|
Summary:
If you have gotten the impression that the US
is opposing Muslim extremism, the following will
be shocking. At the end of 2002, the US, Iran and
other powers convened a meeting in Rome to plan
the creation of a new Muslim religious government
for Afghanistan. A key official at the meeting
announced that Muslim religious governments were
in general a good idea for "developing"
countries. There is overwhelming evidence that the
sensational news of this shocking meeting was
suppressed.
In the following text Jared Israel examines the
nature of the Rome meeting and the purpose of its
sponsor of record, the IDLO, and deals with the 64
dollar question: why is the US covertly creating
Muslim extremist states while publicly opposing
Muslim extremism?
Contents:
1. Top legal group backs Sharia but the news
isn't fit to print
2. Roundtable for Islamism
3. What is Sharia?
4. Who controls the IDLO?
5. The significance of the IDLO's endorsement
of Sharia
6. Selling Muslims on self-destruction, or,
'Pride cometh before a fall...'
7. 'No news' ain't good news
8. A parting thought from Mr. Milosevic
[ www.tenc.net ]
1. Top legal group backs Sharia but the news
isn't fit to print
While doing research on the U.S.-led Empire's
support for Muslim extremism in Iraq and Turkey, I
chanced upon an important Associated Press (AP)
dispatch whose contents were never made public.
Based on that AP dispatch, and some of my own
research, this is what I know:
On the 16th and 17th of December, 2002, the
powerful IDLO (International Development Law
Organization) held a conference in Rome,
ostensibly to discuss reforming the Afghan legal
system.
This conference, or 'Roundtable' as it was
called, was followed by a second conference,
sponsored by the Italian government.
The AP reported that after the second
conference, the director-general of the IDLO made
a statement to the press. He said the conference
had endorsed the use of Sharia, or Muslim
religious law, as a sound basis for any modern
legal system!
Nobody has published this news!
2. Roundtable for Islamism [1]
Searching the Web, I located the IDLO Website.
There I learned a bit more.
According to a pre-conference mission
statement, the purpose of the Roundtable
conference was to help a commission trying to
reform the Afghan legal system, laying the basis
for a democratic, pluralistic society.
This sounds nice, but I have noticed that every
time an Empire-controlled organization uses a nice
word like 'democratic,' there's a catch: they are
about to do something bad to ordinary people.
The IDLO Website has no report about the actual
content of the discussions at the Roundtable. But
we can get an idea from the mission statement and
list of participants.
The mission statement begins:
"Afghanistan, an Islamic nation with a
rich legal history, is in the process of ending
decades of conflict and has entered a new period
of reconstruction." [1A]
'Reconstruction' sounds nice, like
'democratic'. So where's the bad thing that's
about to happen to ordinary people?
It's hidden in the phrase, "Islamic
nation." For you see, the central issue
during those "decades of conflict" was:
should Afghanistan be defined in religious terms?
Should it be governed by Sharia, Muslim religious
law? Which in Afghanistan, and some other places,
means domination by the harsh and repressive
landlord class associated with Muslim
fundamentalism.
Moreover, this conflict didn't just happen. The
U.S. and its imperial allies in Europe and the
Arab world put the whole
financial/military/technical power of an Empire
into empowering Islamic fundamentalism, and
mujahideen terrorists, in Afghanistan. [2]
It would be nice to believe this policy has
changed. Dream on. It is obvious from the list of
participants that the IDLO Roundtable took as its
starting point that Muslim religious law, Sharia,
should govern Afghanistan.
Thus among the 60-odd participants were *none*
of the teachers, professors, lawyers, judges or
government officials who worked in the *secular*
government that ran Afghanistan throughout the
1980s.
Instead there were officials from the current
US-installed Muslim fundamentalist government,
riddled with former mujahideen terrorists.
There were IDLO and UN officials.
There were government representatives from the
US, Japan, Germany, Italy, *and Iran*! (Germany
and Japan sent one representative each but Iran
got three!)
There was a large group of pro-Sharia scholars,
mainly from the Middle East. But not only. For
example, the participant from Harvard Law School
was one Frank E. Vogel, the "Custodian of the
Two Holy Mosques Adjunct Professor of Islamic
Legal Studies." (!) He runs a Saudi-funded
program at Harvard Law. (Just for the record, the
Saudis do not fund educational programs out of
love of learning. They spend their petrodollars to
push Salafi Islam, the Muslim extremism known in
the West as Wahabbi.) [H]
The Iranian wing of Muslim fundamentalism was
represented by two Sharia judges, Mahmood Akhondy
and Mohammad Reza Zandy, and by Ali Gholampour,
Third Secretary in the Iranian Embassy in Rome.
