

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm

          Chad — No way is this too long!

  3. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 23, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Spot on.

  4. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:11 am

    @ Hossam — Nick Kristof agrees w/ your first comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1 Still not sure I do. Am torn both ways.

  5. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:12 am

    @Chad, @Hossam, @Lynn — Yes, some of us feel responsible, even though we know we aren’t personally, and find ourselves immensely frustrated and angry that someone who declares themselves part of our “we” should commit terrorism. But then there are others who are seduced into that declared “we,” maybe even only half-willingly, and get caught up in rationalizations to cover up that uneasy feeling of wrong, even evil, done in their name. They end up justifying the unjustifiable in the name of the “we.”

    Dangerous words, “we” and “they.”

    • hossam says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      @Lesley
      yes, “us” and “them or “we” and “they” are dangerous words and dangerous thoughts, unfortunately i think that ultimately the majority of people think in terms of us and them, of course the definition of us and them may be different, for example in Egypt when a Muslim talks with another Muslim or Christian with another Christian about religion in Egypt, the us and them is Christian or Muslim, yet when a Muslim and Christian here are talking about US intervention then it’s the West vs. East or whites vs. Arabs.
      I Think the same can apply for example when you have a stereotypical American neoconservative and right winger talk about Muslim immigration to USA (i may be way off with this one but would like to hear what you think)

      About US intervention in Libya, i just thought of an interesting question, what would have people thought if the US had Vetoed the UN resolution?
      I would’ve been baffled, i would’ve thought it is for a reason beyond my knowledge. I also think that many people here (probably the same who object to the intervention) would have thought and said that America really is evil, not only is it not helping, but is preventing other countries from helping.
      what do others here think? sorry for long comment

  6. Ammar says:
    March 24, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Good point Lesley. All the Khalifa, Malik, King they are same in killing people. its not matter which one killed more,
    khalifa of Bahrain Oppressed people Bahrain,
    Malik of Saudi Oppressed people Bahrain and Saudi,
    Malik of Qatar Oppressed people of Bahrain (and maybe his people in near Future),
    in Yemen and Egypt and Libya as well.
    But the problem of Libya as I believe:
    1- Gaddafi: (as you pointed Nuts) 🙂
    2- its an American plan: to stop revolutions in other countries, by showing the people of Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and … if you want democracy this will happen to you as well, not easy(fast) like Tunisia. (Scar them)
    Is evident that America its not happy with revolutions (new Middle East) in these countries (but revolutions in Iran absolutely happy!!!).
    American Plan make revolution longer and to take more time, and this plan have very good Benefits for them like: A: people of world please forget Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen …. oh and what about new politic happening in Egypt right now, most of concentration is on Libya(Miserable people, like football ball). B: Israel Killing people of Gaza, did you see the body of cut baby only few month of age? (excellent time for Killing). C: time to think, Transfer Weapons (selling), …..
    But as all we know it will be revolutions and victory is with Nation will. [….]
    Why we have Religion, Why Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them all) [….] We have god and one day this world will end and we are front of our Almighty God with empty hand or ….

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      Ammar — I seriously doubt that things are as conspiratorial as you seem to imply. I think those who urged intervention in Libya were deeply frustrated at having been held back from doing more to support protest in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and more, and so perhaps over-compensated re Libya.

      My concern is that good intentions without good information can create bad unforeseen consequences.

      • Ammar says:
        March 25, 2011 at 7:44 am

        dont doubt Lesley, this is politic.
        I like your blog, thanks

  7. Shishir says:
    March 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Ms. Hazleton, I’ve decided to become a regular commenter :-).

    People in power don’t like to lose power, those not in power want to gain power, other people in power tend to support people in power for they derive benefits out of that support, they withdraw that support only when they see another center for power emerging.

    None of this has any thing to do with freedom, democracy etc etc. If US realizes a pro-US entity may gain power why mustn’t it support it, it is just the instinct of self preservation, every organism has it.
    Similarly if they realize anti-US entity gaining power
    they’d use whatever means permitted to ensure it doesn’t come to power.

    Isn’t that all that is there to any political situation? It is interesting to note in all major revolutions – when did businesses start financing the revolutionaries that tells a lot about when the revolution or any movement really gained critical mass required for potential success.

    Bombing Libya is less about freedom chest thumping and more about gaining a potential foothold with a favorable regime which you help install 🙂

  8. Helen Wenley says:
    March 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    I understand that Gaddafi is nuts and he threatened to kill his people. However I feel very uncomfortable with what is happening. The Americans have the reputation of being stumble bums and as its been pointed out, their track record is not the best. I feel very sad for the people of Libya that the situation has escalated.

  9. AJ says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Lez you are beauty…right on spot.
    your words satisfied the feelings of many.
    I will add character of new Bully France joining the ranks of Britains….Angela Markel lagging behind probably saved for better evil project until then she should play half willing doll of the puppet master
    Since Things started in Tunis and Egypt and then other nations…uneasy feelings were always there wheres the name of Al-Qaida why its not poped up yet…what happened to Bullys…are they sleeping.
    Nay they were working …working hard.
    Al-Qaida is old trick…now more reasonably theatrical approach is adopted.
    [….]
    They kill to save. What difference would it make if few thousands or few hundred thousands of Libyans are killed…still millions would be left…only few hundreds needed to pump oil to France and other civilized countries where human life is as expensive as oil.
    I wish Libyans understand it sooner than later.

