These days, you cannot watch a single video on YouTube without reading some ludicrous comments at the bottom. Somehow: a music video, a video of a dog with its owner, and a speech from a university valedictorian all devolve into nasty -usually racist- battles between net bloggers.

KIH has seen its fair share of net debate. And it got us thinking about the anonymity that the internet provides. Are we really all just saying what we want to say but are too afraid to say? Or is it just fun to get a rise out of someone clearly taking their role as custodian of the internet just a little too seriously? Anas and I had a deep conversation about this. We thought we'd share it with you all.

Anas:  so we got people commenting eh
Me:  oh MAN, do we ever.
Anas: it was a little saddening.
Me: The issue of article lengths in my Iran Politics article and the issue of shisha and sin took a decidedly mean and divisive turn
But it looks like they are both "resolved", if you check out the latest comments
Anas: Thank god Fareedah's amazing article on Afghanistan got comments
Me: I know!!! I was like come one ppl... and "reader" had a good comment too – I’m interested to hear her response
Anas:  The entire week, I was thinking, stop taking swipes at me and comment on the article that is actually good!
Me: me too :) But I was talking to my sister and she was like a) this is to be expected and b) this is to be encouraged
 Anas:  I hope Fareedah wasn’t disheartened by the comments we got
 Me:  though its painful to read sometimes, it’s what we asked for
 Anas:  yeah I knew it was coming
 Me:  we asked for traffic, and we sure got it lol
 Anas:  but really i nvr expected to be personally attacked... that girl "Maria" under my shisha article doesn’t even know me. I know khaleeq was attacked before, too.
Me:  no, Inshallah Fareedah will see that she is getting intelligent comments
Anas:  Then u had the bout with "Lawyer" and "Mark".
 Me:  No, that was intelligent, in my opinion. Painful, but still intelligent. But with maria - lol now you know how I was feeling before when I got those comments under my Che article and my Immigration politics article.
Anas:  Ahhhhh that. That was harsh. It’s cuz ppl cant read. They see words that don’t exist in the article
Me:  But the person who fought with you – we can’t discount them altogether. It’s fair to assume that it’s clearly someone who has had a bad experience with MSA. They were irrational but it has to be understood.
Anas:  Yup us MSA Freaks who center events on judging ppl... exactly what we do
 Me: Hey, maybe not you personally – but she might have had a bad experience with someone else at the MSA. It doesn’t justify it, but it might explain it. You handled it with class, though.
Anas: It comes with the job
Me: remember what Spiderman's dead uncle said
Anas: his dead uncle said something? but if he is dead how does he talk?
 Me:  his uncle said something before dying: "peter... with great power comes great responsibility."
Anas: ahh. Ok.
Me: well, on the plus side, someone thinks you are adorable! Did you see that comment?
Anas:  *blushes*
 Me:  hahaha! lol I think one of the issues is that our high school readers have a blunt, angry way of talking and our college readers don’t. So it causes a lot of mistaken strife
That’s just my very rough kind of estimate. Like in the length of article issue. I think Asma wasn’t necessarily attempting to be mean either, but she came off short.
Me:  And on the other hand, Safeeah's tone of speaking was very polite, though arguably it was kind of harsh of her to make public a criticism that she could have expressed to us personally by email, if it was indeed a criticism of writing style and not a debate on the content of the article.
 Anas:  And same with zainab... she got into the heat of the debate and didn’t realize what she was inferring in her comments
 Me:  All in all, it's a positive learning thing
 Anas:  except Zainab will nvr comment on an article again
Me:  I hope Zainab is not discouraged. Essentially this is a lesson you and I have had to learn the hard way - when you write something that is so personal and so intimate you have to wary of how its going to look from all million angles
Anas:  but I'm happy we got people talking.. it's good. Like how boring wld it b if every1 was like awesome! You’re right!
Me: I’m pleased with my article... I wldnt change it
Anas: Same. But yes, it is a learning experience for everyone esp. on how to portray ur argument and how to portray yourself.
Me:  There are only winners here, I think. We've all been the winner of a debate, and we've all been burned.

Just stay classy lol

Recently, I got an e-vite to a Facebook group called "Free Tarek (Tariq) Mehanna"; a group dedicated to the plight of a 27-year-old Egyptian American who is currently being held on charges of "conspiring to materially support terrorist groups."