(The third secretary is often an intelligence
post.) However, the Iranians had no
representatives from U.S. Ivy League schools.
Clearly the conference was not aimed at
encouraging Afghanistan to adopt a secular legal
system or even to debate the issue. It was
organized with an eye to making Sharia respectable
in Afghanistan. And not just there:
[Excerpt from the AP dispatch starts here]
The conclusions of that meeting were that
Islamic law has "all the elements that are
really required to underpin a human rights agenda
and a modern state agenda which are completely
compatible with international standards,"
said William Loris, director-general of the
International Development Law Organization, which
trains lawyers and judges in developing countries.
[3]
[Excerpt from the AP dispatch ends here]
Please notice that Mr. Loris did not confine
his comments to Afghanistan. According to the IDLO
chief, the conference ruled that Islamic law, or
Sharia, has all the elements needed for *any*
"modern state agenda"!
3. What is Sharia?
Sharia consists of elaborate rules governing
every aspect of life, public and private. It is
based on the rulings of Islamic scholars. They
study religious texts including the Koran, which
observant Muslims believe contains the word of God
as revealed to his Prophet Mohammad, and the
Hadith and Sunna, which are said to contain
accounts of Mohammad's sayings and actions.
From these texts, Islamic scholars derive rules
covering *every* aspect of life, including right
and wrong opinions on contemporary issues. Thus
human existence is governed by the decisions of a
small number of men who have studied the writings,
sayings and deeds of one man who lived 14
centuries ago.
Sharia criminalizes acts which modern secular
societies leave to individual discretion, such as
adult sexual relations and religious choices.
'Offenders' may be punished, and punishments,
e.g., for adultery or for insulting Islam, may
include death. The rules of Sharia discriminate
against women, e.g. in court cases. Sharia makes
non-Muslims second class citizens, at best. It
grants religious scholars veto power over
legislation, assuming there is a legislature. [4]
And most important, Sharia renders democracy as
defined in non-Sharia societies impossible. This
is because before a law can be put into effect
religious scholars must decide whether it conforms
to the words and deeds of Mohammad. How is it
possible to make such a process coincide with
democracy?
So it was big news that 5 months ago, the IDLO,
the main organization training and advising legal
personnel in 'developing countries', endorsed
Sharia. And this news was indeed covered by two of
the biggest news agencies, Associated Press and
Agence France Presse, as well as by two Italian
news agencies.
These agencies are not newspapers. Rather, they
supply dispatches to newspapers and TV stations
which subscribe to their services. The public
reads an AP dispatch *only* if it is published by
newspapers or broadcast on TV.
Yet despite the importance of this story, not
one newspaper or TV station reported that the IDLO
endorsed Sharia. Not one.
This article is the first time this news has
been made available to the general public.
4. Who controls the IDLO?
How significant is it that the International
Development Law Organization is pushing Sharia?
That depends on the question: How influential is
the IDLO? Answer: Very.
The IDLO (previously called the IDLI) is a
project of the US-led Empire at the highest levels
of power.
"Italy will continue to follow closely the
activities of IDLO and its work with developing
countries. The Italian Government already provides
IDLO with substantial financial assistance for
carrying out specific projects. In addition, the
Government has granted IDLO a contribution by
law..." - Carlo Ciampi, President of the
Italian Republic, Addressing an IDLO meeting on 23
March 2003. [5]
The IDLO's main sponsors include: [6]
*The Arab Bank for Economic Development in
Africa (BADEA);
* The Arab Fund for Economic and Social
Development (This fund is financed by the
oil-exporting Arab countries and located in
Kuwait. Given financial realities, it is surely
dominated by the Islamic fundamentalist states -
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates. One can
imagine its 'social development' policies...) [7]
* The Kuwait Fund for Arab and Economic
Development.
* The World Bank;
* The European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development
* USAID (This US funding organization,
controlled by the foreign policy establishment,
coordinates its work with both the CIA and the
semi-covert National Endowment for Democracy.
USAID is the funding agency that has been
distributing tens of millions of Islamic
fundamentalist schoolbooks in Afghanistan); [11]
* Coca Cola;
* The governments of Finland, France, Italy,
Japan, Denmark, France, Netherlands and the USA;
* Microsoft;
The IDLO's current vice-chairmen are:
*Mohammed Y. Abdel-Aal Senior Legal Advisor
Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development (term
expires 2004)
* Attilio Massimo Iannucci Deputy Director
General General Directorate for Development
Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy
(Permanent Representative) [8]
5. The significance of the IDLO's endorsement
of Sharia
The IDLO Roundtable was no minor affair. The
status of the IDLO, the presence of
representatives from the US (including the State
Department), Japan, Germany, Italy and Norway, the
heavy presence of top officials from the
US-installed Afghan government, and the stated
purpose, to reform the Afghan legal system, all
make it clear that the US-led Empire endorsed this
conference.