  10. hossam says:
    March 25, 2011 at 6:55 am

    @Lesley
    i love this blog!
    you know, i talked with my wise friend today about US interests and Libya intervention, and he pointed out something interesting; he told me “don’t forget the word interests is very broad” it can be something like a Military base (which US does not have any in Africa), can be oil, can be even preventing China’s possible future foothold, etc…
    So i think there is always self interest when it comes to States, but i like to think that there is a little bit of humanitarian side to it too, i hope.
    I guess what I’m saying is that definitely there is US interest involved, but that doesn’t mean that it is exclusively US interests in mind, or even if it is, but in that situation it will also bring humanitarian interests to the Libyan people, whether on purpose or not, if nothing goes wrong as you pointed out Lesley

  11. A.S says:
    March 25, 2011 at 7:38 am

    The history of the mankind shows that many atrocious oppressors try to hide their unhumane deeds under the veil of persuading justice-seeking slogans, they also seek protection under the rubric of fighting against corruption and unsecurity.

  12. Chad Tabba says:
    March 25, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I have neutral feelings about international intervention. I will know how I feel about it after we see the results! LOL

    I do wonder and hope that this is some form of “Renessaince” happening in the Middle East after 300-400 years of “dark ages”. Or maybe its just wishful thinking. I think people have started to lose interest in the “palestinian-israeli conflict”. Maybe people have started to realize that you only gain respect in the world by growing economocally, through education, through freedom. You don’t get what u ask for just because its “right”. People are looking at their own financial situations and freedom and realizing they need to stand up for their rights. I hope….

  13. Lana says:
    March 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I sure hope what you are saying is true … i pray it has nothing to do with the oil … we don’t need another occupation … i pray for the best

    thank you … I LOVE your blog

  14. A.S says:
    March 26, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul says the goal of NATO-led invasion of Libya is not “liberation of Libyan people,” warning against pursuing any hidden agenda. ….. whats happening in libya!

  15. AJ says:
    March 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @hossam Sir with due respect — The humanitarian interests to the Libyan people is hard to envision. We can forget but history always record.
    Look at Afghanistan and Iraq…trillion $ wars. Had we spent 10 billion each on infra structure, we could have won the hearts of people. more than 10 years of occupation…we had plenty of time resources and expertese to build roads and schools and industrial network plus railway tracks…that had generated jobs and created a middle class in Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan has upper ruling class and tribal leaders AND down trodden lowest class which is 80% of population…they eat and feed their family the day when they can find work on daily wages…they sleep with empty stomach the day when their labour is not required.
    Whats the worth of 20 bil in 10 years in a multi-trillion dollar war…… that could have given them reasonable means to survive respectfully.
    Other means of survival there are to join Taliban which is left wide open and I am sure intentionally. Believing in their sincerity is naive.

  16. Kinopop says:
    March 31, 2011 at 12:20 am

    I’ve recently discovered your blog, and I can only shower you with praise. You are among the few who are so learned without a glaring agenda or bias, who has an honest disposition toward peace and accord among different cultures.
    Your tremendous wealth of knowledge in religious scriptures is enviable.
    Perhaps one of the less mentioned praiseworthy characteristics you have is an unashamed curiosity.
    I mean this as no insult when I say that you appear to be beginning a long journey of learning about the true nature behind political and economic incentives in that region. All I will say about it is that there should be no shred of doubt that the US’s involvement in Libya is far from “humanitarian.”
    A great resource for thorough analyses by well-intended academic political ‘demystifiers’ is counterpunch.org, among a few other sites.
    On a side note, I respect your opinion a lot, and I was wondering if you have any familiarity with ourbeacon.com and/or Dr Shabbir Ahmed’s interpretation. If so, I’d like to know what you think of it.

  17. AJ says:
    March 31, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Dr. Shabbir […] is a strong advocate of Quran alone…. Prophet’s prime job was to explain Quran… He thinks all Quran explained by Prophet is within Quran.
    When Quran says “For believers the best example is life style of Prophet”…he thinks all life style of Prophet is enshrined in Quran.
    He is against Prophet’s traditions [….]

    [By way of explanation: AJ is talking here about the hadith — later reports of Muhammad’s life and practice — and the ongoing argument within Islam as to how much emphasis to place on them and how reliable they are. For AJ, they are ultra-reliable and an essential part of Islamic belief; for Shabbir, not. — LH]

  18. Remittance Girl says:
    April 1, 2011 at 1:48 am

    Ms. Hazelton, I want to applaud you for your wonderful blog, for your wonderful work. I agree with your opinion about Libya completely.

    The West has a phenomenally bad record in helping people to embrace democracy in the past 40 years. I understand why protesters in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen want the West to intervene, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t give us permission to do so. We have example after example of how we ‘intervene’ wrong, no matter how noble or ignoble our intentions. We don’t leave places better off than we found them. It’s seems easy to make a bargain with the devil when you’re in pain, but you’ll pay for it later. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan.

  19. Eddie says:
    April 11, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Dear Ms. Hazelton,

    I don’t have to fully agree with you to extend my fulliest respect! You are a very inspiring person and humanity can never thank you enough for making us think on many levels, I really believe this does make the world a better place, ultimately.
    I was very sorry to find that someone is using your name as a You Tube Channel, promoting zero tolerance in additions to other spcial poisons you actually warn of.

