In the rest of the Muslim world, barring Islamic Iran, the ruling elites have accepted defeat and humiliation as their permanent condition. One can find striking lessons of such behaviour related to Bani Israel described in the noble Qur’an. In one case, Bani Israel confirming their mental defeat, refused to enter a territory when Prophet Musa (a) asked them to do so as commanded by Allah (Â). Prophet Dawud (a), on the other hand, refused to be intimidated by the size of Goliath and killed him.

The Muslim ruling elites display all the characteristics of the Bani Israel of old. Their commitment to Allah (Â) is superficial, not sincere. While the Muslim world is endowed with great material resources, these are not utilised to improve the condition of the people. Instead, the elites have become accustomed to an easy lifestyle and are not prepared to face the hardships that come with struggle for truth and justice. They feel more comfortable as slaves of the West than living a dignified existence as servants of Allah (Â), the Creator and Master of the universe.

How did this situation arise? Muslims did not always display such cowardice. In the early period of Islam, small numbers of Muslims repeatedly overwhelmed much larger enemy forces. Muslims did not do so through the superiority of weapons; what they lacked in swords and spears, they made up for in iman (faith-commitment to Allah — Â), secure in the knowledge that whether they survive in battle or fall fighting, they will be victorious. Such people can never be defeated.

The slave mentality is the product of colonialism. While direct colonialism ended with the departure of European colonialists from Muslim lands, indirect colonialism has continued. People who assumed the reigns of power in the so-called independent Muslim societies were already mental slaves. They had imbibed the values, culture and mannerism of the colonial masters. They adopted the colonial master’s language and displayed the same contempt for ordinary people that the European colonialists did.

Even these may be considered minor compared to the mental slavery that is so pervasive in Muslim societies. The Muslim elite — and Pakistan is a typical example — cannot imagine life without the deathly embrace of Uncle Sam. The Pakistanis can be forgiven for such servile attitude because they do not have much wealth. How does one explain the slave mentality of the Saudis that have billions — nay trillions of dollars yet they behave as slaves of the Americans? If the Americans think jihad is bad, the Saudis immediately say “Amen”. If the Americans order removal of Qur’anic passages from textbooks that condemn certain behaviour, the Saudis immediately comply. They have bought into the propaganda that the US is all powerful.

It is far easier to overcome physical colonization but much harder to surmount mental colonization. The mind itself must be willing to break out of such a state. A lion’s natural habitat is the jungle where it roams free. A lion in the circus, however, has accepted mental defeat. Even when let loose, it does not run away to return to the jungle. The Muslim elite behave like circus lions jumping at the crack of the ring master’s whip. Nothing good can be accepted from such people; they are happy living in a cage to be fed dead meat.

The first step towards liberation is the process of liberating the Muslim mind.

Iin 2007, 121 soldiers committed suicide, a Washington Post report said alluding to the statistics produced by an internal army study.

The number is still due for confirmation, but added to statistics from the past two years, it attests to the fact that suicide rates in the US Army have reached highs which have not been seen in more than 25 years.

Last year’s attempted suicide rates also shows a six-fold increase since the start of the Iraq war, with about 2,100 soldiers having tried to take their own lives or intentionally inflicted injury on themselves.

“Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 — the lowest rate on record — the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006,” the report noted.

What do people do when they find a wallet on the street? Leave it? Take it to a police station? Post it back to the owner? Keep it, even?

The answer, scientists have found, depends rather more on evolution than morality.

Hundreds of wallets were planted on the streets of Edinburgh by psychologists last year. One of four photographs was inserted behind a clear plastic window in each of the wallets, showing either a smiling baby, a cute puppy, a happy family or a contented elderly couple. Some wallets had no image and some had charity papers inside.

When faced with the photograph of the baby people were far more likely to send the wallet back, the study found. The baby photograph wallets had the highest return rate, with 88 percent being sent back. Next came the puppy, the family and the elderly couple, with 53, 48 and 28 percent respectively. At 20 and 15 percent, the charity card and control wallets had the lowest return rates.

Scientists argue that it would be difficult to genetically code for feeling empathy exclusively towards your own child, and much easier to code for feeling empathy towards all children.

15/04/2009 7:01:00 PM

Ali Akbar Dareini, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ISFAHAN, Iran – Iranian scientists have cloned a goat and plan future experiments they hope will lead to a treatment for stroke patients, the leader of the research said Wednesday.

