Last night, the ShadhiliTariqa.com website was finally launched, al-hamdu li-'Llah. This site is intended to be, insha'llah, the main focal point for the writings and audio lectures of SheikhNuh Ha Mim Keller. Already, this site is full of content that I encourage everyone to download, read, listen to and reflect upon. Although some, but not all, of these articles were already available on the web at the Masud.co.uk site, check out the various sections (i.e. What is Sufism?, Shadhili Tariqa, Articles, Audio and Blog & Events) to find some gems that you might not have seen before.
In addition to this new site, there are a couple of other related sites that need to be mentioned. Several months ago, the now defunct TariqaTapes.com site morphed into TheTraditionalPath.com site...and the content and catalog can now be browsed by non-members. The purpose of this site is "...serving the murids of the Hashimi-Darqawi Order of the Tariqa of Imam Abul Hasan Al-Shadhili, Allah be well pleased with him. Recorded darses available on this site are lectures given by Sheikh Nuh Keller. This website is designed to fill the needs of Muslims who adhere to traditional Islamic knowledge and spiritual awakening."
Likewise, the VASuhba.com and Suhba.org websites have now migrated to ShadhiliTeachings.com, which is intended to be the main site in the future where murids of Sheikh Nuh can download the various audio lessons.
For those who don't know, Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller American Muslim translator and specialist in Islamic Law and an authorized Sheikh in tasawwuf. Born in 1954 in the north-western United States , was educated in philosophy and Arabic at the University of Chicago and UCLA. He entered Islam in 1977 at al-Azhar in Cairo , and later studied the traditional Islamic Sciences of hadith, Shafi'i and Hanafi jurisprudence, legal methodology (usul al-fiqh), and tenets of faith ('aqidah) in Syria and Jordan , where he has lived since 1980. Some of his books and translations include Reliance of the Traveller, Becoming Muslim, Sufism and Islam, Port in a Storm: A Fiqh Solution to the Qibla of North America as well as a equisite publication of a new authentic edition of Imam al-Jazuli's Dala'il al-Khayrat. Sheikh Nuh was authorized as a Sheikh in the Shadhili Tariqa by the late AbdurRahman Shagouri-- May God be well pleased with him--in Damascus. He has students throughout the world and has annual retreats (suhbas) with his students in which he teaches the traditional science of tasawwuf in Canada, the U.S.A., the U.K., Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. May Allah preserve him...
You have to go to a deeper level. Henry David Thoreau said for every thousand people hacking away at the branches of evil, there's only one person hacking away at the roots of evil. I really think we need to go to a deeper level and look at what the root of this situation is. There are a lot of people prevaricating out there, who just don't want to deal with the "why" question.
On Public Discourse in America:
We need to get rid of this hegemonic discourse that doesn't allow for any dissent, where people's jobs and careers are threatened by asking questions, because we have to ask questions.
On Oppressive Muslim Regimes:
The reality is, almost all these Muslim governments are persecuting active Muslims, not terrorists. When you have very powerful secular tyrants, religion poses a very serious threat, and religion is a very powerful force in the Muslim world. So the repression of Islam, which has been going on for so long, has resulted in certain extreme views that have emerged within the religion.
On Anti-Semitism Amongst Muslims:
The Jewish situation's bad. I have to admit that. There is an immense amount of ignorance, particularly in the Muslim world. I think less so here, but we have that problem here also. There is an anti-Jewish sentiment. It's far more politically driven, and I think Muslims have forgotten, that's all. I think they need reminders, and I think when you remind them, they tend to respond, and that's been my experience. I was not raised as an anti-Semite. My sister converted to Judaism, is married to a Jewish man. I have nephews that are Jewish. I was not raised with any prejudice at all. But I was infected when I lived in the Muslim world. I lived in the Arab world for over 10 years, and I think I did get infected by that virus for a period of time. But I grew out of it and realized that not only does it have nothing to do with Islam, but it has nothing to do with my core values. And I've rejected that and called others to reject it. I think it's something that really needs to change in the Muslim community, and I think it will.
A Prescription for America:
In bread-and-butter terms, I truly believe that we need to stop being so paternalistic in our attitudes toward Muslims, toward other countries, and begin to actually speak to them as if they were human beings, fully enfranchised, with the dignity that goes with that. To stop drawing lines in the sand, to stop dictating to people as if you have some God-given authority to do that, and to really start trying to talk to people and see what you can do. I think we need commerce that is mutually beneficial and we need to stop all of this hegemonic commercial tyranny that goes on in the Middle East, in Central and South America. I mean people forget, you know, the South Americans probably hate us more than the Arabs do.
