By Parvez Fatteh, Founder of http://sportingummah.com, sports@muslimobserver.com

Amir Khan squares off with Danny Garcia before the fight.

Amir Khan plans to reconquer the light-welterweight division, with David Haye and Carl Froch among those urging him to reject calls to retire. Khan endured the second knockout of his career when he was stopped in the fourth round in Las Vegas on Saturday night by heavy underdog Danny Garcia.

The brutal nature of the defeat, which saw Khan floored three times in the WBA and WBC light-welterweight unification fight, has clouded his future. The frailty first exposed by Breidis Prescott in 2008 was emphasised by Garcia, confirming the blueprint on how to beat the 25-year-old.

However, Khan today released a statement outlining his determination to reclaim his titles after taking a break to take stock of his position. “I’m going to spend the next few weeks relaxing during Ramadan and recharging my batteries after what was a 16-week training camp for me,” the statement read. “I’ll then sit down with my team to assess the options in front of me. “Well done to Danny Garcia on his performance, but I promise I’ll bounce back stronger than ever as I look to regain my spot at the top of the 140lb division.

“Many fighters down the years have bounced back from defeat to prove their greatness and that’s exactly what I intend to do. “I’ve never shirked any challenge or refused to fight anyone in my division even though it would have been easy for me to do so. “Some say that attitude is the wrong one to have but I’ve always wanted to please the fans and be involved in exciting fights.

“It’s only right that you get to see the best fighting the best, especially in an age when so many top fighters hand-pick opponents.” Khan received strong words of support from his friend Haye, who insisted it would be foolish to write-off the Olympic silver medalist.

Haye, who flattened Dereck Chisora in five rounds at Upton Park on the same night, believes Khan remains a box-office attraction. “People are writing Amir Khan off, but they do that at their peril,” Haye told Radio 5 Live. “He’s been written off in the past when he was knocked out by Breidis Prescott. People said he was finished, that he was chinny and had no heart. But he came back and won world titles. Lennox Lewis was knocked out twice by Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, should he have given up then? He will still get the big fights, guaranteed, because he’s Amir Khan and puts bums on seats. It was just an off night for him and he’ll make everybody eat their words, just like he did after losing to Prescott.”

Khan was also drawn into a spat with Froch, the current IBF super-middleweight champion, who appeared to suggest he should hang up his gloves. But Froch, who faces a rematch with Lucian Bute in Montreal early next year, claimed he had been misquoted and backed Khan to prosper once more – if he has to adjust his style. “Amir was reacting to a misquote that was put to him. What I actually said was that if that happened to me I’d retire, but I’m 35-years-old,” Froch said.”If I was Amir of course I’d be regrouping. I turned professional at 25, it’s a totally different ball game at that age. At 25 he’s still got some of his best years ahead of him physically.

“Mentally it’s a tough defeat to get over, but he’s done it before following a devastating knockout by Prescott. He knows he’s got a vulnerability and that his punch resistance isn’t very good, so what he needs to do is adjust his style. He should use his range, fast hands and fitness to move around like he used to do. I don’t know why he seems to get involved in tear-ups.”

14-30

2012-PCC-USA At Federal Reserves Honorable Consul General Muhammad Aqil Nadeem

Houston, Texas (Press Release PCC-UA): A Conference on “Doing Business with Pakistan” was held at the Federal Reserve, in downtown Houston on July 12th, 2012. The conference was organized by Pakistan Chamber of Commerce, USA with active support of the Consulate General of Pakistan, Houston. The objective was to motivate the Texas business community about potential, benefits and opportunities of business with Pakistan.

Michelle Trevino, of Federal Reserve Bank welcomed the guests and explained the role of Federal Reserve Bank. Dr. Ashraf Abbasi, founder, Pakistan Chamber of Commerce USA welcomed the audience and explained the importance of US-Pakistan business ties.

Mr. Waseem Rahim, President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce USA briefed the role of the Chamber, its contributions and provided an overview of the objectives of the conference and explained the economic potential of Pakistan as an energy corridor as well as manufacturing and trade hub for Middle East, Central and South Asia.