    Good luck, and wishing you peaceful productive times.

    Sincerely,

    Eddie

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 11, 2011 at 10:00 am

      Thanks Eddie — and yes, several fake Lesley Hazleton videos on YouTube, and YouTube stunningly unresponsive to complaints. So much for their ‘community standards.’

The 50-Minute Video

Posted March 12th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

I know you probably don’t have time for this long a video, but for the record, here’s my February 19 keynote speech at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI — on fundamentalism, stereotyping, and (with suitably Jewish agnostic chutzpah) religion, as well as on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the effect they may have on American attitudes toward Islam.

The occasion, at the largest Shia mosque in America, was the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad.   The still shot has a somewhat disturbingly preacher look to it, so please tell me I’m not preaching, just talking…

(The sound comes in fully after about 45 seconds.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: After the Prophet, Bahrain, Deuteronomy, Egypt, gospels, highlighter version, Islamophobia, Kaddish, Karbala, Libya, Nick Kristof, nutshell syndrome, Peter King, Quran, Roger Cohen, St Paul, stereotypes, Tariq Ramadan, terrorism, Tunisia, Yemen, zealotry | 49 Comments
  1. Meezan says:
    March 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Being a Muslim, I have read my share of prophet Mohammad’s (s.a.w.w)biographies and siras but I have to say one of my favorite parts of his life was revealed to me recently by Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time”. When the prophet was 19-20 years old (can’t remember exactly) he liked a girl and wanted to marry her but his uncle suggested that he was not in a good financial position to support a wife. This is not much, I know but that revealed a very human side of the prophet to me. I saw him as a flesh and blood person rather than an ever illuminating, floating in the air, long haired, blue eyed guy, and hence putting everything in a new perspective. His teachings now seemed like really good advice rather than an order. His religion a very flexible and tolerant way of life rather than something you have to have to follow.

    Your words are as always, enlightening.

  2. yusong says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    fantastic, you are a noble female, i admire you very much.

    • Shishir says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:43 am

      “a noble female” now what is that supposed to mean?

  3. Jonathan Omer-Man says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Congratulations! This is wonderful. And aren’t our similar interests dramatically divergent…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

      Or maybe they go round in a huge circle and turn out to be convergent…

  4. Aijaz says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Bravery is going against the the tide.
    and Lesley has it

  5. Chad Tabba says:
    March 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Wonderful talk Lesley, it brought to mind a couple of ideas I’m thinking of:
    First: Truly, religion’s goal, and the reason religions were formed, was to support the innate striving to be human, to be closer to the ideals of humanity. Thats how and why Sufism seems to be (at least in my mind) in many aspects more similar to buddhism than literal Islam. While Sufism in itself has imperfections as well, I have felt closer to much of what it says (and gnostic christianity) than literal religious belief. The idea that religion and faith comes from the heart, that religion is not about dogma, but about treating others as you would be treated, about forgiveness, and about love (general love not necessarily romantic love). Funny that I would be agnostic and gnostic simultaneously.

    Second: a question/note. I am saddened by the literalist/extremist interpretation of the holy books in general. The holy books have enough subtleness to allow some people to highlight specific words and twist them to support their ideas and take sentences out of context. Why did they have to be so subtle that the average person may be sucked into that literalism? That is my biggest problem with religion; more than trying to believe in a supreme creator, it’s the idea that it takes a higher level of understanding and “brain power” to understand what religion wants us to do. Whats the use if a bigger percentage of people are going to take it wrong and use it to kill each other? Why couldn’t the creator be more clear to lessen the sadness and suffering in the world. Why allow millions to be killed in his/her name? Would love to hear what u think about these 2 points.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Quran was revealed in single shot on Lailatul Qadr…then it was re-revealed in 23 years with cause and effects and circumstances to make sure people can not misinterperet its verses. The idea that Quran was re-revealed further strengthened that Prophet was warned not to haste but to wait for revelations [….]

      But still we have history and collections of traditions to help us understand the background of revelations in their true spirit. The key to understand Quran is 3:7, which Lesley has pointed out. She is not only eloquent but on the right track. It’s possible she already know more Quran than many of us, she understand the difference between Reader’s Digest and Holy Quran. Sometimes I feel not sure to guide her to some Quranic lead. Chances are she is already there.

      Metaphors are not there to mislead but we can not conceive them in their true interpretations. Tahir ul-Qadri has given a beautiful interpretation on “Judgment Day is near” He says no one knows when is Judgment day but for every individual his judgment day is his death day and tha’ts very near. [….] Metaphor does not mean that we doubt the reality of that day…reality of that Day is literal, nature of that day is allegorical. [….]

      Imam Ali said “You will never know truth and follow the right way unless you know the person who has abandoned it.”