The female goat, named Hana, was born early Wednesday in the city of Isfahan in central Iran, said Dr. Mohammed Hossein Nasr-e-Isfahani, head of the Royan Research Institute.

“With the birth of Hana, Iran is among five countries in the world cloning a baby goat,” said Isfahani, an embryologist.
In 2006, Iran became the first country in the Middle East to announce it had cloned a sheep. Two and a half years later, that animal is healthy, the institute said.

The effort is part of Iran’s quest to become a regional powerhouse in advanced science and technology by 2025. In particular, Iran is striving for achievements in medicine, aerospace and nuclear technology.

The cloning of sheep and other animals could lead to advances in medical research, including using cloned animals to produce human antibodies against diseases, Isfahani said.

He said his institute’s main aim in cloning the goat is to produce medicine to be used to treat people who have had strokes.

Iran’s cloning program has won backing from Shiite Muslim religious leaders, who have issued decrees authorizing animal cloning but banning human reproductive cloning.

Israeli exports hit by European boycotts after attacks on Gaza
A fifth of Israeli exporters report drop in demand as footage of Gaza attacks changes behaviour of consumers and investors

Rachel Shabi, in Tel Aviv
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 April 2009 16.16 BST

Israeli companies are feeling the impact of boycott moves in Europe, according to surveys, amid growing concern within the Israeli business sector over organised campaigns following the recent attack on Gaza.

Last week, the Israel Manufacturers Association reported that 21% of 90 local exporters who were questioned had felt a drop in demand due to boycotts, mostly from the UK and Scandinavian countries. Last month, a report from the Israel Export Institute reported that 10% of 400 polled exporters received order cancellation notices this year, because of Israel’s assault on Gaza.

“There is no doubt that a red light has been switched on,” Dan Katrivas, head of the foreign trade department at the Israel Manufacturers Association, told Maariv newspaper this week. “We are closely following what’s happening with exporters who are running into problems with boycotts.” He added that in Britain there exists “a special problem regarding the export of agricultural produce from Israel”.

The problem, said Katrivas, is in part the discussion in the UK over how to label goods that come from Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last week British government officials met with food industry representatives to discuss the issue.

In recent months, the Israeli financial press has reported the impact of mounting calls to boycott goods from the Jewish state. Writing in the daily finance paper, the Marker, economics journalist Nehemia Stressler berated then trade and industry minister Eli Yishai for telling the Israeli army to “destroy one hundred homes” in Gaza for every rocket fired into Israel.

The minister, wrote Stressler, did not understand “how much the operation in Gaza is hurting the economy”.

Stressler added: “The horrific images on TV and the statements of politicians in Europe and Turkey are changing the behaviour of consumers, businessmen and potential investors. Many European consumers boycott Israeli products in practice.”

He quoted a pepper grower who spoke of “a concealed boycott of Israeli products in Europe”.

In February, another article in the Marker, titled “Now heads are lowered as we wait for the storm to blow over”, reported that Israelis with major business interests in Turkey hoped to remain anonymous to avoid arousing the attention of pro-boycott groups.

The paper said that, while trade difficulties with Turkey during the Gaza assault received more media attention, Britain was in reality of greater concern.

Gil Erez, Israel’s commercial attache in London, told the paper: “Organisations are bombarding [British] retailers with letters, asking that they remove Israeli merchandise from the shelves.”

Finance journalists have reported that Israeli hi-tech, food and agribusiness companies suffered adverse consequences following Israel’s three-week assault on Gaza, and called for government intervention to protect businesses from a growing boycott.

However, analysts stressed that the impact of a boycott on local exporters was difficult to discern amidst a global economic crisis and that such effects could be exaggerated.

“If there was something serious, I would have heard about it,” said Avi Tempkin, from Globes, the Israeli business daily.

Israeli companies are thought to be wary of giving credence to boycott efforts by talking openly about their effect, preferring to resolve problems through diplomatic channels.

Consumer boycotts in Europe have targeted food produce such as Israeli oranges, avocados and herbs, while in Turkey the focus has been on agribusiness products such as pesticides and fertilisers.

The bulk of Israeli export is in components, especially hi-tech products such as Intel chips and flashcards for mobile phones. It is thought that the consumer goods targeted by boycott campaigns represent around 3% to 5% of the Israeli export economy.

BOYCOTT ISRAEL!!!

BAR CODE FOR PRODUCTS MADE IN ISRAEL:

This bar code, with the 7 29 indicator, flags Israeli-made products. This information is being circulated so that you, an individual consumer, are able to circumvent purchasing made-in-Israel products!!!