The key note speakers were Mr. Muhammad Aqil Nadeem, the Consul General of Pakistan and Mr. Ed Emmett, the Harris County Judge. The Consul General presented the inherent strengths of Pakistan supported with economic indicators and relevant statistical data. He emphasized on the imperative need of trade and industry as an important hub of that region. He identified energy, infrastructure, education, healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, information technology, communications, transportation and export sectors as the potential areas from which the Houston, Texas and US companies can be get lucrative business options.

The Harris County Judge presented an optimistic outlook of Pakistan on economic front. He was of the view that once Afghan conflict is over soon, Pakistan is bound to progress at a much faster pace. Therefore, he emphasized the need of exploring business options in Pakistan right now so that both countries can progress together at a much faster pace in near future. He said that it was very natural that world’s third and sixth largest countries should have grater trade and investment interests with each other.

Mr. Fawad Ali Shah, Commercial Attaché, Consulate General of Pakistan, made a detailed presentation on the forthcoming Expo Pakistan, the biggest trade fair of Pakistan to be held from 4-7 October 2012 at Karachi, Pakistan.  The other guest speakers Mr. John Johnson EXIM Bank, Dr. Cynthia Kalina-Kaminsky Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Mr. Alan Richel US Department of Commerce explained the policies of their respective organizations and expressed their willingness to support trade and investment projects in relation to USA and Pakistan. The representatives of Mayor’s Office, Greater Houston Partnership, International Trade Centre, US Minority Business Enterprise Council and US Small Business Development Administration also appreciated the significance of doing business with Pakistan and renewed their continuous support for the trade and commerce initiatives taken by the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce USA and the Consulate General of Pakistan.

Prominent business leaders having diverse interests in trade and investment with Pakistan interacted with the panel of speakers to inquire about their product specific requirements. Businessmen from other cities, including Chicago, Dallas and Austin, were also present to find opportunities of business with Pakistan. The participants showed a strong commitment in expanding their business linkages with Pakistan. The Consulate General of Pakistan in Houston and President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce both gave an assurance that in future more commercial activities will be arranged for creating awareness about the potential business opportunities and facilitating business to business interaction. The businessmen also showed keen interest to participate in the Expo Pakistan being held from 4-7 October at Karachi, Pakistan and started registration for the event at Commercial Section of the Consulate General of Pakistan, Houston.

PCC-USA is located at International Trade Center, 11110 Bellaire Blvd., Suite 202, Houston, TX 77072, USA; www.PakistanChamberUSA.com; E-Mail: Info@PakistanChamberUSA.com

14-30

By Ahmad al-Hilali, TMO

There was a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of al-Farah Mosque near Ground Zero. Everyone either supported the construction of the 30 story building, or supported the demolition of it. The imam of the mosque, Dr. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, faced many hardships when it came to it’s construction, but he still managed to get America to get over it. He visited the Dar al Hikma mosque in Dearborn Heights, Michigan on June 6.

During his speech there, he showed much appreciation towards the Shi’a community and gave a very powerful quote which sparked the room with “Allahu Akbar’s” and “Blessings be on the Prophet and his progeny” Dr Feisal said: “My Father laid down my entire ancestry to me when I was a kid, and when I grew up, I grew up knowing that I was the 40th descendant of Al-Imam Al-Hassan, the son of Al-Imam Ali ibnu Abi Talib.

Why would the American society have a negative outburst towards the construction of the mosque, when America clearly states the freedom of religion in the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”

If people were to get upset over the construction of a place that allows religion, shouldn’t they also get worked up over Shinto Shrines in Pearl Harbor?

If America is going to deny the construction of a mosque because of the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists because of the 9/11 incident, than shouldn’t America also target the Japanese community for building a Shrine NEAR Pearl Harbor because of what happened there in 1941?

But wouldn’t that be considered bigoted today?