Immediately after, I got the heads up about a note written by an eloquent sister named Aisha Chaudhry. In her piece, she stands in full support of Mehanna, claiming that "Tariq holds a doctorate in pharmacy from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy. He is a devout and tolerant Muslim who is not only respected in the local Islamic and interfaith communities, but who also gives back to his Islamic community by fulfilling the roles of brother, educator, mentor, scholar, and friend. Tariq is described by those who know him well as humble, reserved, warm, peaceful, intelligent, knowledgeable, reflective, pragmatic, dedicated, and straightforward."

Apparently, he was targeted by the FBI because of his influence in the community. They wanted him to be an informant. "Their objective was to secure Tariq as a tool to corroborate any FBI claims or accusations against members of the community that might arise, at the discretion of the FBI. Of course, Tariq flat out refused to backstab his fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, a decision that did not sit well at all with the FBI."

According to this Facebook Group and this note, when Mehanna refused, his family became the target of a smear campaign. It was with almost maniacal stubbornness that they came at him, in an effort to implicate him. "Tariq was told that unless he consented to cooperating with the FBI, they would continue finding new ways to disrupt his life and to deprive him of a sense of security. He was told outright by interrogators that they knew he was innocent, but that they would not be satisfied with his refusal to cooperate."

"Tariq is currently incarcerated at the Plymouth Correctional Facility, where he is expected to remain for the several year duration of a new trial based on outright FALSE AND LUDICROUS accusations of aiding and abetting terrorism. He currently faces LIFE IN PRISON if convicted guilty in a trial by grand jury."

We all know we should be standing up for the rights of the oppressed. So why are people finding it so difficult to join the group and take a stand? Perhaps it's difficult to take a stand on this issue and demand Mehanna's release when you feel you are lacking all the evidence in the case. I fully respect all those who are bringing attention to his case. And yet, here I am, unable to accept the e-vite, but also unwilling to ignore the issue.

Stuck.

Let me clarify.

1) Fact - Mehanna is seen as normal guy; a dedicated Muslim brother.

2) Fact - Governments have shown the ability - and the willingness -to falsify evidence, ignore the truth and hold innocent people illegally. Just think about the Maher Arar case in Canada. It revealed the ineptitude, the hypocrisy and the abuse that sometimes exists in the governmental responses to "The War on Terror."

But...

3) Fact - Western, home-grown terrorism is real and thriving. It's real; not just a government ploy to trap Muslims. Olivier Roy, a renowned French political scientist who has written on terrorist issues, has written about the neo-fundamentalist terrorists - who are bred in the West and export their views to the Middle East. Not the other way around, as is commonly assumed. This new form terrorism - often called Salafi jihadism - is based on a more violent understanding of Salafi ideology. This interpretation rejects cultural interpretations of Islam, sees society in moral decay and advocates suicide jihad as a means of returning Islam to its glory days.

4) Saying that Mehanna is "normal" actually means very little. Louise Richardson is another thinker who has done extensive work on terrorist activities. She has discovered that profiling is largely a huge flaw; a game. There is no such thing as a "normal" person and a "typical terrorist." There are no physical markings, personal beliefs or countries of origin that are more highly linked to terrorism than another. All governments have to go by is that they are usually Muslim. This is why anybody with a Pak/Arab last name is stopped at the airport. And what is Border Services looking for when they rummage through your bag? They really have no clue - they're just hoping they see something obvious, like a ticking bomb. Other than that, it's all random guess work. No one passenger is more likely to be a terrorist than another.

Case in point: the infamous 07/07 bombings in London: 30-year-old Mohammad Sidique Khan was born and raised in Leeds. He was a kind, well-respected teacher for children who have learning disabilities, and he was the father of a one-year-old daughter, Maryam. His mother in law was also a renowned and celebrated educator.

22-year-old Shehzad Tanweer was a young, social, sporty man; also born and raised in the UK. He drove a Benz, and studied sports science at Leeds Metropolitan University. He loved cricket and martial arts and he was the wealthy son of a successful business man. Everybody who knew him said he was completely uninterested in politics as "sound as a pound." (Louise Richardson, Chapter 5, pages 133-135).