On Truth:
In the recent war with Lebanon, it was so one-sided. If you watched Arab television and then CNN, it was like two different universes. That's really troubling to me because like the Chinese say, "There are three truths. There's my truth, your truth and then the truth."
Don't forget to read the entire interview here. May Allah preserve him...
Well this is another worthwhile article on the (pending?) crisis with Iran which I could have included in my original Is Iran Next? posting if I'd waited another day. This column covers much of the same ground as the other articles and also just happens to include nearly the exact same "a la Tonkin Gulf" phrase that I used in yesterday's posting. Gee, do you think Marjorie Cohn actually read my blog?
One admitted shortcoming of yesterday's Is Iran Next? alert was that I failed to mention the significant article by Seymour Hersh which appeared in the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker. This article, entitled The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?, presents some intelligent reflection on what the present U.S. administration may, or may not, do in regards to the Iranian nuclear program. This excellent piece of journalism shows that Seymour Hersh remains a valuable asset to those who want to understand what's really going on. Personally, I feel that his Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib remains the best book on the origins and conduct of the 2003 invasion of Iraq...since he's at his best when he's angry. Let's just hope he keeps up the good work. Unfortunately, it seems very likely that he'll have a lot to write about over the next few months...wa Allahu 'alim.
Essentially, the article explains what motivates your average person to join an insurgency against an oppressive regime, foreign invading army or just a heavy-handed government. While nothing that this brief article says should come as a surprise to anyone with even a basic understanding of human nature and psychology, its focus, logic and easy-to-follow presentation make it both unique and valuable. Certainly its conclusions are even easier to accept in a situation where a foreign (and non-Muslim) invading force occupies the land of a proud (and Muslim) people.
On a somewhat different note, it's something of a relief to see that the word "insurgent" has become the word of choice to describe, even in military and defense related publications, Iraqis who are violently resisting the U.S. occupation of their country. For the first year or so of the occupation, it seemed that the word "terrorist" was used all too frequently—and almost exclusively in the few U.S. Marine Corps publications that I read—to describe anti-American Iraqi guerrillas. Possibly the fallacy of using such a label on people engaged in fighting U.S. military forces (not committing random acts of violence against civilians) finally dawned on senior U.S. commanders.
As I explained in a lengthy column back in October 2004, entitled The Catch-22 in Iraq, the war in Iraqi is essentially unwinnable. Here's an excerpted paragraph which explains why the option to "win" just simply isn't there anymore in these types of situations:
In the past, one way out of this Catch-22 was to simply get brutal. When the Romans faced insurgencies, they would just go in, massacre or enslave the entire population and raze their cities to the ground. In recent centuries, Western imperialist powers tried using brutality to squash rebellions as well, but usually with mixed results. America certainly wasn't above all this, since in its first days as an imperialist power in the waning years of the nineteenth century, it had some success using brutal tactics against insurgents in the Philippines. Indeed, in a few short years U.S. forces killed an estimated 250,000 Filipinos—mostly civilians. If your only source of information is Fox News, you'll probably never find out the general tactics of the U.S. forces that were trying to "pacify" the Philippines were summary executions, the ransacking of villages, and forced relocation to concentration camps for those lucky enough to survive. However, even though going brutal sometimes led to "success" in the past, it's not so easy to get away with such tactics in the age of mass media, global human rights organizations and world public opinion. So, since the Bush Administration's stated goal is to build a "free and democratic" Iraq, the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach isn't much of an option.
So that's pretty much where things stand today, although now we've got the very disturbing Sunni-Shi'a bloodletting going on...which is undoubtedly a result of the "Divide and Rule" strategy of the kuffar. Needless to say, I find the calls for Muslim Unity coming from the Shi'a much more appealing than the takfirs being cast upon the Shi'a by (some) Salafis and their neo-Khawarij off-shoots. The latter are just unwittingly doing the work of the enemies of Islam...who, along with Satan, are laughing with delight all the way to the oil well.
A Comic Attempt at Keeping the "Threat Level" High
This is a bit dated, but since I feel this is an absolute "Must Watch!" clip from YouTube.com, I just had to bring it to the attention of as many people as possible.
Ever since the Bush Administration embarked on its misguided "War on Terror," which now can be seen as a thinly-veiled pretext for carrying out the imperial dreams of a handful of neo-conservative thinkers that managed to get inside W's head, it has had a vested interest in keeping the America people scared. This is nothing new, since this is the same game that was played by successive administrations, and their military-industrial cohorts, during the Cold War. Yes, indeed, in order to justify huge defense budgets one needed a "real and present danger" that needed to be defended against. Out of such a predicament came not only exaggerations of the size and capabilities of Soviet forces, but a whole steady stream of willfully paranoid misinformation...and this is common knowledge amongst people who have so much as dabbled lightly in political science, military history and other such disciplines.
