My Criteria for a Mate

As my girlfriend Lauren on Facebook was asking friends to make an individualized list "Fifteen Criteria for My Ideal Mate," I decided to be appropriately silly and came up with (well more than 15)...

---------

For starters:

 

Sexuality

1) Must be heterosexual, interested in pursuing an uncompromisingly monogamous relationship, and specifically, must not be open to the idea of polygamy now, or in the future.

 

Creed

 

2) Must be a practicing Muslim or other monotheist.  I try not to hold others to a standard to which I myself don’t adhere. Hence I think it fair to expect he should not be engaging in any of the “major sins,” and at least attempting to practice the five pillars). Ideally such an arrangement would bring me closer to my faith.

 

3) Cannot be an Uncle Tom or sycophant for the existing order (ie, he must, in keeping with the Hadith, at least “hate it [injustice] in his heart”).

 

4) Must have a love and concern for the oppressed communities around him, regardless of their problems.

 

5) Must believe in amr bil mauroof and nahi unal munkari and/or  Ma’at.

 

6) Since silence is complicity, must be actively involved in some aspect of the struggle for social justice, ie, must be concerned and active in something beyond himself.

 

7) Must be willing to go to jail for what he believes in.

 

Career

 

8) Should be a science (preferably bioscience) person.

 

9) Must be willing to allow me to pursue a bioscience career; and preferably encourage and help me to progress in that career. In other words, he will be the leading strand to my lagging strand =).

 

Personality

 

10) Must bring honesty and integrity into the relationship, and in every aspect of his life.

 

11) Must be willing to conduct relationship through shura (major Islamic concept of “mutual consultation”)

 

12) Must practice discipline and value it in others.

 

13) Must have a sense of humor.

 

14) Must speak/listen to me with respect.

 

15) [In keeping with what Garvey and Elijah Muhammad taught about the company one ought to keep], must be smarter than me (with all this entails).

 

Morphology, etc. (desirable but not absolutely necessary)

 

16) Baritone or other masculine voice (voices and accents are very important to me);

 

17) Very dark-skinned (at least at dark as Denzel :));

 

18) Very tall (at least 5’10”);

 

19)  Faster (as a runner) than me (with all this entails);

 

20) Able to communicate effectively in writing;

 

21) Appreciation/knowledge of other languages and cultures.

 

An Open Letter to Russell Means

Dear Brother Russell,

I was deeply saddened to hear of your cancer. To me, you have always been a symbol of resistance. Indeed your unrelenting stance for Native American rights, your proud carriage, and your commitment to the struggle was deeply etched in my mind as an adolescent doing support work for the Native rights struggle. Many years have passed since I invited you to address a gathering on indigenous rights—under the auspices of Jamaat al-Muslimeen—at a church near American University in Washington, DC circa 1983. You shared the dais with Palestinian and Kurdish speakers. Afterwards, you stayed with Damu Smith in his French Street Northwest DC home. I was then about 15-years old, and it was my first independent organizing experience.  Inspired to no end by Wounded Knee ('73) and disgusted by the railroadings of activists which followed, the conference was something I felt compelled to do. Because my background is fundamentally Islamic, I included Palestinian and Kurdish representatives in the hopes that the representatives of these three oppressed groups as well as their audience at the conference might find common ground with each other through the commonality of their respective struggles. And, although you didn't know me and I had yet to establish myself as an activist, you generously accepted my invitation.

After the conference where you spoke, my great admiration for AIM led me to organize a chapter of the Leonard Peltier Support Group in the DC area (I was still a teenager). The LPSG-DC invited Steve Robideau, Chief Billy Tayac, Winona LaDuke, and others to speak at various times (all in the late 1980s). Chief Tayac also introduced me to Titus Smith [medicine man from Rosebud] during his visit to the DC area to raise funds and awareness for Rosebud.

Your words to me during your brief visit—that one must never lose sight of one’s roots— became particularly relevant, and a few years after the American Indians-Palestinians-Kurds conference (where you spoke), I graduated from high school, and left shortly thereafter for South Asia, with the aim of writing about the travails of people in my part of the world. Because of this, I became, for a time, out of touch with the Native American struggle.

In recent years, I admired from afar your bid for Pine Ridge chairperson, your outspoken stance on Thanksgiving, the publication of Where White Men Fear to Tread, and much else.

These days, I am the Vice Chair of the Baltimore-Washington, DC Chapter of the Jericho Movement, which seeks freedom for all political prisoners, including Leonard Peltier. And I still work with Jamaat al-Muslimeen, the Muslim organization founded by my father, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, which stands strong on a variety of peace and justice issues, and lends strong support to the struggle to free all political prisoners (the numbers of Muslim ones have, unfortunately, multiplied these days). I have always held the belief that in the face of grave injustice, “silence is complicity.” The political prisoner issue is one which touches my heart because clearly any one of us who refuses to join the ranks of the silent complicit masses risks becoming a political prisoner.

On the more personal front, I am also a runner (and have been since I was a teen). In recent years, I become more serious about my running, and have done seven marathons (each of 26.2 miles). I heard about the Crazy Horse Marathon held each October in the Paha Sapa, and because of its location as well as my admiration for the warrior after whom it is named, immediately became interested. As you may know, the marathon takes place in the Paha Sapa, and used to be called the Black Hills Marathon. It is organized by Whites, and starts at the Crazy Horse Monument. I doubt very much that the race organizers or most of the participants realize the significance of the Paha to the Lakota. Or the fact that the Crazy Horse Monument itself—carved by a Polish man into the Black Hills—is an eyesore and a grave affront to many Native People.

I am considering running the race in Leonard’s name. I would wear a tee-shirt calling for his freedom, and use my participation in the event to call attention to his case and for a pardon for him (in keeping with the ongoing Jericho campaign). I would start the race with a prayer for him as well as for you, that Wakan Tanka give you strength in your fight against cancer.

But first, I wanted to ask you three questions:

1. Is it even appropriate to run through a sacred land, such as the Paha Sapa? Or should friends of Native people, like me, not participate at all in such an event?

