Fast internet: An Outpost of Western Imperialism


Another outpost of Western imperialism has been demolished in Iran! Long Live Ayatollahs.



====================================================

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1924637,00.html
Iran bans fast internet to cut west's influence
· Service providers told to restrict online speeds
· Opponents say move will hamper country's progress
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday October 18, 2006The Guardian

Iran's Islamic government has opened a new front in its drive to stifle domestic political dissent and combat the influence of western culture - by banning high-speed internet links.
In a blow to the country's estimated 5 million internet users, service providers have been told to restrict online speeds to 128 kilobytes a second and been forbidden from offering fast broadband packages. The move by Iran's telecommunications regulator will make it more difficult to download foreign music, films and television programmes, which the authorities blame for undermining Islamic culture among the younger generation. It will also impede efforts by political opposition groups to organise by uploading information on to the net.

The order follows a purge on illegal satellite dishes, which millions of Iranians use to clandestinely watch western television. Police have seized thousands of dishes in recent months.
The latest step has drawn condemnation from MPs, internet service companies and academics, who say it will hamper Iran's progress. "Every country in the world is moving towards modernisation and a major element of this is high-speed internet access," said Ramazan-ali Sedeghzadeh, chairman of the parliamentary telecommunications committee. "The country needs it for development and access to contemporary science."

Iran has not responded to a western incentive package that includes the offer of state-of-the-art internet technology in return for the suspension of a key part of the country's nuclear programme.

A petition branding the high-speed ban as "backward and unprincipled" bearing more than 1,000 signatures is to be sent to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Scores of websites and blogs are censored using hi-tech US-made filtering equipment. Iran filters more websites than any other country apart from China. High-speed links can be used with anti-filtering devices to access filtered sites.

The telecoms regulator declined to explain the decision but said it was taken by "a collection of policy-makers". However, Etemad, a pro-reformist newspaper, suggested it was part of an official campaign to stem a western "cultural invasion".

"Unpleasant whispers are saying that the motivations behind the scenes are the same as those involved in the purging of satellite dishes," the paper wrote.

Parastoo Dokoohaki, a prominent Iranian blogger, said the move was designed to foil the government's opponents. "If you want to announce a gathering in advance, you won't see it mentioned on official websites and newspapers would announce it too late. Therefore, you upload it anonymously and put the information out. Banning high-speed links would limit that facility. Despite having the telecoms facilities, fibre-optic technology and internet infrastructure, the authorities want us to be undeveloped."

The crackdown comes in an atmosphere of increasing restrictions on the media. Last week, Mr Ahmadinejad launched a fierce attack on the head of the state broadcasting organisation, IRIB, which he blamed for stoking public fears about inflation. Iran's leading reformist newspaper, Shargh, was also closed last month.

Culture-less Religiosity


Dr. Manzur Ejaz has raised a pertinent issue. I wonder if this "culture-less" religioisty is the prime reason that makes Paksitanis, especially Punjabis and Urdu-speaking, more susceptible to radical Islam, compared to Muslims to other nationalities.


Umar

====================================================

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\18\story_18-10-2006_pg3_3

The question of one’s heritage becomes much more complex when one rears children on an alien land. That is why the entire graying generation of Pakistani expatriates worries about the future of their next generation on a foreign land, in an alien culture. They dread that the future generations will become strangers to their culture and their heritage.

While this agony is shared by all expatriates whether they come from Germany or Timbuktu, I wonder about Pakistanis, particularly Punjabi Muslims and even the Urdu-speaking: what culture would they want their children to imbibe? Is culture merely a function of practicing religious rituals or these groups mistakenly consider these rituals as manifesting culture; do they have anything additional?

When I look at the Arabs or the Indians, even Europeans, I know what kind of a culture they want to transfer to their new generations. They have peculiar musical, artistic and other cultural expressions. However, when I see Pakistanis I don’t see anything else but religious rituals. Their cultural expression begins and ends with Milad Sharifs. And, if religious rituals are all that matters, fundamentalists are doing a good job on the US campuses to enhance the number of breaded young men and hijab-wrapped women. The coming generations of immigrants, who are not willing to accept religious rituals in the name of culture, have nowhere to go but get lost in the American culture. The older generation is clueless and empty of any culture; it has nothing to share with them.

One step forward, two back

Hoodbhoy says it very well.


http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/12/op.htm#1

Musharraf and his generals are determined to stay in power. They will protect the source of their power — the army. They will accommodate those they must — the Americans. They will pander to the mullahs. They will crush those who threaten their power and privilege, and ignore the rest. No price is too high for them. They are the reason why Pakistan fails.

Modernization of Gender Relations


An interesting take on modernization of gender relations in Muslim societies...


Umar

======================================================

How relations between men and women have been 'modernized'
by Tamim al-Barghouti - Special to The Daily Star
The Daily Star, Lebanon
May 25, 2004

ARAB HISTORY AND IDENTITY

It is almost taken for granted among Arabs and foreigners alike that the Arab Islamic culture is one of the most conservative and forbidding in the world when it comes to relations between men and women. Such conservatism, it is often argued, results in a schizophrenic society that lusts for the things it condemns, and condemns the things it lusts for.

In the Western, Orientalist imagination, Muslim women are either ghosts covered from head to toe in black gowns or half naked belly-dancers in the harems of princes and sultans. Joseph-Marie Moiret, a Captain in Napoleon's Egyptian and Palestinian expeditions, described Arab women as ugly, not of the type that would attract a Frenchman's attention, as they walked around in their veils; however, he devoted a few pages of his memoirs to tell the story of a Georgian concubine,well guarded and kept in the palace of a Muslim merchant. Not only does the concubine attract the Frenchman's attention, she becomes his obsession about how woman should look like. Of course, according to Captain Moiret, the woman falls in love, and asks him to take her to France.