That being understood, please watch this comical attempt by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to make a mountain out of a molehill in an effort to keep America's "Threat Level" high. Have you ever seen such buffoonery by senior government officials, especially accompanied by such biting and forthright commentary by Jon Stewart? This is a true classic...and the antics of the arrestees, who don't seem to be guilty of much more than reading the Bible, visiting Chicago and engaging in "mental and physical" training, just adds to the fun. However, watching these bureaucrats squirm to answer even the most reasonable questions from the reporters makes this clip priceless. Indeed, for those who can't see it already, it should open their eyes to just how incompetent and bumbling the U.S. is when trying to carry out its policies in the Middle East...since it's basically the same genre of Bush-appointed clowns running the show over there. Need I say more?
Over the past few days I've read a handful of articles which predict that a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is in the works—and has been for sometime, with a likely strike date being in March or April. Although this is being actively discussed throughout the world, we're not seeing or hearing much about it on the U.S. airwaves. However, some experts predict that we're just weeks away from the start of the misinformation and propaganda campaign, which will be quickly followed by a manufactured crisis or provocative incident à la the Tonkin Gulf Incident (where it's now clear that the U.S. government lied in order to escalate its involvement in Vietnam). This is important (and scary) stuff, ladies and gentlemen, so please take the time to read the following articles...and then pray that what they're predicting does not come to pass:
In this last article, Scotter Ritter—a former Marine officer and U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq—makes a very important observation about the state-of-mind of the American people in regards to Iran (and I would add "Islam" and "Muslims" to the list): "When it comes to Iran, this population is still susceptible to the same misrepresentation of facts, falsification of data and playing upon the popular themes such as 'We Americans can’t stand still in the face of such a threat as Iran.' Iran is a state that has been subject to extreme demonization. The American people are pre-programmed to be negative toward Iran. That’s why you can see a disconnect between this supposed anti-war posturing vis-à-vis Iraq and this very real probability of military action against Iran."
Yes, indeed Iran "has been subject to extreme demonization," which is one reason I believe that the Bush Administration feels it will be able to get away with an attack...world opinion be damned. For those of you who just can't comprehend this, watch thisshort slide show, which should convince you why some people feel that Iran belongs in the "Axis of Evil" and needs to get nuked. But seriously...it seems that we're moving into an age of pure insanity, especially when one realizes that the U.S. is considering using low-yield tactical nukes to "take out" the Iranian facilities which are deep underground. If the invasion of Iraq was a case of a self-deluded superpower bumbling into a quagmire based on a pack of lies, an attack on Iran (especially one that uses tactical nuclear weapons) will just demonstrate that this same superpower is clearly the biggest threat to world peace on the face of the earth and—since it continues to act unilaterally and outside the bounds of International Law—the definitive "Rogue State."
Not only that, but there are some indications that an attack on Iran might not be as military one-sided as either the 1990-1991 Gulf War or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. For one, it is reported that Iran has quite a few highly advanced Sunburn anti-ship missiles which could pose a serious threat to U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. If this ends up being the case and some U.S. ships are hit (much less sunk with a great loss of life), this would almost certainly lead to further escalation since, in the wake of the IDF's recent humiliation at the hands of Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, the U.S. will not be willing to be humiliated as well (although, ultimately, they don't have the final say in this).
I'll just mention that the article linked to in the above paragraph—The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile, although it contains some interesting information, carries a very misleading title. This is because Iran's anti-ship missiles are not tipped with nuclear warheads, but only capable of carrying a nuclear payload if indeed Iran had them...and even the U.S. admits that Iran is still years away from producing a nuclear weapon. Like many such missiles, including the Tomahawk cruise missiles that the U.S. has used for years in stand-off precision hits on various targets, these missiles can be loaded with a conventional payload (i.e. high-explosives) or a nuclear payload...but since Iran doesn't have any of the latter, that's not a concern here.
Rather it seems that any nuking that's going to be done in this case is going to be done by the United States of America—which remains the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population. Keep in mind, however, that the cold-blooded extermination of the men, women and children who had the misfortune of inhabiting Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945 was backed up by what many Americans see as the greatest of all moral justifications: "To save American lives." I just wonder when these people will come to the realization that, while Iraq may suffer from petty tribalism, they're operating within the confines of a world view that essentially amounts to tribalism on steroids (i.e. only our lives matter, yours really don't), since it's essentially the same twisted "our own interests come first" (regardless of any ethical questions) mentality, but on a much larger—indeed, global—scale. In light of America's misguided and self-serving policies in the region, the question "Has America 'lost' the Middle East?" is very much a valid one.