A Canadian spokesman confirmed that the Respect MP had been deemed inadmissible on national security grounds and would not be allowed into the country.

Galloway today branded the ban “idiotic” and vowed to fight the ruling with “all means” at his disposal. He is due to give a speech in Toronto on 30 March.

Earlier today The Sun said border security officials had declared Galloway, 54, “inadmissible” because of his views on Afghanistan and the presence of Canadian troops there and would be turned away if he attempted to enter the country.

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the decision had been taken by border security officials “based on a number of factors” in accordance with section 34(1) of the country’s immigration act.

The act states:

“A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:
(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(c) engaging in terrorism;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).”

Immigration minister Jason Kenney has the right to exempt people from the act if it is felt that their presence would not be “detrimental to the national interest”.

But the spokesman said Kenney would “decline to exercise that discretion” in Galloway’s case.

Responding to the news, Galloway issued a statements headed: “This idiotic ban shames Canada.”

He is this afternoon exploring with organisers of his speaking tour and with legal advisors avenues to challenge the decision, which he branded “irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada’s good name”.

Galloway said: “This decision, gazetted in Rupert Murdoch’s Sun, is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved – a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending.

“This has further vindicated the anti-war movement’s contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are.

“This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over.

“All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision.

“On a personal note – for a Scotsman to be barred from Canada is like being told to stay away from the family home.

“This is not something I’m prepared to accept.”

Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, is due to speak at a public forum entitled Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by Toronto Coalition to Stop the War later this month.

He is also due to speak at a second public forum in Mississauga, just west of Toronto, on 31 March.

His proposed visit prompted the Jewish Defence League of Canada to write an open letter to the country’s government urging it to do “everything possible to keep this hater away”.

In 2006, Galloway was refused entry to Egypt on the grounds of national security after he travelled to the country to give evidence at a “mock trial” of former prime minister Tony Blair and ex-US president George W Bush.

He was held overnight in a police cell before the authorities changed their minds and allowed him into the country.

“Since 2004, he has been a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2006, he became a member of the Boards of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He is the author of the new book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11. It was awarded the London Book Festival’s annual grand prize for ‘books worthy of greater attention from the international publishing community’. His essays about Islamism and anti-Semitism have been published inter alia in The New Republic, Policy Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Telos, and they have been translated into more than ten languages. In (2008) he is going to present his new book in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Buffalo, Bangor, Augusta and Washington DC.”

Among those European and North American authors in greatest demand these days are a growing number of young Western Muslim women who have forged a public profile by blaming Islam for every problem and disadvantage in the lives of Muslims everywhere – including, of course, their own. They are strangely vague, or even silent, on the role of poor social and economic conditions that prevail in most developing Muslim countries and about the exploitation of resources in those countries by Western powers, their proxies, or even their operatives within those Muslim countries.

The Islamophobia industry is also responsible for translating books and opinion articles from other languages into English in order to accelerate the movement of anything that smears Islam and Muslims into the Western media bandwidth.

It is all too easy to make a career in the Islamophobia industry. Financing is readily available from governments and right-wing special interest groups, all of whom are interested in smearing Islam in order to promote their political agenda of dominating, exploiting, invading, and ultimately occupying Muslim countries and homelands. The power of Islamophobia is thus brought to bear heavily on Muslim minorities in Western countries, who are pressured into silence and the abandonment of their collective political
voice.

Of course, those who work within and on behalf of the Islamophobia industry deny any wrongdoing or ethical compromise in their motivation. In fact, they deny that Islamophobia even exists! And when they are forced to actually acknowledge the term, it is always placed between quotation marks.

Moreover, they attack any voice coming from among the Western Muslim communities – their primary victimized group. They also cheer on other Islamophobes, as well as defending Muslim profiling by the FBI and the Red Alerts issued by the CIA against Muslim countries.

Islamophobes, regardless of what they call themselves, blame Muslims for every terrorist attack and find them all guilty-by-association for the crimes of a few. The only “good” Muslims in the view of the Islamophobia industry are those who agree to be stereotyped as “moderate,” “modern,” “liberal,” “progressive,” “ordinary” – in other words, socially compliant and politically silent.

In October 2008, the national media watchdog group FAIR, released a first-of-its-kind report “profiling 12 of the leading Islamophobic pundits and media figures and examining the ways they’ve negatively influenced media coverage in the U.S.”