By the way, isn't it interesting that three
representatives of the Iranian fundamentalist
government took part? The Roundtable was
ostensibly called to advise a commission reforming
the legal structure in *US-run* Afghanistan. If it
is true, as we have been told, that a) the US
wants to combat fundamentalism and encourage
secular rule and b) the US and Iran are enemies
then c) why would Islamist Iran be helping plan
the reform of the legal system of a country
conquered by the U.S.?
(Emperor's Clothes has documented that despite
public displays of hostility, the U.S. and Iran
have covertly cooperated in terror. [9])
The IDLO is not a propaganda outfit. It advises
'developing countries' about their legal systems.
The credibility of this 'advice' does not
derive solely from the expertise of the advisers.
Indeed, if the issue were only legal expertise,
the 'developing countries' could do without the
IDLO. This is after all the 21st century, not the
19th. Poor countries may lack cash (hence the
term, 'poor'), but they do not lack trained
personnel. For example, tens of thousands of
highly educated Afghan citizens fled when the
secular government was destroyed by the U.S. and
Saudi-backed mujahideen a decade ago. Many would
return if their help were desired to build a
secular society!
When IDLO 'experts' arrive in a 'developing
country' bearing the message that Sharia contains
"all the elements that are really
required," they are not speaking simply as
experts. They represent the power of the US-led
Empire, just like officials of earlier empires.
And indeed the discourse of NGOs and other
organizations of the US-led Empire has an eerie
similarity to the outlook of the British and other
Empires past. Consider the much-used phrases,
'developing world' and 'emerging nations' (were
they previously shrouded in mist?) and then read
the words of Rudyard Kipling, the poet of the
British Empire:
"Take up the White Man's burden-- Send
forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to
exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in
heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your
new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half
child." -- The White Man's Burden By Rudyard
Kipling [10]
In reality the 'developing' and 'emerging'
nations - which we are amazingly told include the
Republics of the former Soviet Union! - are quite
developed.
They are cauldrons boiling with political
struggle.
In many areas, Muslim extremism, with its
central demand to impose Sharia, is locked in
mortal combat with anti-Sharia forces. These may
include trade unions, secularist military forces,
advocates of women's rights or secular education,
socialists, nationalists, communists, non-Muslim
religious groups, and Muslims who believe religion
should be a private affair. (Many Muslims who
oppose Sharia are intimidated into silence by the
deadly menace of the extremists.)
So when the IDLO endorses Sharia it is
intervening with great power on one side of a
world-significant political conflict. It is
putting its weight behind theocratic rule, against
all the above-named forces.
There are two questions we must answer:
1) In saying that Sharia has "all the
elements that are really required," is the
Western establishment helping or hurting societies
with large Muslim populations?
2) Why doesn't the media straightforwardly
report the existence of the US-led Empire's
pro-Sharia policy?
6. Selling Muslims on self-destruction, or,
'Pride cometh before a fall...'
One might get the impression from the media
that the use of Muslim religious law is a foregone
conclusion in areas with large Muslim populations.
But in fact, many of these areas have had strict
secular constitutions (Turkey) or even communist
societies (Central Asia, the Caucasus, the
Balkans, and Western China) for many decades.
Most Muslims in these areas have (or used to
have...) a secular orientation. It is the Western
and Arab establishments and their satellites which
have intervened to whip up Muslim fundamentalism
to destabilize these areas, causing great
suffering, including to Muslims.
*Case in point: Schoolbooks for extremism in
Afghanistan*
Starting in 1983 and continuing to the present
day, USAID has distributed tens of millions of
Muslim fundamentalist schoolbooks in Afghanistan.
During most of this period, the books had pictures
depicting jihad fighters slaughtering infidels.
Now the White House justifies *continuing* to
distribute millions of these schoolbooks (sans
pictures) in Afghanistan because, they say, the
books fit the religious orientation of local
people! What hypocrisy! As if such sentiments, to
the extent that they exist, do not derive in large
measures from the *tens of millions* of extremist
books that USAID distributed and which were the
main schoolbooks for the innocent children of
Afghanistan! Nothing like US aid! [11]
*Case in point: Saudi Arabia funds fanaticism*
It is precisely because so many Muslims are
*not* fundamentalists that Saudi Arabia has spent
billions of petrodollars proselytizing for Islamic
extremism:
"The Saudi government has systematically
financed the propagation of Salafi Islam, [also
known as the Wahabbi sect] by spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on three out of seven
universities in Saudi Arabia [that] are religious
universities. They built thousands of mosques
around the world, including the United States.
