Like the rest of the America, I was disheartened and shocked by Thursday's events in which a U.S. serviceman, identified as Nidal Malik Hasan, perpetrated a terrible act upon his fellow servicemen. That night I was glued to as many news sources as one person could handle: simultaneously monitoring local AM talk radio, websites, Cable TV news and statements from  American Muslim organizations.

My frustrations were exacerbated, both by some of the news coverage (though I have something positive to say about their initial reporting) and by the Muslim community’s reactions. In contrast to the initial reporting and punditry, I believe that Muslim community’s handling of the issue leaves much to be desired.

Clearly, condemning the killing of unarmed people in a non-combat situation is the right thing to do.

However, why do we have to do it as Muslims?

This is an issue of common humanity. Condemning these and similar events can serve to strengthen the association with Islam. If we learn conclusively that Maj. Hasan believed he had religious justifications for his actions, our condemnations as Muslims actually reinforce those making that connection instead of refuting it. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have to separate the actions of Muslims from the religion of Islam. A great resource outlining the logic of this can be found in the Freedom and Justice Foundation's landmark position paper titled the Triumph over Terror, Interfaith Statement. Understanding this separation of terms for the religion and the follower -- that is unique to Islam -- would lead to a better strategy like offering condolences to the families who lost loved ones and focusing on the loss of life.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) once instructed Mu'adh Ibn Jabal (may God be pleased with him) not to speak on his behalf, or on behalf of Islam. In fact Mu'adh was specifically instructed on how and what to say when he was sent to essentially perform missionary work. Mu’adh was told to speak only for those that elected him as their leader. Now, let us remember just who Mu'adh was. He was endorsed by the Prophet as having the most knowledge on Halal (the permissible) and Haram (the prohibited). He was the companion whom when the Prophet used to show that Iman (faith) is in the heart, the Prophet patted the chest of Mu'adh.

If Mu'adh was instructed to speak only on behalf of those that elected him, how about us?  It would be good for us to remember the difference between the words "Muslim" and "Islam."

Today, Muslims acting in the role of spokespersons must consider the multiple audiences they’re addressing. When possible they should be credible subject-matter and subject specific experts. They should not speak beyond their actual leadership or expertise. In best-case scenarios religious questions (what does Islam say about xyz?) should be deferred to religious leaders with the appropriate qualifications.

So, when is it appropriate to condemn on behalf of Muslim organizations and who should do it?

In my view, only local Muslims should speak on local issues that are directly related to their communities. National organizations can handle the national issues. The exception to this rule of thumb is when Muslims discuss a policy or subject-matter expertise that benefits the community. This commentary should be intended to guide and suggest proactive steps, improved responses, education or strategy development. Facilitating dialogue, helping community leaders gain knowledge and experience or educating the community on positive action that they can take are all excellent examples of reasons to comment on a situation or tragedy as an American Muslim.

As for the news reporting following the incident, I was surprised both by the early restraint shown by some news sources and more surprised by which media outlets which demonstrated that initial restraint. During FOX news' interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison, both the U.S. Senator and Shepard Smith were seemingly eager to announce the suspect's name was a Muslim name. However, they did show restraint unlike ABC’s news crew, which subsequently started the domino effect with CNN next and followed by others all introducing the Muslim angle to the story.

Locally, Michael Berry— a popular talk show host and former Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Houston— also demonstrated a responsible approach when discussing Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's religion. He qualified the listener’s comments reminding them that at the time there was a lot of speculation, but not confirmed facts. Berry did speculate mildly, yet he stuck to the facts as they were being released and continually reminded listeners that much of the on air discussion is unverified.

I am sure that many readers are surprised at this praise for the early reporting, so let me be clear: I do not think any of the coverage was prefect or even ideal. But what should be noted is that even media sources typically hostile toward our community displayed more sensitivity and concern for facts for confirming the facts than others media outlets that have a reputation for being less biased toward the Muslim community, at least in the early reports.

Muslim organizations vs. the media

Why does the early media restraint matter? It is a fair question especially now as the story's narratives develop and the patterns of bias return. The answer is in the contrast between our community's organizations and the media. If FOX News and talk radio demonstrated some restraint on reporting the Muslim angle, shouldn't our organizations also have shown restraint in their responses?