The report, called “Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry and Misinformation,” describes a loose network of right-wing, anti-Muslim partisans “who regularly use innuendo, questionable sources of information and even lies to smear, and effectively marginalize, Muslims in the media.”

Steve Rendall, one of the report’s authors and a senior analyst at FAIR, said: “This report takes a fresh look at Islamophobia and its perpetrators in today’s media … We found prominent right-wing pundits and activists using misinformation and innuendo to broadcast hate against an entire community — in this case, Muslim-Americans — and major media have either fallen asleep at the wheel or, in many cases, have actively helped to spread the smears.”

“Media should seek various points of view, but the message of the Islamophobes cannot possibly comport with the standards and practices that should constrain media outlets from airing smears against ethnic and religious groups,” Rendall continued. “We’re talking about double standards.”

The report lists American talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck; American activists like Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz; and influential writers like Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer.

The report also features four case studies, or snapshots, that show how “smearcasting” has affected news standards and reporting, including the following:

Daniel Pipes led a successful campaign to oust the principal of a secular Arabic-language New York City public school by initiating a media-driven pressure campaign. The principal’s history of forging interfaith and interethnic alliances was ignored by a campaign that branded her as a “stealth Islamist.” Media pressure eventually forced her to resign.

Columnist and Internet activist Michelle Malkin pressured Dunkin’ Donuts into dropping an ad featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray wearing a black- and-white scarf — which Malkin falsely identified as a kafiyah (Middle Eastern men’s headdress), calling it a symbol of “murderous Palestinian jihad.”

Inevitably, Islamophobia emerged in the 2008 U.S. presidential election race, from nefarious whisper-campaigns directed at Senator (now President) Barack Obama to the recent distribution of an anti-Muslim propaganda DVD called “Obsession” to 28 million newspaper subscribers in electoral swing states.

“We’re not talking about people raving on a street corner downtown,” Rendall emphasized. “These are people who either have a powerful platform at their disposal, or are allowed unfettered access to powerful platforms by reporters and editors in what are considered mainstream publications.”

On a note of warning he added, “These Muslim-bashing attacks have a real impact, not only on Muslims in America but on our civil discourse.”

Islamophobia has been around for quite some time, but since 9/11 it began to take on form and structure, supported by financiers, researchers, writers and academics, many of whom were self-styled “experts” on Islam and terrorism. The Islamophobia industry directly filled a need created by right-wing politicians, war mongers, racists, lobbyists, and the military war business (from professional mercenary companies to arms dealers and manufacturers). Every time a perceived need is revealed in a capitalist society, an industry is created, sometimes by design, to fill that need.

The West led by the U.S. saw and promoted the need for an Islamophobia industry; and now that it is established, it will be around for years to come.

There are five central reasons for this phenomenon:

1. The Muslim world is rich in resources, especially crude oil, and the West is determined not to pay fair market value for it. Capitalist financial powers would rather rob Muslims and the entire Muslim world of this valuable resource, using violence if necessary, as in the case of Iraq, 
2. In geopolitical terms, the Muslim world covers a strategically vital area, in which the West is determined to establish a permanent presence; military occupation is one favoured means of doing so, as in the case of Afghanistan. 
3. The Muslim world represents a huge market of close to 1.5 billion people, whose buying power is essential if the West is to succeed in
   controlling the one-way flow of its goods — no matter how inferior they may be, compared to those of emerging economies in Asia and the flow of accumulated Muslim capital the other way. 
4. The Israeli factor wields a persistently strong influence in Western politics, especially the powerful American Israeli lobby in Washington. The U.S and its allies are determined to maintain Israel as a strong military outpost in the Middle East and ensure that its anti-Muslim policies are immune from any negative judgment; hence the Israel-can-do-no-wrong bias. 
5. The U.S.-led “war on terror,” plus the politicization of all terrorist attacks dating from 9/11 and later, translates in practical terms to a need for Islamophobes and other organizations to work together in both the public and private sphere. This has led to the enactment of anti-civil liberty laws, Muslim profiling by authorities, the restriction of Muslim immigration to the West, and the further marginalization of Muslim minorities already established in Western society.

Like other corporate entities, the Islamophobia industry has been very active in creating a public “branding” for its product and a new lingo or jargon to identify its artificially created place in our language. Thanks to the Islamophobia industry, terms like “Islamist,” “Islamofascism” and “Eurabia” are commonplace.

In the past, Islamist was used within academia to legitimately indentify specialists in Islam, just as the word Orientalist indicated someone specializing in the study of the Orient. But Islamophobes have mis-appropriated the term Islamist as a shorthand indicator of every imaginable negative idea pertaining to Muslims and Islam.

