November 18, 2007

Muslims discover Ron Paul

Filed under: American interests, Anti-Zionism, Blogroll, Islam — mariahussain @ 3:41 am

After the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term “Islamic fascism.”

“It’s a false term to make people think we’re fighting Hitler,” Paul responded. “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.”

The call has gone out to all the Muslim Americans to hurry up and register to vote Republican so that they can vote in the Republican Primary to support Ron Paul, the anti-interventionist, non-isolationist candidate for President of the United States. Muslims are opening their wallets and joining as well.

An anonymous Ron Paul supporter posted the following message on the internet: “Muslims and Americans have an unique window of opportunity for the 2008 election. There is a candidate running as a Republican that would work to completely cut off the funding to Israel, remove ALL US troops from Arab lands, and repeal the Patriot Act. He’s a Republican with Libertarian views named Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s policies ranging from monetary to foreign are top notch. Till now Muslims and Americans have not had an American Presidential candidate that really suited their best interests. This election is unique in that we have a man running as a Republican that speaks the truth…We know the current policies in the Middle East are failing, not only making it less safe in the world but hurting and killing innocent Muslims, which our media callously calls collateral damage. It is our duty as Muslims to follow the truth regardless of how futile it may seem. Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not seem to be swayed by the influential lobbies that the other candidates are catering to.”

Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.

Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.”

Ron Paul has also sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act. He is one of the few members of Congress from either of the major houses that is speaking rationally about these issues. How can we get everyone, and I mean everyone, to join the Ron Paul Republican voter sign-up campaign?

There is general frustration with politicians these days, and the unwillingness to believe that supporting a particular candidate will make a difference. But whether Ron Paul wins or loses, is a great way to meet your neighbors who are against the war and organize the community on a grassroots level. If something like Katrina ever happened to us, knowing our neighbors could mean the difference between life and death to our families.

The common thread I’ve been reading lately about leftists and Jews is that they are having trouble getting more than a dozen people to come to their stuff (whether anti-Zionist or Zionist). The anti-Israel movement is not moving forward, because “protest Zionist imperialism” is just not a catchy slogan. By contrast, there are over 400 RP activists against war taxes in Boston alone. Every day the list of passionate anti-war activists grows. Very few of them agree with every single RP position, they just want to get the Lobby out of the way and pull the troops out of Iraq.

One reason it’s working is because of the software. They made the site almost like a dating site, where you can make friends with people in or near your zip code. They made it very easy to get together with new people to join the activism. You can’t beat technology, may as well use it.

In the event that RP actually won the election and got the Hamas treatment, his supporters are fully in support of the Right to Bear Arms. It would be interesting to see what followed.

If anti-war protesters want to continue to focus on the genocidal machinations of the global zionist-imperialist military, industrial, financial, political, neoliberal, media complex, they have to be willing to meet with anyone any time to hear what ideas people have to address this, which is our primary responsibility – even if they are Republicans.

If you ever saw Ron Paul in an interview it cannot be said that he avoids discussing vital issues. He is someone who is willing to make a statement and stick by it even when no one agrees with him. I don’t “believe” in electoral politics but it’s not that much sweat off my brow to go and vote to end war.

I think the fact that NO pro-Israel group will let Ron Paul speak at their convention, not even peace Zionists, is evidence enough that he is the only person to put in charge as commander-in-chief. And, even if he loses, making all these contacts with local anti-interventionists is priceless. If you want to expand the peace movement so that it overlaps with the freedom movement like ripples in a pond, you just have to respect the fact that people might agree with you, but for different reasons.


November 16, 2007

Why not Ron Paul?