The story is most probably a fantasy, added to the book so that itcould have a wider readership among the newly born citizens of romantic French nationalism. The Captain wrote that he used to meet the gorgeous concubine every day because her master contracted him to teach her French. In a time when only blind old men were allowed toteach concubines, and only little boys were allowed to serve them,the Captain's story becomes less than credible. Yet it is still very telling. The exotic belly dancer that the European invader invents is crying to be liberated. Just as the Egyptian nation, as opposed to the Islamic Umma, was a Napoleonic invention to make the Turks and Mamlouks look like invaders and the French as liberators. And just like the early liberal nationalisms in the Middle East, what was a European image of the 18th and 19th centuries became a historical reality in the 20th.

The economic realities of the so-called modernization process in theArab world achieved little more than establishing long-term dependencies and institutionalized poverty. This economic change created its own socio-ethical superstructure. Unlike what many people think, the forbidding nature of the relations between men and womenin modern Arab societies, and the consequent schizophrenic phenomenon of condemning what we long for, is not the product of Islam; rather,it is the product of modernization. In Islam, the act of marriage has been as simple as making and breaking relationships between boyfriends and girlfriends; the only difference is that it is documented and announced. Since marriage in the Christian tradition is a holy bond - and in most sects, unbreakable - having relations outside marriage was seen in Europe as just another triumph of the secular over the ecclesiastical. Such a differentiation did not exist in pre-colonial Arab Islamic societies.

Islamic marriage is not a holy bond, rather, it is contract. It only requires the acceptance of the bride and the groom, and the presence of two witnesses. Any number of conditions could be added to the contract. The woman, for example, can set any condition from statingthat her husband will not have the right to marry another woman, to stating that he cannot wear certain clothes and vice versa. The man has to pay a certain amount of money to the woman in case of divorce,but that amount, as is the case with any contract, is negotiated.Once that issue is settled, divorce becomes as easy as saying the word. Throughout the pre-colonial era, men and woman used to get married, divorced and remarried frequently; relations between men and women were a social reality rather than an obsession.

With modernization, Islamic marriage started to look more and morelike Catholic marriage. While modernity presented Arab societies with a lot of needs, it provided them with very few means to meet them. As in Europe, large families could not be sustained anymore. But unlike Europe, which was wealthy enough to sustain extra-marital relations, the Arab world could not. The institution of the single-parent family could not be economically sustained by the society, where it took at least two people working - indoors or outdoors - to raise a child. Marriage became a set of rituals intended to make it the most difficult step in a youth's life, and one almost impossible to repeat.

As the economic consequences of dependency - namely poverty - grewharsher, men and women had to wait more before they were able to have enough money to get married. And, since the society could not, as mentioned above, bear the cost of pre- or extra-marital relations,delaying marriage meant delaying any form of physical interaction with the other sex. This of course, created all kinds of schizophrenic views of women among men, and vice versa. Again, like the nation-state and other products of the colonial era, Arabs had no choice but to retain the form, rather than the essence. Just as some Arab states are hollow of any meaning of independence, many Arab marriages are hollow of the meaning of love and compassion. Even in the most intimate area of human life, the colonial legacy left its finger prints.

Tamim al-Barghouti is a Palestinian poet. He writes a regular feature for The Daily Star

Enlightenment: Post-Modernist Version

There goes the "post-modernist" version of Enlightenment! "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" sacrificed at the altar of political expedience.

French legislators are bent on making the denial of Armenian genocide a penal offence. Voltaire must be rolling in his grave!

To the people who are for banning "offensive"speech, I'd say they should lead by example. Their speech is offensive to me.

"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. " ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Wikipedia founder plans rival

By Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: October 16 2006 22:08 Last updated: October 16 2006 22:08

One of the founders of Wikipedia is days away from launching a rival to the collaborative internet encyclopaedia, in an attempt to bring a more orderly approach to organising knowledge online.

Wikipedia – which is available to be written and edited by anyone on the internet – is one of the most visible successes of mass collaboration on the web, with many of its 1.4m articles appearing high in search results.

However, its openness has also drawn charges of unreliability and left it vulnerable to disputes between people with opposing views, particularly on politically sensitive topics.

The latest venture from Larry Sanger, who helped create Wikipedia in 2001, is intended to bring more order to this creative chaos by drawing on traditional measures of authority. Though still open to submissions from anyone, the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as a group of volunteer “constables”, charged with keeping the peace between warring interests.

Accusing Wikipedia of failing to control its writers and editors, he said: “The latest articles don't represent a consensus view – they tend to become what the most persistent ‘posters’ say.”
Mr Sanger said he had financial backing from an unidentified foundation for his new venture, while a web hosting company was providing its services free. He said he became frustrated with Wikipedia's failure to build expertise into its editing process and left after its first year.
Since then, the encyclopedia's other founder, Jimmy Wales, has taken some steps to bring more order to the Wikipedia approach, although he has avoided using authority figures such as editors.

Asked in an e-mail exchange how such disagreements should be resolved, Mr Wales replied: “With strong support for individual rights, and respect for reason.” His e-mail went on: “It is the fundamental responsibility of every individual to- think-, to- judge-, to-decide-. We must never abdicate that responsibility, not to the collective, not to Britannica, not to Wikipedia, not to anyone.”

Mr Sanger said volunteers would be able to become editors of his encyclopedia, called Citizendium, if they can show “minimum levels of qualification, based on real-world measures.”
This would be an “imperfect but effective” test based on “degrees, professional society memberships, things like that”.

Citizendium will be open “within the next few days” to a limited number of invited editors and members of the public who apply, and will be made generally available by the end of the year, said Mr Sanger.

It is likely to take Citizendium some time to prove whether it can create a better online encyclopedia. It will begin by simply taking over all of the existing entries from Wikipedia, then start the laborious job of having them filtered by expert editors – a job Mr Sanger called “a clean-out of the Augean stables”.