The term “Islamofascism” became familiar after the September 2001 attacks as a way to describe any ideology based on Islam, even if it had no connection whatsoever to negative constructs.

The American group FAIR — Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting – found in its search of a major reference database that Islamofascism was mentioned just twice before 9/11; both times in the British media. In 1990, a remark by Independent writer Malise Ruthven about governments in predominantly Islamic countries stated: “Authoritarian government, not to say ‘Islamo-fascism,’ is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.” Ironically, considering the term’s current usage, most of these authoritarian governments — including Morocco and Pakistan — were backed by the U.S. at the time. The second mention, also from the Independent in 1990, came in a response criticizing Ruthven for coining the term.

Reviewing the term’s subsequent history, however, FAIR reports that: “Since 2001, use of the expression has exploded. That year, according to a search of major English-language papers in the Nexis database, the word and its variant ‘Islamofascist’ appeared 12 times, nearly all in reference to Al-Qaeda. The next year that number rose to 69, and it reached 92 in 2003 as the word’s definition began expanding to include Saddam Hussein’s historically non-religious and somewhat ecumenical Ba’athist regime. (As an example, Tariq Aziz, Hussein’s familiar spokesperson, was a Christian.)

“The word’s prevalence continued to increase in 2005,” FAIR continues, “the year George W. Bush used it in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (10/6/05); and in 2006 it appeared 594 times in major papers. David Horowitz’s ‘Islamofascism Awareness Week’ (IFAW) — organized on about a hundred (American) college campuses in October 2007 — was a sign that the term had fully arrived in some right-wing circles …”

The word “Eurabia” is another volatile word, coined to create a growing fear that every good thing in Europe (culture, economy, ethnic identity, etc.) will end as its Muslim population increases. The term motivates violence against Europe’s Muslim minorities. Meanwhile, American Islamophobes are using it to promote the idea that “you have to deal with the problem before it comes here.”

FAIR also reported that; “At Michigan State University, the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom invited a bona fide fascist — Nick Griffin, the head of the racist British National Party — to speak on how Europe is becoming ‘Eurabia’.”

These days, it seems any writer — including those who have never achieved much in the way of popularity, profile or status — can get a book, op-ed, article, or editorial letter easily published through the influence of the Islamophobia industry in Western publishing and media. Books on such a “hot” topic as the Islamic/Muslim “threat” are sure to be widely reviewed from coast to coast, regardless of their accuracy or quality.

Fatemeh Keshavarz Jasmine and Stars

Keshavarz argues that Azar Nafisi’s book represents a ‘New Orientalist’ narrative. Her argument builds on the critical writings of Edward Said in which he argued that the way the West perceived the Orient (the East) had profound consequences on their mutual interactions. By “West”, he was particularly referring to the circles of power and the intellectual discourse over the past few centuries. In the Orientalist perception, the East was seen as unvaryingly different, backward, inferior, mysterious, and dangerous. It was something to be wary of or to be disciplined. Aggressive colonial expansions in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere were rationalized as a ‘progressive force’ which would civilize the indigenous populations in the colonized lands. These expansions occurred simultaneously with the development of the Enlightenment and technological advancements in the West. [1] Edward Said further argued that such perceptions, especially concerning the Muslim world, continue to dominate the popular discourse in the West.

Developing on Said’s line of argument, Keshavarz argues that the ‘New Orientalist’ narrative “equally simplifies its subject. For example, it explains almost all undesirable Middle Eastern incidents in terms of Muslim men’s submission to God and Muslim women’s submission to men. The old narrative was imbued with the authority of an all-knowing foreign expert. The emerging narrative varies somewhat in that it might have a native–or seminative–insider tone. Furthermore, as the product of a self-questioning era, it shows a relative awareness of its own possible shortcomings. Yet it replicates the earlier narrative’s strong undercurrent of superiority and of impatience with the locals, who are often portrayed as uncomplicated. The new narrative does not necessarily support overt colonial ambitions. But it does not hide its clear preference for a western political and cultural takeover. Most importantly, it replicates the totalizing – and silencing – tendencies of the old Orientalists by virtue of erasing, through unnuanced narration, the complexity and richness in the local culture” (p.3).