They have given free scholarships to non-Saudis,
to come and study Salafi and become Salafi. They
sent 2,000 Salafi clerics around the world every
summer. They print books by the millions in every
language to promote Salafi Islam. They have
conventions, conferences." - Ali Al-Ahmed,
interviewed on PBS, 9 November 2001 [11A]
So, Western and Arab governments and NGOs help
the Islamists sell fundamentalism to Muslims.
In the U.S., salespeople say, "Don't sell
the steak; sell the sizzle!" This means,
close the sale by associating the product with
some strong emotion.
In the case of Islamism, much of the sales
pitch is based on pride and its flip side, shame.
The Islamist says, 'We were civilized when
Europeans were barbarians. But now look at us!'
Thus, by evoking the emotions of pride and shame,
the Islamist sells the past. Consider:
"...the provisions of the Qur'an are such
that by their disciplined interpretation, with the
aid of the Hadith and Sunna and other sources of
interpretation, Islam can, as intended, provide
the solution to contemporary social problems.
Fourteen centuries ago Islam was a spiritual,
social, and legal revolution. Its potential for
effecting progress remains unchanged. This is
essentially the belief of enlightened
fundamentalist Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism is
not, therefore, a regressive view of history and
contemporary reality. Islam at the height of its
civilization, between the seventh and eleventh
centuries, was neither repressive nor regressive.
It was a progressive, humanistic, and legalistic
force for reform and justice." - Islamic Law
-- the Sharia Middle East Library [12]
Note that the writer says, "Islamic
fundamentalism is not...regressive..." But
immediately after that:
"...Between the seventh and eleventh
centuries, ...[Islam] was...progressive...."
Between the seventh and eleventh centuries? A
thousand or more years ago? This reminder of past
glory has powerful appeal in the Muslim world, and
particularly in the Arab world, because of three
factors:
a) Resentment towards anything that is
presented as "Western" (e.g., classical
liberalism, socialism, communism, Christianity,
Judaism, etc.) as part of a rejection of Western
colonialism, and current injustices, real or
imagined;
b) The teaching of the Koran that God has
ordained that Islam should rule the world and
c) The tremendous role of pride and shame in
most cultures with large Muslim populations and
the consequent passion over perceived loss of
status.
Unscrupulous people, whether the Mufti of
Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, or the Muslim
Brotherhood, or Fatah, created by Hajj Amin's
followers, or the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Saudi
fundamentalists - all have played the pride/shame
card to foment Muslim extremism, with its
imposition of Sharia.
But why did the British Empire support Muslim
extremism? Why did the British sponsor the Muslim
fanatic, Hajj Amin al Husseini, who distorted
political life in the Middle East? [13]
Why did the US spend billions of dollars
destroying the secular government of Afghanistan
in the 1980s? Was it 'just' to fight the Soviet
Union? Then why, after the Soviet Union
disappeared, did the US continue - why does it
still continue - to ship millions of Muslim
fundamentalist textbooks into Afghanistan? [11]
Why does the US-led Empire advocate the
imposition of Sharia today, as exemplified by the
IDLO conference in Rome?
Consider this comparison.
Suppose someone tried to tell the people of
Denmark:
* That the Vikings were World-changing
explorers;
* That they had an immense and progressive
impact in the 10th century;
* That therefore it is not regressive for Danes
today to memorize the writings of the Vikings and
to put Viking scholars in charge of all aspects of
Danish life;
* That from their interpretation of Viking
texts these scholars should tell Danes how to live
- whether to shave their facial hair, appropriate
measures for disciplining (!) their wives, proper
methods of intimate hygiene, punishments for
people who say negative things about Denmark or
who seek to give up Danish citizenship, and when
it is allowable to kill non-Danes who refuse to
pay a special tax.
How would the Danes respond?
Mr. Loris of the IDLO would not have the nerve
to tell Danes that the writings of the Vikings
have "all the elements that are really
required to underpin a human rights agenda and a
modern state agenda which are completely
compatible with international standards."
If an organization with the power of the IDLO
tried to foist such nonsense on the Danes, what
would the Danes think? They would think:
"These people want to colonize us and
therefore they want to tie us to backward and
outdated ideas which, in their generous opinion,
'are all we need' to be outdated, and backward, so
they can take advantage of us!"