2. IF it is not an affront to the Lakota for a non-Indian to run through the area, can you, as Pine Ridge Chairperson elect (I really think you would have won the election, had the playing field been level) give me permission to run there?

3. Alternatively, can you share this letter with the appropriate Lakota elders for their response? Basically I’m asking for a “visa” from Native People before I enter the area to run, as I believe all visitors to sacred Lakota land should do. Although I’ve trained hard for the marathon, I don't want to run it without the permission of the Lakota, so if it is not forthcoming, I will back out of the race.

I feel ashamed to trouble you with my personal requests in the time of your illness, so if you cannot help me, do not feel badly. I pray for your return to full health.

Thank you for your help.

In struggle and solidarity,
Nadrat Siddique

More Reasons Why Not to Eat Pork

Sublime Qur'an Subsumes Science

As a Muslim and a marathoner, I eschew pork following Islamic guidelines on proscribed foods. This, like other Qur’anic injunctions, has helped me to avoid a plethora of health problems, to stay out of the doctor’s office, and to maintain a rigorous athletic regimen free of injury. Recently, I participated in an exchange with friends (and some of their friends) on a social networking site. A young black (Afrocentric) Towson University student—not a Muslim—was recommending to all of his friends not to eat pork. This is an increasingly common phenomenon among activists of color—even those who do not claim the label of Muslim (or who do not claim it openly). Some of these are directly influenced by Qur’anic teachings, by their Muslim friends, or by the writings of Elijah Muhammad such as How to Eat to Live.

Pork and pork products are a major source of health problems in the Black community. Historically, White slavers fed Black slaves chitterlings (or chitlins, for short) and other pork products. Chitterlings are the worse part of the pig--a reminder to the slave that he was lower than an animal, worthy only of eating the slave master’s rubbish. I was proud of my Towson University friend who had thrown off his mental shackles and encouraged others to do the same. But immediately many of his friends assailed his position. Pork is no more deleterious than beef or chicken; some parts of it are white meat and quite lean—and therefore worthy of consumption—they said. Pork is intrinsic to soul food, said others; how can we possibly do away with it? I knew that the instinctive revulsion I felt for pork mightn’t be shared by others, particularly those who were not Muslim, and so determined to find intellectual support for my feelings. Here are the initial findings of my inquiry, which I shared in the course of the online exchange:

Pork takes longer than most foods to digest (4.5 hr, according to some reports). One of the reasons for this: It is rich in residues of the amino acid Proline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20356084

I'm guessing that the high incidence of Proline, which contains a hetercyclic ring, may be one reason for the difficulty in metabolizing pork. Unfortunately, lengthy retention of food—in this case pork—in a digestive tract that is relatively short (compared to that of most carnivores) leads to elevated colorectal cancer risk.

Additionally, prevalence of Staphyloccus aureus bacteria in pigs is relatively high (e.g., 25-30% in the Netherlands). In fact, locating swine populations not afflicted to some degree by the Staph species in question is highly unlikely.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=first-pork-invades-washington-then-2009-03-12

As a result, very high dosages of antibiotics are administered to most pig populations. So, consumers of pork are partaking of a product, which has been doused with antibiotics. And— by supporting the administration of antibiotics to this animal population, they are inadvertently contributing to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria.

Staphylococcus aureus is thought to be carried by rats in a pig farm setting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523703

Unfortunately, the bacterium may be conveyed between the pig and rat population to humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145257

So, the answer seems to be: Either administer massive dosages of antibiotics to pig populations (and then consume the antibiotic-laden pork products)--a strategy which may work in the short term, but has serious long-term implications for the production of drug-resistant strains of Staphyloccus aureus--or find other alternatives to pork products. While it's true that some cuts of pork contain a relatively low lipid content, comparable to those of beef or other meats, given all of the forgoing, as well as the dynamics of pork between White slavers and Black slave descendants, the choice of whether or not to partake of the pig seems rather obvious.

AIPAC Conference: An Exercise in Arm Twisting and Indoctrination

Zionist Lobby Seeks Billions More in U.S. Tax Dollars

The weekend of May 20 - 22 saw the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) at the Washington, DC, Convention Center. It was a grand affair to which the 535 members of the U.S. Congress were “invited.” But such an invitation is seen by some as a pressure tactic. Conference attendees were recognized by a “Roll Call,” a lengthy public reading of their names. The implication is that no-shows will be noted for their absence in the next election. (According to Jewish Week, May 24, 2011, AIPAC was successful at drawing 10,000 delegates and “honored guests,” including 70 U.S. Senators and 270 members of the House to the conference.)

The goals of the conference, listed on the AIPAC website, included inculcating understanding among delegates of “how America and Israel are stronger together when they participate in joint military exercises and exchange intelligence” and “safer together when they share homeland security and counterterrorism techniques.”

“AIPAC has succeeded in creating an army of Israel supporters who are mobilised and constantly lobby elected senators,” wrote one AIPAC conference participant (Jewish Chronicle, May 26, 2011). Such militaristic lexicon, as well as AIPAC’s treatment of dissenters, has raised eyebrows, with some opponents of the lobby going so far as to say the AIPAC conference is a venue for exchanged allegiances among gangsters in Armani suits, the dissemination of Zionist propaganda, and the discussion of coercive and retributive measures to be used against those not willing to take a pro-Israel stance.

Special Session for Christian Zionists

The conference included a special luncheon for Black Zionists (and pro-Zionists), as well as a session for Christians, called "Understanding Christian Support for the Jewish State," geared at examining “the roots of Christian Zionism.” The latter targeted the sixty-six pastors in attendance.

Zionist Student Leaders in Attendance

The conference included a special session recognizing student Zionist leaders. One thousand five hundred (1,500) students, most of them white, attended the conference. These included 215 elected student government presidents (numbers from AIPAC’s website). The student government presidents came from campuses including the University of Chicago, UC Berkeley, Columbia, and Vanderbilt. Interestingly, Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, and Morehouse College, a historically black college, also had Zionist student body presidents in attendance at AIPAC’s conference.