Filed under: American interests, Blogroll — mariahussain @ 2:37 am

Does America have a future? Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of choices here. You want Rudy Giuliani, who dressed up as a woman and marched in the gay pride parade, and who has been profiteering off 9/11, or you want Hillary, who strongly supported the genocidal sanctions against Iraqi children while she was First Lady? Both of them have promised AIPAC to bomb Iran. Also, Obama is influenced by AIPAC. At this point, there is nothing more important than pulling our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere. I heard that Cynthia McKinney might run as a Green, but her chances of winning are slim because the Green Party has no money and has very few active volunteers. Ron Paul actually has a fighting chance to stop the wars because he has a strong base of support among the Young Republicans who are very enthusiastic and remarkably sane. He wins every debate because he makes a “self-interest” argument for ending the wars which works with Americans. Even Jay Leno respected him.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and a non-interventionist. Everybody disagrees with him about something. The leftists hate him because he’s anti-abortion. But again, we have to put aside our personal opinions and stop the war immediately or lose our democracy. We only have one chance. The only thing that can unite Americans is the Constitution (as flawed a document as it is – but it’s better than the lawlessness of Bush). Not a single Jewish organization supports Ron Paul for president.

Ron Paul approaches the Constitution almost like an Islamic jurist. He did not say he didn’t think universal health care might be a good idea. He said it’s not in the Constitution that the US government has the role of providing health care. If you want to do it, then you have to amend the Constitution. If you allow Congress to do things that the Constitution doesn’t allow, then we no longer have a constitutional democracy. They can declare war without an act of Congress, they can cancel your currency value, they can put you in jail without evidence, etc.

I have never come across him saying anything racist. He did say, “I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

That is certainly true. Boston’s bizarre busing system destroyed neighborhoods which had closely knit communities that worked together on a local level to organize social programs like Boy Scouts, now we have a welfare state where you have to enter a lottery to get your kids into a decent school, and they waste a lot of gas busing kids across town when there is a school walking distance from their house. Nobody attends Boy Scouts anymore, and neighborhood crime is rampant. The situation for blacks and whites has worsened since the 1960s because our economy is going down the drain due to our foreign policy. Studies have shown that the more racially mixed a neighborhood is, the less likely it is that the people will be active in community organizing. So that leads to increased dependency on government services. I guess there is idealism on one hand, and the reality on the other hand. In any case, he has a rational argument for his views.

The current drug policy in the United States is completely irrational. The CIA invades a country, forces them to grow drugs, then the CIA brings it into the country and sells it to the police, who then sell it to the drug mafia, and then we spend billions of dollars putting people in jail for non-violent crimes. By decriminalizing drugs, and dismantling the CIA, as Paul proposes, you will have far fewer social problems created by criminal mafias and gangs because something like cocaine would no longer be profitable. And our tax money would no longer pay for these drug wars. That was also the approach in the early days of Islam. Scholars, including Caliph Ali refused to criminalize intoxicating herbs because there was nothing specifically in the Quran outlawing any plant. There was no criminal offense for hashish or opium, and usually they were prescribed by doctors as medicines. Avincenna (I forgot his name in Arabic) talks a lot about the medieval Muslim uses of what we now consider to be “illegal” drugs. The drug wars have cost US taxpayers billions of dollars and have not improved anything. So it’s useful to look at how America used to deal with these issues. Did you know that George Washington grew marijuana on the White House lawn? Farmers used to pay their taxes with hemp. The laws changed in the 1940s due to pressure from special interest groups. The herbicide (genocide of plant species) led to great dust storms, the ruination of farmers, and the Great Depression.

I am aware of “states rights” connection with the American history of slavery, however in this day and age, states rights gives you protection from Bush. And it also protects people. Because as long as, for example, gay marriage is a states issue, then every state can decide if it does or doesn’t want to have gay marriage. If you gave the Feds the authority to make that decision, a special interest lobby could convince the federal government to legalize or outlaw gay marriage for the entire country. So there are pros and cons to Ron Paul’s positions.

Affirmative action has not succeeded in addressing inequalities in society. What most average black and white people want is more money to live. So again, smaller government would decrease the individual burden on average people to sustain an empire with their taxes and we’d have less poverty. Dr. Paul is a moral person so I’m sure that minorities could work with him to end poverty in ways that conform to the Constitution. In Roxbury here, the black community has been having a lot of meetings to figure out what to do because even though they succeeded in getting federal funding for all kinds of stuff, the crime in the neighborhood is just getting worse and worse. So, the socialist approach isn’t working and Ron Paul’s approach – locally based government, is what the black community is doing anyway, out of necessity. The #1 concern for black youth right now is not wanting to get killed in Iraq. Paul has a young black following.