This is where condemnations come in. Very rarely in my time as an activist has the request come to me to condemn something. People relate to people. If you and your community did not do it — and/or if you believe Islam does not endorses it and you still feel the need to condemn it — do it as a human being. If however, an incident happened in your community and it was clearly expressed by the perpetrators that they believed they had religious motivations, condemn it as a human and as a Muslim. However, ONLY the local community should do this, otherwise you are actually giving the story legs (a longer news cycle) and affiliating yourself and your faith with an unaffiliated event.

As rumors in Maj. Hasan's case give way to facts, we will see if the rushed condemnations from many American Muslim organizations are relevant. If the motivations of Maj. Hasan are some how proven to be rooted in his religious beliefs, the condemnations would have been both more effective and more appropriate if they were released as those details are made known and verified. Knee-jerk condemnations sometimes come off as insincere and overly protective, begging all sorts of new and avoidable questions.

To be fair, I have to acknowledge the embattled state that many of our organizations are in. Our leaders and activists are constantly attacked -- from every conceivable source -- simply for advocating for Muslims and that Islam be understood and respected. These attacks are not only from non-Muslims but also from within our community. It is this latter category of attacks from the Muslim community that makes writing this article so difficult. May Allah reward our community's representatives for the difficult tasks they face, make them successful and forgive us all for our short comings.

In closing, my heart goes out to the families of the victims of this tragic shooting. I pray that Allah guides and comforts them during this time of loss. I also pray that Muslims in the West, especially those in all forms of public service, will not be maligned due to unfair association of these types of actions with our entire community and faith.

Moderation for this post

To preserve the integrity of this discussion, any comments relating to the topics of (1) permissibility of Muslims working for the military or (2) whether this murderous spree should not be condemned (this article is about HOW not if) and, (3) of course, any celebratory comments (an unfortunate reflection upon some in our Ummah) will be deleted. Please stick to the topic: how separating Islam and Muslims is important in public dialogue and how it is especially important in condemning on behalf of Muslim communities.

Awesome lecture by Kamal El Mekki (I love the story of Abdullah ibn Yasin).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Excerpt:
Instead of pointing fingers at the imaginary Muslim fifth column, it is more relevant to discuss what would push a man to commit a treacherous act, not to justify it, but rather to prevent another serviceman from committing a similar act, perhaps a Jew or an atheist or other non-Christian, someone similarly frustrated and harassed, as Nidal allegedly was.

Please read this important note on this post

Strict moderation will be applied to all comments. Any comments relating to the topics of (1) permissibility of Muslims working for the military or (2) whether this murderous spree should not be condemned and, (3) of course, any celebratory comments (an unfortunate reflection upon some in our Ummah) will be deleted. Please stick to the topic: Growing religious influence in the military or PTSD or any other cause/effect thoughts.

Even if your comments are respectful, I will apply strict control; please accept my apologies in advance.

---------------------

In light of the recent tragic events at Ft. Hood, where a military officer, Nidal Hasan, shot thirteen of his fellow servicemen dead, we have seen the Islamophobia thermometer rise once again with the news media exploring every angle of Nidal's Muslim background.  While some (not enough) attention is being paid to Nidal's career, ironically a psychiatrist himself who was assigned to a position to help others with psychiatric problems, not enough is being paid to the important question of "what about the army's religious background"?

This post aims to discuss these two issues, the effect of PTSD (posttruamatic stress disorder) upon those whose job is to treat it, and the increasingly religious character of the US military that is leading to hostility towards non-Christians. Of course, the goal of the post is not to justify the actions of Nidal. I write, just as others are writing about why a psychiatrist would suddenly go postal on his comrades. As a Muslim though, I have to increasingly be careful of how my words are perceived in this day and age, as unfortunate this might be. So, before I discuss the topic, I would like to prelude it with an important message to clarify and delineate between justification and root-cause analysis.

One of the unfortunate machinations of the Islamophobes post-9/11 was to stifle any discussion of the root-causes of the tragedy. These Islamophobes (a combination of right-wingers and pro-Israel hawks) found the uptick in discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict and its contribution to global terrorism (including 9/11) as a disturbing trend that had to be stopped. The point was "don't blame the Israel occupation" and the way that this plot worked is that if you brought up Israel, you would be accused of justifying 9/11. Of course, the logic behind this is flawed. As an example, suppose there was a severe increase in the number of pedaphiles from a certain community. Just examining the sociological reasons towards this increase would not be a justification for the pedaphile's actions, rather this would be a critical exercise in order to stop and reverse this disturbing trend. Similarly, understanding the root-causes of global terrorism is an important exercise, designed not to justify terrorists, but to prevent their next big bumper crop.