(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html)

Two Nobel Laureates from Muslim world

There are two Muslim names among the Nobel Laureates of this year: Orhan Pamuk for Literature and Muhammad Yunus for Peace. Out of these two, the latter was undoubtedly long overdue for the recognition of his marvelous work. (This should not be taken as belittling of the literary genius of Pamuk). Dr. Yunus’s “mico-finance” initiative has helped lot of Bangladeshi poor, especially the women, stand on their feet.

Here is the video link of a talk Dr. Yunus gave at MIT’s Poverty Action Lab.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/289/

Inquiring minds are encouraged to explore.

Philosophy Games

An interesting place for mind-consuming. :)

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/


Especially, take a look at "Battleground God" - a philosophical critique of God thesis.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Islam and Science

This article is but old, and can be accessed here:

http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/shafaat4.htm

The tone of the article is quite moderate compared to the typical "Islamic" articles. For example, unlike most of the"true believers", the author does not dismiss secular humanism as "devil's creation"; instead he begs it not to be taken as "the only way". He seems to be addressing "un-orthodox" audience.

This strict division between villains and heroes, as is often the case, proves to be mistaken under scrutiny. Thus one "orthodox villain" Ibn Taymiyah considered another "orthodox villain" al- Ghazali as misguided.

So what impact it has on the "orthodox" credentials of either IbnTaymiyah or Ghazali? "Orthodoxy" is hardly monolithic. "Orthodox" folks have strong divisions among themselves along confessional and sectarian lines but in spite of their mutual disputes, they DO share certain traits: authoritarianism, dogmatism, aversion torationality, patriarchal chauvinism, fear of diversity etc. Let's not go too far in history and take recent examples. Iran and Afghanistan (under Taliban) both were Islamic theocracies but they were at loggerheads and were about to go to war against each other.But their sectarian and political differences don't make any ofthem "un-orthodox".

The author claims that people like Ghazali and Allama Iqbal were not all opposed to rational methods and instead they widely employed rational methods in their discourses. He seems to miss the pointthat the "orthodox" don't reject rationality in toto, what theySTRONGLY reject is independence of rationality. Rationality, by itsvery definition, is opposed to authority. A "rationalist"concentrates at "what is that", not on "who said that". A "rationalist" entertains an argument based on facts and logic, not because they have been uttered by Mufti Einstein or Allama Stephen Hawking. On the other hand, the whole enterprise of "orthodoxy"rests on authority. What has been said by prophets and saints isimmutable and unchallengeable. You don't think first and conclude later, but you have a pre-determined faith-based conclusion in your mind and all you do is to seek rational justification for that.That's what is called "scholasticism". Scholasticism does not reject reason in toto, it rejects INDEPENDENCE of reason to seek facts. It is aimed at make rationality subservient to its belief-system.People like Iqbal and Ghazali were "scholastics", not "rationalists". Of course, Mu'tazilities were also not "rationalists" in modern sense but at least they were moving in the direction, which if left unhindered, would have established independence of rational thought in Muslim world.

The rationalists Mu'tazilites were in power when the "orthodox" Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others were tortured for their views on the nature of the Qur`an and eventually killed.

Yes, Mu'tazilities didn't prove to be beacons of tolerance either,but they remained in power only for a brief period during reign of Mamoon-ur-Rashid. Compare it with the long, long period "orthodoxy"had their share of power period -- before as well as after the reignof Mamoon.

Later, the "orthodox" were in power and they seized one Abd al- Sallam in whose house were found books on philosophy, witchcraft, astrology, cults of the stars, and prayers addressed to the planets. At least the orthodox did not physically torture him, much less kill him. They simply burnt the books in his possession.

Pretty generous of orthodoxy! There is an apocryphal account about Hitler that he killed/exiled some Jewish scientists but preserved their books. Our fundos did quite opposite. They preserved the man and burnt his books. Cool, cool!

BTW, this claim that "orthodoxy" didn't torture or kill thedissidents is not well-founded. Remember what they did to Mansur Hallaj? Al-Kindi was about to be "martyred" by a religious mob but was saved by the intervention of Caliph. Ibn Rushd, the greatSpanish philosopher who is often compared to Spinoza, was physically beaten by "true believers" at one time and later he was exiled and of course, his books were burnt. Burning books remains the favorite hobby of fundamentalists to this day.

Now comes the author's grudge against secularism. (Not unexpected,of course).

As for the list of the bloody battles in which followers of various religions have been involved, certainly secularism has not prevented people from similarly bloody wars.

Well, secular states can be war-mongering as well as pacifist,authoritarian as well as democratic but religious states are ALWAYS authoritarian. Yes, religion in its essence an authoritarianinstitution; it requires its followers to obey, not question its edicts. If you assign state the responsibility to enforce religion,then you get nothing but draconian authoritarianism in return. You can't have freedom of thought, freedom of religion, gender equality, and democratic pluralism in a religion-based state. Religion serves its purpose best ONLY when it is left up to common people to enforce its dictums in their personal lives. It has been proven as much from history as from present circumstances.

Islamic civilization, after its present ruin, will once again vibrate with life as an authentically Islamic civilization, not only overcoming some of its deep problems but also guiding humanity to a vastly better alternative to the existing world order.

Unfortuntaley the author does not provide any substantial evidence to support his claim. He is re-iterating the cliché I have listend to upteenth time, and have been listening to since my adolescence. I just need to say that actions speak louder than words and the proof of pudding is in the eating.

Bliss is Sin

Religious fundamentalists, no matter what religion they adhere to, have one trait in common: they don't want human beings to enjoy their lives. Music, dance, fine arts – in fact, anything which can bring even the slightest degree of entertainment to common folks is synonymous to "sin" in their "prudish" diction. Taking lives of other people for the "glory of true faith" is, however, a perfectly "virtuous" deed in the eyes of these anti-music, anti-pleasure, anti-love, anti-life bigots.