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

        @Aijaz

        If I am not wrong you are Muslim, so I apologize beforehand for possible offense that my remarks may cause you.
        a) It is wrong to believe that Quran was revealed at one go and Mohammed was refrained from making it known at once. There is no real evidence of the fact, an equally plausible explanation is that it was “revealed” as Mohammed was in a position to understand it.
        b) It is also wrong to assume divinity of Quran, it is work of a man for it shows all that is concern of man nothing more nothing less.
        c) The reason why people interpret Quran differently is because Quran is not like a mathematical treatise and hence is ambiguous. The writer of Quran was limited in his/her knowledge because it was limited by what was known at the time. If a religion originates today it will suffer the same limitations perhaps 1600 yrs later.
        d) There can not be just one true religion, if it is can it be demonstrated it is so, unfortunately every holy book claims it and Quran claims it more than others perhaps.

        Now it is possible that I am wrong about some things, and if I am okay. I’ll learn something.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

        Aijaz — It really is time to cool it, and to find some way to acknowledge that you are human, that you do not have a stranglehold on “the truth.” There are many ways to approach this whole matter, and the ways others choose may be as valid and as well-intentioned as yours, no matter how different. As the Quran says, “you have your way, and I have mine.” Mine, as should be clear on this blog, is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that it’s precisely this absolutist idea that causes so much conflict. I think it would be far more productive and respectful if you reflected a lot more and judged a lot less.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:35 am

      Chad — Simultaneously gnostic and agnostic makes sense to me. In fact I sometimes call myself a gnostic agnostic — and some day, will have to figure out more precisely what I mean by that. You may be ahead of me there.

      But doesn’t your second point kind of undermine the first? It seems to assume the existence of an omnipotent creator with a will — that is, a conventional idea of God. Me, I’m really not into the whole idea of religion or of God ‘wanting’ us to do anything. The idea of a “purpose-driven life” is horribly mechanistic to me, leaving no room for what we were talking about earlier: for mystery, for poetry, for music.

      Sacred texts are really only sacred because human beings have made them so — either because they see them as prescriptions for how to behave, or because they find in them inspiration or an invitation to transcend their own limitations. (Well, and a vast range of possibilities between those two, but you get my point).

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm

        Oh, I agree Lesley. There is a contradiction. My second note was simply me just showing that even if I played devil’s advocate (pun intended) on behalf of literalists, I still couldnt excuse how some extremists act and “misquote” scriptures.

  6. Aijaz says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Lesley

    I do not have stranglehold on truth but I am entitled to hold my views as other humans have it here like shishir, and I am not offended by his/her dissent.

    I see nothing wrong with sticking to my views with a belief they are true.
    Humane side is to share my views without offending others.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      @Shshir — You are not wrong I am Muslim. Beauty of any discussion forum is disagreement on issues otherwise its nothing more than exchanging the pleasantries, that may feel good but it serves no purpose. Purpose is served when we understand each other through civilized arguments with logic and common sense.

      I am glad you disagree with my position but unfortunately you did not present your argument instead you posted your opinion and what you believe. [….]

      Isa [Jesus] himself never claimed to have come in the fulfilment of the prophecy about the advent of the promised prophet, nor any other prophet, after him did so, except the Holy Prophet Muhammad al Mustafa.[….] The Christian Church had no alternative but to give currency to the belief in the second advent of Isa. Musa [Moses] and Muhammad were the law-givers, whereas Isa was the follower of the laws preached by Musa.

      Similarities between Muhammad and Musa are many. No two prophets, in historical background, resembled each other more than these two. [….]

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

        @Aijaz — I am glad that you are not offended by my comments. Your argument is that I’ve only stated my opinion. I beg to differ. I have stated my exact position with regards to revealed religions.Be they Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

        Again I apologize if the following offends you. I do not accept the holy books of these religions as the word of God. These religions were created by men, for fulfilling needs of men living in a certain geographical region, living under certain social-economical conditions. The people all had a shared history, hence the similarity and often concurrence in what they say. It is redundant if Bible, Torah or Quran concur with each other or even that they describe same events.

        I live in India, a country with more diversity than the whole of Europe, and it gives me a unique perspective, which is not to say that you may not possess that perspective, leading me to conclude that certain stories will get adopted, absorbed over a long period of time by people so much so that they may even claim ownership of it. I believe that the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so entwined with the history of middle east that to figure what one has borrowed from other would be a difficult exercise. [….]

        I’d say that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were closer to being social reformers than they were “prophets” [….] I can assure you, that if Gandhi, Dr.King, Mandela etc had been born in 500 A.D. they’d have founded major religions too. [….]

  7. Nuno Dias says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    just dropping again by to say: Wonderful 😉

  8. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Lesley, are you a Muslim?…..lets start off with a nice easy one 😉

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      Maybe read the blog. I’m an agnostic Jew. Firmly agnostic. Firmly Jewish.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Sure, But since you submit to a higher Being would mean that you are in a sense a Muslim i.e. one who submits to God. You may not follow the rituals and traditions ascribed to Islam but your principles, I assume, are the one and same and noticeble in your exegesis of the Quran and you can only do that if you have a clean and conscientious heart which the Quran lays as one of its first principles for understanding the Quran.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

          I’m Jewish by birth, identity, and interest, not by belief, which means I really, honestly, do not ‘believe in’ or submit to any higher being, whether upper or lower case. As close as possible to “a clean and conscientious heart” (and mind) sounds good enough. And a glimpse, here and there, of the mystery of existence.
          So please, just let me be me.
          Maybe see here for more: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/18/an-agnostic-manifesto-part-one/
          And here: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/10/the-100th-post-a-non-mission-statement/

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        Why won’t people just let agnostic be agnostic. I just hate it when someone wants you to “pick a side”. I hate when people view agnosticism as weak. Or when someone says “I would respect you more if you were atheist or religious than agnostic”. Why is someone’s personal belief such an issue for everyone to interfere with? I think people miss the idea of what a “jewish agnostic” or “muslim agnostic” means. It means that the person is agnostic from a belief standpoint, but from a birth and family event standpoint, they may follow what their culture has them do. Just like americans celebrate Thanksgiving, I would (as a muslim agnostic) celebrate Ramadan and eid, even though I am agnostic from a god belief standpoint. If someone can’t grasp that concept, how will they grasp the concept of gnostic agnostic?