Growing Religious Influence in the Military

Nidal's cousin had something to say about it, which needs to be paid particular attention to:

Perhaps it was the combination of being a Muslim and an Army counselor that set Hasan off. His cousin Nader Hasan said Maj. Hasan had his own stresses to deal with, as a Muslim army officer.

"It was the harassment that, I think, was what got to him ... him being referenced for his Middle Eastern ethnicity, even though he was born and raised here," Nader Hasan said.

NPR confirmed this with other members of Nidal's family:

In interviews, members of his family have suggested that the modern military had become an especially uncomfortable place for Muslims and Arab-Americans like Hasan. It was then, they say, that the newly minted doctor first began complaining of harassment over his Muslim religion and talking about a way out.

Why the harassment, possibly so severe, that it would lead a man to go against everything he stood for?

The easy answer would be to simply point out that this is to be expected after 9/11. But the men in the military represent a sample of the general American population, and in general Muslims are not harassed in their daily life, with exceptions of course. While Islamophobia is real, there is not another example of an average American Muslims going into a rampage like Nidal did.

In the words of another Muslim in the military, Ahmed Shama, mentioned [NPR]:

"During boot camp I was referred to by the phrase 'al-Qaida terrorist' by one of my drill instructors,"

Now, imagine this for a minute. Imagine if you work for any organization, and that you are repeatedly accused of being a spy or an agent of your competitor. How would that affect your psyche? How would you feel about coming to work everyday? Now imagine if you are put in a HR position in this organization, designed to address the issue of discrimination for others. Could you imagine the cognitive dissonance in play? Could you imagine the conflicting messages in your head?

"There are no words to express my feeling upon hearing my religion referred to as Satan," says Shama, who is currently studying Arabic in Cairo. "Even worse was watching footage of mosques being blown up by U.S. forces and hearing reports of the Quran being shredded."

Why is the military then any different? Is it more suspect to harassment and Islamophobia than the general public?

The deeper answer may lie in the growing influence of fundamentalist, evangelical form of Christianity in the military, and the likely increasing peer pressure on non-Christians to "assimilate" or face implicit or explicit harassment.

The book, With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military, examines some of these evangelical trends, and how the American army is more and more becoming the Christian army, on a mission from God.  In an excerpt posted on alternet,  Birth of the Christian Soldier: How Evangelicals Infiltrated the American Military, the authors point out,

It took decades for evangelicals to infiltrate the military, but eventually fundamentalist theology adapted as its entry points the culture of authority, duty, and sacrifice in the armed forces.

Instead of pointing fingers at the imaginary Muslim fifth column, it is more relevant to discuss what would push a man to commit a treacherous act, not to justify it, but rather to prevent another serviceman from committing a similar act, perhaps a Jew or an atheist or other non-Christian, someone similarly frustrated and harassed, as Nidal allegedly was.

Watch the excellent documentary that sheds more light on "Fault Lines-Religion in the Military" pasted below the post.

PTSD

The irony of Nidal's profession as a psychiatrist has not been lost on most. However, the media continues to make only passing remarks as to how the profession itself could have been a catalyst for Nidal's own mental breakdown. Rest assured, if Nidal was not a Muslim, this aspect of the shootings would be front and center, and by unfortunately focusing on the Muslim issue, it is possible that perhaps the main underlying issue in this may be lost.

Fortunately, I was able to find some relevant materials on the outskirts of the MSM.

NPR mentions it in passing only:

Psychologists say there is such a thing as "vicarious traumatization," in which someone can be affected just by hearing what someone else has gone through.

Michigan's Newschannel 3 asked the doctors how they cope and what their training is. "We learn to separate our own emotional stuff from what the patient presents to us," said Dr. Bloem. Another doctor, Dr. Lieggio, stated, what needs to be paid particular attention to:

If you immerse yourself, then you get blurred too.

Could Nidal have not been able to separate his own emotions from his patients?