And yet, on July 07, 2005, they both met up with friends at King's Cross Station in London, took four separate tubes and went "kaboom" during morning rush hour, at 8:50 am; killin themselves, 56 other innocent people, and injuring 700 more.

it's a wonder what "normal" people can do.

Based on this, I am incredibly confused about where to stand on the Mehanna issue. On the one hand, if he IS a terrorist, then he should be in jail, right? Despite whatever effect this will have on Muslims and the bad Western case of "Islamophobia". On the other hand, if he's innocent - do we have any chance of proving it? The government is adept at winning trials like this. There is no reason to believe that his trial will actually be fair.

So all I can do is pray and hope that Allah Ta'alla will give him, his family - and the rest of us - exactly what is coming to us; exactly what we deserve. And I stand and support all those demanding that he get an open and fair trial, and I hope he actually gets this. Without popular support standing by his side, governments won't be pressured to actually treat him well.

And perhaps this is an indication that we need people like Maher Arar to get involved and develop some ideas, best practices or lessons learned about how people can get themselves out of these traps. Once you get targeted by the FBI - you're done for, whether you're innocent or not. How can this change. How can we ensure trials are not circuses? 

For example, prosecutors are claiming that Mehanna's plan to gun down a shopping mall was abandoned because he could not get the guns to do it. I am certain that getting guns in the United States is no difficult task. Get them online, get them on the streets - damn, get them at Walmart. Is this "evidence" just BS?

Just as Osgoode Hall Law has an "Innocence Project" that focuses on people who have been wrongly arrested, perhaps this can grow and expand to act as some kind of oversight body for cases related to terrorism. Is this feasible? is this already happening?

I'd like to hear your point of view. And I'd also like to ask - on a side note - : is there anything wrong with being an informant? Would you ever snitch if you knew your neighbour was planning to go jihad on the CN Tower? Or is all snitching seen as backstabbing?

All we can really say in times like this is Astaghfirullah, Inshallah and Subhanallah.

One of our readers - who chooses to remain anonymous - has informed us that she is one of the lucky recipients of the 2009 Medina School Foundation Scholarship - and this was an award she discovered exclusively on keepingithalal.com.

She is excited to use the $1000 scholarship towards her future education, and she thanks the KIH team for their dedication, their hard work, and their generosity. By posting the award up on the Scholarships Page, she learned something she had never known before.

Note from KIH: August - October is by far the most popular time of year for scholarships. Please make sure you're on the lookout all year round - but this time of year is especially important! You don't want to miss out!

Elizabeth Kadegan of the University of Toronto newspaper (The Varsity) is definitely contributing something to this "burka ban" debate in her article called "Symbol of oppression or matter of choice?", published October 1st, 2009, she skillfully provides both sides of the story. She is providing a voice that is, unfortunately, severely lacking in Muslim coverage of the issue.

Muslim reportage is notoriously unable to report on the two sides without passing judgment, alienating groups, and implicitly expressing some kind of superiority (one blog site last week said that the government should ban mini skirts as it is just as degrading for white girls to walk around as "sluts").

Most of this biased reportage seems inaccurate and harmful. We would do well to perhaps note that this is not a religious issue at all. We are certainly not going to have imams decide this issue at the Supreme Court, developing arguments based on hadiths and schools of thought. This is not going to work, and the CMC's claim to various religion thinkers is largely useless. The issue is largely of individual freedoms and individual rights.

For this reason, I invite you all to read Kadegan's article on Pink Hijab Day. In it, three eloquent, modern and educated Muslim women are interviewed:

- Sharifa Khan, in the first year of her Master’s in political science, after getting her undergrad degree at U of T.

- Idil Burale,  fourth year, doing a double major in political science and diaspora and transnational studies.

- Hanan Kulmiye, fourth year, with a major in bioethics and a double minor in physiology and biology.

(all image credits go to the New York Times)

David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was kidnapped by the Taliban in November 2008, while attempting to interview a Taliban commander named Abu Tayyeb.  He was taken hostage along side his Afghan driver, and his Afghan journalist colleague.

What follows is a mesmerizing five part series, featured in this month's New York Times, outlining his months in captivity and what he learned about the inner-workings of the Taliban, the culture of anti-Americanism in the region, and the ideologies of the kidnappers.