14-30

By Asma Alsharif

A model plane stands in an airline ticketing office in Riyadh, July 17, 2012. Saudi Arabia’s decision to open its domestic air travel market to new competition is drawing keen interest from airlines in the Gulf and further afield, and is likely to please customers frustrated by high fares and inconvenient schedules. Picture taken July 17, 2012. REUTERS/Fahad Shadeed

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia, July 17 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia plans to start cross-listing foreign companies on its exchange within a year, with a focus on Gulf Arab firms, as it moves closer to opening up its market to foreign investors, a senior stock market offical said on Tuesday.

Waleed al-Bawardi, director of cash and markets at Tadawul, the Saudi exchange, said details on disclosure requirements were being hammered out with the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) after the regulator amended listing rules in January to allow for cross-listing.

“We are working with the regulator, trying to detail the regulations for the cross-listing,” he told Reuters ahead of an event to unveil a new Tadawul initiative at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce.
“I think within a year we can have some companies … The initial focus could be on the (Gulf Arab) region and then we’ll see how it goes but this is still initial discussion.”

Investors are keenly watching long-awaited Saudi moves to allow foreigners to directly invest in the Middle East’s largest stock market, which is valued at $337 billion. Such a move is likely to attract considerable interest as it gives direct access to bluechips like Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the world’s most valuable chemical company.

Foreigners are currently only allowed to invest in Saudi firms through share swap transactions via international investment banks who deal with local markets.

The kingdom, the Arab world’s biggest economy, has taken small steps toward direct ownership. But the regulator, fearful of speculative funds flooding in, has said it will open the market to foreigners only gradually.

Bawardi said the benefits of direct foreign ownership, including the stability offered by institutional investors in a market currently 95-percent dominated by retail investors, were clear.

“I think lots of work has been completed already but we are waiting for approval from the higher authorities, mainly from the regulator,” Bawardi said.

Asked if the market will be opened up this year, he said, “It could be. We were expecting it to happen last year so there is lots of expectation … It could be this year, next year or even the year after.”
The world’s largest oil exporter is keen to get more family-owned firms to list on the bourse, which has already seen a flurry of initial public offerings in 2012.

Six firms have listed so far this year, compared to four in all of 2011, including Alinma Tokio Marine, an affiliate of the Japanese insurance firm, and Takween Advanced Industries and Najran Cement.
The catering unit of Saudi Arabian Airlines raised 1.3 billion riyals ($346.7 million) in a June share sale and is slated to begin trading on July 9.

“We are anticipating more (IPOs) to come this year, I would guess about another five to six … We think that with the appetite we are seeing there will be more to come next year,” Bawardi said.
Potential IPO candidates in coming months include Construction Products Holding Co, Saudi Arabia’s largest maker of building materials and a unit of Binladin Group.

It has mandated the investment banking arms of Gulf International Bank and Samba Financial Group for an IPO in 2012 or 2013, industry sources said.

Health Water Bottling, held by Saudi Arabia’s family-owned Olayan Group, has picked Morgan Stanley and is planning to go public by issuing 30 percent of its shares in a flotation in the first quarter of 2013.

Additionally, private equity investor Carlyle Group plans to sell its investment in Saudi Arabia’s General Lighting Co through an IPO.

Bawardi also said he expects Tadawul to introduce the option of selling tradable rights this year for investors who do not want to subscribe to a rights issue.

“He could sell it through the exchange … This could happen this year,” he said. “We are waiting regulatory approval but we are ready for it as an exchange… We hope it will be this quarter.” (Reporting by Asma Alsharif; Editing by Amran Abocar)

14-30

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) (C), John Cornyn (R-TX) (L) and Roger Wicker (R-MI) hold a news conference to discuss “The Obama Administration’s national security leaks” in the Capitol in Washington June 26, 2012. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) vigorously defended top State Department official Huma Abedin against allegations by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and other conservatives that this Muslim-American woman is part of a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to infiltrate the U.S. government.

“These allegations about Huma and the report from which they are drawn are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant,” said McCain in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning.