Bottom line, we have to stop the war. Ron Paul is approachable. He is neither a criminal nor insane. As long as you can make an argument from the point of view of the Constitution you can get by. Sort of like when you are dealing with the Taliban, you have to make your argument based on Quran/Hadith and they will listen.

About immigration, I think it’s a non-issue for those who immigrated here legally. I suspect that the anti-Mexican rhetoric is playing to popular sentiment, yet with his “small government” proposal, we’d have less of a police state working night and day to bust into the homes of the Mexicans, so they still might be better off with Ron Paul, and also, fewer Mexicans would join the US military and kill Muslims in order to get a green card, if there was no war. Ideally, the US should have a less predatorial relationship with Mexico so that their country would not be so impoverished that their young people would all have to leave home.

Some people feel that “ideally” they want some kind of welfare system with open borders. They don’t want to support Ron Paul because they disagree with this or that. However, what we have right now is Bush and a government that has descended into lawlessness. No amount of protesting is going to automatically transform what we have into a socialist utopia. In fact, the US is bankrupt. So either we give in to complete tyranny, or we stick to the Constitution. I don’t see any other choice. There is no other candidate who has indicated willingness to uphold the Constitution when it comes to declaring wars, detainee rights, and our personal freedoms.

Watch Ron Paul karate slam CNN

To help Ron Paul, visit – –

November 10, 2007

Ask Maria Anything: Egyptian Nukes

Filed under: American interests — mariahussain @ 6:06 pm

Q: Why is it the US welcomes Egypt building nuclear plants while we condemn Iran?

A: Egypt is on our payroll. Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and the US which includes that they are given US tax money in order to buy weapons they use against their population to keep them in line, in exchange for “recognizing” Israel. Under the Egypt-Israel treaty, the US pays Egypt about $2 billion/year in order not to wage wars against Israel.

Iran has no such agreement with the US or Israel.

There are many possible rationalizations for the differences in the reactions to attempts by Iranians, Pakistanis and Egyptians to master nuclear technology, but the general hysteria results from the apparent interest of the Iranian government in opening a public Israel-Palestine discussion, which Neocons, the Israel lobby and the organized Jewish community are unwilling to countenance.

A nuclear Iran might be able to force such a discussion.

The usual list of distractions from the real reason for the anti-Iran frenzy are:
the hostage crisis during the Carter administration,
possible payback for US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war,
possible payback for CIA involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh,
the alleged irrational Iranian suicide culture,
alleged Iranian involvement in terrorism,
alleged Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents,
alleged or mistranslated Iranian threats against Israel
Iranian support for Hizbullah, and
Iranian support for Hamas,

There are probably a few other issues that do not occur for me, but if US foreign policy were rational from an American standpoint, they would constitute reasons to create a dialogue between the US and Iran.

November 4, 2007

Is there Peace without God?

Filed under: Blogroll — mariahussain @ 1:32 am

And [on account of] their saying: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Messenger of God.” They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. God raised him to Himself. God is Almighty, All-Wise. (Quran, Surat An-Nisa’, 4:157-158)

Jesus is a symbol that pre-dates Christianity. He is the man who stood up for the truth and no one could kill him because even in his alleged death, his message prevailed. And that message was clearly reasonable. Those who are killed for speaking the truth are never dead. They are the very soul of mankind.

There is a problem within the anti-war movement, which is that the most radical peace activists are so aggressively hostile to the thing in life which gives the majority of humans on the planet a sense of peace. Obviously, if my personal focus in life is to strive upon a path of purification of my worship, and the other person views me for this reason on some level as a stupid idiot or mentally ill, we do not have an equal relationship. If I am politely avoiding saying “Praise the Lord!” in your presence and never mentioning my personal relationship with Jesus so as not to upset you, but you feel like it’s ok to disrespect God, or to devalue someone’s Faith, we don’t have an equal relationship. Our “peace movement” is stuck in a rut.