In an excellent article, Kevin Camp writes about "Re-evaluating war and its lasting effects", and immediately hits it dead-center:

The media framing implies, but can't bring itself to mention directly, whether the psychological cost of warfare might be a deeply destructive force that erodes the emotional health of those who serve.

While holding back ultimate judgement, Kevin aptly addresses the issue and brings up important questions:

Like everyone else, I concede that at this early stage in the investigation substantial details are few and far between. As a result, I am not going to idly speculate as to the motives or plan of action of Nidal Malik Hasan. One does, however, have to concede the irony that a psychiatrist, one who treats mental illness as a vocation, might have been ill himself with the very disease he sought to treat. Whether Hasan serves as the miner's canary for us all or is simply another severely troubled individual with a gun in the grips of a debilitating disorder may never firmly be established. Still, that there might be some doubt between these two perspectives is damning critique enough. I have always found the disconnect between embracing violence and hardhearted cruelty towards one set of humans while behaving with mannerly restraint to another nonsensical at best. Though we might have the ability with enough societal conditioning to thread that needle, I question whether it is a healthy perspective for anyone to take on and in so doing, justify.

And ultimately ends with another telling observation

Treating the causes in this regard would rattle too many cages, threaten the livelihoods of too many wealthy people, necessitate a shift in major industries that drive our economy, require a completely different cultural outlook, and above all force us to be self-reflective and introspective, two qualities few people wish to take on for any extended length of time. Yet, for those seeking answers, here is one. Until we ask hard questions like these of ourselves and the world around us, one interrogative which we ought not need to ask is "Why?".

And in the final article on TRUE/SLANT, Todd Essig, a psychologist and psychoanalyst with a full-time therapy practice for 20 years, states it quite bluntly:

But when I learned that the likely shooter was an Army psychiatrist who treats PTSD, himself on the cusp of deployment, I thought, “I’m not surprised.”

One fact we do know is that treating PTSD is itself traumatic. Before you judge or maybe make a joke about some shrink wigging out–or indulge ugly racist fantasies–I want you to imagine a work day spent bearing witness to traumas so horrific media outlets won’t even show the videos. Imagine every day trying to help young men and women somehow put their lives back together despite their night terrors, flashbacks, and chronic sleeplessness. While you reach out to help,  they mistrust your every move and respond with hair-trigger tempers, not to mention all the physical symptoms, alienation, and hopelessness. Surrounded by thoughts of suicide–and homicide–you try and keep faith with the honor and challenge of providing care.

But soon the line between their experience and yours starts to blur until, well, something like what happened at Fort Hood today becomes an all too real possibility.

The doctor then mentions a couple of other important references in this must-read article.

the problem of vicarious traumatization (VT), which they defined as the cumulative transformative effects upon therapists resulting from empathic engagement with traumatized clients.

The good doctor has since penciled in another article, "Talking about Hasan reveals ugly racism", and I borrow his concluding paragraph in closing:

In the absence of evidence, the hateful character of some on the right has been revealed. What we need to keep in mind now, before the information is available, is that everything being said is based on the same evidence as is finding a clown in the clouds. Information will emerge. An explanation will get developed. Some of today’s fantasies will be proved correct. But today what is being said are really just fantasies that reveal the character of the speaker. Being correct about vicarious traumatization having a role in Hasan’s motivation will not make my politics any more correct, nor would an eventual revelation of terrorist motives make today’s racism any less racist.

--------------------------------------------------

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bismillah-irRahman-irRaheem. As salamu alaykum wa Rahmat Allahi wa Barakatuhu.

posted by abu abdAllah Tariq Ahmed

Coverage by Al Jazeera English of an affirmation by Muslim religious leaders in India...

Click here to view the embedded video.

...and of South Africans not just present during the murderous attacks on Gaza, but actually serving in the IDF.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A widow and her family, survivors of a man killed by Israel in Gaza in front of one of his own sons.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Welcome to the another edition of MuslimMatters.org’s regular Islamic Art feature. If you want to see your work on MM, then either email us your images to art[@]muslimmatters[.]org or submit them to our Flickr group.

Click on the images below to view the original.

A salat theme this week...

Love Notes, by Afeefa

Praying Zuhr in -4 temperature on mountains of Koli, Finland. By Tabish

Islamic tondo/mandala - a watercolour by aleena

Visit the MuslimMatters Flickr group to view the other entries…

—
Note: all the images presented in our Islamic Art feature are copyrighted to the original producers. Do not reproduce them without seeking their prior consent.