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm

        Lesley Hazleton, you are you although Agnostic is someone who is doubtful, non comittal to God or not sure whether you are a theist or a non theist, so I was asking. Point made, looking forward to see what you have to say about faith of people who believe in a God.

        Chad Tabba relax , take a deep breath. No one is out to change you or Leslie. Just trying to understand and now I even understand what a gnostic agnostic theist atheist. Who Knew!

  9. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Lesley, whats your take on the following verses:

    Surah 4:34

    Surah 4:157 – 158

    Sorry to put you on the spot but nows your chance to really shine 😉

  10. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Re 4:34, its another of those better-if-you-don’t things. I think what most Muslims think: it may have been acceptable for a man to beat his wife in the seventh century; it sure as hell isn’t today.
    Re 4:157-8: I don’t need to be exonerated of killing Jesus by the Quran any more than I need it from Ratzinger. Though the Quran did beat him to it by 14 centuries.

    • sa says:
      March 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      LOL, oh come’on Lesley. You know when you read the ayah/verse 4:,34 it makes no sense. I mean first you tell your wife off, and if she still does not listen you leave her bed chamber and then if she still does not listen you beat her? How about BEATING a retreat and not BEAT about the bush and say cya! The Reformist Quran by Edip Yuksel explains some of the questionable interpretations.

      and now to 4:157. You know this is where you make friends or enemies. So you are wise not to answer it. There is only one interpretation of this verse and that is that Jesus was not raised into the Heavens nor was he killed on the cross but made to appear so (no doubt by some gall and vinegar) and ultimatley survived. I can and have been called a heretic for making such remarks nay whole schools that profess have. At least in Judaism, I can still be a Jew and not believe in the Prophets. Oh well I will leave this one for someone who wants to challenge it.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

        I think the idea is not trying to interpret specific surahs without knowing the specific context. I don’t understand what “sa” is trying to prove with these questions. Are you trying to give us proof that there are (for lack of a better word) “unsavory” verses in the Koran that may be used out of context (or in context) to be harmful? Lesley is obviously not saying that the Koran is a book from god, but she is just saying that it gets a bad reputation due to a minority of people who take verses out of context and that it is no more violent than other scriptures. I think that for someone who knows the Koran, that point is undisputable. What the Koran says or doesnt say about Jesus (if he existed to start with) is insignificant.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 9:31 pm

        On the contrary @Chad Tabba, that is precisely the point. You have to explore the specific context in order to understand the verse. The problem is that certain verses are intepreted by both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists to advance their own violent agenda as Lesley has pointed out. But I would also argue that traditional Muslim thinking supporting the creation theory is also unfounded in the Quran [….] People then believe that AntiChrist is a one eyed monster running around the Earth and that Jesus will come back and battle it. Some Muslim scholars and clergy believe that a great final battle will take place between good and evil. This type of thinking goes against the ethos of the Quran.

        Also I don’t believe that Lesley is saying that the Quran is violent but rather that God in the Quran discourages violence. I therefore disagree with you that the Quran is violent or promotes violence. As a Muslim, I try not to allow the dynamics of a culture dictate my faith only to then have doubts about a God – but each to their own.

        Finally, all major traditional faiths have prophecized about a future Kalki, Soashoyant, maitreya, Messiah, Jesus, Isa. [….] Over 50% of the worlds population follow a faith tradition that is expecting a savior. If all are waiting then this can only be fulfilled in one person who would unite all peoples and he/she does not have to make a grand entrance by dropping in from the sky. It’s quite possible that this savior comes from the people.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 16, 2011 at 8:39 am

        Seems you misunderstood me sa. In my comments about “what are you trying to prove” I was referring to you not Lesley. I didn’t see the point in bringing up that first surah. I understand Lesley and what she thinks very well, and she expresses many things I think about too, but expresses them in a very interesting way.
        As for the other surah about Jesus, reading many sources has showed my that the whole idea of death and rebirth of a savior born of a Virgin mother etc. (in any form, and regardless of each religion’s details about how it happened) is an idea that was also there in ancient Egypt even before Judaism. Its more about rebirth of the human soul after the person finds and understands his/her deep self. Whether there was an actual Jesus and the details of when and how he may have died and if he will return are irrelevant. We need to understand the idea behind the story.

      • sa says:
        March 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        I was interested to know what her understanding of sura 4:34 was. Just as she explained Sura 2:191 in her speech, which BTW, is also how Islamic scholars have understood these verses to mean.

        Agreed Sura 4:157 is irrelevent to Lesley.