In 2004, these self-styled custodians of "public morality" of "the land of the pure" forced Punjab Textbook Board to expunge a chapter about life of Caliph Umar from class X Urdu textbook. The chapter had some passages about Caliph's taste for music. Although the source of these passages was Shibli Nomani's famous book, "Al-Farooq", yet the "moral" brigade was insistent that the stuff "desecrated" the character of the Caliph and could have a "corrupting" effect on the minds of students.

To my utter surprise, I found some articles about music on the website of Aramco World. Bear in mind, Aramco World is the magazine of Saudi Aramco, the fountainhead of Saudi oil wealth, and nothing can get published in it without "clearance" from the heavily censorious Saudi authorities.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197603/the.world.of.islam-its.music.htm

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199406/exploring.flamenco.s.arab.roots.htm

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199901/days.of.song.and.dance.htm


An excerpt from the first article:

"Muslims of the golden age of Islamic music—from the eighth to the 10th century—were well aware of the artistic importance of their invention. Greek treatises on musical theory were part of the ambitious translation programs of the early caliphs, but soon Islamic philosophers and mathematicians were composing their own treatises along Islamic lines. In the brilliant culture of Baghdad under the Abassid caliphs, a deep knowledge of music was considered essential cultural equipment for any educated man, and the musicians themselves were expected to be men of wide cultivation and were highly rewarded. The theory and practice of music were discussed and codified, performances criticized and instruments improved in a manner resembling that of 17th-century Venice or 18th-century Vienna."

Ah !!!!! Those good old days !!!!

Hayy Ibn Yaqzan

Many critics consider Ibn Tufayl's philosophical work "Hayy Ibn Yaqzan" (Alive, Son of Awake) to be the first novel in any language. Ibn Tufayl was a prominent philosopher ofMuslim Spain towards the end of 12th century. "Hayy Ibn Yaqzan"is the story of a man born on a deserted island who finds himself occupied with the wonders of universe. This little novel became very popular among Western intellectuals because of its theme i.e reliance on reason to determine one's vision of life and rebuttal of organized religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,918454,00.html

"the manuscript was copied in Alexandria in 1303 by an unknownscribe, probably Jewish, as the script is annotated in Hebrew.Pococke Junior's translation was published in 1671 and there was animmediate stir. The Enlightenment was in full swing and the book, sub-titled "The Self-Taught Philosopher", addressed the notion of atabula rasa, an innocent mind developing through its own powers,which was absorbing John Locke. Locke refers eagerly to a meeting inLondon to discuss "this novelty" and three English translationsfollowed. Spinoza pressed successfully for a Dutch translation,Leibnitz enthused about the book, which went into German twice, andPococke's agent wrote from Paris: "I delivered a copy to the Sorbonnefor which they were very thankful, being much delighted with it."Then came Defoe, for whom the story married marvellously with thememoir of Alexander Selkirk, the real-life Crusoe. From Robinson'searly capture by Moors to the seldom-read sequel "Robinson Crusoe'sVision of the Angelic World", Tufayl's footprints mark the greatclassic."
------------------------------------------------------------

Those who want to have first hand experience with this novel can click here:

http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/pdf/bktxt/hayy.pdf

Trafficking in mockery

There is definitely no end to the humor in "the land of the pure" but on a bit serious note:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\12\story_12-10-2006_pg3_4

Laughing stock or not, Pakistanis at all levels could certainly benefit from a greater spirit of tolerance, coexistence and respect for the law and the due process, whether in cricket, in politics or in matters of state.

Could'nt agree more.......

Umar

Better the devil you know


That seems to be the line of thinking among many Westerners.


Umar

=======================================================

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\12\story_12-10-2006_pg3_1
EDITORIAL: General Musharraf is still riding high

After a one-hour-long meeting with President Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday, General David Richards, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, was careful not to repeat the sentiments of his subordinates in Afghanistan regarding Pakistan’s alleged support to the Taliban infiltrators. Indeed, he praised Pakistan’s “excellent cooperation” in the fight against terrorism. An official statement attributed to him noted that “the ISAF fully appreciates that a vast majority of the problems of Afghanistan emanate from within the country and have deep roots due to the fact that it has been highly unstable for over two decades”.

General Richards clarified that he was not mincing words and sending out lateral messages. He dismissed front-page reports in the foreign media that he had come to Islamabad to roll out some home truths — with proof — to President Musharraf. “That is not the reason for one moment that I came here,” he said, “I came here to further develop our relationship with the Pakistan Army. I don’t know of many countries that could possibly be doing more. Could Pakistan do more still? Yes, we all want to do more because we still have a problem”. For good measure, he also defended President Musharraf’s “agreement” in North Waziristan.

That’s exactly what happened when President Musharraf was in Washington recently. When he said tough things to his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, he didn’t reap many PR dividends with American audiences. But then President Bush unequivocally plumped for him and praised Pakistan for doing more than anyone else against terrorism. Thus, while the conservative Washington press thought Mr Karzai had presented a better case for his country than General Musharraf did for Pakistan, the official verdict was clearly in favour of general Musharraf. Now NATO, led by a British general, has abstained from criticising him, apart from a picayune reference to “we could all do more”, which can hardly be construed as criticism only of General Musharraf.

Interestingly, one reason for this divergence between media and official thinking in the West may have to do with the perception that Pakistan is so thoroughly rebellious and out of tune with required ground realities that dumping General Musharraf may be the most dangerous option of all. He is, after all, the only Pakistani leader who still speaks his mind about the backwardness of some of the retrogressive practices many Pakistanis insist on hugging. And he is the only one who is at least promising to fight Islamic radicalism, even though he has failed to deliver on any of the “enlightened” projects he started some years ago. After the fiasco of the anti-women and anti-minorities hudood laws, it has become clear to the world that not even the ruling PMLQ, which agrees with General Musharraf’s 2001 volte face against the Taliban, has the will to initiate lawmaking that can save Pakistan from being engulfed by the black hole of a medieval worldview.