Zionist students from the University of Florida were awarded for “developing new models of pro-Israel leadership on and beyond their campus,” and for soliciting letters of support for Israel from campus leaders, as well as for lobbying local Congress members on “issues of concern to the pro-Israel community.” Additional student leaders at UCLA, Indiana University, the University of Oklahoma, and Liberty University received “Activist of the Year” awards in recognition of their pro-Israel political activity. The question of why they, as American students should expend such energies building support for a foreign power, seemed absent from the dialogue. One group of student Zionist leaders working on blackballing Iran to Congress was given an award. Another group of student Zionists were recognized for their efforts at countering the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state. Both the College Democrats of America and the College Republican National Committee received awards from AIPAC.

Gustafo Tactics Against a Sitting American President?

On May 19, just a few days before the AIPAC conference, President Obama mentioned 1967 borders as a starting point for co-existing Israeli and Palestinian states—a very weak position, and unacceptable to most Muslims who believe in self-determination. But apparently, even the slightest sign of “weakness” was not to be tolerated by the Zionists. On May 20, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Obama for over two hours, and it is speculated, conducted the mafia-style arm twisting necessary to get his whipping boy back in order.

Obama at AIPAC

Then on May 22, Obama reported to the AIPAC conference, meekly telling the Zionist audience, “Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” Clarifying his position further, he said, “The bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is iron clad.” None in the wildly applauding audience asked the question of why any policy matter in a changing world should be characterized as immutable, nor why the security of a foreign power should be of such paramount importance to the U.S.

Obama further “affirmed U.S. opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek a vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Palestinian statehood in September. He vowed to help Israel defend itself, promising U.S. military assistance on missile defense and pledging to block Iranian nuclear aspirations. And he assailed a recent Palestinian unity agreement that elevated the stature of the Hamas movement, which the United States and Israel regard as a terrorist group.” (The Washington Post, May 22)

Netanyahu’s pressuring of Obama (if indeed that is what occurred—some would argue that Obama is already so pro-Israel that he needed no pressuring) is similar to AIPAC’s pressure on members of the U.S. Congress. As Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, recently disclosed, every candidate for U.S. Congress must sign a pledge to support Israel, a tactic which changed shape slightly after it was made public. According to McKinney, “They were given a pledge to sign...that had Jerusalem as the capital city. You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel, and the economic assistance that Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that." (Press TV, May 22).

Obama delivered his address to AIPAC, then retreated to Europe with his tail between his legs. In the meantime, Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress on May 24. He delivered a resounding “No!” to all of the (very compromising) positions put out by “moderate” Palestinians. The speech was characterized by opponents as containing more lies per second than perhaps any other speech in recent memory. In the course of the 50 minute speech, Netanyahu received 26 standing ovations. Opponents protesting the speech were dealt with very brutally.

Following the AIPAC conference and Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, thousands of AIPAC lobbyists descended upon Capitol Hill to further the Zionist agenda. According to the AIPAC website, “At the top of the lobbying agenda is U.S. security assistance to Israel—the most tangible expression of American support for the Jewish state. The AIPAC citizen-lobbyists will urge their House and Senate members to support $3.075 billion in aid to Israel for fiscal year 2012 as well as ask for support for the overall foreign aid budget.” [Note the double speak in “Jewish state” and “AIPAC citizen-lobbyists”]

“Move Over AIPAC”: A Challenge to AIPAC

This year, as the AIPAC conference went forth, things were a little bit different. An entire weekend of activities, including a major conference, called “Move Over AIPAC” was held in Washington, DC, by CODE PINK: Women for Peace. It was endorsed by over 100 peace and justice organizations, including the International Solidarity Movement, Fellowship of the Reconciliation, the Rachel Corrie Foundation, United for Peace and Justice, the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, Adalah-NY, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

On May 20, as Netanyahu met Obama, “Move Over AIPAC” conference participants and others protested outside the White House. The following day, May 21, the “Move Over AIPAC” summit was held. The keynote address was delivered by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the ground-breaking book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This was followed by a “writers’ salon,” featuring Laila El-Haddad and other Palestinian and pro-Palestinian authors. A panel entitled, “Time for a New Foreign Policy” (Phyllis Bennis, Noura Erekat, and others) ensued. Workshops on topics like “Combatting Misused Charges of Anti-Semitism” (Rabbi Lynn Gottleib); “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: Campaigns that Work!”; Exposing AIPAC: Delving into the Nitty-Gritty of How the Israel Lobby Works”; “Israel, the bomb, and a Mid-east NWFZ (Nuclear Weapons Free Zone); and “Student Divestment Campaigns and the Role of AIPAC on Campus” completed the afternoon.

On May 22, while Obama addressed AIPAC and throughout the day, “Move over AIPAC” participants, and other friends and supporters of Palestinians protested outside the Convention Center. The protestors, including many Jews, lined up outside the DC Convention center, chanting “Free Free Palestine.” A die-in—where activists lay down in the streets, their bodies covered in fake blood to protest Israeli brutality—was held. Activists from the U.S. Boat to Gaza manned a float in the form of a ship, singing pro-Palestinian songs.

Change Comes But not Without Sacrifice and Struggle

As a result of the immense sacrifices of the Palestinian people, followed up by creative and heroic actions by a huge range of human rights and solidarity organizations throughout the world—of which “Move Over AIPAC” is an example—support for Israel is being reconsidered in the U.S., one of the last bastions of Zionist support.

As Jody McIntyre, describing the AIPAC conference, wrote in the Independent on May 24, 2011, “So yesterday, another conference commenced; a celebration of continued US support for Israel. The fact that is being ignored is that, as a wave of uprisings across northern Africa and western Asia are proving, US dominance and influence in the region is on the decline. Just like hundreds of millions of dollars in aid were not enough to keep Mubarak in power in Egypt, all the billions of dollars in aid will not be enough to prop up Israel forever….As Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden until his assassination in 1986, once said, ‘Apartheid cannot be reformed, it must be abolished.’”

DC Activists Commemorate Malcolm X Day

Discussions of Marable’s Book: Scholarship or Smear Attempt?