The accusations stem from a report by the Center for Security Policy. The organization is run by Frank Gaffney, who has been crusading against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law for years.

Bachmann, along with Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), recently sent letters to five federal agencies demanding investigations into infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood, citing Gaffney’s work.

McCain never mentioned Bachmann or the other lawmakers by name but pointedly criticized their letters and the report, noting he had worked with the Center for Security Policy in the past.

“The letter alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations,’” he said. “Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago. The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government.”

“These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit,” McCain added. “And they need to stop now.”

Abedin, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is married to former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who is Jewish.

McCain said that he traveled overseas with Clinton and Abedin when Clinton was a senator.

“I have every confidence in Huma’s loyalty to our country, and everyone else should as well,” he said. “All Americans owe Huma a debt of gratitude for her many years of superior public service. I hope these ugly and unfortunate attacks on her can be immediately brought to an end and put behind us before any further damage is done to a woman, an American, of genuine patriotism and love of country.”

But the larger purpose of condemning the Bachmann allegation, said McCain, is standing up for the character of America.

“Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person,” he added. “This is about who we are as a nation, and who we still aspire to be … When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it.”

Bachmann’s office did not return a request for comment.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who was the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, has also condemned the allegations against Abedin.

“I think it just is the worst of guilt by association,” Ellison told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “I think it’s really reprehensible and I do hope that people stand up to it.”

UPDATE: 1:29 p.m. — Ellison also sent Bachmann a letter on Wednesday, saying he still did not find any evidence supporting her Muslim Brotherhood claims even after she responded to his July 12 letter to her asking for more information about her allegations.

“A careful review of your 16-page response reveals that you fail to provide any credible evidence for your claims, engage in guilt by association, and continue to rely on discredited sources,” he wrote.

14-30

By Manny Friedman

We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which  was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.

But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!

Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?

But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.

And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.

Now, I know what everyone will say. That everyone tries to lobby. Every minority group and every majority group. That every group has some successful actors and directors. But that’s a far call from saying that we run Hollywood and Madison Avenue. That the Mel Gibsons of the world are right in saying we’re deliberately using our power to take over the world. That we’ve got some crazy conspiracy going down.

Okay. Fine. So some of that is kooky talk.

But let’s look at it a bit deeper.

Maybe it’s true: everyone lobbies. Maybe it’s true there are actors of every ethnicity out there. But come on. We’re the ones who are bragging about this stuff all the time. Can’t we admit that we’re incredibly successful? Can’t we say it to the world?

I’ll give my theory for why Jews don’t want to talk about their control of the media.

First of all, as much as Jews like to admit that so many of them are successful, and that so many of them have accomplished so much, they hate to admit that it has to do with they’re being Jewish. Maybe they’ll admit that it has something to do with the Jewish experience. But how many Jews will admit that there is something inherently a part of every single one of them that helps them to accomplish amazing things?

The ADL chairman, Abe Foxman, was interviewed in a great article about the subject and he said that he “would prefer people say that many executives in the industry ‘happen to be Jewish.’” This just about sums up the party line.

The truth is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in the world. We’re talking about a group of people that just got put in death camps, endured pogroms, their whole families decimated. And then they came to America, the one place that ever really let them have as much power as they wanted, and suddenly they’re taking over. Please don’t tell me that any other group in the world has ever done that. Only the Jews. And we’ve done it before. That’s why the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. We were too successful. Go look at the Torah — it’s right there. And we did it in Germany too.

This ability to succeed, this inner drive, comes not from the years of education or any other sort of conditional factors, but because of the inner spark within each Jew.

Now, the reason groups like the ADL and AIPAC hate admitting this is because, first of all, they are secular organizations. Their whole agenda is to prove that every Jew is the same as every other person in the world. I cannot imagine a more outlandish agenda. No, we’re different. We’re special.

Of course, people hate when anyone says this. They assume that if you’re saying that Jews are special, it somehow implies that they’re better.