The first chapter of “Jasmine and Stars” introduces the goal and the main arguments of this book. The subsequent three chapters take the readers on an exciting journey which explores the rich literary heritage and diverse lives of the people in Iran. Keshavarz particularly focuses on the Sufi tradition in her discussion of Islam. The personal stories she shares all throughout the book convey feelings of warmth, tenderness, and common humanity (shared by the peoples of Iran and the West). In her analysis of poetry, novels, and Sufi thought in these three chapters she also shows how these literary expressions animate in the lives of ordinary people in Iran. The fifth chapter quite sharply dissects “Reading Lolita in Tehran”. Concluding the book in the sixth chapter, Keshavarz once again exhorts the readers to explore the shared humanity and richness of Muslim cultures.

The first and the fifth chapters could also be read separately if readers are interested in specifically reading the critique of “Reading Lolita in Tehran”. The tools and vocabulary provided in these two chapters could also help with evaluating works such as “Nine Parts of Desire”, “The Bookseller of Kabul”, “’The Kite Runner”, “The Almond”, “Persepolis”, and “The Trouble with Islam”.

The value of this book should be self-evident in a time when distortions and lies about Islam and Muslims are widespread. These distortions are damaging not only for inter-communal relations but also the way Muslims themselves perceive their identity. Yet while reading the book, at times I wished that Keshavarz had scrutinized the premises of these distortions even more deeply. This analysis would have expanded the power and scope of her criticism. Below are two inter-related points in his regard.

The first point is that people do not have to believe in the same things you believe in before you could appreciate and respect their humanity. By presenting instances of ‘shared humanity’ (shared values, emotions, thoughts), Keshavarz does a fine job of relating with the Western audience. Her discussion of modern Iranian literature, particularly the works by Forough Farrokhzad and Shahrnush Parsipur, conveys a strong sense of agency – the kind of agency which is idealized in the liberal feminist discourse(s). Keshavarz is also very frank about her feminist sensibilities in the book that have informed her selections and arguments. However, the real challenge in any attempt to understand other cultures and peoples is to appreciate the ‘differences’ in outlooks and sensibilities, while also observing that our own ideals may not be universally valid. For example, women in Muslim cultures may also cherish ‘autonomy’ and ‘empowerment’, but their definition of these ideals may be very different from what some liberal feminists would like for them. Failing to recognize this difference can result in the kind of intolerance that is seen today in France against the Muslim Hijab. Some scholars would take the argument on another level to argue that ideals like ‘freedom’ and ‘autonomy’ (which have a particular history in the Western liberal tradition and are often defined in terms of individual choices and interests in opposition to community values and interests) may not be as important – if at all – for many women in other cultures. Saba Mahmood and Lila Abu-Lughod’s works make compelling arguments in this regard. [2] In their works they also argue that appreciating these differences does not necessarily mean falling into moral relativism.

The second point is that we need to question the question first before answering with the typical ‘Not all Muslims are fundamentalist/extremists, and we need to consider the voices of moderation and peace too’. The question that needs to be asked first is what’s wrong with being a fundamentalist and who defines a “fundamentalist” as such? If being a fundamentalist means believing in some fundamentals of religion, then most Muslims are fundamentalists! This issue connects to a dichotomy that underlies the popular discourse in the West. In this dichotomy Muslims are either ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’. Good Muslims are ‘modern’, ‘moderate/progressive/rational’, and ‘pro-western’. The Bad Muslims are ‘backward’, ‘fundamentalist/extremists/fanatics’, and ‘anti-western’. I am not saying that “Jasmine and Stars” necessarily falls into this trap. But it misses the voices and sensibilities of those considered to be the “Bad Muslims” (both male and female), particularly those that were part of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and those that are opposed to physical and symbolic intrusions by global powers. By no means is this segment of the population a minority in Iran, and they are the ones most frequently stereotyped in the ‘New Orientalist’ narratives. Representing their lives and outlooks does not necessarily mean that one endorses or justifies them. But as risky and daunting as this task may be for the kind of project that Keshavarz is engaged in, without challenging the ‘Good vs. Bad’ Muslim dichotomy most answers would come off as merely apologetic in the popular discourse.