Malcolm X Day, which commemorates the birth of the great Muslim leader, is an event ordinarily commemorated by leftists and black nationalists. Seldom does one see a remembrance of this brother, who made Islam and its revolutionary spirit beloved among vast numbers of Americans, at any mainstream mosque or Islamic Center, even for symbolic purposes. This year however, Muslims were among the organizers of events on May 17 – 18 to commemorate the occasion.

Around thirty people crowded into Ras Café (Ethiopian Restaurant & Lounge) for the May 17 event. Malcolm Shabazz, the son of Shaheed Malcolm X, was originally scheduled to speak, but did not make it to Washington, DC. Instead, he delegated Br. Shaka to speak in his place. Also speaking was J.R. Valrey of California’s Block Radio (www.blockreportradio.com). In spite of Shabazz’s absence, people seemed to appreciate the program.

Another 40 or so filled the seats at Sankofa Books the following night to hear J.R. and Malcolm Shabazz, who was, by then, in town.

According to Naji Mujahid, a lead organizer for both events, much of the focus of Malcolm X Day 2011 was on the recently released book, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, by Manning Marable. “Manning Marable’s book is considered by some to be a slander,” said Mujahid. “We tried to provide a platform to dispel points in Manning Marable book.”

J.R. shared an excerpt from his own book where he’d interviewed Hajj Malcolm Shabazz. Addressing the Sankofa audience, the younger Malcolm analogized the Marable book with the Bible. “Like the Bible, shrouding lies in truth,” Marable’s work probably contained good points and analysis to draw people in, but it also contained some slanderous lies, Shabazz said.

Parts of the book suggest that Malcolm engaged in homosexual acts. Others suggest infidelity between Malcolm and Betty Shabazz. Another important was brought up by Voxunion producer and Morgan State University professor of communications, Dr. Jared Ball in a conversation with Mujahid. Ball pointed out that Marable claimed that Malcolm, in his later years, said that the ballot could be used to promote black people's interests and that the election of Barak Obama was an expression of that. Ball also compared Marable’s book to Spike Lee’s “X.”

Some of the more controversial points in the Marable book were devoid of reference, according to J.R. The book wasn’t aimed only at current audiences, but also to future ones, who didn’t remember Malcolm. And, as an attendee of the Ras Café event pointed out, the further removed in time an audience was from the discussion, the less likely they were to dispute points in the book.

And, as Br. Shaka pointed out, the tenuousness of Marable’s claims are evident from the fact that if the allegations against Malcolm were true, the FBI wouldn’t have missed the opportunity to use them against him.

Despite an exhaustive week of activities around Malcolm’s Birthday and political prisoner awareness work, Naji Mujahid, who is also an organizer for the Black August Planning Organization (BAPO), granted me an extended interview. (BAPO is a political prisoner advocacy group, primarily focusing on Black political prisoners held by the United States for some of the longest periods of any U.S. political prisoner.)

“I think it’s important for people everywhere to see Malcolm not only as exemplary of Blackness, but of Islam, and the ability of Islam to affect people, particularly those living under adverse conditions everywhere. Islam can provide the inspiration in people to allow them to rise above their circumstances. I think Malcolm is an excellent example of that.”

“Malcolm was certainly an exceptional figure. However, he wasn’t the only exceptional figure who developed out of that period. While they were alive, people weren’t big on following Malcolm, Martin, or many of the personalities who dominate our history, according to some elders I’ve spoken with. Now that it’s safe to do so, they elevate him to the level they do. Part of the reason why Malcolm has taken on this epic legacy is because he was assassinated. If he had lived, and been brought in on trumped up charges like Eddie Conway, or other political prisoners, he probably wouldn’t hold the stature he does. People should consider when they idolize Malcolm that others, such as Sekou Odinga, who worked with Malcolm in the OAAU [Organization of Afro-American Unity], who have been buried alive, don’t enjoy his fame and acknowledgement. You ask people about Odinga, and they say “Who’s he?” [Sekou Odinga is a Muslim and New Afrikan political prisoner, imprisoned on political charges, since 1983].

“Malcolm and Martin’s family haven’t enjoyed the material support which should correspond to their level of celebrity. If Malcolm’s family had a dollar for every t-shirt created to exploit his memory, they would be in a lot better position.”

“People who claim to love Malcolm should put it to some use. They could, if they wished, tell this government, ‘You killed Malcolm, but we’re not going to allow you to practice a slow death against Sekou Odinga, Eddie Conway, Veronza Bowers, and others.’”

American Muslims, the Osama Assassination, and the “We Sick Massa” Syndrome

I’ve been thinking about the bizarre reactions across the Muslim community to the Osama assassination. The only viable explanation for Muslims and Muslim organizations endorsing an action which clearly violates International law, Pakistani sovereignty (the puppet Pakistani government’s signing away of Pakistani sovereignty notwithstanding), and the norms of human decency, and for Muslims endorsing such an action (or coming up with creative explanations for it and its target) is the presence of a deep-seated self-hatred in the American Muslim psyche. Muslims here can't seem to accept the fact that highly effective, organized, and disciplined Muslim opposition can—in the face of grave injustice and genocide--arise. They must write off Osama to other factors: he didn't really exist; he existed but he was a CIA operative; he existed but only up till two years, no wait, make that eight years ago; he existed but was on summer vacation for the last five years in Pakistan, and so the fairy stories go. It's getting to the point of hilarity.

Why not just ask the Saudi government (Osama's enemy is not likely to embellish his character or motives), or consult U.S. intelligence (with which some American Muslim leaders are sufficiently mated that they might easily acquire the inside scoop on this) as to whether or not he existed, and if he did, who, if anyone, was paying him, how much, and when?

I wonder why it is that we, politically-conscious Muslims and friends, can see through the lies of the government and its corporate media organs about Katrina. We see through their lies about the Black Panther Party, George Jackson, and Assata. We see through their lies about Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMDs, DU (depleted uranium) and anything else that stands in the way of the oil/U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. We are even beginning to see through some of their lies on Palestine. But, when it comes to Osama, we accept their (White House, Pentagon, and corporate media's) version of things about this man, and try to come up with oddball theories to convince ourselves that the Muslim world could not have produced the "monster" they say Osama was. We act as if we are certain that the government is telling the truth on this one, and our basic premises (about his CIA links etc) spring from hence.