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the word “better” even means. What I do know is that being special simply means a person has a responsibility to do good.

I think that’s the real reason most Jews are so afraid to admit that there’s something inherently powerful and good about them. Not because they’re afraid of being special. But because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world. It means that things can’t just be created for the sake of amusement or fun or even “art.”

Suddenly, we can’t screw up the world.

The interesting thing is that Jews have done so much for the world in so many other ways. They’ve moved forward civil rights; they’ve helped save lives in Darfur, Haiti and just about everywhere else.
But that’s not enough. Fixing the world physically is only half the battle.

Our larger battle, the harder battle, is elevating the world spiritually. And this is what the people that fight with every inch of their soul to prove that Jews are just the same as everyone else are afraid of. It means that we can no longer just “express ourselves.” We’ll have to start thinking about the things we create and the way we act. It means we’ll have to start working together. It means we’ll have to hold one other, and ourselves, to a higher standard.

The time has come, though. We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country.
Instead, we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge responsibility — and opportunity.
© 2012 The Times of Israel

TMO Stringer

At Home  Network  Inc.,  a  homecare  and  hospice  organization, is  extremely  proud  to  announce  that its Chief  Executive Officer,  Dr.  Shahid  Tahir,  was  awarded  the  very  prestigious Blue  Cross  & Blue Shield Claude Pepper Award and Certificate  of Merit for  his  dedication and  hard  work  for senior citizens in southeast Michigan and beyond. 

Dr.  Shahid  Tahir  received  his  award  on  June  2012, on the  lawn  at Lansing’s  state  capital  with  over  400  people  present,  as  well  as  many  senators  and  congressional representatives.

The Claude Pepper Award is granted annually  by Blue Cross & Blue Shield to honor a business  person who makes a difference in the health and  well-being of senior citizens in the Michigan unities  they serve.

Dr. Shahid Tahir has been a successful leader  within At Home Network’s homecare, which he has  taken from 120 patients per day to over 400  patients,  as well as launching hospice services in 2010. 

Dr. Tahir’s dedication and passion to helping  patients remain in their “home” is his driving motivation to help both individuals and groups in the communities he serves. 

Dr. Tahir has been instrumental in holding  health fairs, free clinic screenings and providing flu shots to seniors  in the community.  He has worked  with many senators and Congressmen on healthcare  initiatives to better the quality and care to senior  citizens.

14-30

By Sarah Rasheed

Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar – photo by asiancorrespondent.com

According to the New York Times, in the villages of Arakan State, near the Bangladeshi border, a pogrom against a population of Muslims called the Rohingyas began in June. While demeaning behavior and cruelty against the Rohingyas is not unheard of since the Buddhist-majority land of Myanmar achieved independence in 1948. Unfortunately for the small population of Rohingyas, the constitution of Myanmar closes all options for Rohingyas to be citizens on the basis that their ancestors didn’t live there when the land, originally called Burma, came under British rule in the 19th century.

While that claim is heavily disputed by Rohingyas, there is no sign of letting up on casting the population out.  According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, state security forces have now conducted mass arrests of Muslims as they destroyed thousands of homes of the Rohingyas people. Moreover, mob attacks on Rohingyas and other Muslims have killed dozens of people and continue to happen in the region.

Not only are security forces involved in the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, but the media have been claiming that the early rioting was caused by the Rohingyas and has deemed them as terrorists and traitors. In order to stop the violence, the government has declared a state of emergency, however, it has used its border security force to burn houses, kill men and evict Rohingyas from their villages.
In a more astonishing incident, the Myanmar President Thein Sein suggested that the country could end this crisis by expelling all of its Rohingyas or by having the United Nations resettle them. The UN has rejected such a proposal. What is seemingly the most disturbing of this development is that the outing of the Rohingyas is a shared view by the majority of the population, as even democracy activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has recently won a parliamentary seat, has yet to speak out about the situation.