All last week, we have been discussing cases of the highest kind of injustice against Muslim individuals. While Dr. Maher Arar is out and fighting for justice, several other prisoners are depending on the Muslim community to obtain justice for them. The question was brought up quite a few times as to what we can do for these individuals. Well, here is an opportunity. One of these excellent initiatives is the Muslim Justice Initiative. Time to put our money where our mouth is and support these initiatives that seek to bring justice about. And as we saw with the Canadian government's apology and award to Dr. Arar, Muslims can use the legal system to demand their civil rights.

The Muslim Justice Initiative and the Free Fahad Campaign present:

THEY ARE NOT ALONE

Worldwide Webinar  &  Fundraiser

Mark you calendar, set your alarms on you cell phones, Monday the 9th of Novemeber at 8 PM EST (7PM CST - 6PM MST - 5PM PST)

Online at http://muslimsforjustice.org/theyarenotalone/

*This is an online event. The webinar can be accessed internationally via net and phone*

A young man named Fahad Hashmi wakes up in an eerily silent cell, banned from the social interactions of people, deprived from the natural light of the sun, and meticulously monitored at every moment of the day. Imagine living like this for one week— one month— or three years! Sadly, this is the reality of several Muslims who are imprisoned in the United States under the so-called banner of ‘fighting terrorism.’

The Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “Whoever relieves a believer of a hardship from the hardships of this world, then Allah will relieve him of a hardship from the hardships of the Day of Resurrection…Allah is helping the servant as long as the servant is helping his brother, " [Hadith Tirmidhi /Muslim].

Now it is your turn to make a difference; it is your turn to relieve your brothers and sisters of their distress. Contribute whatever you’re capable of giving in order to assist in freeing your brethren from their current state of solitude and torture.

Make a contribution at this webinar for the sake of your Lord and join the efforts of Muslim Justice Initiative!
Log on to: http://muslimsforjustice.org/theyarenotalone on Monday 11.9.09 @ 8 PM

For more information, please visit muslimsforjustice.org
or contact: info@muslimsforjustice.org
Facebook Link: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=158584507723&ref=mf

Here is a poem written by A. AlShukry and dedicated to Fahad Hashmi titled, My Brother.

12 miles away in a cell is my brother
24 hour confined hell for my brother
They try to separate me with fear from my brother
But things arent as they appear with my brother
They call him a terrorist, I call him my brother
Tell me why they had to go take my brother
Because he says his Lord is Allah and no other?
Was it because he cared enough to teach did my brother
Or was it the hearts he used to reach did my brother
Was it that he was different from the crowd was my brother
Was it that he is a Muslim that is proud is my brother
They say that he's heartless, I say- my brother?
When they have him sitting in darkness, my brother
I ask Allah to pour out on him patience, my brother
3 years without trial he's waited, my brother

12 miles away in a cell is my brother
Sensory deprived hell for my brother
But I won't allow them to defeat my brother
As long as I can stand on my feet for my brother
As long as I can stand up and speak for my brother
I will not be afraid nor weak for my brother
I will not sit on the fence for my brother
I will stand up in defense for my brother

No effort too small or immense for my brother
I have no doubt they will clear my brother
And Allah will dry a mothers tears for my brother
But what I want to say here for my brother
If you're not willing to stand for your brother
Then this will only expand to your brothers
If you choose to forget or ignore my brother
I wont beg and I wont implore for my brother
I've seen the light emanate from the core of my brother
So It doesn't matter what they have in store for my brother
For Allah is my Lord... and He's the Lord of my brother

Maher Arar

by J.Hashmi

In 2002, Maher Arar was detained without charge by the INS and denied the right to counsel.  Even though he was a Canadian citizen, the United States government--based on Canadian intel--deported him to Syria to be tortured for information.  For ten months, Mr. Arar was thrown in a three-foot by six-foot "grave" and was brutally beaten with shredded electrical cables.  His beatings were so severe that he became suicidal, claiming that death would be better than what he was made to endure.

Mr. Arar noted that the Syrian interrogators asked the exact same questions that were asked by American interrogators, which led him to believe that this was a case of torture by proxy. After 374 days of repeated beatings, Mr. Arar was released without charge, and he was finally reunited with his family in Canada.  The Syrian government declared that they could find no terrorist links, and Imad Moustapha, a Syrian official, stated: "We tried to find anything.  We couldn't."

