Saturday, March 30, 2013

The Body Language Of A King In A Press Conference.

By Sodium

The king to whom the title of this essay refers is King Abdallah II of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The press conference had taken place in Amman, the capital city of Jordan. The King was at the right podium and President Obama at the left podium of the conference hall, facing mainly journalists/reporters who poured into Amman from across the globe. It was an interesting conference.

The writer of this essay usually writes down notes, in similar press conferences, with regards to the questions asked by journalists/reporters and the responses provided by the Heads of States, but not in this particular press conference, because of the unexpected surprise he had noticed, as he watched the body language of King Abdallah II and to a lesser extent the body language of President Obama:

* The face of the King was clearly full of anguish. He looked like a man who was carrying all the burdens of the complex problems of the Middle East on his shoulder.

* As Obama responded to questions, raised by some reporters/journalists, the King looked straight at him, like trying to size-up every word and every sentence President Obama had made. In similar manner, so did Obama to the King, as the King responded to questions addressed to him by some attendees of the conference.

* President Obama kept his cool, as he usually does in almost all circumstances, including press conferences.

* In comparison to the coolness of Obama, it was so clear to the writer of this essay that the King was deeply worrying about "something or somthings "

Based on the foregoing, a sensible question to raise is:

What could have been that " something or somethings " that had anguished the King, as he appeared in the press conference ?

To attempt to give an exact answer to the above question would be an exercise in analytical futility. What one can do is to read or rather cite the trends of events that had taken place prior to the press conference in which the King clearly appeared in a state of anguish. Although all the events or trends, related to the Middle East problems were important, the most important ones that had taken place within two months,at the most, before this conference was held, were the following ones:

~ President Obama announced that he would make a visit to Israel to " LISTEN. "  The question here is: to listen to whom ?  Netanyahu ?  Well, he has been listening to Netanyahu for the last four years and nothing has been accomplished in the road  to peace.

~  King Abdallah II  made a quick visit to Turkey and met privately with Rajab Tayib Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey. The question here: why Turkey now and after Obama had announced his plan to pay a visit to Israel ?

~ After visiting Israel, Obama dropped by the State of Palestine and met with its President Mahmoud Abbas ( Abu Mazen ), and after that, Obama paid a visit to Jordan..

~ In Amman, Jordan, Obama met privately, and all alone, with King Abdallah of Jordan for five hours. The question here: why so long and alone ?  sign of disagreement ?  Yes, most likely.

~ Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, announced publiclly that he apologized to Turkey, while Obama was finalizing his visit to the Middle East, in sight-seeing, in the antiquity of  the ancient city of Petra in southern Jordan.

 It is interesting to observe that after President Obama arrived back to the White House,The Arab League had given the seat of the Syrian Arab Republic, within the body of the league, to the opposion that has been in a bloody conflict with the government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

These are the political trends that one must consider in order to reach a sensible comprehension of what is really going on in the profoundly complex political circumstances in the Middle East.

Connecting the dots, from one event to the next, provides trend or trends. The difficulty is in ASSUMING what will happen, let alone KNOWING what will happen, with an acceptable degree of confidence. Hence, the apparent anguish of the King is, perhaps, due to the fact that he knows well how difficult it is to navegate through such a complex situation, in a region characterized with the most political instability in the world, especially if he was asked to do more than he could possibly deliver, in the name of peace, when others gave lip-service to peace.


Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Netanyahu's Apology To Turkey.

By Sodium

A Very  Brief Background:
In the year 2010, a Turkish ship by the name of Miva Marmara was laden with humanitarian aid for the besieged people of Gaza. Israel had declared the embargo against Gaza because of a Palestinian  organization called Hamas which believed that Israel was created in 1948 by force of arms and through the influence of colonial powers and against the consent of the Palestian people who made the vast majority of the population of Palestine then. Israel's embargo against Gaza began in 2005 and the people of Gaza have been suffering ever since for lack of essentials to make human life possible. Millions upon millions of people across the globe have expressed disapproval of the embargo because Israel has committed an act of collective punishment, since Hamas is not all the people of Gaza. What has made the siruation in Gaza even worse was the 32 day war Israel had waged against Gaza in late December of 2008.