I don't claim to know all (or even most of) the answers. But a bit of independent journalism or analytical thinking on this would be a delightful change.

Whose Hate Speech?

Recently, my father, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, came under assault by the Zionists, after he gave a speech calling for the peaceful dismantling of Israel at the annual Quds Day rally in Washington, DC. The Zionist campaign reminded me of similar assaults on Dr. Tony Martin, Prof. Ward Churchill, Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Prof. Francis Boyle, Prof. Norm Finkelstein and many others. The primary distinction was that unlike the others, my father is a Muslim and a Semite. This makes him even more a thorn in the side of the Zionists, who view him as one of those they would prefer to beat to a pulp with the butt of their Tavors (Israeli assault rifles), or torture in Israeli prison, but not debate.

In other words, to be a Muslim and outspoken against Israel magnifies the Thought Crime. One analogy which comes to mind: During slavery, the white power structure exhibited a degree of tolerance for the white abolitionists who quietly and theoretically challenged slavery. The same power structure screamed for a manhunt followed by public hanging for a Denmark Vesey calling for a slave rebellion. Hence the obscene response to my father’s speech by the Zionists.

My father did not advocate violence. He did not violate the law. He merely challenged prevailing paradigms, which say it is okay to allocate $2.55 billion dollars each year (one million dollars per day in military aid alone) of U.S. taxpayer money to a colonial settler state which oppresses its original inhabits. A firm believer in Freedom of Speech, he spoke out on his time, at his own expense, about an issue he felt strongly about.

This was not the first time my father has been in the Zionist crosshairs, as the ADL, AJC, JDL, and the Wiesenthal Center scrutinizing his writings, placed him on their McCarthy-style blacklist, and attempted to have him removed from his position at Lincoln in 2006.

This time, however, they appeared far more determined, launching their supporters to write letters to LU President Ivory Nelson, suggesting my father’s classes be monitored, and questioning the process that led to his tenure--all with the implication that he should be removed. In a campaign of harassment and intimidation, they and their supporters sent hate-filled emails and letters (including threats of violence and even death) to him. They galvanized a dozen state senators to visit the university. The threat of firing alone would have been enough to convince many academics, particularly immigrants, to abdicate their heartfelt political stance. In such a climate, how could one possibly claim that free speech is extant?

My father, who believes that Authority belongs to Allah alone, did not succumb to the Zionist pressure. It made me intensely proud to have him as a father.

He draws a salary from Lincoln University, which, while not a state school, receives partial funding from the state of Pennsylvania. In an action reminiscent of mafia-style blackmail of the historically black college, a group of state senators visited my Dad's boss at the behest of the Zionist lobby. They were concerned, they told the LU President, about state funds going (indirectly) to the salary of an individual engaging in what they claimed was hate speech. In other words, fire this professor who dares speak out of line with the Zionist lobby, otherwise we’ll yank your funds.

The issue that arises from all this is the allocation of free speech.

To call for the peaceful dismantling of a colonial-settler state on par with Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, French-occupied Algeria, or British-occupied Kenya is hate speech.

But saying, "that there’s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches,” (Strom Thurmond, then presidential nominee for the States' Rights Party) is not hate speech.

Saying that poor blacks fail to acquire wealth partly because of their "habits;" that bilingual education teaches "the language of living in a ghetto;" that building an Islamic center near Ground Zero is like Nazis erecting a sign near the Holocaust Museum; or that Obama is engaged in "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" (Newt Gingrich)--all these are not hate speech.

Praising Strom Thurmond, an overtly racist politician, and saying the country would have been better off if they'd followed his agenda (i.e. of racial segregation, and hence complete exclusion of Black people from the mainstream) (Trent Lott) is not hate speech.

Telling a 15-year old black teen “You don’t f---ing belong here. Get out of here,” while beating him in the head with a radio (Eliyahu Eliezer Werdesheim, Shomrin Jewish patrol in Baltimore) is not hate speech.

Assessing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as "worth it" (Madeleine Albright) is not hate speech.

Saying that all Taliban should be annihilated (many U.S. politicians), neverminding that a vast majority of Afghan Pashtoons support the Taliban as the only force effectively opposing the U.S. occupation of their country, and that Pashtoons make up the vast majority of the Afghan population, hence equivalent to saying tens of thousands of people should be annihilated--that is not hate speech.

Joking about an assassination attempt on (then Senator) Obama (Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee)--as long as one quickly apologizes--is not hate speech.

Calling for the assassination of U.S. citizen and cleric Anwar Awlaki, because he opposes the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Africa (Obama administration)--is not hate speech.

Calling for the assassination of Julian Assange because he exposed the hate speech of various and sundry U.S. statesmen and their toadies (Tom Flanagan, former aid to the Canadian Prime Minister)--is not hate speech.

The cases of hate speech against Muslims, people of color, and anyone who stands up for us, are too numerous to mention. The small subset I mentioned are those who were on U.S. federal or state government payroll (or in the case of Tom Flanagan, teaching at a public Canadian university, on Canadian government payroll) at the time they made their hate-filled comments. It is okay for them to launch hateful, threatening, demeaning diatribes against people of color and Muslims while sopping up your and my tax dollars.

The Doublespeak dictionary says that hate speech is only hate speech if it is directed against certain select populations, and not others.
----
Postscript: Want to see hate speech? Look at the youtube comments, following the posts of the video of my father's Al-Quds Day speech (link is below). Writer after writer--primarily racist Zionists, hurl obscenities and death threats at him—all for calling for the peaceful dismantling of Israel, in effect, an entirely new look at a failed U.S. foreign policy. It is something U.S. policy makers, if they care about their constituents more than they care about the European settlers in Israel, ought, in a time of economic depression, to be considering anyway.

----
Dr. Siddique’s Quds Day speech is here.

Background on the Zionist assault on Dr. Siddique's free speech rights, as covered by the Philadelphia Inquirer is here and here. Coverage of the case by the Lincolnian (Lincoln University’s student newspaper) is here, here, and here.