That is precisely the role of Sharia. It was
the great and passionate advocate of the Turkish
nation, Kemal Ataturk, who pulled Turkey out of
certain destruction precisely by driving the
caliphate - the religious center of the Muslim
world - from Turkey. By doing so he cut the link
between politics and religion in Turkey. [14]
[Also see footnote on genocide in Turkey 14A]
Why, today, do we see the US-led Empire backing
the institution of Sharia law in Turkey? As I will
show in two upcoming articles, during both the
Clinton and Bush governments the White House and
Foreign Service have violated Turkish sovereignty
by intervening in favor of Recep Erdogan, the
leader of the Islamic fundamentalist party in
Turkey.
Why has the US done this?
Why did the British Empire eighty years ago
oppose Kemal Ataturk and back the Turkish Sultan?
Why? Why do you think? Because Ataturk was a
secularist and a modernizer who wished Turkey to
be independent of foreign domination whereas the
Sultan was a backward-looking Islamist in league
with the British.
In the modern world adherence to Sharia law
reduces the intellectual, political and scientific
power of a people and renders them weak so they
can be ruthlessly exploited economically,
politically and militarily, so they can be used by
Great Powers as a destructive force against
secular states.
That is precisely the case with this Empire of
Western and Arab Establishments run by the
Americans. It is not love for Muslims that causes
the Empire to back the fundamentalists, openly in
Afghanistan and then Bosnia, covertly in Kashmir
and Chechnya, openly in Kosovo and Macedonia,
openly and covertly in Palestine. It is not love
for Muslims that is behind the Empire's secret
alliance with the Iranian destroyers of Iran and
its open love affair with the Saudi destroyers of
Arabia. [15]
The operatives of the US-led Empire understand
the power of pride and shame in Muslim cultures.
They go to the Muslims and they say: "To be
great again you must do what you did 14 centuries
ago. Sharia has 'all the elements that are really
required...'"
And in this way, they push many people to *look
backwards*.
'We are going on a trip,' say the Muslims.
'Shall we perhaps take the Land Rover?'
'On no,' say the Imperialists, 'No, no, you
take this one-thousand-three-hundred-year-old
camel. It is really all you need...'
And meanwhile, the Imperialists fly First
Class.
Societies which look backwards self-destruct.
That is a law of history.
If you would know anything, know this: you
can't go home again because *home is no longer
there*. You can love the past, or you can hate it,
and in any case hopefully you will learn from it.
But you *cannot* live in the past.
When people try, it is not the past they get
but a present which is terrible. We must move
forward, re-think, find new solutions out of human
creativity, "climb the stairway of our own
achievements," or we will not have a
"progressive and humanistic effect."
Quite the contrary.
The British told Turkey, 'Keep the Caliphate.
It is really all you need.' And When Kemal Ataturk
drove the Caliphate out of Turkey he declared, 'We
will show them!' - meaning the West - 'We will
show them that we can achieve just as much as
they!' And to that end he removed from Turkish
politics the religious baggage that held down
Turkish political life so they could create a
great modern nation.
God save the Muslims from these Empire builders
who, posing as friends, sponsor fundamentalist
leaders, saying that Sharia is "all you
really need."
Yes, all you really need to be hopelessly
backward, to be losers in *somebody else's*
Empire, to be slaves.
7. 'No news' ain't good news
Most of what appeared in the Associated Press
dispatch was misleading or sketchy, but it did
include a) the fact that the IDLO had sponsored
the Roundtable conference and b) director-general
Loris' statement endorsing Sharia.
This was clearly newsworthy.
Consider:
1) The US-led Empire *claims* it is battling
Muslim fundamentalism;
2) The main demand of Muslim fundamentalism is
to impose Sharia;
3) Yet the Empire is pushing Sharia.
What could be a more shocking, scandalous news
story? The US went to *war* in Afghanistan
supposedly to save the local people from
fundamentalism. But now the U.S. led Empire is
using Afghanistan as a showcase for marketing
Sharia throughout the 'developing world.'
So tell me once again, why did the U.S. go to
war in Afghanistan?
This is the type of news story that reporters
live for. Supposedly.
And indeed Associated Press and Agence France
Presse did cover the meeting. Both wire services
posted dispatches on December 19th describing the
IDLO's role. Thousands of newspapers and TV news
programs received those dispatches. And yet we
could find only *two* news reports on the Rome
meetings!
One was a BBC report, which stated:
[Excerpt from the BBC begins here]
Mr Karzai has made it clear that Afghanistan, a
predominantly Muslim society, intends to maintain
sharia law, while at the same time establishing
pluralistic democracy and an independent
judiciary.