Toward this end, we first need to scrutinize the normative assumptions of the liberal-secular discourse and its supposed moral superiority. (Examples are in the last two points – one relating to the discourse on women’s rights, the other relating to the politics of war on terror). Next, we need to bring in the political and historical context in the picture. I have Mahmood Mamdani’s important work “Good Muslim, Bad Muslims” (Pantheon, 2004) in mind that critically examines the American foreign policy during the Cold War era. In the first chapter of “Jasmine and Stars” Keshavarz could also use a more elaborate discussion on the relation between power and knowledge, in how misrepresentations about Islam serve the hegemonic ambitions of global powers today. [3]

In the challenging task of representing the missing voices (of the supposed “Bad Muslims”), Keshavarz could perhaps find a parallel with the outrage she personally felt when it was unintentionally implied to her by another person in London that the Iranian culture and people were backward (‘they ate with hands’) (p.24-25). The outrage was not about using or not using spoons per se. It was about the insinuation underlying it in that particular situation which she felt was undermining her culture and her own identity. She perceived it to be a kind of symbolic violence. It is clear from the text that she felt it rational and natural to respond to it. Other people can also have similar attachment to their religious symbols and values, and they can be as real and rational to them as any other reality out there.

On a side note, at times, I did not feel very convinced by the interpretation she presents in some of her anecdotal examples. For instance, the encounter she had at the grocery store in the check out line where she thought that her Muslim name caused discomfort and suspicion in the next lady. She made that conclusion by just observing the lady’s body language and thought that the lady’s particular behavior was a reflection of the dominant cultural understandings (p.16-17). One can similarly question the scene in the bus where she listened to a conversation between two soldiers who were returning from the war front in 1987. Based on a very short dialogue between the soldiers, our author suggests that “I can tell you for sure that neither of them had enjoyed the war, or had looked for heroism, and yet neither had run away…” (p.134). Not sure what she meant to imply with this, but the question is whether anything could be implied with certainty on the basis of that short conversation. In these and some other anecdotal examples, more ethnographic details would have helped the readers to judge for themselves whether they agree with her interpretation.

I hope that the critical remarks in the second half of this review would not to dissuade you from reading this wonderful book with full of gems. These remarks were only meant to seriously engage with her arguments. I highly recommend this book for personal readings and group discussions. [4]

Ali A. is a doctoral student in social sciences. He can be reached at alismails786@gmail.com.

References:

[1] The critical point that needs to be emphasized here is that the justification given for Colonial expansions was not contradictory to the liberal ideals of political rights and self-determination. The Enlightenment contained notions of uni-linear progress of history and civilizations, the emphasis on particular modes of thought and reason, and the importance on individual rights and private property as means of self-actualization. Based on these ideals certain cultures and peoples were seen as “modern” and “superior” and others as “backward” and “inferior”. Both John Locke and John Stuart Mill supported and rationalized the practice of colonialism as a “progressive force” which would civilize and advance the backward civilizations. That was the “White Man’s Burden”. These ideas were also incorporated by particular versions of missionary Christianity. For more on this line of argument see Uday Mehta’s “Liberalism and Empire” (Chicago, 1999).

[2] See Lila Abu-Lughod. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” (American Anthropologist, September 2002). An interview with Abu-Lughod (Asia Source, March 2002). See Saba Mahmood’s interview by Nermeen Shaikh in “The Present as History” (Columbia, 2007) and her book “Politics of Piety” (Princeton, 2005).

[3] Hamid Dabashi’s critical review of “Reading Lolita in Tehran” entitled “Native informers and the making of the American empire” (Al-Ahram, June 2006) has some useful insights in this connection.

[4] Readers may also like to see the following pieces: Interview: Fatemeh Keshavarz with ZNet; Interview: Fatemeh Keshavarz with UNC Press; Interview: Good Muslim, Bad Muslim – Mahmood Mamdani – Asia Source; Review: Saba Mahmood’s “Politics of Piety” – Suhraiya Jivraj; Review: Movie ’300′ by Hamid Dabashi; “Questioning Liberalism, Too” by Saba Mahmood, Boston Review.

Zionism — for those still confused by the relentless media “spin” deliberately clouding the issue — is a neo-fascist ideology based on
giving a “birthright” guarantee to Jews anywhere on the planet to settle in Palestine.

Zionists have resorted to any means available to implement this discriminatory and openly racist ideology – including mass killing,
terrorism, forced displacement, destruction of property and ethnic cleansing – in their policy of oppressing native Palestinians in every aspect of their day-to-day struggle for survival. Israel’s recent heavy aggression against Palestinians in the Gaza strip is only the latest act designed to accomplish an evil policy designed to inflict death, destruction and misery on the entire population.

The world must be reminded yet again that the artificially created Zionist state of Israel has no constitution. This was not a historical oversight by any means; having a constitution would require the country to define its borders and to state categorically who meets the criteria of citizenship. Thus it has proven convenient for Israel to “postpone” the issue of constitutional legitimacy while its government continually pushes to expand the border regions in order to accommodate more and more illegal Jewish
settlements.