The United States acknowledges that it is General Musharraf who has surrendered hundreds of Al Qaeda terrorists to it and gone into Waziristan to flush out foreign terrorists, even though the campaign hasn’t succeeded as envisaged. Therefore if we look closely at what the general run of thinking in Pakistan is, the US and its allies are probably agreed that letting General Musharraf fall may, far from leading to an improvement, worsen the situation in Pakistan. In short, there is no immediate and workable ‘alternative’ to General Musharraf in the country. And judging from his last outing in the United States as well as his memoir, we are compelled to think that he knows this too. After all, General Abizaid of CENTCOM came and went away singing General Musharraf’s praises; now General Richards of NATO has more or less repeated his act.

But at home the reactions among President Musharraf’s erstwhile supporters have been dipping into the negative. A group of “neutral” members of the ruling party got together with some respectable citizens recently and wrote him a letter asking him to make his presidency legal by doffing his uniform. The “dual office” act has overshot its obsolescence date by two years. Then a group of retired generals who sincerely supported his efforts to pull Pakistan back from the precipice wrote to ask him to change his “forward” policy before the provinces become totally alienated from the central government. This alienation at home — demonstrated by the PMLQ’s gradual and muffled revolt — is in sharp contrast to the plaudits he is getting in the West.

The fact is that President Musharraf’s external supporters are being relativist about what to do with him. They compare him to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states that may be in sympathy with what the radical Arab street thinks, whereas General Musharraf seems to be walking in the opposite direction of modernity, compromise and moderation. They feel the heat of popular hatred rising from the whole region and are scared of having to face conflict with Iran while Afghanistan and Iraq are still on fire and steadily killing American troops. What if Pakistan were to join the conflagration? Everyone in Pakistan is predicting it, but no one is offering leadership that can save the country if it comes about. That is why General Musharraf is still the best option in the eyes of many Westerners and Pakistanis abroad even though his popularity at home is at its lowest.

Developers are from Mars, Programmers are from Venus

http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/home

Advice for Computer Science College Students


Truly worth reading article!

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/CollegeAdvice.html

Why Pakistan's university students are embracing the fundamentalist life

They indocrinate the youth and call it "education"!

As Aristotle points out in the "Politics, "if you know what they're teaching in the schools today, you'll know what the country will look like tomorrow."

Sadly the current situation of Pakistani campuses leaves little room for optimism about Pakistan's future.


Umar

===========================================

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1543954,00.html

Sunday, Oct. 8, 2006
No Dates, No Dancing
Why Pakistan's university students are embracing the fundamentalist life

By ARYN BAKER / LAHORE

Like many other universities around the world, Punjab University in Lahore is a tranquil oasis far removed from the rest of society. But to Westerners, there's little else about Punjab U. that seems familiar. Walk around the leafy-green 1,800-acre campus, and you will encounter nothing that resembles frivolous undergraduate behavior. Musical concerts are banned, and men and women are segregated in the dining halls. Many female students attend class wearing headscarves that cover everything but their eyes. This fall, when the university's administrators tried to introduce a program in musicology and performing arts, the campus erupted in protest. "Pakistan is an Islamic country, and our institutions must reflect that," says Umair Idrees, a master's degree student and secretary-general of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (I.J.T.), the biggest student group on campus. "The formation of these departments is an attack on Islam and a betrayal of Pakistan. They should not be part of the university curriculum."

What's most striking about that climate of conservatism is that it is being driven not by faculty or administrators or government officials but by students. At Punjab U., I.J.T. is the most powerful force on campus, shaping not just the mores of student life but also larger debates over curriculum, course syllabuses, faculty selection and even degree programs. Nationwide, the group has more than 20,000 members and 40,000 affiliates active at nearly all of Pakistan's 50 public universities. Students who defy I.J.T.'s strict moral code risk private reprimands, public denouncements and, in some cases, even physical violence.

In a country where most politicians cut their teeth as student activists, the rise of groups like I.J.T. provides clues to Pakistan's political future. Although the country is officially aligned with the U.S. in fighting terrorism, it is beset by an internal struggle between moderate citizens and the fundamentalists who aim to turn the country into an Islamic state. As the hard-line demands intensify, President Pervez Musharraf has backed away from some policies sought by the Bush Administration, such as cracking down on radical religious schools, known as madrasahs, and curbing Pakistani support for the fundamentalist Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. Observers say that Musharraf's retreats on contentious issues have only strengthened the radicals. "The universities reflect what you are seeing in the larger political landscape," says Samina Ahmed, South Asia director for the International Crisis Group, a think tank. "The moderate parties have been deprived of their experienced cadre of potential recruits, but the religious parties haven't."

College campuses in Pakistan are becoming prime battlegrounds in the war for the country's soul. Political organizations have been banned from schools since 1992, when violent clashes between the student wings of rival political parties led to the deaths of dozens of students. But by outlawing political activity, the government opened the door to religious organizations such as I.J.T., which acts as an advocacy group that serves as a liaison between students and administration. Founded in 1947, I.J.T. has hundreds of thousands of alumni who provide the group with organizational and financial support, with the goal of "training the young generation according to Islam so they can play a role in Pakistan's social and political life," Idrees says.
A visit to Punjab University reveals what that means in practice. About 2,400 of the university's 24,000 students belong to I.J.T. Members are expected to live morally and to abide by the Koran's injunction to spread good and suppress evil. For many, that involves adopting an austere lifestyle. Members meet for regular study sessions and must attend all-night prayer meetings at least once a month. Outside the classroom, complete segregation of the genders is strictly observed. When asked, many members are critical of the U.S. and its policies toward the Muslim world; although the group has no ties to terrorism, it's likely that some members sympathize with al-Qaeda.

And yet for some, the appeal of I.J.T. has less to do with ideology than a desire for a platform to voice their grievances. Rana Naveed, 22, a soft-spoken communications student who sports just the beginnings of a beard and wears tight, acid-washed jeans, is troubled by some of I.J.T.'s more extreme pronouncements, especially its stand on the proposed new music program. But he is excited about the prospect of becoming a full-fledged member in a few weeks, when he will take an oath of loyalty and then work to spread his faith and dedicate himself to the welfare of other students. "There are certain things I don't agree with," says Naveed. "But as a member, I will have to submit to their way. I.J.T is the only platform to put forward my proposals to the administration, because they turn a deaf ear to regular students."

An atmosphere of moral rigidity governs much of campus life. I.J.T. members have been known to physically assault students for drinking, flirting or kissing on campus. "We are compelled by our religion to use force if we witness immoral public behavior," says Naveed. "If I see someone doing something wrong, I can stop him and the I.J.T. will support me." Threats of a public reprimand or allegations of immoral behavior are enough to keep most students toeing the I.J.T. line. There is no university regulation segregating men from women in the dining halls, but students know that mingling is taboo. "If I talk to a girl in line at the canteen, I.J.T. members will tell me to get my food and get out," says Rehan Iqbal, 25, an M.B.A. student, who is sitting on the floor of a hallway with female classmate Malka Ikran, 22. It's a nice autumn day, and a shady green lawn beckons through an open window, but they dare not sit outside. It's too public. "There are certain places where I know I can't talk to my male friends," says Ikran. When asked what would happen if she talked to a boy at the library, for example, she just shrugs. "I don't know. I would never try it. I'm too afraid."

It's not just students who feel stifled by the I.J.T.'s strict moral code. Faculty members at Punjab University say that if I.J.T. objects to a professor's leanings, or even his syllabus, it can cause problems. It doesn't take much to raise questions about a teacher's moral qualifications. "Those who could afford to leave, did so," says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a former professor of political science who is now a political analyst. "Those who stayed learned not to touch controversial subjects. The role of the university is to advance knowledge, but at P.U. the quality of education is undermined because one group with a narrow, straitjacketed worldview controls it."
Groups like I.J.T. are likely to grow more influential, not less, as its graduates move into the political arena. For those students aiming to become social activists on campus, and later politicians on the national stage, involvement in I.J.T. is the only forum available to learn the necessary skills. I.J.T. groups across the nation have embraced the opportunity to mold Pakistan's future politicians. In addition to taking classes on the Koran, members learn how to debate, how to present and defend their views and how to write persuasive proposals. "I.J.T. trains and promotes leadership qualities," says Mumtaz Ahmad Salik, president of the P.U. staff association and a professor of Islamic studies. "When a national political party catches anyone who has been trained by I.J.T., they benefit." Most I.J.T. members who choose to enter politics after graduation go on to join Jamaat-e-Islami or other fundamentalist political groups. Some sign up with more centrist parties, although they bring with them fundamentalist thinking that has contributed to the general turn toward conservatism in national politics.

For now a future in politics is far from the minds of most P.U. students, who just want to enjoy their last few years on campus. "We would love to have a student union," says Iqbal. "Then we could plan events and activities and take care of the students' problems ourselves. Right now, only I.J.T. has that kind of power. If the I.J.T. had competition, that would change. Then you would see what students really think." But until free elections and campaigning are permitted, the religious groups will continue to walk large on campus. The same could be said of Pakistan.

What Went Wrong

Why Muslims who had discovered the "wisdom of Greeks" much earlier than the Europeans failed to establish rationalism in their socities?Here's a brief overview of the mind-boggling battle of ideas whose arena was the medieval Muslim world, and whose result was the defeat of the progressives at the hands of "holier than thou"establishment.

The content is of provocative nature. Readers' discretion is strongly advised! Especially for true believers. :)


Umar

=============================================


Science factions
By Sara Hasan

"It is significant that the desire to create an alternative world, tomodify or augment the real world through the act of writing isinimical to the Islamic worldview. The Prophet (PBUH) is he who hascompleted a world-view; thus the word heresy in Arabic is synonymouswith the verb `to innovate' or `to begin'. Islam views the world as aplenum (full), capable of neither diminishment nor amplification."

Thus Edward Said rationalises the absence of the novel in Arabicliterature, in his book Beginnings, intention & method. Saidconsidered novels to be – among other things – "aesthetic objectsthat fill gaps in an incomplete world". And according to him, Arabicstories like those in the Arabian nights are merely "ornamental,variations on the world, not completions of it; neither are they…designed to illustrate… ways in which the world can be viewed and changed".

The Arabic word for `beginning' is al ibitida; for `innovation' is alibtidaa or al bidaa; and for `heretic' is al mubtadiaa. The Arabic scholar and scientist who explained the Arabic terms to me agreedwith Said's etymological explanation. But can one extend Said's argument from literature to science, and draw a similar conclusion:that the desire to create an alternative world, to modify or augmentthe real world through scientific innovation is against the Islamicworldview? He shook his head. On the contrary, he said, Islamemphasises the acquisition of ilm (`knowledge'). He saw no conflictin the acquisition of new (novel) knowledge and the practice ofIslam.

Physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, however, has a different opinion. "Ilm hasil karo. You are urged to acquire knowledge. Not to create it," he says. Hoodbhoy is speaking at a panel discussion on `What is holdingback science in Pakistan' organised by Sarmad Abbasi at the LahoreUniversity of Management Sciences. He reasons that Muslims are askedto discover knowledge that is already there, in the Book. They are not urged to create new knowledge outside the Book. Like Said,Hoodbhoy refers to Islam's completed worldview, and uses it to rationalise the absence of a tradition of innovative science inPakistan.

To my Arabic scholar friend, though, the distinction between discovery and creation of knowledge is cosmetic. For him, one creates knowledge in that one brings it from unknowing to knowing. One discovers it in the sense that all knowledge belongs to Allah. A secular scientist of my acquaintance uses a similar explanation: knowledge lies in nature; we create models to understand nature;models are creations of the human mind, which in turn is a creation of nature. So one could argue that the mind is actually acquiringknowledge, not creating it from nothing. The two words – acquiring and creating – become mere word play, or a difference in outlook.

So if creating and discovering knowledge come to the same thing,where lies the problem with science and learning in the Islamicworld? Perhaps it's in the method and scope of enquiry that ispermitted and encouraged. In a despotic Islamic state, life ismediated by scripture – the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, where Sunnah isthe traditions of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) life, and the Hadith are his narrations and approvals. Muslim life is informed by these sources; no action or information can depart from theirprescriptions, everything must subscribe to the perfect worldview inthe Quran. So the critical issue for Muslims is not whether the scriptures ought to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, but whether they allow other worldviews that explain the nature and functioning of the universe. In other words, do they allow exploration beyond the worldview of the Quran?

Today most Muslim majority states enforce a limiting orthodoxy, yetthis was not always the case with Muslims. During the heyday of Islam, in the 9-13th centuries AD, the Quran was a subject of debateby a rationalist group of Muslim thinkers, the Mutazilites. In this time Muslims were the main innovators of science, philosophy and medicine in the world.

The movement got its start with Wasil ibn Ata, a freethinker, who proposed the concept of "the station between the two stations" when discussing whether a major sinner is a believer or an unbeliever. He concluded that a Muslim who commits a major sin is no longer abeliever, nor is he a kafir, but he is in an intermediate station between kufr and imaan – that of fisq (`transgression'). Imam HasanBasri, in whose mosque the discussion had begun, expelled Ata and his logical kind. They became known as al mutazila, the secessionists.

The leading Mutazilite thinkers, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina andIbn Rushd (known to the West as Averroës, 1126-98), held that reason alone is sufficient to understand the nature of Allah and existence, and to guide man's moral and ethical actions. They used Aristotelian logic in their discourses and prized independent thought. Al-Nazzam made the radical proclamation that doubt was the first absolute requirement of knowledge.

Mutazili theology became the court belief of the Abbasid caliphate inthe 9th century. Despite this official patronage, however, it remained an elite preoccupation, and never gained popular support. As an orthodox response to Mutazilism, Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari founded the Asharite school of theology. But the man credited for truly demolishing the liberal Mutazili philosophy and re-establishing theorthodox creed which has subsequently become the heritage of Sunni Islam, was Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali (1059-1111).

A war of ideologies ensued between the two contending schools – the theologian Al-Ghazzali, and the rationalist Ibn Rushd. Al-Ghazzali wrote the popular attack on rationalism, The incoherence of the philosophers to which Ibn Rushd responded with The incoherence of the incoherence. Unfortunately, not even its catchy title could win IbnRushd mass appeal – his famous statement that "to say that philosophers are incoherent is itself an incoherent statement" was just too sophisticated for the layperson. Thus Al-Ghazzali prevailed over Ibn Rushd, with far-reaching consequences on Muslim intellectual history.

The new interpreters of Islam, the Asharites, promoted revelation over reason and Allah's will over free will; they taught that the acquisition of knowledge meant only the study of Islamic theology,and discouraged the study of the natural sciences.

With Asharite domination, much of the Arab world's innovation in science and technology came to an end. They generated a fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) based on taqlid (imitation), suppressing theMutazilite stress on ijtihad which allowed open inquiry. The Asharites did not reject ijtihad amongst the learned, but theydiscouraged its application by the public. The loss of the application of ijtihad in law indirectly led to its ebb from philosophy and science. Most historians now think that this caused Muslim societies to stagnate, of which the symbolic moment came in1492, with the final fall of Muslim Spain.

The regression of Muslim intellectual life continues unabated. Where they lost, the West gained. The development of the scientific method,which contributed to the Western Enlightenment ironically had its roots in the ijtihad and isna (citation) of mediaeval Muslim scholars. Today, of 1.4 billion Muslims in the world (20 percent ofthe world's population) only three have had the distinction of receiving the Nobel Prize for their contributions to their subjects –Najib Mahfouz for literature, Ahmed Zewail for chemistry, and Abdus Salam for physics. Of the three, the two scientists, Zewail andSalam, conducted their research in foreign lands, and one, Abdus Salam, was legally considered a non-Muslim by his own Pakistani government.

Ten centuries ago Muslims opted to follow the orthodox teachings of Al-Ghazzali over the rational philosophy of Ibn Rushd. Is it now time to review unproductive choices? To reinstate ijtihad over taqlid, and encourage free intellectual transgressions over forced containment?

Bad Times Ahead!!

From Right, it has now travelled to Center. Let's see how long Left stays immune (or willfully blind) to this phenomenon. In any case, "common" Muslims are doing themselves no favor by erecting (mental, if not phyical) ghettos between themselves and the Westerners. Bad times ahead!


Umar


===================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/europe/11muslims.html

October 11, 2006
Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center
By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER

BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.

“Rationality is gone.”

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.

His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”

When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.
The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.

Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.

The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.

In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.
The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.

“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”

Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.
Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.

The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.

“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.

“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”

Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.

Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.

So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.

In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.

With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”
The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”

Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.

“Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.”

Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.

Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.

When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. “I am trying to be optimistic,” she said. “But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can’t be.”

Dan Bilefsky reported from Brussels, and Ian Fisher from Rome. Contributing were Sarah Lyall and Alan Cowell from London, Mark Landler from Frankfurt, Peter Kiefer from Rome, Renwick McLean from Madrid and Maia de la Baume from Paris.