Mr. Arar sued the Canadian and American governments, demanding a formal apology for violating his constitutional rights. The Canadian government established the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar to investigate the issue.  After more than two years of investigation, the Commission of Inquiry ruled in Mr. Arar's favor, concluding that he had absolutely no terrorist links and that the Canadian government played a role in his deportation to Syria and subsequent torture.

In September of 2006, the RCMP Commissioner Guiliani Zaccardelli issued the following public apology to Mr. Arar during the House of Commons session:

Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured.

In January of 2007, the Canadian government awarded $11.5 million to Mr. Arar in a compensation settlement, and the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal and public apology on behalf of the government.  However, no punitive actions were taken against any Canadian officials.

Meanwhile, Mr. Arar also sued the United States government, bringing a suit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the FBI Director Robert Mueller, and former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, amongst others.  The suit alleged that the United States government denied Mr. Arar his constitutional right to due process, and that it had violated the Torture Victims Protection Act and international law.

The U.S. government quashed the case by invoking "States Secrets Privilege," dismissing the suit due to "national security concerns."  The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented Mr. Arar, appealed the verdict.  However, this week Al-Jazeera reported that the federal appeals court rejected the appeal: "In a 7-4 vote on Monday, the US court of appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with a lower court that Arar could not sue US officials."

The question now is: will Mr. Arar appeal his case to the Supreme Court?

Anderson Cooper of CNN covered the story:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In 2006, the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award was given to Mr. Arar.  The United States government did not permit him to collect the award, and so Mr. Arar was forced to give a video acceptance speech:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In 2007, Mr. Arar was honored in the annual TIME Magazine 100, listed under number 58 in the Heroes and Pioneers category.  The entry, written by US Senator Patrick Leahy, declared that his case "stands as a sad example of how we have been too willing to sacrifice our core principles to overarching government power in the name of security, when doing so only undermines the principles we stand for and makes us less safe."  The U.S. government again denied him the right to attend the TIME awards ceremony.

Although the case received considerable media coverage in Canada, it has largely been ignored by the U.S. mainstream media.

For further details, visit www.maherarar.ca

Background

Last Saturday, Allah subhaanahu wa ta'aala blessed our family with our latest addition to the family, our daughter Taymiyyah.  I'm home this week to help my wife with her chores while she adapts and recovers and among the duties I've shouldered is cooking.  Flipping through my healthy eating books, I found this amazing recipe for chili.  I made it yesterday, and it came out really well, so for anyone that wants to make 10 servings of chili and not cook again for 3 - 4 days, try the recipe below.

Required Tools

1. Extremely huge pot, or two large pots.
2. Knife for chopping veggies
3. Blender
4. Stirring spoons
5. 3 or 4 medium sized tupperware containers to store chopped veggies
6. 1 TableSpoon and 1 Teaspoon
7. Your scrubbiest clothes, you will likely smell like an onion after this is done.

Ingredients

1. 4 lbs Extra Lean Ground Beef
2. 4 Cans of Kidney beans (15.5 oz per can) - make sure to drain and rinse thoroughly
3. 2 large onions, chopped (prepare to cry)
4. 2 large tomatoes, chopped
5. 1 lb of carrots, peeled and sliced into smaller pieces
6. 4 bell peppers, any combination of colors will do (green, red, yellow, orange)
7. 6 cloves of garlic, chopped
8. Two 46 fl oz bottles V8 Vegetable Juice, Spicy Hot
9. 1/2 lb Cashews
10. Spices
    • 4 tbsp Chili Powder
    • 1 tsp Cumin
    • 2 tsp Paprika
    • 1 tsp Celery Seed
    • 1 tsp Fresh Ground Peppper

Directions

1. Combine 1 lb ground beef, the onions, and the minced garlic and brown the beef on high heat.  When this is complete, continue adding 1 lb of beef, browning it, and keep doing so until all the beef is added and browned.
2. Now add all the spices and continue frying the beef while stirring for 3 minutes
3. Add the kidney beans, tomatoes, carrots, peppers, and V8 Juice.  Stir it all up, and keep the heat high until it's boiling.  If it becomes too much, lower the temperature slightly, but let it keep going.
4. While the meat cooks, blend the cashews in short bursts (not all at once, don't want it to become butter, just grainy) - this is how you make the cashew meal.  Add this to your chili and stir.
5. Keep the chili cooking until the carrots are soft (could be between 30 - 60 min).  Once the carrots are soft, your chili is good to go.