Many of the Rohingyas who escaped the violence and traveled to Bangladesh have told horrifying stories of violence. Others have told stories of deaths due to the four day journey out of Myanmar. Yet, the violence continues as more countries like the US, China, India Canada and many European countries continue to invest in Myanmar. Still, the US has still set down conditions for strengthening ties between both countries, including ending the ethnic cleansing.

14-30

By Ayesha Nusrat

Prior to becoming a hijabi, I did not expect myself to go down this road. Although I knew modesty was encouraged in my culture and by my faith, I never saw the need nor had the opportunity to explore the reasons behind it.

My experience working as a Faiths Act Fellow for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and dealing with interfaith action for social action brought me more understanding and appreciation of various faiths. I found that engaging in numerous interfaith endeavors strengthened my personal understanding about my own faith. The questions and challenges I encountered increased my inquisitiveness and drive to explore and learn for myself various fundamental aspects of Islam. Thus began my journey to hijab-dom.

I am abundantly aware of the rising concerns and controversies over how a few yards of cloth covering a woman’s head is written off as a global threat to women’s education, public security, rights and even religion. I am also conscious of the media’s preferred mode of portraying all hijabi women as downtrodden and dominated by misogynist mullahs or male relatives who enforce them into sweltering pieces of oppressive clothing. But I believe my hijab liberates me. I know many who portray the hijab as the placard for either forced silence or fundamentalist regimes; but personally I found it to be neither.

For someone who passionately studied and works for human rights and women’s empowerment, I realized that working for these causes while wearing the hijab can only contribute to breaking the misconception that Muslim women lack the strength, passion and power to strive for their own rights. This realization was the final push I needed to declare to the world on my birthday this year that henceforth I am a hijabi.

In a society that embraces uncovering, how can it be oppressive if I decided to cover up? I see hijab as the freedom to regard my body as my own concern and as a way to secure personal liberty in a world that objectifies women. I refuse to see how a woman’s significance is rated according to her looks and the clothes she wears. I am also absolutely certain that the skewed perception of women’s equality as the right to bare our breasts in public only contributes to our own objectification. I look forward to a whole new day when true equality will be had with women not needing to display themselves to get attention nor needing to defend their decision to keep their bodies to themselves.

In a world besotted with the looks, body and sexuality of women, the hijab can be an assertive mode of individual feministic expression and rights. I regard my hijab to be a commanding question of “I control what you see, how is that not empowering” mixed with a munificent amount of authority emanating from the “My body is my own concern” clause. I believe my hijab gives me the right to assert my body, femininity and spirituality as my own and under my authority alone.

I know many would agree with me when I say that the hijab is basically an expression of spirituality and a personal bond with one’s creator, a tangible spiritual reminder that guides everyday life.
Yes, my hijab is a visual religious marker that makes it very easy for anyone to spot me in a crowd as a separate entity representing or adhering to a particular religion. This is all the more reason why, being a hijabi in the public arena is an escalating force that drives me to work in ways that would help break the undignified stereotypes, barriers and prejudices that my Islamic faith is relentlessly and irrationally associated with. As an extension of my personality and identity, it instigates me to challenge the misconception that Muslim women lack the bravery, intellect and resilience to challenge authority and fight for their own rights.

Every time I see my reflection in the mirror, I see a woman who has chosen to be a rights activist, who happens to be a Muslim and covers her hair incidentally. My reflection reminds me of the convictions that made me take up the hijab in first place — to work for a world where a woman isn’t judged by how she looks or what she wears, a world in which she needn’t defend the right to make decisions about her own body, in which she can be whoever she wants to be without ever having to choose between her religion and her rights.

International Herald Tribune

Ayesha Nusrat is a 23-year-old Muslim Indian from New Delhi.

14-30

By Robert Parry

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to workers and staff at the Care and Share of Southern Colorado food bank in Colorado Springs, Colorado July 10, 2012. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney has responded to his lack of foreign policy experience by surrounding himself with clever neoconservatives who are now looking forward to expanding Bush’s “global war on terror” into what neocon ideologue William Kristol calls a U.S. “war with political Islamism.”