      • hossam says:
        March 27, 2011 at 4:36 am

        @sa
        i am not posting to discuss this but just to make a correction
        4:157-8 says that jesus was not killed and was not crucified and WAS raised by God

      • sa says:
        March 27, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        @hossam, you just did and here is my response.

        No mistake, verse 4:157 does not mean that Jesus was raised in body or soul. It also does not mean that he was slain or crucified but was made to appear as if he was but actually survived.

        5:117 plainly states that Jesus died a natural death.

        3:144 says that all Messengers before Mohammed (SAW) passed away. That would also include the prophet Isa (AS). Abu Bakr, used this verse to convince the companions on the death of the Holy Prophet that he indeed had died just like messengers before him meaning that no one was immortal.

  11. MZ says:
    March 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Hello Lesley,

    It’s your annoying camera-man here. Yes, we finally got it up and working on YouTube. I want to thank you once again for the talk, I heard a lot of good feedback from our community and we really enjoyed it.

    Peace

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Hey MZ — thanks for the work! Am amazed and delighted people are watching it. — L.

  12. Nabi says:
    March 16, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Well said Lesley. I enjoyed every minute, even though it did take me two sessions since last night to watch this. I had started taking notes last night on my wife’s laptop but after finished watching it now i decided no to look at those notes but rather comment on just one thing i picked out today and that is when you said not aiming for a perfect future. I personally in my life would rather think of it as not aiming for a Utopia in life where everyone is a perfect muslim but rather aim more for the perfection of truth and justice in human relations. I personally could care less if a person chooses to pray or have an ‘Islamic’ appearance and all the other bells and whistles that go w/ religion. My main concern is that we don’t do the bad/and wrong against each other rather than enforcing the obligatory practices which indeed are only between an individual and God. The prophet was told he was sent to send glad tidings (for the followers) and warning (for the astray) and not to run peoples lives. and not to yearn when they do not accept the correct path because even then only God guides those who wish to be guided.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      A big ‘Amen’ from the unguided!

      • Nabi says:
        March 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

        I take that ‘unguided’ as sarcasm, because no one is misguided so long as they follow the good that is programed in them. After all isn’t that the object of religion to hone us into following our good instincts?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 16, 2011 at 9:41 am

          Not sarcasm. Irony.

  13. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:00 am

    We love you Lesley, offcource we have time to see your 50 min video.

  14. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Dont forgot people of Bahrain, they in a new Karbala,
    they need help ….. please

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      I wish we could help. It’s a nightmare there right now.

  15. Cosima says:
    March 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Lesley I applaud your efforts. I will always have time to listen to your talks. Your wit and intelligence, thoughtfulness and perceptiveness are a breath of fresh air. Also, I just love your hat 🙂

  16. AJ says:
    March 17, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Thanks Lesley

  17. BF says:
    March 21, 2011 at 3:20 am

    As a muslim – thank you for this vdo. In addition to your excellent insight on Quranic expression and meaning – thank you for your political perspectives.

    Looking at conservatives on both sides of the divide as followers of a similar religion is something I have thought about, but never been able to express as eloquently as you have.

  18. Jesus says:
    March 22, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    [This came in to my spam file, but for the sake of light relief, I couldn’t resist running it. After all, how often do you get email from ‘Jesus@heaven.com’? — Lesley.]

    Jesus was song of God and a Jew, all prophets and even Jesus were Jew, God did not send anybody after Christ…its in word of God!

  19. Sarah Conover says:
    March 28, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Really appreciated the considered talk, Lesley. I like that you opened discourse, rather than shut it down. It wasn’t as if I was left with more questions or answers than before, but I was left with more curiosity. Thank you!

  20. Shahrin says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Hello Ms. Hazleton,

    I just wanted to extend my heartfelt gratitude for this resonating, and insightful speech. I hope you have tailored similar versions to non-Muslim audiences as well; that being said, I also enjoyed your talk on TED.

    Along a similar vein, as a Muslim college student, I have cast some light in interfaith circles with the intent of enlightening and sharing with others about the dynamics of Islam, as well as its very basic tenets that create its backbone.

    With your positive influence, coupled with inspirational scholars such as the late Edward Said and Karen Armstrong, I have lived gained, in light of Ben Zoma’s teachings, wisdom by learning from all people. This is the kind of plurality that I believe Islam embraces, especially for the imagination (as you referred to in this video). The more I have found myself feeding my soul with discourse, and newly processed information coming from a diverse spectrum, the more Muslim I feel, the closer I feel to the beautiful messages of the Qur’an.

    I’ve recently dedicated myself to writing small pieces, essays to properly establish my thoughts in formal, comprehensive order over concepts and tiers of the Qur’an that I happen to intrigue myself with at a particular moment. I hope that as I continue, I may reach a deeper understanding of my faith. Thank you for being an inspiration, and a contributing catalyst on my religious journey.

    Shahrin,

  21. Lana says:
    April 4, 2011 at 5:51 am

    You inspire me … a beautiful talk

  22. Talia says:
    May 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    50 mins! and I thoroughly enjoyed it all. Thank you Lesley! I’m a muslim (the degree of submission or islam, I feel is a very subjective matter but if one has to put a label on it, I think of myself as being quite religious) and that’s why it’s so refreshing to hear someone speak as you do – with the objectivity of the outsider.