Under such a background, Miva Marmara was part of a total of six ships, all carrying humanitarian aids to Gaza, when they were attacked in the HIGH SEA OF THE MEDITERRANEAN. The Israeli piracy had succeeded in siezing all the ships to an Israeli seaport called Ashdood. All ships and peace activists were held there for a while and then they were released through international diplomatic negotiations.

As a result of this act of piracy, eight Turkish citizens and one American citizen were killed. Turkey demanded an apology from Israel plus compensation, but Israel gave only sugar-coated words but no apology. Turkey severed diplomatic relationship with Israel and cancelled its planned military excersices with the military of Israel. Tension between them mounted. Attempts were made to amend the two countries relations but no avail, because the Turkish demand was so strong and Israel would not apologize and give only empty regret. This has been going on since May of 2010 until March of 2013 when Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel apologized to Rajab Tayib Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey. Also,Israel agreed to the other two coditions of Turkey: (a) pay compensation, (b) ease the embargo on Gaza.

The Way President Obama Operates:
It needs no brainer to say that all that has happened has been within a frame of coordination of American policy for the whole Middle East region. One may observe that Netanyahu has made his apology known publiclly while President Obama was enjoying himself in the fascinating antiquity of the city of Petra, in Jordan. That's the way President Obama operates: he initiates and facilitates and then he watches the results of his initiations and facilitations from afar. He had done similar approach in the beginning of the Libyan Revolution. He initieted and facilitated the original air attack against the militia/army of Muamar Al-Qadafi, the late ruler of Libya and then handed the rest of the air attack to America's allies in the North Atlantic Organization, watching the fruits of his initiation and facilitation from afar-a sign of an extremely intelligent politician.

Troubling Questions That Must be Raised:
There are many questions to be raised. But the most pressing to ask, at this point in time, are three . Each one of them will be pointed out according to its plausibility to ask, in the first place.

The first question that must be asked is a BIG BIG: " WHY NOW ? "

Netanyahu clams that the reason he apologized was due to what is going on in Syria. I personally do not think such a claim is plausibla,since what was going on in Syria had/has been going on for the last two years. Most likely, the answer to the big question," why now ? " has to do with the BLUE PRINT OF HE AMERICAN PLAN FOR THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST REGION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED UNTIL PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED HIS TRIP TO ISRAEL.

Whatever the American blue print for the Middle Eeast is, it is going to be in Israel's favor. That is for certain. The " THINK TANKS " organizations in Washington DC area will not have it in any other way.

Perhaps,another important question to ask is: knowing the arrogance of Netanyahue and fellow hard core Zionists, would he has apologized before extracting a high price from Obama ?
 Just a question.

Perhaps,a third question one must ask is: did Obama extract a price from Netanyahu, in return ?

I wonder who is going to be the real short term loser, as the American blue print accomplishes its objective !

 Just wonder ! 

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Two Surprises From President Obama's Visit To Middle East.

By Sodium

Two Surprises have resulted from President Obama's visit, between March 20-23, to the Middle East. They are:

* Netanyahu's Apology To Turkey.
* The Body Language Of A King In A Press Conference.

Each one of the two surprises will be discussed in separate essays, in the next few days.

STAY TUNED................

Thursday, March 21, 2013

The Real Reasons Behind The Destruction of Iraq In 2003.

By Sodium

Anyone who thinks that there is no relationship amongst Israel, big oil interest and the two wars that were waged by the two Presidents whose last names were Bush is naive. In fact, very naive. In this essay, I shall reveal the real reasons that connect certain factors that have a great deal to do with the destruction of Iraq, as a functioning human society. These factors are:  Israel interest, big oil interest and warmongering neoconservatives in America.. I shall concentrate on the reasons for the war of 2003, since the war of the early 1990's, under President Bush Senior requires a different analysis.