The Gaza strip is a small ribbon of land some 40 kms in length and ranging in width between 6 and 12 km. Crammed into this tiny area are 1.5 million native Palestinians living in deplorable conditions; many contemporary historians have aptly compared Gaza to the cramped and destitute Warsaw Ghetto of World War II.

Zionist Israel has demonstrated no inclination whatsoever to give these people their liberty. Instead it chooses to treat Gaza as a mass concentration camp. The IDF occupational ground forces may have been gone since 2005, but Zionist Israel still controls all of Gaza’s ports, border-crossing points, and its sky. And as if economic and humanitarian strangulation were not enough, it has launched the most violent military siege in recent decades; if it continues against a virtually weaponless population, the result can only be a genocidal death toll.

Gaza has, in fact, been reduced to a new Auschwitz: the only difference – a nightmarish irony — is that Jews are now playing the role of Hitler’s ruthless SS.

It is fully expected by international observers that the rising death toll in Gaza will soon top 500 and that thousands more will be wounded; many more will die because basic medical facilities will not be available to treat them in time. Any way one looks at it, this entire Israeli campaign is a horrific war crime and an unjustifiable crime against humanity. Far from seeking out and damaging so-called Hamas operational centres, the bombing attacks have targeted elementary schools, market-places, drug stores, administrative buildings, colleges, private homes, mosques, cultural institutions, roads, businesses, basic infrastructure, etc.

Anyone who knows even a little of the ugly history of Zionism in Palestine since the 1920s is shocked at how easily and conveniently the West has tolerated this planned genocide of Palestinians for so long. Instead, the world’s attention focused on supporting and celebrating Zionist calls for Jews to “return home,” which they did – individually and in groups, by boat, air and road.

The “repatriated” masses soon joined the Zionist military and were thoroughly indoctrinated to hate the native Palestinians, as well as all other Arabs and Muslims worldwide, in that order. They created armed settlements, terrorizing the natives, displacing their families and killing whoever resisted eviction, including women and children.

The bloody history of Zionist Jews in Palestine is a shameful mistake and hiding its facts away from generations of Westerners is the ugliest disinformation campaign ever waged in human history. Never were so many crimes against humanity covered so thoroughly and for so long.

International law gives native Palestinians the right to resist the 41-year occupation, but Israeli Zionist lobbyist propaganda publicly blames the victims at every turn and Israel’s government continues to ignore and even dismiss all legal claims and UN resolutions against it.

Zionist Israel and the Israeli Zionist lobbyists in the West have claimed continuously that the current genocidal onslaught in Gaza is “only a war against Hamas” and that it was caused only “by the firing of Palestinian rockets on Israel.” This is just one more lie to add to the long list of distortions and misinformation being promulgated about native Palestinians.

Hamas has repeatedly stated that it is ready and willing to stop all firing of home-made rockets – its only effective form of as a form of resistance — if Zionist Israel would lift the deadly blockade that is starving and killing the Palestinian people. Zionist Israel has repeatedly said “No.”

Even during a six-month ceasefire, which Hamas observed, Zionist Israel killed 49 Palestinians. Not a single Israeli was killed.

Amira Hass of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz wrote; “Israel’s (current) war is not against Hamas, it’s against all the Palestinians.”

As part of its Nazi-like blockade of Gaza, Zionist Israel has turned away boat after boat carrying humanitarian aid in the form of food, medicines and other basic supplies desperately needed by the women, men and children of Gaza. As a result untold hundreds, maybe thousands, of Palestinians have perished because they were denied access to medical care or medicine.

Zionist Israel claims it wants to live in peace since ending the formal military occupation of Gaza in 2005. But the truth in action is anything but peace-seeking. The land occupation of Gaza was replaced with an even harsher blockade and the continued full control of Gazan skies, coastline and border crossings, even the Rafah lifeline crossing with Egypt.

In effect, Zionist Israel has given native Palestinians in Gaza one of two obscene choices: to die of starvation as a result of the blockade, or be exterminated by the Israeli-American war machine.

This latest escalation of Zionist Israel’s genocidal onslaught against native Palestinians must stop. And the fascist, racist ideology of Zionism must be fully exposed and to people of conscience everywhere, both Jews and non-Jews. The world must see Zionism for what it is and categorically reject it as the ethical travesty it is. Then, and only then, can there be any chance for peace to prevail in a place once called “the Holy Land.”