Be sure also to check out the Interactive Feature: Rohde reads the articles, against a backdrop of various images and videos collected by the NYT over the years.

Part 1:  "7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity" .
In this article, Rohde describes how the planned interview with Abu Tayyeb goes amiss.

Part 2:  Inside the Islamic Emirate.
In this section, Rohde describes how he was shifted to Miram Shah, the Pakistani stronghold of the Taliban. He knew, once they entered Pakistan, they had no hopes of surviving.

Part 3: ‘You Have Atomic Bombs, but We Have Suicide Bombers.’
Rohde describes getting to understand the "mix of righteousness and delusion" in his captors, defending his Afghan colleagues from accusations of treason and betrayal, and discovering deception on the part of his kidnapper.

Part 4: "A Drone Strike and Dwindling Hope"
Americans strike the Taliban compound where Rohde is being held, and he fears he will be punished for the actions of his government.

Part 5: "A Rope and a Prayer"
The great escape...  

Changing relations with Iran has been one of Obama’s main foreign policy priorities. This article will look at different perspectives on Iran, and whether or not Tehran, Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollah are really the threat Bush made them out to be.

The Bush Era

We can all remember when Bush made that epic speech about the “axis of evil”. In effect, he did something really crucial with this speech: he took Iran and placed it outside the realm of rational politics. International relations theory makes the somewhat erroneous assumption that all actors are rational, and make well-considered decisions before acting. With this speech, and his rhetoric towards Iran later, he painted Iran as completely irrational. It was like saying “The Ayatollahs will attempt to attack us with nukes even though it would mean certain suicide for the government of Tehran and the people of Iran.”

Why is that important? When you paint actors as irrational, you are saying that irrespective of  size, might and actual strength, they are a threat because they are willing to kill themselves just to hurt you. The other unchanging assumption in international relations is that ALL STATES DESIRE SECURITY AND/OR POWER IN ORDER TO ENSURE SURVIVAL. As such, a state that decides that it doesn’t CARE about its own survival throws the entire system in a loop and makes everyone go crazy. It is unfathomable to many IR realists, but such regimes do exist. Iran, however,  is simply not among those rare cases.

The Obama Shift?

Obama has been making an effort to re-rationalize Iran.

Kenneth Waltz, a world-famous IR thinker, writes in “A nuclear Iran: promoting security or courting disaster?” that Iran wants nuclear arms NOT because it’s a crazy regime bent on world destruction, but because it’s a rational regime that desires only security. Think about the threats that face Iran:

1)      Though Iran benefited from the destruction of Iraq in the 2003 war, A US-led Iraq is no better than a Saddam-led Iraq, especially with rogue state/axis of evil rhetoric.

2)     Israel, as Iran’s number one enemy in the entire region, has nuclear capability.

3)     Pakistan and Russia, neighbours and “frenemies” all have nuclear capabilities, giving them an upper hand in their regional relationship.

Waltz’s point is this: for a rational actor, having nuclear bombs actually makes the world safer. He says “the spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared”. Why? Because if you and I are mortal enemies, either we both have guns, or neither of us do. This is the only way we can balance each other out. If you have a gun and you’re not afraid to use it, I might just go bonkers trying to make myself safe. In the same way, Iran needs that gun or it just might go bonkers.

Essentially, the nukes work as a deterrent. They say: “I know that if you attack me with a nuke, I cannot defend myself. But I can attack back with such a vengeance that you’ll regret having hit me in the first place.” Deterrence is supposed to be such a powerful force that it keeps both sides at bay. It’s an interesting and compelling theory, if you think about it. Especially if you note that nobody really wants to start a nuclear World War III, anyway.

However, there are some concerns that jump out at us. First, though nuclear bombs will balance Israel and Iran out, it doesn’t mean that the two enemies will start to trust each other. During the Cold War, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets and the United States opened up channels of communication. If Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev perceived that an attack was coming, he could call the Whitehouse through a special direct-line “red phone” and clarify. (“Hey dude, is there a missile coming my way, or is that just a ketchup stain on my radar screen?”)