    But what I found delightful, in additional to your graceful and inimical style with its wonderful touches of wry humor,was both the empathy and open-mindedness especially as they seem to be rooted in quite a deep well of knowledge which you do not hesitate to divest of its traditional interpretations, and so allow it the flexibility which is its due.

    Dare I say that it reaffirms my own beliefs – which I know is not your intent – but there it is, none the less! Again, thanks!

    Talia

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:49 am

      Thanks Talia. True, not my intent, but there’s a gentle irony to it that makes us both smile.

Believing in Peace

Posted February 24th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

“I can’t believe you don’t believe in anything!” someone wrote on this blog a while back, commenting on my agnosticism (actually, she used capital letters and lots of exclamation marks, but I’ll refrain).   And I was a bit shocked by that.  What kind of human being can I claim to be if I don’t believe in anything?  A nihilist?  A god-forsaken creature left to the whims and mercies of fate?    A craven whimpering coward afraid to commit herself?

So in between keeping up with what’s happening in Egypt and Tunisia and Bahrain and Yemen and Jordan and Iraq and Iran and oh-my-god Libya, I’ve been haunted by what she said — and have realized that she placed the stress on the wrong word.  It doesn’t belong on the word ‘anything,’ but on the word before it:  ‘in.’

Of course there are things I believe.  I just don’t generally feel the need to believe in them.  I may well believe that such-and-such a thing is true, though in fact this is much the same thing as saying “I think that…” or the more amorphous “I feel that…”  and I’m trying not to be amorphous here.  And in fact there are some things I do believe in, prime among them the possibility of some seemingly impossible form of peace between Israel and Palestine.

If I look at Israel/Palestine rationally right now, I see no way to a peaceful resolution.   So in the lack of empirical evidence, I have no choice but to fall back on belief – that is, on the conviction that peace is possible, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I’m not being over-idealistic here.   The first step in any thinking about peace is to get rid of all those images of doves fluttering around all over the place and everyone falling on each others’ shoulders in universal brother/sisterhood.  Peace is far more mundane than that.  It’s the absence of war.  It’s people not being killed.  It’s the willingness to live and let live.  And that will do just fine.

There’s no love lost between England and Germany, for instance, but they’re at peace after two utterly devastating wars in the first half of the 20th century.  There’s less than no love lost between Egypt and Israel – in fact it’s safe to say that for the most part, they detest each other —  but that peace treaty, signed by an Egyptian dictator and an Israeli former terrorist, has lasted three decades.  It’s nobody’s ideal of peace, but however uneasily, it’s held, and will likely hold whatever the changes in Egypt – a frigid kind of peace, but peace nonetheless.

But even thinking in terms of pragmatic, undramatic, boring peace, which once seemed as impossible for England and Germany, and for Egypt and Israel, as for Israel and Palestine, I still can’t see it.  Of course this may simply mean that I have a very limited imagination, and so can’t see the forest for the trees.   But to think that something is impossible because I can’t see it is not only an absurd assumption, but also a dangerous one.

What we believe affects how we act.   If we stop believing that Israel/Palestine peace is possible, or even desirable, as the Israeli government seems to have done, then that affects how we act:  we really do make it impossible.  That is, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy of unending conflict.   We act in our own worst interests.

I’d rather be naïve than nihilistic.  So in face of the despair that often overtakes me at the latest news from Gaza or from the West Bank, I have to fall back on belief in the possibility of peace, no matter how seemingly irrational.  After all, if it was rational, it wouldn’t require belief.

One definition of despair is in the inability to imagine oneself into the future.  It is, in a very real sense, a failure of the imagination.  So perhaps this is what belief really is:  an act of imagination.   The astonishing human ability to imagine something into existence, and to act in accordance with that imagination.

That’s what we’ve seen these past few weeks in Tunisia and Egypt and Bahrain (and maybe even in Libya), and that’s what’s been so inspiring about it:  belief transformed into possibility.   Belief not as faith in the divine, but as faith in the human ability to act and to change the future.   Belief, that is, in ourselves.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Bahrain, belief, conflict, Egypt, faith, Gaza, Germany, imagination, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, nihilism, Palestine, peace, Tunisia, West Bank, Yemen | 15 Comments
  1. Sue says:
    February 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Thank you for your distinction between ‘believing’ and ‘believing in’ – I think that’s fabulous.
    Regarding ‘Peace’ – I believe it to be more than just the absence of war – it is a whole other force in itself. It’s people’s determination to live differently and better and to care for each other and their communities, and so much more.
    And perhaps something to think about – it occurs to me that you use the word ‘believe’ (ie. you choose to believe in peace in the Middle East despite all evidence to the contrary) is used in the same sense as others would use the word ‘faith’, eg. I have ‘faith’ that there will be peace in the middle east. I do love words and how we use them, and I do love it when people can string a fabulous sentence together – you do that so well – thank you.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      So glad you pointed put my conflation of ‘belief’ and ‘faith’, Sue — it’s one of those things I was vaguely aware of doing, but hadn’t really paid attention to. Yes, I think there is a difference, but will have to work on figuring it out (it has to do, I think, with intention — a kind of willed decision — but am not sure, so will muse, and write about it at a later date). Thanks for the sharp eye. — L.