A preliminary conference of international
lawyers meeting here in Rome earlier this week
recommended that special measures should be taken
to protect and promote the rights of women and
children in Afghanistan.[16]
[Excerpt from the BBC ends here]
How amazingly misleading.
Notice that the BBC leaves out the fact that
the IDLO sponsored the 'preliminary conference'!
Instead, the IDLO Roundtable is presented as some
generic 'conference of international lawyers,' a
neutral body of experts. How could the BBC
*overlook* the name of the sponsoring
organization?
And how could it overlook the fact that this
was *not*, most definitely not, a 'conference of
international lawyers.' The briefest examination
of the guest list makes it clear that this was not
a neutral body of international lawyers. The legal
people at the conference were advocates of Sharia,
mostly from the Middle East and Afghanistan -
hardly a typical body of "international
lawyers." Moreover, this was an explicitly
*political* conference; officials took part who
are involved in the foreign policy of Iran, the
US, Germany, Japan, and so on. What on earth were
they doing there if this wasn't a conference
controlled by the US-led Empire?
By omitting such details, the BBC could then
portray Mr. Karzai as an independent leader. Hence
the statement, "Mr. Karzai has made it clear
that Afghanistan, a predominantly Muslim society,
intends to maintain sharia law, while at the same
time establishing pluralistic democracy and an
independent judiciary."
In fact:
a) Mr. Karzai was handpicked to be President of
Afghanistan by Zalmay Khalilzad, the member of the
U.S. National Security Council in charge of
Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. (If you think
this may be hyperbole, check out footnote [17])
Coincidentally, Mr. Khalilzad was a key figure
in the original mujahideen war against the Afghan
secular government and its Soviet sponsors during
the 1980s. [2]
b) Mr. Karzai is the puppet leader of a
conquered country and
c) This conference, set up by the IDLO, an
organization openly controlled by the US Empire,
was obviously *designed* to limit Afghanistan's
choices to...well, let's see:
-- "What will you be having today, Mr.
Karzai? Would you like a little Sharia? It's in
season."
-- "Why no, no. No, I think today I'll try
the Muslim religious law."
Given this 'choice', Mr. Karzai "made it
clear" he wants Sharia. He did? Gee, I didn't
know puppets talked.
So much for the BBC. As for the other published
report, it provides comic relief. It consists of a
brief note in the December 23, 2002 edition of
something called 'World Markets Analysis'. Never
heard of it? Me neither. Nevertheless, 'World
Markets' gets the prize because it is the *only*
publication that actually mentioned the IDLO.
True, it didn't quote Loris' statement about
endorsing Sharia. But it did report the earth
shaking news that Sharia was to be updated so it
would "also draw on international commercial
law"!
How can the failure of the entire English and
French language media to cover the story of the
IDLO's endorsement of Sharia be explained? I can
think of only one explanation.
Many people in the West supported the attack on
Afghanistan because they were convinced - due to
misinformation - that this war would end
fundamentalist rule in that tortured country. Do
you remember Barbara Bush's speech, exhorting the
West to save Afghan women from the extremists?
If these millions of honest but misinformed
people learned that the US-led Empire was working
together with various Muslim fundamentalists,
including from Iran, to use Afghanistan as a base
for spreading Sharia throughout the 'developing
countries', they would be outraged.
To avoid this problem, the powers-that-be
suppressed the IDLO/Sharia story. This suppression
did not happen spontaneously. How could it have?
How could thousands of newspaper editors decide
independently *not* to publish the news that the
US-led Empire was endorsing Sharia, in direct
contradiction to its much-stated aims?
The suppression had to have been organized.
8. A parting thought from Mr. Milosevic
Commenting on the state of the Western mass
media, the much-demonized Slobodan Milosevic said:
"By deceiving their public through a
systematic manufacturing of lies, their government
and their media have abolished democracy for their
own people precisely to the extent to which they
have withdrawn the people's right to truthful
information. You can have the best possible
mechanism for democracy, but if you feed it with
lies, it cannot produce results that are humane,
honest, and progressive."
Consider this chilling thought: If Emperor's
Clothes had not chanced upon the AP dispatch, the
very important fact that the IDLO is pushing for
Sharia in 'developing countries' might never have
seen the light of day. Deprived of this
information (and how much more?), fed the lie that
Western Establishments are trying to bring
democratic, secular solutions to the 'developing
world', how can people in the West make
intelligent political decisions?
Mr. Milosevic spoke the truth.
