America's Founding Fathers Prepared to Include Muslims

[By Shahed Amanullah - alt.muslim -- January 3, 2007]
===========================================================================

The debate over a Muslim in Congress may seem new to you, but over two
centuries ago, the Founding Fathers considered the possibility. Guess which
side they took ...

The news that Representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) plans today to take
an informal Congressional oath of office on a copy of the Qur'an once owned
by Thomas Jefferson might seem surreal to those who cannot imagine that the
Founding Fathers had anything but a passing familiarity with the religion
that so dominates political discourse in 21st century America.

Ellison's specific choice of Qur'an was meant to highlight the relationship
that Islam and Muslims have had with the United States since its inception,
as well as the place that Islam's holy book had with one of the most
respected leaders of early America.

Adorned with his initials, Jefferson's Qur'an -- a 1764 English translation
from Arabic by George Sale -- was purchased and used during his comparative
legal studies, and was sold to the Library of Congress after the War of
1812.

Sale, while clearly distancing himself from Islamic theology in his
commentary (he calls the Prophet Muhammad a "criminal... imposing a false
religion"), also states that "the praises due to his real virtues ought not
to be denied him" and that Islam had no better or worse a historical record
than Judaism or Christianity. And despite public opinion about Islam at the
time (which differs little from Sale's professed negative statements),
Jefferson explicitly referenced Islam in his support of Virginia's Statute
for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786, where he praised its
protections of "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan
[Muslim], the Hindoo and the Infidel."

Early American writings show Jefferson wasn't alone. "It is clear that the
Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new
nation," writes James Hutson, Manuscript Division Chief for the Library of
Congress, "and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic."

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and a colleague of
Jefferson, Pennsylvania's Benjamin Rush, wrote that he would "rather see
the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see
them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." And "If we
may openly speak the truth," wrote John Locke wrote in his influential
Letter Concerning Toleration, "neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought
to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his
religion."

An important point to note is that regardless of personal opinion about the
religion of Islam, neither politician nor citizen during America's founding
would countenance the exclusion of Muslims from American political or civic
life.

During the formation of the United States, when the Constitution and Bill
of Rights were being debated at both the state and federal level, opponents
of religious freedom statutes cited the fear of a Muslim being elected to
office. "As there are no religious tests, pagans, deists and Mahometans
might obtain office," argued Baptist Rev. Henry Abbot during North
Carolina's debate.

"In the course of four or five hundred years I do not know how it will
work," countered North Carolina Provincial Congress member William
Lancaster. "This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that [government]
chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it."

(Shahed Amanullah is editor-in-chief of alt.muslim. This article was
slightly edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

ISRAEL SUPPORT IN CONGRESS BASED ON FEAR, SAYS EX-SENATOR

[By James Abourezk -- Council for the National Interest Foundation -

 Dec. 11,2006]
===========================================================================

I can tell you from personal experience that the support Israel has in
Congress is based completely on political fear -- fear of defeat by anyone
who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few
members of Congress -- at least when I served there -- have any affection
for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced
by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many
cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their
bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think
otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of
the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by
making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any
U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions
to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are
sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that
minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any
congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which
might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on
grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will
have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any
journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under
control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught
sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter
friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly
about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries
bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats
from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be
terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a
lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of
Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: one is pressure
from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands
of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his
advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under
that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration
saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial
interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was
detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. The U.S.
had to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be
destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S.
operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has
enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any
kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact, I can't think of an
instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of
upsetting the current allies the U.S. has (i.e., Saudi Arabia and the
Emirates). The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to
continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the
Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was
merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the
Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to
the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon
always has been a "throw away" country so far as Congress is concerned,
that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no
Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when Congress fell completely
silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of Congress and of the
administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for
U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to
prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle
the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil
countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been
able to do that. With the exception of King Faisal and his oil embargo,
there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel
would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving
Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the
Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and
would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the
Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike
sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about
changing leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the
Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's
principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to
Israel, requiring a docile Congress and a compliant administration. As
Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."

