A Time for Renewal ``....Those who lament the fact that Islam today wears the face of militancy in the eyes of the world should keep this in mind: When those who are moderate do not speak as loudly as the militants, the militants speak for them too. The only way to reclaim the enlightened aspect of Islam is to pursue it aggressively....``

Well, it seems someone is speaking out.....

In a stunning denunciation of what he called a ``shameful`` betrayal of the United States, a former Kuwaiti government minister and member of the ruling family has scorned what he called his country`s ``hesitant and timid`` support for America`s war against terrorism.

Sheik Saud Nasser al-Sabah, Kuwait`s former oil and information minister, criticized what he described as his country`s lackluster support for the American-led campaign against Osama bin Laden and his associates. He blamed his government`s policy of ``abdication`` on Kuwait`s militant Islamic groups and some of their charities, which he accused of having ``hijacked`` the country`s foreign policy.

``I say that this country of ours is kidnapped, hijacked by groups that call themselves Islamic but in truth use Islam as a cover and a garb for political goals,`` he wrote in Asharq al-Awset, a popular Saudi- owned newspaper.

Sheik Saud called such groups ``a menace`` not only to the future of Kuwait, but to ``the Arab world as a whole,`` and urged his fellow Kuwaitis and other Arabs to be ``brave`` in opposing them.

``We should remove the veil of secrecy that protects these groups and their financial and political activities in Kuwait and abroad,`` he wrote. If not, he warned, ``we will face more destruction and ruin.``

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments The current notion that American foreign policies are to blame for September 11th deserves attention and needs to be addressed. As some of you have mentioned, by being in denial, the assumption that the reason for this terrorist act is due to hatred towards American foreign policies in the Middle East still remain.

While we still wait for specifics on the list of policies which the terrorist groups oppose, let me outline the mechanism behind U.S. foreign policy. At least it would clear some misconceptions on who forms the policies, how American public is involved and how American public`s voice affect in forming foreign policy.

Foreign policies are created and managed by Department of State. The mission statement for American foreign policy clearly states:

- Promoting peace and stability in regions of vital interest;

- Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad;

- Helping developing nations establish stable economic environments that provide investment and export opportunities;

- Bringing nations together to address global problems such as cross-border pollution, the spread of communicable diseases, terrorism, nuclear smuggling, and humanitarian crises.

One of the statements made on this board is: American foreign policy is based on their own interest. No kidding. It would be foolish not to look after own interests in forming foreign policy. It would be safe to assume that countries which have organized structure to create foreign policies must have the foundation based on their own interest. Creating foreign policy based on one`s interests is one thing, and creating unrest in a region to enhance these interests is another. United States is not involved in these activities. United States has got involved in conflicts when their interests are at risk. If Talibans and Militant Islamic groups do not like USA defending Countries which ask for help (Yes, help), there is a reason for that. Their own interests. I leave it up to you to interpret which is legitimate interest. I anticipate strong disagreement in this area of debate, but at the end it will enlighten us all.

The Bureau of Public Affairs, under Department of State, carries out the Secretary`s mandate to help Americans understand the importance of foreign affairs. The PA Bureau vigorously pursues the State Department`s mission to inform the American people and to feed their concerns and comments back to the policymakers. It accomplishes this in a variety of ways, which include:

- Strategic and tactical planning to advance the Administration`s priority foreign policy goals;

- Conducting press briefings for domestic and foreign press corps;

- Pursuing media outreach, enabling Americans everywhere to hear directly from key Department officials through local, regional and national media interviews;

- Managing the State Department`s web site at state.gov and developing web pages with up-to-date information about U.S. foreign policy;

- Answering questions from the public about current foreign policy issues by phone, email, or letter;

- Arranging town meetings and scheduling speakers to visit communities to discuss U.S. foreign policy and why it is important to all Americans;

- Producing and coordinating audio-visual products and services in the U.S. and abroad for the public, the press, the Secretary of State, and Department bureaus and offices.

The notion that American media is involved in shaping American policies by misleading American public is not true, as the media only reports what is provided to them by the government. So how do we trust government? Public Access to investigative reports from Departments of State and Defense, National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies as well as the private papers of individuals involved in formulating U.S. foreign policy.

How is the voice of American public heard by the policy makers? Through Public and Intergovernmental Liaison department. The Office of Public and Intergovernmental Liaison promotes foreign policy dialogue between Department officials, state and local government representatives, and the American people through a variety of programming and liaison activities. It is the central point of coordination for speaking engagements, briefings, Town meetings and conference programs in the Department and around the country.

Objectives of Town Meetings:

- Provide a forum to increase awareness and public understanding of foreign policy issues;

- Encourage public engagement in the policy process;

- Provide an opportunity to exchange views with Department of State officials who formulate and implement policy.

I hope this helps participants on this board to understand how foreign policies are made in United States Of America and American people`s role in shaping them.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments Urstruly and fellow Chowkies,

Oh boy, all of a sudden I find my self in the middle of a subject I despise most: Foreign polices :). But I see we have able and willing minds on this forum to discuss with constructive criticism and civility.

As I have mentioned in my post to id (reply #155), let us be specific about each American foreign policy Arab world is not happy about. And we take it from there. (meantime, it will give enough time to get through crash course on Foreign policy 101 :)

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments id (reply #112)

Yes, it is widely believed that Americans do not understand real reasons for this hatred towards Americans. And it will be foolish to stay stuck within my paradigms and not listen to your perspectives. So please elaborate with specifics. I promise to discuss and not just defend my government. Further, regardless of my opinions, I will pass on your concerns to our local representative in the government.

From your post it seems that American foreign policies need to be changed, and that in turn will stop terror. What changes are you proposing?

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

Urstruly,

By definition, Terrorism is not part of a political structure. Yes, a group of people or an organization uses the act of terrorism to make THEIR statement, but it can not be treated as a statement from an elected body. These organizations may share views of masses, but until they are governing body of a nation, their political statement does not constitute terrorizing people in order to make their point. To this extent, Taliban, with their profile that fits terrorist group, are not terrorists but the one which harbors terrorist. Their actions against the allied forces or USA will not be considered as terrorist acts but war. Their political statements, for all its worth, must be heard. But if their demands are not met, Taliban government can not hide behind terrorist groups to justify their violence. Either they as a nation go to war, or stop supporting terrorism.

My views on some of the questions you have asked:

1. If they hold virtue of Democracy above everything so much so that they have declared this attack on US as an `attack on Democracy` then why their government supports tyrants and despots throughout the world. Historically, US government has supported even those who have committed crimes against humanity and their own people. So the question is whether people of United State also support the actions of their government in this regard or not; since their government is Democratically elected?

Not always, not all the time, and never without opposition.

Historically, it is evident that when any one nation has overwhelming power (a super-power), it`s power is used or misused depending on it`s ruler. Those who misused it, has caused harm to the civilization. For example, Hitler in recent history, Some Moghul emperors in past history tried to use their power to suit their interests. When USSR and USA were in a position to become a single super-power, the state of the world was dependent on who will prevail as a super-power. Communism or Democracy. To maintain democratic environment throughout the world, it is absolutely important that peace is maintain in all parts of the world. To this extent, majority of people of USA support the government, not by overwhelming majority all the time (congressional vote to go on war against Iraq was very close where as vote to go on war against Taliban is unanimous). Another important fact the Americans are discovering is that we as a nation must not just get involved in restoring peace, but to follow up on restoring stable government in that country of involvement. When USA supported Afghans in fight against USSR, and once the soviets were defeated, USA pulled out without giving support to Afghans to rebuilt and establish stable government. As a result, foreign militants (Taliban) occupied and destroyed Afghanistan even further. This time around, the mission should not just be to address terrorism, but to help establish Afghan government (not taliban, not Northern alliance).

2. If they believe in freedom and justice then do they also support their government`s acts of plundering of the natural resources belonging to other people; as oil belongs to Arabs only? Are they a part of this plunder since they are a Democracy?

United States of America is not involved in stealing oil from Arabs. If you mean purchasing oil from Arab or Mexico and not using it`s own resources, than it is simply a business decision. With all due respect, Arabs have oil as their only resource of income to sustain their nations. You can have oil, but you can not eat it to stay alive. It is in both Arab`s and ours interests to have this business relationship.

3. If they believe in human rights and freedom of speech, thought, and opinion so much then why their government supports those tyrants who suppress the dissent with full force of law. Are people of West not an accomplice to the atrocities committed by these tyrants to their own people; since governments in West are democratically elected?

In ALL cases of US involvement, it is already an ongoing conflict that it gets involved in. For example, USA did not start conflict between Palestine and Israel. Israel was formed according to and by support of United nations. There were countries which opposed it, but the majority of nations approved it. But it was done in accordance with United Nations. So people mostly oppose or question the US government`s involvement in conflicts which are not visibly or directly affecting United States. But people also understand that as a nation, we do not want to be a spectator of possible genocide or ethnic cleansing (Serbs/Bosnia/Afghanistan).

6. The political assassinations are protected by US constitution. Where do people of United States stand on this moral issue?

I am not sure what you mean by ``The political assassinations are protected``. But according to the constitution, political assassinations are not legal. That was THE reason Sadam Hussein was let go when US army could have killed him. By the way, terrorism is a crime and terrorists are not politicians, they only have political views and beliefs, like everyone else.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments Urstruly,

By definition, Terrorism is not part of a political structure. Yes, a group of people or an organization uses the act of terrorism to make THEIR statement, but it can not be treated as a statement from an elected body. These organizations may share views of masses, but until they are governing body of a nation, their political statement does not constitute terrorizing people in order to make their point. To this extent, Taliban, with their profile that fits terrorist group, are not terrorists but the one which harbors terrorist. Their actions against the allied forces or USA will not be considered as terrorist acts but war. Their political statements, for all its worth, must be heard. But if their demands are not met, Taliban government can not hide behind terrorist groups to justify their violence. Either they as a nation go to war, or stop supporting terrorism.

My views on some of the questions you have asked, and does not represent the views of ALL Americans:

1. If they hold virtue of Democracy above everything so much so that they have declared this attack on US as an `attack on Democracy` then why their government supports tyrants and despots throughout the world. Historically, US government has supported even those who have committed crimes against humanity and their own people. So the question is whether people of United State also support the actions of their government in this regard or not; since their government is Democratically elected?

Not always, not all the time, and never without opposition.

Historically, it is evident that when any one nation has overwhelming power (a super-power), it`s power is used or misused depending on it`s ruler. Those who misused it, has caused harm to the civilization. For example, Hitler in recent history, Some Moghul emperors in past history tried to use their power to suit their interests. When USSR and USA were in a position to become a single super-power, the state of the world was dependent on who will prevail as a super-power. Communism or Democracy. To maintain democratic environment throughout the world, it is absolutely important that peace is maintain in all parts of the world. To this extent, majority of people of USA support the government, not by overwhelming majority all the time (congressional vote to go on war against Iraq was very close where as vote to go on war against Taliban is unanimous). Another important fact the Americans are discovering is that we as a nation must not just get involved in restoring peace, but to follow up on restoring stable government in that country of involvement. When USA supported Afghans in fight against USSR, and once the soviets were defeated, USA pulled out without giving support to Afghans to rebuilt and establish stable government. As a result, foreign militants (Taliban) occupied and destroyed Afghanistan even further. This time around, the mission should not just be to address terrorism, but to help establish Afghan government (not taliban, not Northern alliance).

2. If they believe in freedom and justice then do they also support their government`s acts of plundering of the natural resources belonging to other people; as oil belongs to Arabs only? Are they a part of this plunder since they are a Democracy?

United States of America is not involved in stealing oil from Arabs. If you mean purchasing oil from Arab or Mexico and not using it`s own resources, than it is simply a business decision. With all due respect, Arabs have oil as their only resource of income to sustain their nations. You can have oil, but you can not eat it to stay alive. It is in both Arab`s and ours interests to have this business relationship.

3. If they believe in human rights and freedom of speech, thought, and opinion so much then why their government supports those tyrants who suppress the dissent with full force of law. Are people of West not an accomplice to the atrocities committed by these tyrants to their own people; since governments in West are democratically elected?

In ALL cases of US involvement, it is already an ongoing conflict that it gets involved in. For example, USA did not start conflict between Palestine and Israel. Israel was formed according to and by support of United nations. There were countries which opposed it, but the majority of nations approved it. But it was done in accordance with United Nations. So people mostly oppose or question the US government`s involvement in conflicts which are not visibly or directly affecting United States. But people also understand that as a nation, we do not want to be a spectator of possible genocide or ethnic cleansing (Serbs/Bosnia/Afghanistan).

6. The political assassinations are protected by US constitution. Where do people of United States stand on this moral issue?

I am not sure what you mean by ``The political assassinations are protected``. But according to the constitution, political assassinations are not legal. That was THE reason Sadam Hussein was let go when US army could have killed him. By the way, terrorism is a crime and terrorists are not politicians, they only have political views and beliefs, like everyone else.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments Hi Urstruly,

Thank you for taking out time and educating non-Muslims on Your interpretation of Jihad. It confirms the belief that interpretation of Jihad by militant and tribal groups seems to be quite different. And that is where the problem is.

Since we have multiple versions of Jihad, it seems most of the people on this earth, including majority of Muslims would like to believe non-violent interpretation. So you have answered one of Ronald`s questions: What are we to believe?

This leads us to second question:

What might be done to establish throughout Islam an understanding that Holy War and Holy Martyrdom are now to be either abandoned or they are only to be understood in a context of an immediate and compelling need for self defense?

A prompt answer can not be expected, as the question requires opinions of scholars, clergy and Islamic followers on how tackle this issue. But one of the key to establish uniformity is to take politics out of the religion.

What becomes more evident is that all ancient religions have been interpreted by it`s followers to suit their beliefs. Christian radicals have used the phrase ``only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ`` to propagate conversion to Christianity. Caste system has been misused in name of religion to oppress humanity. But none except Islam in modern history has resort to violence by sighting holy scriptures as a direct preaching.

``There will always be a lunatic fringe in the Muslim society who will keep on justifying such acts as Jihad. It is same as Ku Klux Klan and White Power who will keep on justifying their hate as Christian Values.``

- Although the root of Muslim and Christian militancy is based on religion, the difference is that Christians in USA do not let groups like KKK to thrive to the extent that KKK becomes weapon of mass destruction, nor do they support their terrorist activities. The Muslims in Islamic countries do. In USA, Gov. makes sure that they are punished to the full extent of Law (Waco incidence and Tim McWeigh). Governments in Islamic countries do not. It remains to be seen if Gov. of Afghanistan (Taliban), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. take actions against such groups and just do not stop short by only denouncing their act. In fact, when these nations gave conditional (will not allow attacks from their land towards Muslims - even if sheltering muslims of terrorist groups) support, the message they gave is that no nation is above religion of Islam. If Christianity was to support such acts, Christian militants would pop-up like weeds in Middle east where Christians of Middle East are innocent and indirect targets of Muslim terrorists in that region.

The second part of Ronald`s question is really the biggest challenge for Islam.

Islams Challenge Hi TAhmed,

I understand your remark ``religion does not have obligations, people do``, and it holds true for people who interprets and understand religion the way it is intended (with a fair assumption that no religion teaches current interpretation of jihad and fatwa, for example).

But when dealing with those dogmatic minds of religious fanatics, I think it is an obligation of religion (religious organizations/leaders) to set a path that would be in sync with civilized world.

Islams Challenge To the Chowkies,

It seems that the answer to the questions asked by ``Islams Challenge`` article still needs to be addressed. Is anyone willing to spin off this vicious circle of current ``off the topic`` debate and focus their intellect on these questions? Thanks in advance.

Question(s):

So first, what are we to believe? And if both are a part of the tradition, let alone the faith, what might be done to establish throughout Islam an understanding that Holy War and Holy Martyrdom are now to be either abandoned or they are only to be understood in a context of an immediate and compelling need for self defense? Absent the clear and unequivocal ascendancy of such an understanding, we are left with a major religious tradition which retains, in a world that no longer fight with swords, a train of thought and practice inimical to all those who choose a faith other than its own. Let me add that I have already heard one Islamic scholar comment unsatisfactorily by alluding either to events long past or to present isolated instances of aggression in the history of other faiths, all of which have been definitively, overwhelmingly and authoritatively rejected by such religious authority as obtains...``

Islams Challenge In order to battle against terrorism, it is important to understand the psyche behind it. It is well known that terrorist organizations employ hatred of outsiders as an organizing principle: a tool for shaping the psyche of the faithful. This hatred, if fostered long enough, becomes pathological hatred, a clinical sickness. The adversary psychology which becomes so prominent in such groups is a kind of self fulfilling prophecy. It has both intra and extra group origins. The groups` founders and leaders through ``religious revelation``, ``historical analysis`` and or the manipulation and control of information define the sacred and the profane, the ``in`` group and the ``out`` group, us and them, the chosen and the damned. This ``knowledge`` is the basis for the groups` collective and individual relationships with outsiders. It is the philosophical and moral foundation for activities which fall along a continuum ranging from charities fraud, and character assassination to racial hatred and genocide and terrorist acts. Outsiders and backsliders are judged against an absolute standard of moral purity. Their failure to measure up or their failure to acknowledge their depravity proves to the ``faithful`` that the barbarians are at the gates, that the ``running dogs of American Imperialism`` are lunging at the pristine throat of the various Islamic fundamentalist groups.

In a recent clinical study conducted by Belgium psychologists, a questionnaire of attitudes and psychological orientations aiming at measuring pathological hatred was presented to ninety Israeli and Palestinian terrorists for fill-in.

It was found that pathological hatred transforms from ego alien to ego familiar. Meaning, it doesn`t necessitate anymore a distorted and emotionally costly configuration of perceptions of reality in order to justify the violence that it motivates.

Pathological Hatred is defined as a constellation of 13 psychological dispositions forming a PERMANENT gratifying affect of which its target needs not to be individually identified (as is sexism and racism). In the context of pathological hatred, the reality of the attributed responsibility of a ``wound`` or ``threat`` is accessory because the pathological hater doesn`t seek to get rid of this affect - IT IS PERMANENT - on the contrary, it is ``the longest pleasure``.

If this is true, then a terrorist`s mind is on a overdrive and will not stop its actions of violence even if their demands are satisfied. If the present causes they are fighting for (Palestine, American presence in Middle East etc.) does not exist tomorrow, replacement causes will be found until one self-destructs.

So it seems that terrorism will exist as long as young lives are being exposed and nurtured to hate. Humans need to constantly be reminded about dangerous side effects of harboring hatred against something or someone. A simple message expressing hatred may foster long enough to lead into psychological sickness which is irreversible and eventually self destructive.

The first step towards addressing the issue of religion based terrorism at the root level is to stop using religion to foster hate (a paradox of religion), use uniform interpretation of scriptures (meaning of jihad, fatwa etc), and may be then we will see some changes in future.

Explaining it to an American Friend Hi Tahmed321,

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

Regards,

Joseph

Explaining it to an American Friend Hi SaminaShah,

Your sentiments are well understood and sincerely accepted :).

Regards,

Joseph

Explaining it to an American Friend Hi SaminaShah,

My observation is not in reference to average Arab/Asian Muslim, as I very well understand their fear. And there is a wide campaign in America (started with Pres. Bush`s address to congress and now regular campaign in form of TV commercials etc.) to educate people on racial tolerance and to refrain from hate crime. Is there such effort in Arab Islamic community to urge people to rise and stand up against those fellow followers of Islam who use name of Islam to commit crimes? If it is, it is not visible.

It is also true that vast numbers of these intolerance incidences are reported happening in University campuses. Hope it was just an initial response of anger, thus totally unjustifiable. Now the American people do understand and forgive initial celebrations by Arabs in the streets of Palestine and streets of Paterson New Jersey.