***
Jared Israel Editor Emperor's Clothes
Footnotes and Further Reading
[1] The term 'Islamist' does not
mean someone who follows the Muslim religion. It
means someone who wishes Muslim religious law to
control social and political life. A good example
of an Islamist is Alija Izetbegovic, falsely
represented in the Western media as the shining
example of a moderate Muslim. See, "Moderate
Democrat or Radical Islamist? - Alija Izetbegovic,
the Bosnian Leader Backed by Washington," by
Francisco Gil-White at
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm
[1A] If the following hyperlink
to the IDLO Roundtable mission statement and list
of participants doesn't work, please cut and paste
it into your browser.
http://www.idli.org/documents/Afghanistan%20Roundtable%20Program.pdf
[2] Whenever the U.S.-led Empire
is caught sponsoring Muslim terrorists it argues
that, 'We only did it for the sake of expediency,'
i.e., to satisfy some immediate need.
This reminds me of the man who
pays the rent for a second flat, which is occupied
by his mistress. When the wife learns about the
mistress, the husband protests his innocence,
explaining, "I only see her when I need
to."
In the case of Afghanistan, the
argument is that the U.S. 'only' sponsored the
mujahideen (to the tune of billions of dollars) to
fight the Soviet Union. This is contradicted by
the overwhelming evidence that the U.S. insisted
the mujahideen fight on to destroy the Afghan
secular government, even after it was clear the
Soviets would pull out.
See for example the article from
Tass quoted in "Zalmay Khalilzad - Envoy for
Islamic Terror," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#E
and scroll down to the subheading for *May 1988*
[3] Associated Press; December
19, 2002; Headline: Karzai Pledges Equal Justice
For All At Conference On Reforming Judiciary
Byline: Nicole Winfield; Section: International
News; Distribution: Europe; Britain; Scandinavia;
Middle East; Africa; India; Asia; England
Associated Press Writer Dateline: Rome.
The IDLO has posted, in full,
the media coverage of the Roundtable and
subsequent conference, so you can read the AP
dispatch there. All the reports listed are wire
service dispatches. These are not read by the
public unless they are published by the media. The
only actual media source is a BBC article which
fails to mention the IDLO.
The AP dispatch is the first one
on the page, at
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:P38O3kZX9w8C:www.idli.org/documents/
Afghanistan_Press_Articles.pdf+idlo+afghanistan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8t
[4] A few thoughts on Sharia:
"The Qur'an is the
principal source of Islamic law, the Sharia. It
contains the rules by which the Muslim world is
governed (or should govern itself)..." --
'Islamic Law—the Sharia'
http://www2.ari.net/gckl/islam/law.htm
The rules of Sharia, torturously
argued by Muslim scholars, are based on the
accumulated interpretations of 1300-year-old
religious texts. There are many rules; they are
intricate; breaking these rules is *sometimes* a
violation of law:
"The rulings of shari`ah
for all our daily actions are five: prescribed,
recommended, permissible, disliked and unlawful.
The distinctions between the five categories are
in whether their performance (P) and
nonperformance (NP) is rewarded, not rewarded,
punished or not punished (see the table)."
For full text, go to
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/shariahintroduction.html
Often there is more than one
possible interpretation, and since the rules cover
the most intimate areas of private life, and also
public life, and since violating them *may* be a
serious affront to God, those with authority to
rule on Sharia wield immense power.
Moreover, it takes years of
study to master Sharia, something ordinary Muslims
have neither the time to do nor, in many cases,
the education. (This is especially true since the
key writings are in Arabic, not the native tongue
of most Muslims!) Thus Sharia is obscure for
ordinary Muslims. This obscurantism magnifies the
power of those who issue rulings. And the
obscurantism is in turn magnified by the methods
of reasoning approved for the study of Sharia. Try
making sense of the following explanation of the
rules for deriving laws from Muslim religious
texts:
"According to these rules,
for example, one initially is to refer to a
specific provision and then to a general provision
dealing with a particular situation. No general
provision can be interpreted to contradict a
specific provision, and a specific rule will
supersede a general proposition. A general
provision, however, is always interpreted in the
broadest manner, while a specific provision is
interpreted in the narrowest manner. Reasoning by
analogy is permitted, as are applications by
analogy, except where expressly prohibited.
Simplicity and clear language are always
preferred."
http://www2.ari.net/gckl/islam/law.htm
I do not exaggerate when I say
Sharia covers the most intimate details of private
life. Thus one must constantly be on guard to make
sure one is carrying out daily activities in
conformity to God's word, as set down by a legion
of scholars.