Lessons Learned

1. Cutting onions makes you cry and your clothes stink.  Don't wear nice clothes when cutting them.
2. V8 is a weird ingredient, but it really works.  Trust the process.
3. If the portion proposed is too big, cut all the ingredients needed in half and go from there.
4. Anyone can make an amazing chili, even a kitchen dunce like myself.  I wish I had this recipe in college.

Let me know if you try it out, I'll be happy to answer any questions if you do.  If you decide to use this recipe, tell me how it works out, insha'Allah.

Link to Full Coverage of Dr. Aafia’s Ordeal

“Why do they hate us?” This simple, yet loaded five word question has literally outperformed the thousands of answers that have been put forth. This is because comprehensive responses are rarely as powerful as a simple question. Aafia Siddiqui’s case suffers from the very same dynamic; it is complex, it is detailed and it raises disturbing issues that reach far and wide.

Consider the following claims against the U.S. and allied/contracted forces:

1)      Abduction of a mother and her three children with the children used for extortion

2)      Long term captivity in secret prisons

3)      Rape, torture, mental and physical abuse

4)      Use of elaborate disorientation and false flag techniques

This laundry list is definitely sensational enough for a kneejerk rejection from the average American patriot. However, what are we to think when these very same allegations are listed in a recently declassified Department of Defense’s Inspector General’s report entitled Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse[i]?

There are other serious questions surround this impending trial:

1. Why is she considered such a high profile suspect when the charges against her are not related to terrorism[ii]?
2. What caused the interest in Siddiqui in the first place?
3. How long has she been in custody?
4. Where have her children been all this time?
5. Who was responsible for them?
6. Did we outsource her and her children's detention and interrogation to other nations?

Despite all these issues, there is one central theme in Siddiqui’s ordeal. It holds true regardless of ones status as a supporter or detractor.  As an American, the one inescapable question is: how we, the U.S., treated and continue to treat her.

How Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was and will be treated matters

Why? The reasons are plentiful, but let us examine one of our more important relationships: Pakistan, a strategically vital U.S. ally. Pakistan is a nation that seems to continuously suffer from regime changes, political assassinations and other stability issues; these are conditions conducive to the widespread popular support that Aafia Siddiqui is receiving.

Siddiqui has been transformed from a “U.S. person of interest,” into a galvanizing symbol of the Pakistani people. Her growing status as a focal point of that nation’s pride and desire for true sovereignty is evident. The streets are regularly flooded with pro-Aafia rallies and demonstrations that on occasion number in the tens of thousands. Popular singers, poets and artists continue to release tributes to Siddiqui as their chosen symbol for all of Pakistan’s missing persons and other popular, pro-Pakistani sentiments. Siddiqui’s story serves as a common rallying point for both Pakistan’s secular and religious as well as for their conservatives and their liberals. Aafia Siddiqui’s case has even overcome bitter rivalries between Pakistan’s competing political movements.

Siddiqui’s status is growing in influence, even transcending Pakistani politics and reaching the broader Muslim world as new and persistent allegations of abuse surface against the U.S. These allegations, especially when women and children are involved, undermine our standing in the world and provoke very serious and avoidable diplomatic problems.

This report legitimizes the hard to accept claims put forth by Aafia Siddiqui’s supporters.

It can no longer be claimed that abusive ‘interrogation techniques’ and assaults on detainees have not been either approved or perpetrated by our servicemen and contractors. This is the second reason that U.S. treatment of Aafia Siddiqui is the central issue of this case; it is directly related to our values as Americans.