(James Abourezk of South Dakota is a former U.S. Senator, the first Arab-
American to serve in the Senate, from 1973 to 1979. He is vice- chairman of
the Council for the National Interest. This article was slightly edited for
the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

EGYPT: A PLACE LIKE NO OTHER

EGYPT: A PLACE LIKE NO OTHER
[By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry]
===========================================================================

CAIRO -- The Nile, the Desert, the Sun, the Pyramids and the People ...
These five make Egypt, Egypt.

The mighty Nile is an excellent and ancient traveler, carrying on her
currents eons of romance and imagination.

Every drop of Nile water has its own history, as the life-giving river
gently flows through the Egyptian desert, turning the bright gold landscape
into a long winding thread of lush green. In the midst of this vegetative
transformation, the Nile whispers words of love to the desert, separating
it into Eastern and Western landscapes. The three make up a Divine
interdependent trio, a painting of life for Egyptians to revere and enjoy.

When the Eastern Desert first welcomes the Sun, it knows it will soon bid
the golden orb goodbye, as it arcs toward the great Nile and its waiting
sister, the Western Desert. The Sun brings ageless life to this family of
three; no wonder ancient Egyptians loved the Sun so much that they
worshiped it.

Like any patient and gentle caregiver, the Nile does not move fast. Ever
attentive, she does not want to miss any of the scenery that thrives on her
banks, for every detail is exotic and captivating.

One can imagine the Nile wishing to bring her rich waters and the arid
desert soils together in harmony, giving life to more palm trees, flowers,
fruits, grains, vegetables, and cotton plants. Even the water hyacinth that
floats on her surface bears the romantic name Ward el Nil, or Rose of the
Nile.

For nearly her entire length, one can see both kindred deserts from either
of her mud banks -- sometimes too close; at other times, far in the
distance. By the time the Nile unravels in myriad streams to blend with the
Mediterranean Sea, she has carried and kept numerous untold secrets
gathered on her long journey from the south.

Just before she ends her journey to the sea, the Nile leaves behind a gift
of life to Egypt by depositing a fresh layer of new fertile earth, called
tamie, which has built up a large delta of land at her mouth.

Commercial sailing boats, called Sandals, are still used much as they were
in ancient times. The Nile wind daily moves people and produce side by side
over her waters, passing the great Pyramids and snaking through the vast
metropolis of Cairo, just as she has for thousands of years.

The Nile is the essence of Egypt. Over time stretching back some ten
thousand years, desert, sun, river and people have coexisted in their
unique rhythms. Before the people arrived, the family of desert, sun and
river had been together for even longer -- perhaps tens of millions of
years.

The Ancient Egyptians believed in life after death and in accountability in
the hereafter, so they built the Pyramids - great tombs that would serve as
homes for their kings' bodies, to keep them ready for their next lives.

You can read every popular book there is about Egypt (and there are many)
but nothing replaces actually being there. Having your own feet on Egyptian
soil gives you a sense of attachment; it's more than likely some of your
own ancestors originated here.

But your first visit to this amazing country should be considered a
preface. Most tourists pass through too quickly; they may have time to see
much of Egypt, but not to really live in it. They will enjoy the Nile, the
desert, the sun and the Pyramids, but they miss one very important
experience -- Egypt's people.

Egyptians are among the most hospitable peoples in the world. Away from the
tourist areas, you will easily find them, greeting you with whatever
English they know. The sun seems to put them in a perpetual good mood,
regardless of how poverty-stricken they may be. The Nile gives them hope
for the future and the deserts teach them not to take life's precious gift
for granted.

In fact, Egyptians often wonder why visitors are far more interested in
their dead ancestors than in the living descendants. Egyptians are usually
keen to talk over tea to visitors but find them in a hurry to see some
mummies.

Moses was an Egyptian citizen who was born, raised and educated in Egypt.
In fact, Egypt had more to do with Moses than his original tribe. Moses'
mother trusted the Nile to hide her precious baby in a basket among the
rushes and then to carry him to where a royal princess would discover him
and rescue him for her own.

Hebrews were not the only foreigners who lived in ancient Egypt; it also
became a temporary or permanent home to peoples from North Africa, the
eastern Mediterranean and Palestine.

Egypt is the only country mentioned by name in the Qur'an, where it is
called Misir. Even in the Arabic language, Misir is used also as the noun
given to any given big country or any large city state with a significant
civilization. The plural, Amsar, was widely used in the language to
describe multiple civilized countries or cities.