In a Washington Post op-ed on Thursday, Kristol dismissed President Obama’s phased military withdrawal from Afghanistan – and his statement that “this time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end” – as foolish wishful thinking.

“It would be wonderful if Obama’s view of 9/11 and its implications were correct,” Kristol wrote. “But if it’s not going to be true that Afghanistan is where ‘this time of war … will end’ — even if Afghanistan is pacified and we’re no longer fighting there — then the American people should know that.”

What the American people should know, in Kristol’s view, is that a post-Obama administration – presumably headed by Republican Mitt Romney and staffed by neocon hawks – will undertake a grander “war with political Islamism,” a conflict whose full dimensions even “war president” George W. Bush shrank from.

“This isn’t a pleasant reality, and even the Bush administration wasn’t quite ready to confront it,” Kristol wrote. “But President George W. Bush did capture the truth that we are engaged in — and had no choice but to engage in — a bigger war, a ‘global war on terror,’ of which Afghanistan was only one front.

“There are, of course, problems with ‘global war on terror’ as a phrase and an organizing principle. But it does capture what we might call the ‘big’ view of 9/11 and its implications.”

As part of an even “bigger” view of 9/11, Kristol called for engaging in a broader conflict, ranging “from Pakistan in the east to Tunisia in the west, and most visibly now in places such as Iran and Yemen and Somalia.”

In other words, Kristol and the neocons expect a President Romney to let them refocus the United States onto a “war” not simply against al-Qaeda and its affiliates but against nations where “political Islamism” gains power, which could include Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries.

One might as well say the United States will be at war with the Muslim world, though Kristol hastily added that this “war with political Islamism” does not always have to involve open warfare.

He wrote: “This doesn’t mean we need to be deploying troops and fighting ground wars all around the globe. [But] unfortunately, the war in which we are engaged won’t end with peace in, or withdrawal from, Afghanistan.”

A Romney Presidency?

Most political analysts say the November elections will turn on the economy with foreign policy a second-tier issue. In addition, many progressives have denounced Obama and his more targeted approach of relying on drone strikes to kill alleged terrorists as unacceptable, with some on the Left vowing not to support his reelection.

But it shouldn’t be missed that a President Romney would reinstall the neocons, including many who worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, at the levers of American power. Indeed, Romney’s foreign policy “white paper” was largely drafted by neocons. Even the name, “An American Century,” was an homage to the neocon manifesto of the 1990s, “Project for a New American Century.”
Romney’s foreign policy advisers include:

Cofer Black, a key Bush counterterrorism official; Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security; Eliot Cohen, a neocon intellectual; Paula Dobriansky, a former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs; Eric Edelman, a national security aide to Vice President Cheney; Michael Hayden, the ex-director of CIA and the National Security Agency who defended Bush’s warrantless spying program; Robert Kagan, a Washington Post columnist; former Navy Secretary John Lehman; and Daniel Senor, spokesman for Bush’s Iraq occupation.

Romney’s foreign policy also would restore George W. Bush’s “with us or against us” approach to the world – except that Romney, like Kristol, advocates even a more confrontational style, essentially a new Cold War against “rogue nations,” a revised “axis of evil.”

“A special problem is posed by the rogue nations of the world: Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba,” Romney’s white paper declares. “Their interests and values are diametrically opposed to our own and they threaten international peace and security in numerous ways, including, as in the case of North Korea and Iran, by seeking nuclear weapons, or by harboring criminal networks, exporting weapons, and sponsoring terrorists. …

“Mitt Romney would work to protect and advance America’s interests by employing all the instruments of national power at the president’s disposal. He will defend our country, defend our allies, and restore American leadership around the world. It is only American power — conceived in the broadest terms — that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies. …

“A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. The United States will clearly enunciate its interests and values. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs; neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. …

“The United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. In defending America’s national interest in a world of danger, the United States should always retain a powerful military capacity to defend itself and its allies.”