Dr. Siddique’s response to the Zionist onslaught, aired on South African radio is here.

Happy Thanksgiving, Pakistan?

So Dawn, Pakistan’s largest daily paper, picked up on my piece, Thoughts on Thanksgiving. Evidently, the Dawn Op-ed  columnist, Irfan Husain, writes regularly for the pro-government daily. Amusingly, he is an old friend of my family, a testament to the variegations in mindset within a single family.

Husain’s December 1 Op-ed begins with a detailed description of his family’s thanksgiving turkey preparations, a practice they adapted during time spent stateside. He brags about serving the turkey to a Thanksgiving party. All of this occurs in Karachi, a Muslim city, in a Muslim land, whose very raison d’etre is Islam, and where the holiday does not exist. It is similarly absent from all neighboring countries, indeed from all of Asia. Amazingly, Husain claims Thanksgiving “is an entirely secular holiday, with no religious overtones.” He appears woefully ignorant of the identity of the colonists who initiated White celebrations of Thanksgiving in New England (the northeastern part of the U.S.). The colonists were Puritans—men and women who attempted church reform in Britain. Unsuccessful, they emigrated to what later became Massachusetts Bay Colony (the site of many massacres of Native people). They were devout Christians (according to their understanding of Christianity) who emigrated for the sake of their religious faith; to characterize a holiday of their initiating as “secular” is simply inaccurate.

Husain’s description of Thanksgiving? “A day that commemorates the feast provided to the early colonists by Native Americans, and is modelled [sic] after European harvest festivals.” He neither disputes or confirms the central idea of my piece, i.e., the coincidence of the holiday with massacres of Native people, for which there is overwhelming evidence, leading to the necessity for people of conscience to disassociate from it.

Bizarrely, he claims to feel strongly about the plight of Native people, and does not take issue with any of the historical facts I bring forth in my article, writing rather eloquently that, “White colonists have an appalling record of virtual genocide in the lands and continents they conquered since the 16th century. Indeed, the history of every country in the Americas, as well as of Australia, is written in blood.” But—he still insists on celebrating the holiday!

He delivers the rank old “If-you-don’t-like-it-then-leave.” In his words: “But surely Ms. Siddique should not be in America at all if she feels so strongly about the Native Indians, and what was done to them.” It reminds me of the daily redneck cries at the sight of my hijab during the Iranian hostage crisis. “If you don’t like it here, go back to Iran!” they would fling, not bothering to ask whether I was Iranian.

I wonder at such mindless response. Irfan Husain must have been sleeping in history class, when Emerson, Thoreau, Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others were discussed. Even in the slanted dominant culture version of history currently taught, the tradition of dissent is extolled. Husain misses the boat on the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the Underground Railroad, Seneca Falls, and many other movements throughout U.S. history which chose dissent over emigration (although there were some which encouraged followers to emigrate). Husain and others of his ilk should stop and think about what he propounds: Country X hosting only people of Creed A; Country Y populated with only those of Creed B. What an odd world his would be, of homogeneity of thought within national borders.

The idea that a Muslim, propelled by the command to amr bil mauroof and nahi unal munkari, should feel strongly about injustice, and should not leave but rather work for change, seems not to enter his mind at all.

He ridicules the idea of politely deflecting Thanksgiving greetings. I’ve done it plenty of times, taking care to employ a gentle, polite, friendly manner. It’s fruitless to be acerbic or use charged terms like “genocide” (as he facetiously suggests in his ridicule), since the aim is to convey one’s heartfelt sentiment, not denigration of the other. My deflection of the greeting is frequently met with questions as to why I don’t celebrate the holiday, appreciation, or an apologetic “Oh well I don’t really celebrate it either, it’s just a time to get family together.” The objective, to encourage thought—about popular celebrations and practices—is achieved. It is merely a starting point to get people thinking about injustices within society, and what can be done about them.

He claims that given the climate of Islamophobia in the U.S., Muslims should not be withdrawing from mainstream practices such as Thanksgiving. Husain continues, “Ms. Siddique should not then complain of not being accepted as Americans [sic] if they [sic] deliberately spurn American traditions.” To me, his assorted apologia for Thanksgiving indicates a hopelessly colonized mindset. As a friend in London commented upon reading the op-ed, “People like Husain are importing the totalitarian petty tyrant mindset from banana republics into western states.”

Irfan Husain and the ruling class of Pakistan should be aware that not all Pakistanis and Muslims living in the West yearn to blend into the woodwork, or to become groveling sycophants for the U.S. power structure. It is a matter of shame that my Pakistani “brothers,” whose country is being bombarded by U.S. missiles, exhibit such servility to the U.S., while increasing numbers of Black and White Americans question the holiday, (as they question aspects of U.S. foreign policy). Many of my American friends refuse to celebrate Thanksgiving to show solidarity with Native People. The Native people themselves gather at Plymouth, Massachusetts, near the site of the early Puritan landings, for a “Day of Mourning.” It is a gathering in which I’ve participated in previous years, and encourage others to do so as well. Pakistan’s great revolutionary poet, Allamah Iqbal, wrote about the indelible concepts of self-identity and self-love. His writings challenge the “love your slave master, more than yourself” paradigm promulgated by Husain. Although I’m no expert in Iqbal, I’m quite sure he would never be an apologist for “Thanksgiving.”

Husain’s comments exemplify the attitudes of Indo-Pak elites who visit or emigrate to the U.S. They ally themselves with the ruling class, insisting on self-delusion about American history, minimizing, denying, or overlooking the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings of Blacks. They are oblivious to Native peoples, whom they recall quaintly as noble savages seen in Westerns (popular in Pakistan), or spectacles to be viewed in a museum. These elites behave in arrogant and racist fashion, viewing themselves as superior to Black people, whom they view through the lense of Hollywood or corporate media, turning a blind eye to genocide, broken treaties, and treachery against Native People. As Steve Biko, the great South African freedom fighter said, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” By ruling class measure, at least, the weapon is already had.