Most, if not all, the American neoconservatives who pushed very hard for the war of 2003 against Iraq were, ( and still are ), strong supporters of Israel, regardless what crimes Israel commits in violation of International Laws, United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because of their passionate attachment to the State of Israel, some American writers called them " Israel Firsters ". In his FAREWELL SPEECH, President George Washington, the first president of the United States, has warned the American people against the PASSIONATE ATTACHMENT TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY. You need not take my word here, just Google it on the Internet and see for yourself and reach your own conclusion, as to what the "Israel Firsters" of the neoconservatives crowd have been doing in the United States. Since they feel so passionately strong about Israel, why do they not migrate to their beloved Israel and live permanently there and leave the United States alone to mend its own policy for the Middle East, as it sees appropriate ?

The " Israel Firsters " know how to play the political game very well, and within the legal limits of the land known as the United States of America. That does not mean that deception, fabrications, distortions, misinformation and sophisticated lies are absent from their activities, whether such activities are conducted in both houses, ( Senate and House of Representatives ), of the United States Congress or in the Executive Branch of the United States government or in mainstream media, not only in the United States but world wide, or even in some Christian churches run by Right Wing Evangelicals.

In 1995, The late Senator Jessey Helms was the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. In his defense of the huge amount of aid allocated to Israel he bluntly stated that if Israel did not exist, it had to be invented. I ask: had to be invented for what, Senator ? The answer is complex and lengthy one, but it certainly well known to any serious student of  the Middle East political affairs and history of the colonial powers in that part of the world.

After the Iraq-Iran war, which lasted from 1980-1988, Iraq had become the role model for the rest of the Arab countries to emulate, in most fields of human endeavors, ranging from genuine political independence to emancipation of women to elimination of illiteracy to the best and free health care system in the Middle East to free education from kinder garden through colleges and universities to the superb dedication of the Iraqi elites and professionals for the advancement of Iraq, as a sovereign identity, capable of  keeping Iran and its regional ambitions in constant check. All of that meant that Iraq had become more powerful than its actual size. Such developments were totally incompatible with the agenda of " Israel Firsters " and big oil interest. The " Israel Firsters " wanted their beloved Israel to continue having a monopolistic hegemony on the whole Middle East through the old state of military equilibrium, favoring Israel, at all cost to the American taxpayers. Iraq had become a real regional power, especially after ending-up having the upper hand in the eight-year war with Iran. The big oil interest, represented then by Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, wanted to control the FLOW of oil of the Middle East to the rest of the world, which, in reality, would mean dictating policies, as they saw fitting, to the rest of the world. In short, Saddam Iraq had become a real challenge to their plans. And Saddam Hussein had made a deadly miscalculation after his meeting with Miss or Mrs. April  Gallispee, the American Ambassador to Iraq , in the early 1990's, a few days before he invaded Kuwait.  In order to comprehend fully what had happened in the conversation which took place, in that fateful meeting, between April and Saddam, it is highly recommended to read the text of the conversation on the Internet. I had read it on the Internet, after the American First Gulf War of  the early 1990's. You may be able to find it, if it was not deleted.

After the total destruction of Iraq by the United States mighty military power and American troops were seen all over Iraq as the tangible military occupiers, TWO FACTS emerged:

FACT ONE: The real power, after the early 1990's American war against Iraq, the real or rather hidden and intangible power, has become Iran in Iraq, through its political puppets, not the United States of America whose troops actually were occupying Iraq. In other words, Iran was actually occupying Iraq by American troops. To comprehend this apparently incomprehensible situation one should understand first what the fools of 2003, in Washington DC, have created in Iraq, plus that one must have profound knowledge not only about the extremely complex structure of the Iraqi society, but also how Iran operates in Iraq through its loyal puppets.