I personally cannot claim to be part of a Muslim, Christian or Jewish tradition-based community. My faith has never been group-oriented but rather came as a result of personal meditations on various readings of the sages as well as the direct experience of life and its karmic lessons. What I am more interested in is to study what the books say. I like to approach the Bible and the Quran as meditational literature. Whether you believe in religion or not, theological texts are the collective property of mankind and as such are worthy of being studied, in order to understand the foundation of reason (or sometimes lack thereof) upon which our human society is based. I am inspired by the anti-Zionist church movements, where folks are switching to home-based worship and dropping out of the Zionist churches. I am inspired by Moses, who told his followers to transform their homes into temples, to repudiate the tyranny of the Pharaoh.

I want to promote non-denominational, intellectual analysis and light-hearted brainstorming about the similarities and differences between the way the Bible and the Quran approach various concepts and legendary stories. For example, we could look at the story of Noah’s Ark in both books and see how they compare, and search for the theological and historical reasons for the differences. Joachim can fill us in on the Aramaic and Greek Biblical originals and a little bit of Arabic. We could also look at different English translations of the same verse. It would not be necessary for a person to be religious at all to enjoy such a discussion. I am envisioning a very non-demanding “liberal arts” approach. This Quran-Bible discussion idea has nothing to do with trying to get anyone to become religious or more religious. Many Americans do not actually know what the scriptures say. Or some are very familiar with the book of their tradition but not at all aware of the intellectual connection with the other books. Yet, the spiritual Path has many basic features for all religions.

I envision some kind of local and neighborhood oriented revolution. There are many people from diverse ethnic backgrounds who live on my street that go to church. The problem with the dominance of the Ashkenazi ethnic group on the “progressive politics” scene is that there is a very dogmatic forced conformity which demands that people put their religion aside or else they will be reviled by the group. It is very much similar to the level of forced conformity in the orthodox religious Jewish community. It is simply an ethnic trait that has been adopted by the entire peace movement, which I believe is destructive because at least 80% of Americans believe in God. So that is a big part of why I think the peace movement up to now has been a self-defeating political movement. We need to acquire a language that we can use to connect with people who are very different from ourselves.

Most of all, we need to train our minds to get beyond ourselves in order to let go of what we know and let our deeper unconscious give us the solutions to our problems both personal and global. Clearly, what we consciously know right now is not adequate to run this planet smoothly. But I believe that humans have the answers within our DNA.

We have to create wisdom. We have to create it out of ignorance. That leap is a miracle.

Most of the peace organizations are co-opted. Dorchester People for Peace for example accepted grants for the sake of enmeshing Black youth in Save Darfur through “Project Hip Hop” -funded if you look into it essentially by US tax dollars recycled through the Jewish community.

So that was why I was wondering if it might be a good idea to start a regular kind of neighborhood Quran-Bible study as an alternative to “progressive politics” and maybe change/unite hearts and minds of the community that way. We need to have some reason to meet regularly that is not stressful, where we can meditate on ideas. Individual opinions about the meaning of religion to oneself and family is really totally irrelevant to attending a Bible and Quran as Literature class or study group. My idea has to do with engaging with people on a civilizational level, including expanding outreach to build anti-war sentiment.

Maybe only a certain “class” of people want to discuss “the Classics,” or to meditate on the core questions of existence while drinking tea. This is traditionally what Palestinians do for fun too, you know, when they are not being besieged.

In High School I took a very interesting Bible as Literature class from a Jewish atheist lesbian teacher. She made it really amusing and interesting. I also benefited from Presbyterian Sunday School, which used the philosophical, self-exploratory, psychological validation approach to the texts. People who have never read the Bible lose out on benefiting from the entire history of western civilization.

My main reason for wanting to have an academic sort of theological discussion about religious texts is precisely so that those people who engage in the anti-religion/anti-Gentile polemic won’t come, so that new potential leaders and organizers, letter-writers and shleppers for the movement, fresh blood, can come in. There are so many people who have been marginalized by the peace movement because they can’t open their mouths without having to deal with all this intense, blind, secular fundamentalist dogma. So what I’m looking for is an emotionally safe environment free of anti-God hostility, where the Meek can speak quietly.

There are ways to align your mind with the forces of the universe to maximize your effectiveness and joy in life. My Zen teacher referred to these methods as “spiritual practice.” The disciplining of the mind to polish the mirror of the heart through meditation on eternal questions is just like raking leaves. It can be done with or without religious belief.

Blog at