To illustrate the point, let us examine the claims made by Aafia Siddiqui’s supporters with the DoD report’s findings:

CLAIM 1: The abduction of a mother and her three children/ children used for extortion

• REPORT: The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family:… - pg 36

CLAIM 2: Long term captivity in secret prisons

• REPORT: CIA detainees in Abu Ghraib, known locally as “Ghost Detainees,” were not accounted for in the detention system. With these detainees unidentified or unaccounted for, detention operations at large were impacted because personnel at the operations level were uncertain how to report or classify detainees. - pg 59
• REPORT: …DoD temporarily held detainees for the CIA – including the detainee known as “Triple-X” – without properly registering them and providing notification to the International Committee of the Red Cross. This practice of holding “ghost detainees” for the CIA was guided by oral, ad hoc agreements… - pg 78

CLAIM 3: Rape, torture, mental and physical abuse

• REPORT: At the extremes were the death of a detainee in OGA custody, an alleged rape committed by a US translator and observed by a female Soldier, and the alleged sexual assault of a female detainee. - pg 59

CLAIM 4: Use of elaborate disorientation and false flag techniques

• REPORT: …military personnel improperly interfered with FBI interrogators in the performance of their FBI duties. - pg 86
• REPORT: False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him. - pg 97
• REPORT: …our interviews with DoD personnel assigned to various detention facilities throughout Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that they did not have a uniform understanding of what rules governed the involvement of OGAs in the interrogation of DoD detainees. That DoD interrogators improperly impersonated FBI agents and Department of State officers during the interrogation of detainees. - pg 86

How our nation treats its detainees will continue to become more and more significant during the progression of Aafia Siddiqui’s trial. It will be a reoccurring theme in all similar trials as well. Regardless of verdicts, our treatment of detainees if not addressed properly will continue to degrade our nation’s image and standing in the world. This fact cannot be tempered by our stance on the all important and most immediate question of when did the U.S. take custody of Aafia? There are enough claims of mistreatment for either scenario of when Siddiqui came under U.S. authority.

Supporters contend that Aafia was abducted and handed over to U.S. Authorities in April 2003. This claim is supported by an NBC News clip available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xwCHha5ITM . This claim is corroborated by Siddiqui’s family’s statements expressing their belief that she was dead from 2003 until her capture in Afghanistan.

While convenient, it should be noted that the NBC and other media reports of Aafia’s abduction in 2003 have been denied/contested[iii].

What is certain is that once captured in Afghanistan, Siddiqui has been shuffled between mental and maximum security facilities, both with documented histories of abuse especially toward Muslims[iv] [v] and women[vi] inmates.

Currently, despite the fact that she is held in solitary confinement, under video surveillance, Siddiqui under goes regular, forced, strip searches, when making any outside contact - effectively denying her reasonable access to her attorneys. It is also a matter of record that after Siddiqui was officially in U.S. custody, she was shot by U.S. personal in Ghazni, Afghanistan and that the medical care she needed was at best delayed and inadequate[vii].

For most American’s, there might just be too many allegations against the U.S. for us to sallow. This type of thinking will miss the lessons that are to be learned as information comes to light. Siddiqui’s case, how she was treated and what we will do about it going forward, will define, in part, our capability for leadership in the world. Most importantly, it will serve as a window for who we are or who we have become.

PLEASE NOTE: Aafia is due in court tomorrow, Nov. 3. Those who are able are encouraged to attend! Details here.

[ii] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/September/08-nsd-765.html

[iii] http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/aafia01.htm

[iv] http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/19/maddy/index.html

[v] http://cryptome.org/bop-abuse.htm

[vi] http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=252

[vii] http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN11499491

Bismillah-irRahman-irRaheem. As salamu alaykum wa Rahmat Allahi wa Barakatuhu.

posted by abu abdAllah Tariq Ahmed

Inspired by a response to last week's open thread, I've spent some time checking out the world as reported by Al Jazeera English. So this week, less of the New York Times, and more about events in the Muslim world. What do you think of that?

From Gawking:

Click here to view the embedded video.

...To a revealing look at a Hawk:

Click here to view the embedded video.

...To a better look at events at Al Aqsa than any US news source provided:

Click here to view the embedded video.

...To reports like this one from the front-lines of Waziristan:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Al Jazeera's Youtube channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish, lets viewers pick and choose through much of the content from this satellite channel.

The channel covers stories in America and the West as well, and covers stories in the Muslim world that are more a cause of shame than anything else: the success of a brewery, for example. So, not perfect. But overall, I am enjoying the look at a different perspective of events in the Arab and Muslim world, different from what one sees from American news sources.

How about you?  What kind of content would you like to see more of in a Sunday Open Thread?  Should conversation starters be strictly news?  From any particular sources?