Thoughts on “Thanksgiving”

As readers may be aware, "Thanksgiving" as it’s celebrated today has little or nothing to do with its historical reality. For time immemorial, Native people held feasts to give thanks to the Creator for all they had. So, the claim that the first Thanksgiving occurred only after the colonists arrived, is a racist statement from the outset, writing off Native celebrations. It is akin to saying that 9-11 was the first terror event on U.S. soil—never mind the many massacres of Native people, and lynchings of Black people. As the link at the end of this piece illustrates, the precise date of the first Thanksgiving was not 1621, as is claimed. It is unknown. However, numerous colonist-initiated thanksgiving celebrations were held in the Northeastern U.S. (in the area now known as New England), usually following a massacre of native people.

Among the more well-known of these was the “Thanksgiving” which followed the massacre of Wampanoag people (Native American--or Red Indian, per the Indo-Pakistani misnomer--tribe) and the butchering of their leader Metacomet (known to the Whites as King Phillip), his head hung from the village square by the colonists. Plymouth Colony then called for a day of thanksgiving for their “victory” over the Native people. The perfidy of the incident is particularly horrifying when one considers that Metacomet's father, Massasoit, had only a generation earlier hosted the White settlers who landed near Plymouth Rock, saving them from famine.

As Muslims, we are often in the difficult position of having to respond to a greeting such as "Happy Thanksgiving." Some Muslims feel that it necessary to return the greeting out of concern for adaab (Islamic etiquette), or to be in compliance with the Qur'anic injunction to return a greeting with one better.

But words are powerful. They are essential in the colonizing of minds. And they can help perpetuate a myth, in this case, that of a warm fuzzy Thanksgiving, in which Native people and White settlers feasted and cavorted in friendship. But Islam teaches us to stand with the oppressed, against the oppressor. As aware Muslims we have the option to politely deflect the greeting, then briefly explain why we do not celebrate it. It is an opportunity to educate people, and bust some myths.

It's odd how sensitivities of some groups in society are paramount, while others are completely disregarded. Why, for example, don't people who embrace "Thanksgiving" consider how a Native person would feel on an occasion commemorating the massacre of his ancestors? Carrying this point further, why is there not a public furor at such a celebration? In my opinion, there should be.

I’m almost certain a furor would result, if, for instance, there were a festive holiday commemorating/coinciding with the deaths of Europeans (this would be nothing more far fetched than what occurs on Thanksgiving). On the other hand, the near coincidence of Eid ul-Fitr—determined by the moon, not an invention of individual Muslims—with September 11 was a cause for major brouhaha (not to intimate that all the victims of that sad event were Caucasian, or that suffering did not occur on that occasion). But Thanksgiving—despite the fact that its celebrations throughout U.S. colonial history were nearly always announced or correlated with a massacre of Native people—seems to raise no such concern. This is part of the dehumanizing of Red, Black, and Brown Peoples, that their graves may be trampled upon at will, their genocide mythologized into national celebrations. So, clearly the desensitization alluded to earlier has been effective across broad sectors of the society.

Finally, the crushing of public sensitivities to a targeted population (in this case Native people) is a crucial part of a propaganda war, which allows their genocide to be perpetuated, or at least not redressed. It is up to us to decide if we wish to participate.

With thanks to L.C. for this valuable link:

http://oyate.org/resources/shortthanks.html

Youth Justice Sunday

“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group: ....Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part...”

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
Paris, 9 December, 1948

October 31, 2010

Baltimore, MD–It was the perfect day to break some chains. Hundreds of people rallied outside Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School, in the heart of black community and just blocks away from Baltimore’s infamous Central Booking detention facility. They were protesting the building of a new youth prison. If construction goes on as planned, this would be the city’s ninth prison, built absent any mandate from the majority black population. But Baltimore’s prison building rampage would not end there. Plans are underway for the subsequent building of a tenth prison, this one for women.

Under a fluttering red, black, and green Afrocentric flag, religious, student and community leaders condemned the city’s plan to jail the youth instead of educating them. The event began with the singing of the Black Anthem “Lift Every Voice.” Then Deverick Murray, a Towson University student, popularly known as the Political Poet, took the stage. Stating the rally’s goals in verse, he said:

"I greet you today and bring you our purpose,
Assuring you that under this alliance not one thing can hurt us.
With steadfast hearts, and no distractions may divert us.
We are here today not only to stop this youth jail,
But to convince us, to construct plans
Knowing that if God, Allah, and the elders are here,
Then the world can be against us.
We are here to let the state know we have ran out of fear
And showing that we will stand together to protect what we hold dear.
We are here because they had enough money for jails,
But they had no interest in making sure that we don't fail....”

Youth energies fueled the protest. Leamon Harris, of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, which organized the protest along with the Kinetics Faith and Justice Network, the Baltimore Algebra Project, and other groups, said that even the best inner city schools were a continuum of institutionalized racism. Speaking of black student athletes, he said “They become slaves to the brands at a young age because they are mentally colonized, helping a government that doesn’t support them or their people unless they play the game. What if they stopped playing football or basketball until construction of the youth jail was stopped, or the police officers taken out of the schools, or classes that offered a real discussion of black history put in place?”

Deverick Murray wrote a powerful rap in support of the event, entitled “ I’ll be Damned” (referring to the resolve of the protest organizers against the locking up of the youth). It circulated broadly on Facebook and elsewhere leading up to the event. Murray, Harris, and Towson University student leader Adam Jackson successfully mobilized large numbers of high school and college students for the protest.

The event was emce'ed by its chief organizer, Afrocentric pastor and community leader Heber Brown. Brown is known for his courageous and outspoken stance on many issues, and has spoken at rallies against Israeli attacks on Gaza.

A few days prior to Youth Justice Sunday, Pastor Brown and two companions stood with megaphones outside an endorsement party hosted by a local chapter of AFSME [a major U.S. labor union —editor] for Mayor O'Malley. As O'Malley passed, they called out: "Gov. O'Malley, what about the $104 million dollar youth jail? Can you speak to that sir? Yeah back to slavery for black children?" An AFSME representative approached the pastor, and wagging his finger at him, told Brown he was being “tacky” by challenging the governor. Since the pastor and his companions had officially been invited to the endorsement party, they went inside. Once inside, they were cornered by the AFSME director and his assistants, and threateningly ordered to leave the building.