No Apologies

The Romney “white paper” also treats any recognition of past American errors as unacceptable “apologizing” and calls any notion of seeking multilateral consensus on a problem as an admission of weakness.

“A perspective has been gaining currency, including within high councils of the Obama administration, that regards that United States as a power in decline. And not only is the United States regarded as in decline, but that decline is seen as both inexorable and a condition that can and should be managed for the global good rather than reversed.

“Adherents of this view argue that America no longer possesses the resources or the moral authority to play a leadership role in the world. They contend that the United States should not try to lead because we will only succeed in exhausting ourselves and spreading thin our limited resources.

“They counsel America to step aside, allow other powers to rise, and pursue policies that will ‘manage’ the relative change in our national fortunes. They recoil from the idea of American Exceptionalism, the idea that an America founded on the universal principles of human liberty and human dignity has a unique history and a special role to play in world affairs.

“They do not see an international system undergirded by American values of economic and political freedom as necessarily superior to a world system organized by multilateral organizations like the United Nations. Indeed, they see the United Nations as an instrument that can rein in and temper what they regard as the ill-considered overreaching of the United States.

“This view of America in decline, and America as a potentially malign force, has percolated far and wide. It is intimately related to the torrent of criticism, unprecedented for an American president, that Barack Obama has directed at his own country. …

“Among the ‘sins’ for which he has repented in our collective name are American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, for acting without regard for others; for treating other countries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, for committing torture, for fueling anti-Islamic sentiments, for dragging our feet in combating global warming, and for selectively promoting democracy.

“The sum total of President Obama’s rhetorical efforts has been a form of unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere. A President who is so troubled by America’s past cannot lead us into the future. … Mitt Romney believes in restoring the sinews of American power.”

Hawks in the Middle East

As for the Middle East, Romney’s team advocates unquestioned support for Israel both regarding its treatment of the Palestinians and toward Iran:

“Israel is the United States’ closest ally in the Middle East and a beacon of democracy and freedom in the region. The tumult in the Middle East has heightened Israel’s security problems. Indeed, this is an especially dangerous moment for the Jewish state. …

“To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge. … The United States must forcefully resist the emergence of anti-Israel policies in Turkey and Egypt, and work to make clear that their interests are not served by isolating Israel.

“With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Romney’s policy will differ sharply from President Obama’s. President Obama and his administration have badly misunderstood the dynamics of the region. Instead of fostering stability and security, they have diminished U.S. authority and painted both Israel and ourselves into a corner.

“President Obama for too long has been in the grip of several illusions. One is that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the central problem in the region. This has been disproved repeatedly by events, most recently and most dramatically by the eruption of the Arab Spring.

“But it nonetheless led the administration to believe that distancing the United States from Israel was a smart move that would earn us credits in the Arab world and somehow bring peace closer. The record proves otherwise. The key to negotiating a lasting peace is an Israel that knows it will be secure. …

“[Under President Romney] the United States will reduce assistance to the Palestinians if they continue to pursue United Nations recognition or form a unity government that includes Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

“The United States needs a president who will not be a fair-weather friend of Israel. The United States must work as a country to resist the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel. We must fight against that campaign in every forum and label it the anti-Semitic poison that it is. Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is not up for debate.”

Regarding Iran, the Romney “white paper” repeats many of the canards about Iranian intentions that have been debunked even by Israelis, such as the mistranslation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement regarding “wiping Israel off the map.” But Romney’s neocon foreign policy team even suggests using that mistranslation to indict Ahmadinejad for war crimes:

“Romney will also push for greater diplomatic isolation of Iran. The United States should make it plain that it is a disgrace to provide Iran’s Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the trappings and respect offered to responsible heads of state. He should not be invited to foreign capitals or feted by foreign leaders.

“Quite the opposite. Given his calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, Ahmadinejad should be indicted for incitement to genocide under Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

So, even Americans disappointed in Obama’s foreign policy should recognize what the stakes are in November. They include whether to put hard-line neocons back in charge of U.S. foreign policy and the American military.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.

14-30