FACT TWO: As American troops have finally been withdrawn from Iraq, the Iranian political hegemony in Iraq has become no longer hidden but glaring and arrogant to the point of having the final say who should be the Prime Minister of Iraq. In short, what the American destruction of Iraq has done, as a functioning human society, is presenting Iraq, its people and its wealth to Iran, not on a plate of silver, but on a plate of pure gold Iran has never dreamed of having in its wildest dreams, especially under Saddam Hussein and his dedicated supporters in the Ba'ath Party, inside Iraq, and across the Arab world. 

It is so important to point out those two facts because they have become an integral part of what has happened to Iraq during its total destruction and afterward. In other words, those two facts have become an important segment of the American neoconservatives' blunder that has produced the loss of Iraq to Iran, let alone the seemingly un-ending human tragedy in Iraq.

Based on all the foregoing, one may conclude that the intricately connected events and reasons amongst Israeli interest, big oil interest, the warmongering neoconservatives and the wars against Iraq were and are, indeed, profound.

Monday, March 18, 2013

What Is " Fatwa " ? What Are Its Requirements ?

By Sodium

" Fatwa " is an Arabic word and it simply means " Edict ". That is too simplistic of a definition. Hence, one must look for a more profound definition in order to make it clear to the novice readers of this website.

The American Heritage Dictionary, as it is electronically manufactured by Seiko, defines " Fatwa " as follows:

Fatwa: " a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority. "

Based upon the definition as quoted above, it is clear that " Fatwa " refers to an " Islamic Edict " given on a specific point of Islamic law.

The key words in the definition given by the American Heritage Dictionary are the two words, " recognized authority ". As a result, one may raise the following question:

What are the characteristics of the " recognized authority " to qualify to declare a " Fatwa " ?

A fair question requires an objective answer. The following is an attempt to provide the readers of this website with such an objective answer;

It is imperative that the " recognized authority " in the Islamic world must not be recognized ONLY as an Islamic scholar in his own " mathhab ", meaning a " school of thought " to which he follows, but also he must have profound knowledge of ALL other Islamic " mathahib ", meaning all other Islamic schools of thought. (Please notice that the word " mathhab " is singular and " mathahib " is plural in the Arabic language ). At any rate, in Islam, there are four major and well recognized and well developed " mathahib ", meaning four well recognized and developed "Schools of Thought ". The four " mathahib" or " Schools of Thought " are the following ones:

~ Hanafi's School of Thought: Founder and Islamic Scholar, Imam ibn Hanaf.
~ Maliki's School of Thought: Founder and Islamic Scholar, Imam ibn Malik.
~ Shafi'i's School of Thought: Founder and Islamic Scholar, Imam ibn Shafi.
~ Hanbili's School of Thought: Founder and Islamic Scholar, Imam ibn Hanbal.

If the " recognized authority " is well versed in the Hanafi's School of Thought only, for example, but has no profound enough knowledge in all other three Schools of Thought, he is then not qualified to declare a " Fatwa " to be followed by all Muslims. In such a case his " Fatwa " can be rejected by anyone of the other three  Islamic Schools of Thought or by all of them. In short, the Islamic scholar whose knowledge does not include, or rather does not embody, all aspects of all four Schools of Thought in a profound ways, his " Fatwa ", most likely, will not be accepted by all Muslims. However, his " Fatwa " may be accepted by Muslims who follow the same School of Thought he himself follows.

Regrettably, what had happened during the first stages of the Arab Awakening ( Arab Spring ) was the fact that some Islamic scholars, in some Arab countries, declared some " Fatwas " in service of some Arab rulers. Islam has nothing to do with such practices. In true Islam, all  qualified and profoundly knowledgeable Islamic scholars must be completely INDEPENDENT IN THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE VERSES OF THE QUR'AN AND DECLARATIONS OF FATWAS AND RECEIVE NO SALARY, WHATSOEVER, IF THEY ARE WELL-OFF FINANCIALLY. If a qualified and deeply knowledgeable Islamic scholar happened to be poor financially, only then  a monthly salary would be allocated to him, by independent jurists, directly from the National Treasury to live on decently.  No ruler is allowed to intervene.