A Virago Among Patriarchs

It never occured to me that in an arch-patriarchal society like Saudi Arabia, a woman could write on gender issues with such boldness and that a Saudi newspaper could publish this stuff. Voila! Truly amazing. Click on the URLs below to read her articles:


Portrait of a Saudi Lady

Am I not a Saudi?

The Things They Do in the Name of Male Guardianship

Women in Saudi Arabia too have dream

I wonder if such articles also appear in Arabic language newspapers, or -- for the time being--only English newspapers are "allowed" to show a gesture of "boldness".

Anyway, a pat on the back of Mr. Khaled al-Maenna, chief editor of Arab News, for publishing such kind of stuff!Ms. Mody Al-Khalaf also deserves patting on the back for her courage and confidence to write such articles, but... I'm afraid I'll be arrested by Saudi "moral police" for patting a "non-mahram" woman -:)

Therefore, hats off to her -:)

Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks

No question about the sophistry of the Pope's remarks, but some serious introspection is needed on part of Ummah that running amok in streets is not a good way to discredit the "enemies of Islam." Sadly many "defenders of Islam" miss this point.With "friends" like these, who needs enemies. As the saying goes, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."


===================================================

From stratfor.com:
US - IRAQ War Coverage
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith,Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. Inhis discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) thepope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmaticfaith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contributionto the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of thelecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by theerudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educatedPersian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truthof both."Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a longpassage to understand his point -- that:"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, theemperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor musthave known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion inreligion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras ofthe early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and underthreat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions,developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war.Without descending to details, such as the difference intreatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startlingbrusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on thecentral question about the relationship between religion andviolence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed broughtthat was new, and there you will find things only evil andinhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith hepreached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself soforcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons whyspreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature ofthe soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and notacting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born ofthe soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needsthe ability to speak well and to reason properly, withoutviolence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one doesnot need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other meansof threatening a person with death ...'"The decisive statement in this argument against violentconversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason iscontrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes:'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, thisstatement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God isabsolutely transcendent.'"The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift andsharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just whatMohammed brought that was new, and there you will find thingsonly evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the swordthe faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from aprevious text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making acritical point that has little to do with this passage.The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It beginsby pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsionwhen he lacked political power, but that when he became strong,his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argumentthat violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantineshaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priorityof reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that Godis absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes,it is acceptable.Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forcedconversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristoteliantendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that sametendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such asal-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as ThomasAquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And allthree religions struggle not only with the problem of God versusscience, but with the more complex and interesting tripolarrelationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism.There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubledby faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for Godpersonally.Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to beconsidered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throwa hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it atthis moment in history. The other discussion might well be moreworthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do,and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for hecould have no doubt what the response, in today's politicallycharged environment, was going to be.A Deliberate MoveLet's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposelychosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner,accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecturethat he may have written himself -- and if it was written forhim, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of thepope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff,and there is no question that anyone who read this speech beforeit was delivered would recognize the explosive nature ofdiscussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There isnot one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars,some of them placing Catholics at risk.It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text,but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the popehad to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are manyother fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that hecould have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone oneinvolving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citationand, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passagein the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and wasthe entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was adeliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could beanticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text ofthe speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion byviolence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the popeintended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged inviolence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a viewof God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests(including some violent reactions) over cartoons that wereprinted in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his adviserscertainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would goballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally,and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has notapologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might havecaused. He has not retracted his statement.So, why this, and why now?Political ReadingsConsider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but apolitician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become thepope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a globalchurch with a billion members. The church is no stranger togeopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism inAfghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is somethingto be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, whichhelped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break theSoviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play powerpolitics.Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speechpolitically.One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching theU.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the UnitedStates in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recentsuccess of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victoryamong the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamentalstrength to threaten the West at this point, but they arecertainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered thatBenedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy aboutthe U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that hissuccessor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S.President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has beentrying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clashof civilizations, one that will last for generations and willdetermine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he acceptsBush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush'sposition. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam andChristianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a moveto overcome the tension between religion and science in the West.But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there isa war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive,not only in the war but also in domestic American politics,Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scaleof war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read aswords of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind onthis, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush'sposition.It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended anintellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously didnot support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at thetime. On the other hand, it would not be in the church'sinterests to see the United States simply routed. The CatholicChurch has substantial membership throughout the region, and awave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and thechurch at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcomeof the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or atleast not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticizeWashington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker.Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt theneed for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warnedthe Muslim world that the church's willingness to endurevilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he isprepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannotread his mind, but neither can we believe that he was obliviousto events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he wassimply engaged in an academic exercise.This perspective would explain the timing of the pope'sstatement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to dowith Europe.There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful waveof Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides.Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm theirnative culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass.Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatenedto work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican'sposition has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As aresult, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from thechurch body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics --and its fears.As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks atRegensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He alsoknew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures ofcontrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closeralignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslimcommunity -- without adopting their own, more extreme,sentiments. That move increases his political strength amongthese groups and could cause them to rally around the church. Atthe same time, the pope has not locked himself into anyparticular position. And he has delivered his own warning toEurope's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-outstatement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusionsas to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement containeda verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict tomaintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already hastaken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but thoseof another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly awarethat this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things,save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself fromthe statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, theanger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also havebeen emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslimworld's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamicattacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers --not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highlycapable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had tohave known how the war was going, and that his statement likelywould aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, hewould be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that thestatement would strengthen his position with the church's basethere.The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. Hispredecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapseof communism, started sniping at the United States over itsmaterialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided thatthe time has come to throw the weight of the church againstradical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslimsreject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge therationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to liftthe religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholarsby demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore,Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened hispolitical base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response toanti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done itwith superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can moveaway from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiateit and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard toanti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism ofIslam that was implicit in the dialogue.The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing theresponse. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; infact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is toocareful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipatedthe response and planned his partial retreat.It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answerto that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.