At the rally, it was clear that the Pastor was not fazed by such gestapo tactics. Youth Justice Sunday, he proclaimed, was about self-determination for black people.

Delegate Jill Carter, the rare local politician who’d accepted Pastor Brown’s invitation to speak, took her turn at the mic. Jared Ball, of Voxunion—a D.C.-based independent media collective—spoke. In the audience were Maria Allwine, Green Party candidate for Maryland governor; Jack Young, City Council president; and Dr. Ray Winbush of Morgan State University, internationally acclaimed reparations activist and author.

Then Min. Carlos Muhammad came to the stage.

He is Louis Farrakhan’s Baltimore representative, based out of Muhammad Mosque No. 1. The mosque is located on the 3200 block of Garrison Boulevard. Much of the boulevard is impoverished, a showcase of slums (Indians and Pakistanis are amongst the biggest slum lords), liquor stores (frequently Arab owned), and cheesy corner markets (Korean owners, with their exorbitantly priced goods, hidden behind protective bars). The mosque has worked to uplift area youth for years, ridding the neighborhood of much of its vice. But a mile or so down the road from the mosque, drugs, alcohol, and prostitution are rampant.

The minister accompanied on stage by his wife and two FOI (Fruit of Islam), greeted the people with “As-salaam alaikom.” He asked for a show of hands by those who had a family member, close friend, or loved one in prison. Easily two-thirds of the crowd raised their hands. With the air of a battle-hardened warrior, he offered words of encouragement to the crowd before leaving the stage.

Six Baltimore Algebra Project youth took the stage.

The Algebra Project is a youth advocacy group which provides highly effective peer-to-peer tutoring for inner city youth. But BAP doesn’t only tutor. When I moved back to Baltimore around 2002, I was astonished to find very young students from the organization blocking the streets to call attention to the glaring disparities within the education system and racism in the schools. They are articulate, organized, disciplined, and unrelenting in their demands.

The youth began with solemn speeches, holding the complete attention of the crowd. Then, three of them broke into melodic chants: "Don't build it, don't build it, O’ Malley check the rally." Red “X”s, plastered on the jackets of Algebra Project members and supporters, swayed gently to the rthymn. One of BAP’s talented young hiphop artists performed. It was dusk, and the crowd seemed energized.

Adam Jackson, Towson University student and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle activist, spoke briefly. Then Rev. Kinji Scott told the crowd, "We tired of being shoved around! Are you ready? You ain't ready! If you're ready, follow me!"

Scott, Jackson, Murray, and others led the march to the site of the proposed youth prison, chanting “Educate, don’t incarcerate!” The procession stretched for several blocks, finally arriving at a vacant lot, encircled by a fence—the site of the proposed youth prison. A sign read “State Property.”

In a dramatic action, reminiscent of the Storming of the Bastille, student activists pushed with their bodies against the entry gate. To the crowd chants of, “Break that lock,” they used the wire cutters to weaken and finally break the padlock holding the gate shut.

A small number of protesters flooded through the gate. March organizers blared a warning over the megaphone: no one was to enter the fenced area without having completed civil disobedience training. The activists inside the fence joined hands in a solemn prayer. They intended to be arrested to call attention to the city’s funding of prison building over education. It was Sunday, and the civil disobedience action was taking place directly across from an existing prison facility. The protestors committed to engage in civil disobedience waited. And waited. And waited. For once, the police were nowhere in sight.

Realizing the civil disobedience was not to materialize, the organizers gathered up the signs carried by the procession. Determined their message be heard, they symbolically scattered books across the property, and with some effort, hammered placards bearing the words “Educate, don’t incarcerate!” into the rocky ground. Then, against the backdrop of Central Booking’s fading red brick and barbwire, they held a brief press conference before departing.

On the empty lot slated to cage the children of the poor, the pages of books fluttered in the wind.

Epilogue

Islam says, “Free the slave.” References to “freeing captives” abound in the Qur’an. To me, Islam is synonymous with justice, and it is not justice to jail a man because he is hungry and stole a loaf of bread. Or lock up a youth who delivers a few ounces of marijuana across town to pay his mother’s rent. I know of grocery stores located near the projects where armed security officers guard the exits. This country hates poor people, and is willing to kill or at least jail them for stealing food. Islam, known for its stringent justice, exempts exactly one category of person from sharia penalties for theft: the person who is hungry or starving. Prisons were unknown during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Ditto during the reign of the four rightly guided caliphs—Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA), and Ali (RA)—which followed immediately after. A person who violated social norms was banished from society, ostracized for a limited time, or in the case of a very serious crime, subjected to a one-time harsh punishment. He was not indefinitely placed in a tiny, insect-infested, filthy, overcrowded, freezing cell, to be sodomized, treated like an animal, or forced to urinate and defecate in front of others. Nor was his labor used to profit big business. Of the vast number of hadith (narrations of Prophetic tradition) in circulation, virtually none talk about locking up or harshly punishing children.

The U.S. boasts 7.3 million people in jail, on probation, or on parole at year end—one in every 31 adults. 2.3 million people are held in adult prison or jail (including some children). In addition, 92,800 children are held in juvenile detention centers. The rate of Black incarceration is 2,468 per 100,000 persons. For Whites, that rate is 409 per 100,000. So, Black youth are far more likely to be locked up than Whites. And unless one subscribes to some incredibly antiquated, racist, and scientifically invalid theory, it can’t be because one group is inherently more criminal than the other.

Imperial AmeriKKKa, which sends its armadas throughout the world teaching others how to live, needs desperately to rethink a system which is clearly unjust, for injustice cannot be indefinitely sustained. Just as Gaza is one vast prison camp for Palestinians, Baltimore [substitute virtually any major U.S. city here] through its School-to-Prison pipeline, is the slave labor pool for the Prison-Industrial complex. But not, inshallah, if Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, Kinetics Faith and Justice Network, and the Baltimore Algebra Project have their way.