Without these channels of communication, there is a chance for huge misunderstandings. A test run could be taken as the real deal, setting off an attack. And Israel or Iran do not appear anywhere close to having this sit-down-and-talk kind of relationship. Scholar Shiping Tang outlines the problem here: both Israel and Iran are operating under the “worst case scenario” offensive realist assumption. Both assume that the other guy is not just selfish, but aggressive; and capable of the worst. As such, they will be quick to read any sign as a threat. This could further destabilize the entire region.

The second issue is this: even if Tehran is not a threat, nuclear arms spreading to state-sponsored or technologically savvy Islamic neo-fundamentalist group is another problem all together. Perhaps we all remember the infamous AQ Khan drama: he was the Pakistani government scientist who was caught selling nuclear technology and nuclear information in an illicit underground network to Iran, Libya, North Korea and even terrorist groups. (He was eventually pardoned by General Musharraf...)

However, knowing how to make a nuclear device is one thing; actually building it is an another. Rare terrorist groups can afford it, and those who can will never be able to amass enough uranium or plutonium to actually be a real threat. It's not as near a possibility as we may have been lead to believe by "War on Terror" advocates.

So, on the Iran issue, I think Waltz’ position has merit. Iran has never once invaded another country nor shown evidence of being an aggressive power. Though Ahmedinejad is somewhat troubled and possibly mentally unsound, the regime itself is not suicidal. It wants nukes for safety, not world domination. Yes, there is a chance that having nukes might make Iran trigger happy in the region; it might start to act like a bully with the smaller states because it has so much leverage over them. (This is Robert Jervis' classic "instability-stability paradox" theory.) However, in the Iran-Israel-US death triangle, it may actually put things at ease.

Look at the evidence: though Iran is most obviously trying to build a nuclear weapon, it is trying desperately to convince the world it is not. Tehran is actually making an effort to appear like a team player by making concessions here and there to the International Atomic Energy Agency (the world's nuclear proliferation watchdog).  If it wanted, it could have backed out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Years ago and simply said: “Yeah, we’re building a bomb. So what?” Instead, it tries desperately to stay within the system. It wants to be taken seriously; it doesn’t want to be a threatened rogue state.

In an eye-opening New York Times editorial, Flynt and Hillary Leverett state forthrightly that the US cannot deal with Iran as a threat if it does not address Iran’s security issues. And Obama has made little effort to do so.

1) “The Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic.” Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim then, that America is “fomenting terrorism” inside Iran is actually real.  

2) The US has employed Dennis Ross as the State Department point person for Iran, a crucial mistake. He was the Iran guy under Bush, and seriously advocated military strikes against Iran.

3) The US may be acquiescing to Israel and setting a timeline for negotiations. If Iran fails to meet the deadline, then what? Bombs over Tehran? Sanctions? This will worsen the entire situation, it will fail to kill support for the Iranian regime, and further damage US interests and US reputation in the Middle East.

Essentially, the Leveretts' underlying point is clear. Iran is FIRST a rational actor, and THEN a regime run by crazy Shias bent on Islamic takeover of the world. Not the other way around. 

“On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program — or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts.... Under these circumstances, the Iranian government...will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile.”  

A few months ago, I was sitting on the streetcar when a teenaged girl boarded the car. Two older passengers began to discuss the girl’s t-shirt, in disgust. It was a stylishly oversized Che Guevera t-shirt, with his name emblazoned on top of his photo in silver block letters.

This iconic image of Ernesto “Che” Guevera de la Serna has adorned everything from bathing suits to Louis Vuitton bags. Like the keffiyeh, people wear it because it’s an attractive symbol of masculinity, and edginess. And like the keffiyeh, the vast majority of people who wear it have absolutely no clue what it means.

Ernesto Guevera was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary. He traveled through Latin America as a young medical student, and, after witnessing the immense poverty around him, concluded that Western capitalism and neo-imperialism was to blame. Guevera joined Fidel Castro’s Communist movement, and helped to overthrow the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista.He was eventually captured and executed by the CIA and by Bolivian forces, during his effort to incite revolution in Bolivia.  Che was known to be cruel to anyone who did not support the revolution. His brutal firing squad took care of anyone who got in the way of his vision.

Many Cubans fled Castro’s dictatorial regime in Cuba and settled predominantly in Florida and New Jersey. In a Seattle Times article from 2005, it is evident that many Cuban-Americans are distressed by the very thought of Che Guevera. One man, named Carlos Barberia admitted to buying a Che T-shirt… and then promptly and publicly setting it on fire. Apparently, Che Guevera had ruthlessly murdered Barberia’s father.

This is what the two passengers on the streetcar were upset about: did the girl know what she was wearing? Did she know, that for many Cubans, this piece of clothing is as horrific as wearing a t-shirt glamorizing Hitler, or bin Laden? It’s possible that she doesn’t know the story behind that face. But, it’s also possible that she knows, and chooses to support him anyway.

This got me thinking about the “moderate Muslim” conception of violence and justice. After 9/11, Muslim immigrants in modern industrialized democracies were put on the spot, and they were forced to ask themselves: is violence ever justified?

In 1969, as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: young and beautiful Leila Khaled hijacked a Boeing 707 on its way from Rome to Athens. No one was injured, but the plane was blown up after the hostages disembarked. After she became famous for her actions, she underwent plastic surgery to change her face so that she could attempt the publicity stunt one more time. In her next hijacking (a flight from Amsterdam to NYC in 1970), she was captured. Her partner, Patrick Arguello -- who was, incidentally, inspired by Che Guevera -- shot a steward. The steward survived, but Arguello was killed by Israeli forces.

Khaled claims that she had no intention of taking anyone’s life. Her goal was simple: to get exposure for the struggle in Palestine. And to this end, she was relatively successful. Her militant and rebellious efforts were glorified and she became a household name in the 1970s. Movies, books, and even songs were written about her. During a prisoner exchange, Khaled was released, and she is now heavily involved in politics. She is a member of the Palestinian National Council, and also appears regularly before the United Nations World Social Forum.

Something about Leila Khaled has always intrigued legions of people. On the one hand, she is everything women want to be: strong, powerful, deeply principled and respected by her fellow citizens. On the other hand, she is irresponsible and dangerous. There was a good chance that any number of small mistakes could have brought that whole plane down. And rather than coming out victorious, she would have set the "cause" back by another hundred years. To the eyes of the moderate Muslim, are her actions ultimately reprehensible, because of the potential damage she could have done?

An old adage comes to mind:  an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. After World War II, the victors of the war and the subsequent global human rights movement painstakingly constructed domestic and international legal norms and political institutions on the premise that war is despicable and wrong, and should only be used defensively (as a last resort) by sovereign governments.  The world decided that protecting the dignity of the individual is a just goal, and should be universally enforced. But, keep in mind, the post-war human rights movement is one built on the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other mass graveyards. The new liberal world order was erected over the tombs of thousands upon thousands of guiltless civilian casualties. So we must ask once again: is violence ever justified?

Many Muslims in Canada will respond that the answer is largely “NO”. Only the state should be able to legitimately use force and all other instances should be judged as violations of this principle. I know I would not trust just any citizen in the world to have free rein to take up arms, even on my behalf.

I recognize that I am making these judgment calls from a privileged position and I have no idea what it’s like to live under an oppressive regime. And I realize that political systems can be exclusive, risk-averse and overly bureaucratic, thus compelling the downtrodden to reinterpret the notion of “just war.” However, the issue of rising up against an illegitimate government (like the Darfurians against the government in Sudan, like the African National Congress in apartheid South Africa, like the Americans in the Civil War) is a wholly different issue than waging carefully choreographed attacks against innocent people in a different country altogether. The only crime most of these innocent people have committed is that they dared to be born in a Western nation. 

Essentially, the grievances might be real. Terrorists do make claims about the United States that are 100% true. But, nevertheless, there is something undeniably hypocritical and malicious about the whole exercise of terrorism. The terrorist tries to make innocent people in another part of the world understand his plight by forcing them to taste the same devastation he has endured. Worse still, he is placated and even delighted by the whole event, treating it like a political victory for his side.

Though the question about ethics cannot be simply answered (and I recognize my own intellectual limitations), I do know this: for better or worse, the institutions that have been built since the end of the war have made every effort to prove violent behavior politically useless. A single person, acting on behalf of a large group, cannot exact revenge on a government by using blameless people as pawns. Despite the fact that the post-WWII institutions have yet to catch up with the problems of the post-9/11 world, the ends do not justify the means. As long as non-violent recourse exists, the end can be deemed good only by virtue of the means used to achieve it.

In my mind, Leila Khaled’s greatest legacy will be her non-violent critique of the unjust political system, not her militancy. The innocent citizens of Palestine, Darfur, Pakistan or Sri Lanka will probably be the first to say that the terrorist actions of a select few have brought them nothing of significant political or economic value. If anything, it has set them back. For when norms of human rights are violated, no matter how real your grievances, the rest of the world becomes blind to your cause, deaf to your message and mute on your behalf.

Many of you might have noticed the wild debate that was sparked by Anas Ingar’s article on CMC’s niqab-burka ban idea. It was definitely a heated debate, and one that is very germane in the post 9/11 era.

I had previously written an article on just this issue, and in it, I was adamant that Rosie Dimanno was wrong to say that wearing the niqab-burka hurt Muslim women. I held that it was a personal choice that affects only the person wearing it. Though I agreed that many women are forced to wear it, I did not believe that banning it was the solution for ridding the world of oppressive religio-patriarchal abuse. I had thought that the facts speak for themselves: there has not been a significant increase in women in burkas being dangerous to others, nor has there been a large increase in tragic Aqsa Pervez-type cases. I had thought that it was plain to see that this situation harmed Canadian values in no evident way.

My debate with an intelligent blogger by the name of “Lawyer” (who, by the way, is not really a lawyer) revealed to me that it’s not so simple. It may seem obvious to me that the niqab/burka is not dangerous but Lawyer stated – point blank – that it was his/her opinion that it was. And nothing I said could convince him/her otherwise. And likewise: nothing she/he said could convince me to change my opinions.

It made me realize that “Canadian values” are not something that can be easily discerned. I thought freedom of choice and respecting minority multiculturalism were strong Canadian values. Lawyer held that being able to look at someone in the face and eye is a crucial Canadian value that is undermined by niqabis in voting booths and courtrooms (though no one has yet explained to me why you can vote by mail if that is really the case).

I realize that my opinion is only obvious to me because I define Canadian values in a different way than other people might. Damn this diverse country for having so many values to choose from! It is often said that Canada has no identity; the only thing we all share in common is that we know we’re not Americans. Though it’s a bit extreme, it is true in many ways. Canadian identity is something slightly more malleable and debatable than American identity. In the States, even if you’re not sure what American values are, you’re hella sure that you should NOT be arguing about them lest you be seen as unpatriotic, treacherous and, frankly, French.

My debate with Lawyer also highlighted something else very important. Democracy is a tricky little creature and perceptions matter a great deal. Democratic institutions encourage equality, and this empowers traditionally marginalized social groups. But it also stresses majority rule.

Lawyer demanded to know how I would feel about my precious democracy if the majority of Canadians voted for a niqab/burka ban. I guess I would feel exactly the same way about democratic institutions as I do: wary but optimistic. I still reserve the right to lobby my elected officials for what I feel is a bad decision. Not only that, I feel that the legitimacy of democracy depends wholly on the ability of minority groups to exercise such rights.

So it seemed then that Lawyer was concerned about tyranny of the minority and I was concerned about tyranny of the majority.

Majority rule is crucial and necessary for democratic institutions to work. But with any democratic institution, you have powerful minority groups that are able to sway political decisions. This may be a good thing and it may be a bad thing.

In Florida, the Cuban-American voting bloc is so strong that they are by the far the most important consideration the American government has in discussions about lifting the sanctions against Havana. When I went to Washington last spring and spoke with academics and politicians they were all unanimously clear on one thing, and one thing only: Cuba stopped being a foreign policy issue immediately after the Soviet Union dissolved. As well, the sanctions clearly aren’t working because Fidel is still kickin it. In fact, there are so many loopholes in the sanctions that you will find that more American investment gets into Cuba than almost any other country. But the government simply could not discuss removing the official sanction  in the last twenty years because the Cuban American diaspora just would not have it. This is, however, changing with the new regime and a new generation of Cuban-Americans.

This is an instance where a minority group holds weight on an issue in a kind of negative way. However, in Samantha Powers’ book America and the Age of Genocide, she talks about how Jewish-American lobby groups tried to pressure government to give a damn about genocides occurring in Bosnia and Kosovo, among other places in the world. This is an instance where a lobby group acted according to its morals despite the decision made by “the majority.”

I realized at the end of the debate that Lawyer and I would never be able to convince each other.  It is what it is. I still hold that we keep our political systems responsive and adaptive when we push them and force them to listen to us when we feel they are acting immorally. But again, who defines what it is immoral and what is not? At the end of the day, it might just be the guy who shouts the loudest, and certainly Muslims – members of the largest growing religion in the world – have that kind of clout. And for us to wield our power is great for us. But we have to expect and respect that many Canadians will see it as a selfish act on our part – an attempt to exercise the dreaded act of tyranny by the minority.

There has always been a distinct difference between Islamic music and Muslims who make music. Legendary MC Mos Def seems to be carving a new category for himself somewhere in between. It’s certainly not nasheeds, but his religiosity oozes out at you in every track. He doesn’t hide his religion, but put it into perspective with other political, social and cultural phenomena existing in the world today. He is, at the core, a socially conscious rapper.

And he’s very, very good at it.

The track “Supermagic” begins with a speech from Muslim civil rights activist Malcolm X:

“You're living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution
a time where there's got to be a change.

People in power have misused it
and now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built
and the only way is going to be built is with extreme methods
and I for one will join with anyone, don't care what color you are
as long as you want change this miserable condition that exists on this earth."

And for me, this is the thesis of his album (The Ecstatic). Track after track, he reminds us that Islam is a political religion and so we must, as Muslims, be conscious and aware of the world around us.

In the track called “Embassy”, he begins with a friendly captain speaking to the passengers: “This is your captain speaking with some information on your flight...” The captain’s voice creepily morphs and mutates as he says: “Couple little facts here, I’m packing a colt king cobra, a 357 calibre fire arm... capable of.... putting a hole in human flesh the size of the Grand Canyon...”  His voice returns to normal as he finishes off:  “The Grand Canyon, which by the way is visible on the left side of the plane...”

It sent a chill up my spine the first time I heard it.

The tracks and beats he samples are eerie, and reminiscent of an old-time Persian or Punjabi movie.  Mos Def has one of the most recognizable voices in the music industry, and Slick Rick, who is featured in the track “Auditorium,” has one of the strangest.  Auditorium is probably my favourite track from the entire album and the most memorable part of it is Slick Rick singing about being an American soldier in Iraq:

“It's the patch. I'm a soldier in the middle of Iraq
We'll say about noonish,

comin out the whip and ookin at me curious
A young iraqi kid
Carryin laundry
“What's wrong G? Hungry?”
“No, give me my oil and get the **** out of my country!
And in Arabian, barkin other stuff till his mom's come grab him
And they walk off in a rush
Distrust
Feelin’ like I pissed on a wound”

My other favorites are  “Priority”, “Wahid” and “Quiet Dog Bite Hard.”

“Wahid” is probably the most overtly religious song on the album. Most of the other content reads more like a metaphor.  The lyrics are mesmerizing and overpowering, and really just prove why Mos Def is a cut above the rest in hip hop.

“Fret not, ghetto world, guess what?
God is on your side, the devil is a lie
The Empire holds all the gold and the guns
but when all is said and done
There's only La ila ha illallaaah”

"Quiet Dog Bite Hard" is particularly interesting in that it samples a speech by Femi Kuti, an award winning Nigerian musician that comes from a lineage of politically conscious artists (his father is forefather of the afrobeat genre, and human rights activist Fela Kuti). Nigeria is a hot bed of inter-ethnic and inter-religious civil war, and it’s really interesting and germane that he would choose to share Kuti’s words with the listener. One of Mos Def’s continuous projects is his attempt to empower black people around the world (we all remember his 1999 album “Black on Both Sides”). And Kuti, singer of “Blackman Know Yourself”, is an active member in the same project of making of black people aware of their potentials and their diverse histories.

It’s hard to go wrong with this album. You will learn something new with every track, and it will put issues in both a local Brooklyn/Bronx context, but also in a global pan-African context.