During typing this essay, I had met technical difficulties and I was forced to stop in the middle of typing this essay. Although I have more to say on this subject, I feel that I better stop here before encountering the same technical difficulties once more. I believe I have made my thoughts on this subject clear enough. I do hope that all or part of the foregoing will be of some help to all the readers who keep reading what has been published on this website.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Exposing Islamophobia And Islamophobes.

By Sodium

Before reading this essay, it is recommended to read topic number (13) Islamophobia, (pubished on May 25, 2010),as part of the 14 topics series entitled," Islam As Understood By An Agnostic ", published on this website. I apologize for the typing mistakes wherever they occur in my writings. I just do not edit what I write, because of shortage of time. I do trust the intelligence of the readers of this website, since if they are not very intelligents, they certainly would not have cared reading what has been published on this website

Back to " Exposing Islamophobia And Islamophobes ":

The following book is well researched and has exposed Islamophobia and Islamophobes as they should be exposed concisely and objectively:

The Islamophobia Industry
How The Right Manufactures Fear Of Muslims
Nathan Lean, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Media, a contributing writer at PolicyMic, and a co-author of " Iran, Israel,and the United States ".  
Forwarded by John L. Esposito,Professor of Religions at GeorgeTown University in Washington DC area.

Since I do realizse that some of the readers of this website have no accessibility to the book, because of a variet of reasons, I shall attempt, here, to provide them with ideas as to what the essence of the content of the book embodies. In addition to the "Acknowledgement ", " Forward " and " Introduction ", the book is composed of seven chapters, with their respective titlles embody the following explicit titles:

Chapter 1: " Monsters Among Us: A History of Sowing Fear in America ".
Chapter 2: " A Web of Deception: Fomenting Hate Online ".
Chapter 3: " Media Mayhem: Broadcasting, Anti-Muslim Madness ".
Chapter 4: " We Come Bearing Crosses: The Christian Right's Battle for Eternity ".
Chapter 5: " Of Politics and Prophecy: The Alliance of the Pro-Israel Right ".
Chapter 6 " To Washington and Beyond: Islamophpbia as Government Policy ".
Chapter 7: " Across the Pond: The Deadly Effects of Hate in Europe "

Although it is highly recommended to read the entire book and see for yourself the elaborated  and excellent details in the book, it is hoped that the above cited tittles of the book are explicit enough to provide those readers, who for a variety of reasons have no chance of reading the book, with a little bit of knowledge about the content of the book. There is nothing like reading the book from cover to cover. Do so, if you can, and thank me later.

What is most impressive about the book are the following ponts:

~ It names specific names as to who was or were the father or fathers of Islamophobia.
~ It specificallly names the currently active Islamophobes and who fund them and provide them with the money to continue doing their dirty works.
~ It clearly shows the detrimental or rather the deadly effects of the evil campaigns the Islamophobes have waged against Islam and Muslims,not only in the United States, but also in Europe.
~ The total number of pages of the seven chapters of the book, plus its introduction, is 184 pages, but the total number of references that have been listed for the seven chapters of the book, plus its introduction, is 574 well documented references. If one divides the number of references by the number of the pages of the book will get 3.12 references for each page the book contains. That is an impressive ratio by any standard of measurements,including some scientific publications I had happened reviewing. That is why it has been described as a well researched book.

If you are a reader who is interested in accummulating knowledge about Islamophobia and Islamophobes,this book is certainly a must read. Read it, if you can and keep it in your home library as a reference for your use in the future, as you may need a good reference or references on the subject. The references listed at the end of each chapter of the book are extremely valuable for any reader who may be interested in pursuing the subject of Islamophobia and Islamophobes further.