  2. Kate McLeod says:
    February 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    What these countries who want to go to war with each other need are football teams. They can take out their aggression in the viewing stands, wear war paint, wave flags–all that.
    Also my new rules about war in the world must be followed: no one under the age of 50 goes to war. I think it’s probably the fastest route to peace.

  3. Sana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    My husband always tells me that what I lack is belief. I give up too easily, hence abandoning any fight in me. My husband is the opposite, if he believes he achieves – and he makes it happen no matter what the odds are. Your article has made me realize how dangerous it is not believe….. its a bit daunting actually. Now comes the hard part – what do i believe? …….

  4. Lynn Rosen says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    There is no point in believing IN war as an inevitable solution. Peace is the default. That is in what I believe.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      Perfectly in-put!

  5. Lana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Thank you 🙂
    i hope u add a “like” button under your posts … sometimes i realy like an article but has nothing else to add 🙂

    best wishes

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Thanks Lana — will poke around and see if I can find out how to do it. — L.

      (Best way to ‘Like’ — click the Facebook button!)

  6. Moes says:
    February 25, 2011 at 9:05 am

    I enjoyed very much your TED talk about Kuran.
    We have a woman a bit like you in France, Annick de Souzenelle (except she’s not an agnostic). She has read the Bible in the languages it was written (she studied years and years to learn Aramean and Hebrew, symbology and theology). If you go back to the source, it’s the best way not to be misguided by translations and interpretations. And her books about the bible explain how deep and beautiful this book is. Far away from the interpretation men have made of it through the centuries, trying to control people out of it. Much more universal than we think it is (not to mention the stupid and childish “creationist” interpretation of it.)
    I guess Kuran is the same. It’s the fragility of beauty, when taken over by gridy and bad intentional people.
    Please continue your struggle for beauty and peace (and excuse my poor english.)
    all the best.

  7. Elisa Sparks says:
    February 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Have you seen the bumper sticker: “Militant agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you”? Virginia Woolf’s father, Leslie Stephens, was famous for his statement of rational agnosticism.

  8. Anneza Akbar says:
    March 1, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Very interesting piece,
    I am curious as to what your view is on the idea of:

    “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice”
    in comparison to:
    “peace is the absence of war”

    Could it be that perhaps “no war” and therefore “peace” could come about after a sense of justice is established?

    of course then the question would arise what would be justice in any specific case?

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts 🙂
    Anneza

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Good question, and a tough one. “Peace and justice” is a much-used phrase, yet how exactly they go hand-in-hand is not clear, at least to me. The core problem being, of course, what we mean by justice. Are we talking justice as harmony, as moral rightness (and if so, whose morality?), as retribution, as equitability, as divine justice (in which case, whose concept of the divine?).

      I do think that any kind of peace, however minimal in concept, does have to involve a sense on both or all sides that nobody is being advantaged to the disadvantage of others. In practice, I think that might well mean that both/all sides will have to feel not that they’ve gotten what they think is right or what they deserve, but that they’ve had to give up a certain amount of what they think is right or what they deserve. In other words, that far from being perfect, peace is an imperfect compromise on all sides. And possible only when everyone is willing, finally, to make those compromises. I know it seems like there should be a “win-win” option, but in fact “lose-lose” may be the only realistic one — and thus, paradoxically, in fact a win-win.

      Have you heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? It’s a central paradigm in conflict resolution, in which the only rational solution is the one in which both sides lose an equal amount. Hard-headed, and worth thinking about. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

  9. Sunny says:
    March 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    War and peace are two sides of the same coin, just as light and darkness are. Just as light cannot exist without darkness, peace cannot exist without war – just as God and Satan cannot exist, atleast in two Abrahamic religions, by themselves. The principle of duality seems to be all-encompassing.

  10. Kathleen says:
    March 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Very though provoking and written – as usual – Leslie. 🙂 I came across a book’s paragraph about an underlying social dynamic (‘bargains with God) that are suppose to guarantee peace (except the world keeps cheating on the bargain by going to war) : During WWI. The protagonist is looking at a stained glass window in a cathedral of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. ‘Behind Abraham was the ram caught in a thicket by his horns and struggling to escape…You could see the fear. Whereas Abraham, if he regretted having to sacrifice his son at all, was certainly hiding it well, and Isaac, bound on a makeshift altar, positively smirked’. …[This represents] ‘the bargain on which all patriarchal societies are founded. If you, who are young and strong, will obey me, who am old and weak, even to the extent of being prepared to sacrifice your life, then in the course of time you will peacefully inherit, and be able to exact the same obedience from your sons. [and this one sacrifice to the gods is enough to appease them, instead of thousands] Only …. [being at war is ] ‘breaking the bargain… all over the inheritors were dying…. while old men, and women of all ages, gathered together and sang hymns. *”Regeneration” by Pat Barker, pg 149 (book 2 of a trilogy based on a Psychologist trying to heal shell shocked solders in England during WWI.) Just an interesting twist on the concept that older men (and women) sit in hallowed-halls and declare war and it’s planning, while the young die to execute the plan. Don’t know that it adds anything to your dialogue on peace but just thought to add it. No comment back needed 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      I totally agree: the Pat Barker trilogy (‘Regeneration,’ ‘Eye in the Door’ and ‘Ghost Road’) is stunning, and perhaps the most sustained and subtle anti-war fiction ever written. — L.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback