Anti-Zionism or Anti-Imperialism is not Anti-Semitism or Bigotry

Due to Barack Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East, Israel again becomes as an often discussed topic. Though, I personally cannot remember a time when Israel was not an important foreign relations matter. In that time, it seems two groups have been created, those for Israel “Friends of Israel” and those against Israel “Anti-Semites.” This rhetorical device is of course very deadly to open discourse and that is all that it is, a rhetorical device. Criticizing Saudi Arabia’s policies does not make one an “Anti-Arab,” likewise, criticizing Israel’s policies does not make one an anti-Semite. I have been accused of this countless times over the past few years and the tactic is getting rather annoying.

The case against the Zionism is not the case against all Jews, just those who buy into Zionist philosophy. One finds that during criticism of Israeli Government/Zionism, one could just as well be arguing against Imperialism. Make no mistake about it, Zionism is by definition an imperialistic philosophy. The entire purpose of Zionism is imperial, and the logic behind the Zionist philosophy boils down to that of superiority (essentially bigotry) and special rights (some sort of stone-age religious theology). Those two factors are essential to imperialism. A quick study of modern imperial states reveals that those two factors remain consistent. The most extreme example of this being by the Nazis. Imperialism at all times requires a large and lengthy justification and to my knowledge, it has rarely, if ever, been properly and appropriately justified.

Quite Shocking Isn't It?

That of course remains the case with Zionism and actually Zionism is an extreme case of poor justification. It imposes harsh restrictions and unjust laws on the Palestinian people, settlements within Palestinian territory without any justification other than pure greed. A map that overlooks the Israel-Palestine territory distribution from say, 1940 to 2000 illustrates that point in such a way that no words can compete. If one would like to state concisely what Israel has done and is currently doing, it would go something like this: “The unjustified confiscation of lands by an illegal occupying state-sponsor of terrorism.” I should state that, by unjustified I do not mean that no argument has been put forth, but the arguments themselves are embarrassingly bad. It is a surprise that people can deliver them with a straight face.

The first argument they begin with is, Jews deserve a homeland and therefore the land of their far distant ancestors is the only logical one. The first half of the argument is a sentiment that I agree with, of course a large population of people should have some sort of “homeland” which they can claim as their own. My issue with the argument is second half which chooses its location. In this case, god seems to be the ultimate imaginary and invisible real estate agent. So it seems, god is incompetent at another job as he also promised the same bit of rather poor land to another people, convinced that their prophet transferred at Palestine on route to Heaven to have Sunday Brunch with Jesus, Moses and a couple other blokes (one of them being god). I suppose in the current state of matters, it is a useless endeavor to question the argument for the location of the Jewish homeland as it already is there and that’s not going to change anytime soon. So the argument I have to battle against is slightly different now. The question is, how can one bring peaceful coexistence into a land that peace has rarely ever remained constant. Well… the obvious solution is and always has been a Two State Solution. We have two different people and both are making claim to the same land, therefore cut the land in half, draw up some reasonable borders and call it a day. Of course, if it were that simple I would have no need to write at length about this subject.

Recently, the Israeli Government under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a two-state solution with for main stipulations.

1. Demilitarized Palestine
2. Unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State
3. Jerusalem as an only Israeli ruled territory
4. No Right of Return for Palestinian People

In response to the notion of a demilitarized Palestine. This sort of request is absurd beyond belief, it implies the notion that the Palestinian people do not deserve nor have the right to a military force that can resist aggressive Israeli Expansion on the West Bank. It makes very little sense to say, “the only way we will accept you as a neighboring nation is if you have no chance of ever undermining our imperialistic policies.” Netanyahu also stated that settlement building in the West Bank would still occur, but perhaps not as aggressively as before. What nonsense! So, Israel wants to strip Palestine of its only form of a defense in order for it to be accepted as a legitimate neighbor? The next notion is rather difficult for me to disagree with at this stage in the game, but I suppose those who have had their land stolen and their homes seized have a much more difficult time recognizing Israel. To the notion that Jerusalem should only be ruled by the Israeli government, Netanyahu seems to forget (perhaps purposely) that those Palestinians have just as much an equal claim to that land (perhaps even more so, since it was recently legally Palestinian land). Sure the city of Jerusalem plays a big role in the Jewish theology, but it plays a just as big a role in Muslim theology. The denial of right of return is perhaps the most disgusting stipulation out the four. How dare they ask the Palestinian people to self-relinquish their right to their own land, and let us not forget that the Palestinian right of return is fully legal under international law. One could go as far as to say international law demands the right of return for refugees.

Again and again, we see that anti-Zionism and also anti-Israeli Government is not antisemitism nor is it any other form of bigotry. Rather, the general notion of anti-Zionism and opposition to the policies of the current Israeli Government is simply coming into defense of basic human liberties. I do not hate the Jewish people, I just ask that their government begin acting as if they respect the human rights and dignity of someone other than their citizens.

Secularism is Incompatible with Islam

With the recent surge in Islamic-terrorist activities in Pakistan (my place of birth), I have been discussing the difficulties of secularism in the Muslim world quite frequently. I recently attended the Center for Inquiry’s World Congress, during this conference, there was a very interesting panel discussion on Secularism and Islam. The discussion itself was a total failure on the basis of my expectations, as only the first speaker, Ibn Warraq was even remotely interesting. Two of the other speakers, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University (Pakistan) and Tarek Fatah a secular Muslim and Canadian political activist seemed to be advocating for Western encouragement of “Liberal/Secular Muslims.” Such a label begs the question, is it possible for a “Secular Muslim” to even exist? As you can tell from the title of this article, my response is, absolutely not.

The quick and easy solution to this question is to search Islam (mainly the Qur’an) for a justification for secularism, or the opposite, theocracy. That quest is a rather short one as Islam not only advocates for an Islamic state but even has provisions on how to tax the non-believing elements (Jews and Christians, not Atheists) of society. Islam is very clear on this matter, it states in no uncertain terms, that the day will come when the entire world will face Mecca and pray. Mecca will be the center of the world, much like it is the center of Islam. There is absolutely no justification within the Qur’an or any other Islamic tradition for anything but theocracy. In fact, the very notion of the word secularism is unheard of in the language of Arabic. The direct translation of secularism translates into a word that is inherently thought of as “against-Islam” rather than the common connotations of the English word.  So the question is no longer if one can promote secularism on a Islamic platform, but rather, how does one do it without seeming directly antagonistic to Islam?

That question has puzzled secularists throughout the Muslim world for at least a hundred years if not more. Pakistan, a nation established primarily to ensure protection for a large minority was not intended to be an Islamic state. Rather, the goal was for a nation for Muslims. There is a very big difference between those two, as the former is a theocracy and the latter can potentially become a secular nation. As we see today, Pakistan is losing the battle to religious extremists and at this point unless something totally unexpected happens (which is possible given the instability) it is likely that Pakistan will become more of an Islamic state rather than a secular state. The issue for the Pakistani government (which is of course extremely corrupt) is how to combat religious extremists without bringing religion into the debate. If they bring religion into national discourse, it is impossible for them to win, even if they have a better argument. So how does one go about battling extremists who are fueled by religion without cutting off their fuel supply? The only good tactic that actually works is to expose the religious extremists as unsophisticated individuals who would be the much worse of two evils when compared to the secular and already established government. As we see in Gaza Strip, Hamas and other such terrorist groups are not very popular amongst the people, but they are the only choice that the people have. Unfortunately in the case of Pakistan, the government is so corrupt and has been that way for so many years that it is questionable if they are better than those religious extremists.

The Muslim leaders of the future really do have an unsustainable conflict and contradiction within their society. If they really want to accept modernity, it begins by removing Islam from the public domain and placing it within the private domain. How to go about that task (if its even possible at this point) begins with education and the proper treatment of women (equal rights). But of course, that is only the starting point and as of right now, not a single Muslim country is even close.

Diary of an ex-Muslimah

As an ex-Muslim myself, I love to read articles from fellow ex-Muslims. One of the main reasons that I maintain this blog is to provide those within the Muslim faith (particularly women) with some food for thought. Personally, I can understand why a male would follow a misogynistic faith, but there is no possible excuse for a woman to do the same.

So, to cut to the chase, check out this blog from a fellow ex-Muslim. Its quite well written and very original.

Dairy of an ex-Muslimah

Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction

A few weeks ago, I was discussing the Hindu practice of sati with a fellow classmate in school. I was beginning steer the talk into the direction of the relationship of certain religions and the lack of women rights. The minute I mentioned Islam, someone who had been sitting around apparently eavesdropping on the conversation interjected with the common phrase of “its the culture not religion.” As the discussion was now between three people, I learned she was a self-described “Afghani Muslim Feminist.” Immediately, perhaps rudely, I interjected that a “Islamic Feminism” is a contradiction in terms. It seems she was not ready for such a retort and she looked dumb founded for a moment, gave me dirty look, and got up and left. Though, it is notable that she did not wear the Qur’an-mandated hijab, and so to me it was obvious that she probably was one of those who cherry-picked verses out of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, this ability to simply brush off criticism and act if it never happened is extremely common with religious folk, and even more so the case with Muslims.

I have already gone through and discussed specific passages of the Qur’an. So, I will not do that again, but just to summarize, in one chapter alone (the fourth), the Qur’an states that women are inferior to men, are worth half as much with regards to property, and creates the justification for the subjugation of women. Men are allowed to beat their wives and lock them away until they submit to them. In the following chapters it reinforces this imaginary inequality by forcing them to wear veils and references fairy tales that would be despicable to any person of reasonable morals. From what I have experienced, there are only two ways that Muslims attempt to get around it. The first is the assertion that I am taking passages out of context, this of course can mean two things. Either historical context or literary context. In the case of historical context, the argument is completely void as the Qur’an is the final revelation, and what ever was true for then, is true for eternity (or until judgement day). In the case of literary context, it is a bit more tricky, but nowhere near a convincing argument as, the overwhelming theme of the Qur’an establishes a separation between man and woman, even if it is not for purposes of superiority/inferiority, it is always clearly stated that men and women are not equal, and it goes on to say that women are inferior. So, it is not the case that I am taking the passages out of context, and thus the first objection is done with. The second objection is an odd one, but it is very common. It is usually coupled with criticism of Arabs. It happens to be the case that the Islam not only creates the inequality between men and women, but Arabs and Non-Arabs as well. So the argument goes, this female suppression is due to Arab-culture influence. This is often espoused by those liberal Muslims who are attempting to go against the grain and secularize Muslim countries (notably not the Arab countries). I do not think I need to insult the intelligence of those who read this by criticizing that point.

I hear this argument of “its the culture not the religion…” or “its the people, not the religion…” so often I feel I should address it again. To make sure I do not run into the same criticism again, I will concede (far more than I need to), that perhaps pure Islam does not contain the most vile sexist nonsense, and that it is indeed entirely a construct of local culture. Now, to be clear, I do not in anyway hold that position, and I am conceding it merely for the sake of argument. Now, the argument would go “don’t criticize the religion, but rather the culture/people.”  The minute one attempts to criticize the person who engaged in say, the forced marriage of a 6 year old girl to a 40 year old man, they automatically turn to the life of Muhammed as justification. There are only two ways to counter that, either to say, Islam is wrong or, it doesn’t really say that. In either case, it is impossible to avoid Islam in the conversation. It happens to be the case that, Islam does create the justification for a man to marry a young girl, and for me that leaves only one response. Islam is wrong.

Islam is not a religion of peace and it does not give respect to women, for respect is not something that can just be “given.” Islam does the exact opposite of giving respect to women, it belittles their intellect and treats them as the property of men. It was originally intended to favor the interests of the illiterate and disgusting men who created it. While it may be convenient for a male such as myself to support something so clearly in my favor, it just would not be intellectually honest. Karl Marx once said… “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social Progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex…” These words were true then, and remain true to this day. If we atheists and rationalists are serious about changing society, working to support the global feminist cause is absolutely crucial to success.

My “spiritual” Journey, Part 1 (Marxism)

As a young child raised within a Muslim household and community, the notion of non-belief is regarded as high treason or more appropriately, apostasy. Luckily for myself, when I was younger, I rarely (if ever) gave any thought to religion. It was simply one of the constants of my life. I was far more interested in cars, cartoons and sports. I was never truly opposed to the idea of Islam either, in fact, I can specifically remember joyfully fasting during the “holy” month of Ramadan, and more over, I genuinely equated Islam with morality and decency. I can now look back and laugh at how horribly wrong I was about Islam and just how much the exact opposite was true.

I remember when I was around the age of 7, my mother had paid for a Mullah from the local neighborhood mosque to come and teach my siblings and I the Qur’an. I personally did not like this instructor very much as his presence meant less time for me to play video games or other fun activities. Now that I look back, he was quite harsh and really there really was not any positive qualities about the man. Though, these few years of religious instruction were cut far shorter than my mother would have liked them to be. Unlike my cousins and other relatives, there was quite the strife in my family between my father and mother on the topic of religion. My mother, coming from a background of extremely devout and generally decent people was and still is quite religious, as is much of her family. My father has been a lifelong liberal in just about every aspect of life. He did not really follow any sort of rigid ritualistic aspect to Islam, as he regarded such behavior as the antithesis to an intellectual person. As a young man, living in the extremely religious climate of Pakistan (a nation primarily established for religious reasons) he stood out like a black sheep. He wrote poetry that was often rejected without a proper reading simply due to its provocative nature. He also had a great deal of friends amongst the huge Marxist (or in other terms, young intellectual atheists) though one could not quite describe my father as full Atheist or a Marxist, rather a Deist and a Socialist. Looking back, this difference in my parents religious views seem to be the early roots of my current non-belief.

Well, this sort of cultural Islam and continued for many years. I never really gave religion a second thought, it was just there and the notion of it ever leaving were just not conceivable (nor desired). This period of time finally ended at the age of 13. I remember walking with my grandfather (from my mothers side) to the local mosque one day. He said to me, “Now that you are reaching an age of maturity, it is time for you to take religion much more seriously.” So, I almost immediately acted upon his words and began the shift from a cultural Muslim (essentially, a Muslim by no choice of their own) to a practicing Muslim. I began to read the five daily prayers, and reread the Qur’an in Arabic. I tried to live my life as closely to what I thought a proper Muslim should, which is quite difficult living in the Western world. As you may already know, I am not one for half-measures. I may begin with moderate stances, but rarely do they ever remain. They often become more and more extreme, until they really cannot go any further. By the age of 15, I was quite the religious fellow. I read the daily prayers, had completed the Qur’an in Arabic countless times and I even annoyed my father until he would finally drive me to the local mosque. I remember feeling a sort of hatred for Western culture as it was becoming more and more anti-Islamic (this is post 9/11). The odd thing about this time of extreme devout belief was that my father actually attempted to take credit for my religiousness (some sort of bizarre logic that basically said that his lack of harsh instruction led me to love Islam) and my mother also attempted to take credit for this “blessing from Allah” as she put it.

Around this period of time, I began to research my country of birth, Pakistan, and its leaders. This study led me to the discovery of Zulifkar Ali Bhutto. A man that was the idol of my father (though I had never known until I mentioned him to my father). Bhutto was quite good friends with another leader in the Islamic world, Muammar Al-Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi, a self described “Islamic Socialist” is another interesting figure. Ghadaffi stood for essentially, anti-West, anti-European principles, and this was very attracting to a young liberal Muslim. I was quite knowledgeable on the Islamic aspect of Ghadaffi, but not the Socialist aspect. This is when I began to research Marxism, Communism and came to a startling discovery. For the Marxist worldview, god was dead and more accurately, god was never alive. I tried to reconcile this notion of Marxist/Liberal thought which I had now come to favor with my belief, but it was impossible. Atheism is a prerequisite for Marxism, and if any of the two had to go, it was most certainly going to be my religious belief. Even though I was a very devout believer in Allah and Islam, I was also very much more inclined to the notion that political and economic change in societies is far more important than the religious belief. Though, letting go of faith and belief is far more difficult than just that. Even though I tried to move forward and reject god for the sake of consistency, Marxism really only ended the cultural and ritualistic aspects of Islam that I followed, not my belief in god. To remove that, I would need something much more powerful than Marxism, science.

I had attempted to write this down before, but, I want to give it another go. Part two (science) of three, coming soon...