The Nile, the twin deserts that flank her sides, and the revered sun shaped
a civilization like no other. Peace and prosperity built the ideal
environment for advances in sciences, mathematics, medicine, music,
architecture, religion, literature, language, and calligraphy. But more
than this, the land and its great nurturing river also shaped a vibrant and
unique people.

I am blessed to be one of them.

(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic
Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamicccongress.com)

Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War

January 7, 2007
The Independent (UK)

Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil." . . .


---
- "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.'"--Danny Fortson, "Iraq poised to
end drought for thirsting oil giants," Independent, January 7, 2007

- Maliki's speech was a US condition for deploying extra troops, insisted on by Bush in a two-hour teleconference with Maliki last Thursday. --Peter Beaumont and Paul Harris, Iraqi PM reveals US crackdown," Guardian, January 7, 2007

Fwd: America¹s Holy Warriors

Americas Holy Warriors

These kind of paramilitary groups bring to mind Nazi Party brownshirts
Chris Hedges

[Chris Hedges is the former Mideast Bureau Chief for the New York Times]

The drive by the Christian right to take control of military chaplaincies, which now sees radical Christians holding roughly 50 percent of chaplaincy appointments in the armed services and service academies, is part of a much larger effort to politicize the military and law enforcement.  This effort signals the final and perhaps most deadly stage in the long campaign by the radical Christian right to dismantle Americas open society and build a theocratic state. A successful politicization of the military would signal the end of our democracy.

During the past two years I traveled across the country to research and write the book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. I repeatedly listened to radical preachers attack as corrupt and godless most American institutions, from federal agencies that provide housing and social welfare to public schools and the media.  But there were two institutions that never came under attackthe military and law enforcement.  While these preachers had no interest in communicating with local leaders of other faiths, or those in the community who did not subscribe to their call for a radical Christian state, they assiduously courted and flattered the military and police.  They held special services and appreciation days for all four branches of the armed services and for various law enforcement agencies.  They encouraged their young men and women to enlist or to join the police or state troopers.  They sought out sympathetic military and police officials to attend church events where these officials were lauded and feted for their Christian probity and patriotism.  They painted the war in Iraq not as an occupation but as an apocalyptic battle by Christians against Islam, a religion they regularly branded as satanic. All this befits a movement whose final aesthetic is violence.  It also befits a movement that, in the end, would need the military and police forces to seize power in American society. 

One of the arguments used to assuage our fears that the mass movement being built by the Christian right is fascist at its core is that it has not yet created a Praetorian Guard, referring to the paramilitary force that defied legal constraints, made violence part of the political discourse and eventually plunged ancient Rome into tyranny and despotism.  A paramilitary force that operates outside the law, one that sows fear among potential opponents and is capable of physically silencing those branded by their leaders as traitors, is a vital instrument in the hands of despotic movements.  Communist and fascist movements during the last century each built paramilitary forces that operated beyond the reach of the law. 

And yet we may be further down this road than we care to admit.  Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder of Blackwater, the private security firm that has built a formidable mercenary force in Iraq, champions his company as a patriotic extension of the U.S. military.  His employees, in an act as cynical as it is deceitful, take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.  These mercenary units in Iraq, including Blackwater, contain some 20,000 fighters.  They unleash indiscriminate and wanton violence against unarmed Iraqis, have no accountability and are beyond the reach of legitimate authority.  The appearance of these paramilitary fighters, heavily armed and wearing their trademark black uniforms, patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, gave us a grim taste of the future.  It was a stark reminder that the tyranny we impose on others we will one day impose on ourselves. 

Contracting out security to groups like Blackwater undermines our constitutional democracy, said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.  Their actions may not be subject to constitutional limitations that apply to both federal and state officials and employeesincluding First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures.  Unlike police officers they are not trained in protecting constitutional rights and unlike police officers or the military they have no system of accountability whether within their organization or outside it.  These kind of paramilitary groups bring to mind Nazi Party brownshirts, functioning as an extrajudicial enforcement mechanism that can and does operate outside the law. The use of these paramilitary groups is an extremely dangerous threat to our rights." . . .