The effect of this can be to
encourage compulsiveness and passivity. For an
idea what these rules may cover, see
http://islam-pure.de/imam/fatwas/practical02.htm#Rules%20of%20Toilet
Takhalli
Regarding the treatment of
non-Muslims under Sharia law, see "Rights of
Non-Muslims in an Islamic State," by Samuel
Shahid at
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/rights.htm
[5] Speech by Carlo Azeglio
Ciampi, President of the Italian Republic at a
private meeting with the IDLO board, March 28,
2003 http://www.idli.org/Ciampi_speech.htm
[6]
http://www.idli.org/finance_funding.htm
[7] The HQ of the Arab Fund for
Social and Economic Development has to be seen. If
they'd scrimped a little putting up this building,
they could have Funded a lot of Social Development
for poor Arabs...
http://www.arabfund.org/aohq/tour.htm
[8]
http://www.idli.org/board_of_directors.htm
[9] For more on US-Iranian
relations, go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/#usiran
[10] "The White Man's
Burden," By Rudyard Kipling McClure's
Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/kipling.html
[11] 'Bush & the Media Cover
up the Jihad Schoolbook Scandal, by Jared Israel
at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
[11A] We have provided a link to
the transcript of the PBS broadcast on Saudi
support for extremism, and also a link to our own
page, which includes the full text of the
broadcast but takes you direct to the quote cited
above.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/archive/pbs.htm#a
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html
[12] Islamic Law--the Sharia
Middle East Library
http://www.mideasti.org/library/islam/law.htm
[13] "'Palestine Is Our
Land And The Jews Are Our Dogs'- Anti-Semitism,
Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The
Palestinian Leadership," By Francisco J.
Gil-White *
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm#part2
[14]
http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/Ataturk.html
[14A] Regarding Ataturk and the
genocide against the Armenian and Greek
populations of Turkey during and after World War
II, please see, "Regarding the Armenian and
Greek Genocides in Turkey," at
http://emperors-clothes.com/genocide.htm
[15] Regarding the involvement
of the US-led Empire in terror in the Balkans,
see, "The Terrorists Attacking Macedonia Are
Nato Troops, Not Rebels," by Jared Israel and
Rick Rozoff
http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
* The US-Iranian alliance behind
the Islamist terror in Bosnia is documented and
discussed in the article, "U.S. & Iran:
Enemies in Public, but Secret Allies in
Terror," by Jared Israel, Francisco
Gil-White, Peter Makara, and Nico Varkevisser at
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm
* Regarding the US-Saudi
sponsorship of the mujahideen in Afghanistan - to
the tune of billions of dollars - see:
'Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists:
Deliberate Policy,' by Steve Coll
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
And also see, "Afghan
Taliban Camps Were Built by NATO,"
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm
* Regarding our contention that
the U.S. never severed covert ties to Osama bin
Laden, see "Bin Laden in the Balkans,"
at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm
And also see, 'Newspaper
Articles Documenting U.S. Creation of Taliban and
bin Laden's Terrorist Network' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm
And also see, "Gaping Holes
in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden' Story," by Jared
Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
[16]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2589341.stm
[17] Saying that U.S. envoy
Khalilzad picked Hamid Karzai to be President of
Afghanistan is not hyperbole. It is well known
that Karzai was elected at an Afghan grand
assembly, a loya jirga, held in Germany two years
ago. Here's how the LA Times described the process
of 'electing' Karzai:
"Although challenged by two
other candidates, his victory was preordained by
the controversial influence of U.S. and other
foreign advisors, which could taint the
credibility of his tenure. Mohammad Zaher Shah,
the nation's former king, withdrew from the
political stage on the advice of President Bush's
envoy [Zalmay Khalilzad]. Former President
Burhanuddin Rabbani's departure from the race is
believed to have been arranged in return for a
prestigious title to be bestowed later. Still,
Karzai's selection--he received 1,295 of the 1,575
votes cast--clearly reflected majority sentiment
among those gathered for the weeklong convocation.
Even his rivals joined in the spirit of
celebration over what they see as the beginning of
a new age in their homeland." (My emphasis)
-- Los Angeles Times June 14, 2002 Friday Home
Edition Section: Part A Main News; Part 1; Page 1;
Foreign Desk Headline: The World; Karzai Chosen As
Leader, Vows To Rebuild Nation;
Note that the first part of the
above quote, where the Times states that the envoy
(that's Khalilzad) got two candidates to withdraw,
renders humorous the second part, about how the
results reflected everybody's wishes. In today's
Afghanistan, the elite, convened by Khalilzad, are
free to democratically do whatever Khalilzad tells
them, after which they are free to joyously
celebrate their independence.
ORIGINAL
|