So I am talking about the absence of leaders of Asian / Arabic Islamic religious groups of New York at this prayer gathering. I can assure you that City of New York must have asked them to join on that day. To be honest with you, Americans would like to have some form of assurance from these Arab communities that they, AS AMERICANS, do not help and support terrorists, who are believed to be Arabic or Asian Muslims, who are still believed to be on US soil and do have support of these type of communities, may be inadvertently.

Is there any organized effort on behalf of Asian-Islamic leaders to address these concerns of Americans, and also any effort to educate their fellow community members to not support those who engage in terrorist activities?

Yes, I admire courage of those who do not change their beliefs and appearance simply because of fear. And I would admire their courage more if they would stand up against their own who claim their way of Islam is right.

I am a New Yorker, and I have lost friends in this terrorist act. Mike and Paul who worked at WTC with whom I have enjoyed countless Saturday morning runs in Central Park are still missing (not giving up hope). And then there are friends who work on Wall Street and are lucky to escape the horror. Needless to say, as a Chowkie and as an American I am right in the middle of this, physically and emotionally.

Regards,

Joseph

Explaining it to an American Friend Yesterday, at the prayers for America held at the Yankee stadium, one could not help but observe the absence of a religious representation from significantly large Islamic Arabic community in NY metro area. Islam was represented, but by followers in the USA, who are African Americans and not Arab Americans. I am not sure if this is due to fear of retaliation from the Islamic hard liners or their deep down hatred for America, but Asian Islam by and large failed to stand up and act on the words they have been preaching since last two weeks.

Explaining it to an American Friend Hi Pat (PM),

Thanks for responding. To be honest, I wrongfully perceived these articles as means of making statements, and not to expect a response. This site has proven that it is not run by dogmatic minds, and therefore not driven by any agenda.

To the world: ``here is a good example of true Islam``

Americans by and large believe that terrorism is an act of violence which is based on perception and ideology of few people or organizations. e.g. American militia, KKK, Irish republican Army, Al-quida, RSS, Hamas etc. These are the minorities who choose to divert from being part of the society and its rules and instead of differing with views in civilized manner, resort to violence.

American involvement in Iraq war was after the fact that invasion of Kuwait had taken place. A mistake of bombing a pharma plant in Sudan is a lesson well learned and as a result no immediate reaction on Afghanistan yet. Americans do not blindly agree with Gov. decision on war. Vietnam is a prime example. But Americans have learned along the way that, like it or not, if we do not stand for freedom and peace, even if it is not on their motherland, it will sooner or later affect them. Americans are convinced that even if USA pulls out of gulf region and even if land of Israel is given to Palestine, these fanatics will not be satisfied and will not stop there. Why? A cruel fact of history: fanatics in the name of religion (Islam and Christianity) are the sole reason of destruction since atleast last 2000 years. It`s a trait of human nature we unfortunately have not been able to evolve out of yet.

So, collectively, all Muslims have a big responsibility to stand up for the shake of humanity and show the world what true Islam is: (not the one shown by Osama at el). It is time to condemn fanatics, not Islam. Take a clue from America`s fight against American militia groups and KKK. If people stand up without fear, no such group can thrive at the extent of being capable of massive destruction.

And pat, judging from the world reaction, it seems you will have lots of support from people of all religions, including atheists.

Regards,

Joseph

Explaining it to an American Friend Pat,

The responsibility is not only on fanatics who claim they are muslims, but also on people (muslim, christian, atheist, whatever) of those countries in whose country these cowards have set up cells. It is time to stand up for humanity`s sake and oppose these fanatics, rather than justify historically why these bafoons act like this.

Fanatics are in every religion, but only Islam has trouble controlling their bafoons. KKK in USA can not get enough support from public like islamic fanatics are getting. You see, finally it boils down to majority of people who can shape up a society or culture. Be brave and help the humanity. Americans still can not understand why civilians of these contries can not rise to the challenge. Americans understands why these fanatics are behaving badly, but sorry, there is no justification to their rationale.