An Open Letter to My Fellow Pakistanis in the Post-Osama World

Link to Original Article at The Huffington Post.

"Only 3000 Americans died in that 9/11 drama. But they have killed many more in response."

Fair enough. The young, educated English-speaking Pakistani man who sent me these words may have thought 9/11 was a "drama," but at least he got his numbers right -- even if he missed the bigger point.

He was speaking out in response to popular Pakistani journalist and TV anchor Kamran Khan's recent fiery monologue stressing that we Pakistanis must accept the fact that our country now holds the status of the largest and most notorious terrorism haven in the world.

"Unless we recognize the disease, how are we going to cure it?" asked Khan, clearly frustrated.

"For the Pakistani people to be saved from this life-threatening illness, it is imperative that instead of feeding them the American/Indian/Israeli conspiracy lollipop, they should be told that in just the last three years, 3900 Pakistanis have been killed in 225 suicide attacks."

Reviewing some of the major Islamist terrorist attacks in the last 25 years, Khan went on to show how all of them revealed some kind of connection to Pakistan, whether at the planning stage, training stage, execution stage or as the place where the perpetrators were eventually caught or killed.

And on the attacks carried out within Pakistan, he emphatically noted that neither mosques, nor marketplaces, nor schools were spared.



That not a single Indian, American or Israeli was killed.

That every one of the victims was a Pakistani, the vast majority Muslim.

So, by pointing out that "only 3000" Americans died on 9/11, the young man angered by Khan's broadcast was playing the body count game that many Pakistanis often do at introspection-demanding times like these. While it isn't wholly insignificant to cite, say, the number of civilians that have died as a result of the legitimately irresponsible Iraq war, the intent behind citing these body count figures serves to deflect the blame elsewhere -- and it often works.

This time, however, things are a little different.

After decades of getting away with blaming "foreign hands" for virtually every minor inconvenience, Pakistan has reached a point -- following the wretched failure of our government, intelligence agency and military leaders in the wake of the bin Laden operation -- where for once, the rest of the world's fingers are also pointed squarely at us.

The situation is reminiscent of Kurt Cobain's tragic, pre-suicidal poetry from Territorial Pissings:

"Just because you're paranoid
Don't mean we're not after you."

And this is where my young friend missed the point.

Focusing all of our attention on the drone attacks, Raymond Davis and India -- while denying that the majority of Pakistani deaths have been the result of our very own, home-bred jihadis -- is not going to reduce the death count.

Continuing to burn more American flags, blow up more KFC restaurants (with Pakistanis inside!) and destroying more Pakistani property every time we're angry about a "foreign incursion" -- is not going to reduce the death count.

Elevating the assassin of the elected governor of the country's largest province to the status of a hero and cheering on the acquittal of Mukhtar Mai's rapists, while labeling a convicted terrorist the "daughter of the nation" -- is not going to reduce the death count.

And turning back to Allah yet again, considering all the affection He has shown us recently -- devastating floods, multiple earthquakes, terrorism, bombings, political violence, assassinations, floggings, victimization of minorities, a dismal economy and the unprecedented corruption that has earned us a spot among the top 10 failed states in the world -- is not going to reduce the death count.

Here's the thing: it's understandable if you suffer a few blows here and there, learn from your mistakes, fix them and move on. But when you've been a perpetual, whining victim for over thirty years, continuously deteriorating, it is more likely representative of an utter lack of introspection -- a collective malaise -- and you probably need to start sharing some of the blame.

So, for once, let's please forget about who is an "agent" of who. Let's not allow every conversation after an incident to devolve into random whodunit speculation. Let's stop trying to focus on who killed how many people and why.

That's not in our control. Let's work with what's in our control.

Fewer people die in America because the U.S. government looks out for its people and protects them around the world. They send former presidents like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to rescue captured Americans from places like North Korea. Israel often releases prisoners -- including convicted murderers -- in exchange for the dead bodies of its soldiers. That is how you respect the citizens of your country.

It is not America's job to ensure the safety of Pakistani lives -- they're just looking out for their interests like anyone else. It is the job of Pakistanis to do that.

Let's direct the jihad where it needs to be directed: against the bearded mullahs that have done more damage to the Pakistani and Muslim identity than any American or Jewish "conspiracy" could ever hope to.

Let's acknowledge that the reason that democracy has never properly taken off in Pakistan is because it has always been tainted with military influence and theocracy, against the wishes of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who supported a secular, democratic state. Let's move to separate religion from government.

And finally, let's not reflexively call everyone who does make an effort to be introspective and criticize the country an "agent" of India, the CIA or Mossad. Khan's point is well-taken: if a loved one had a terminal illness and was deteriorating, or had a bad drug addiction and was in denial, wouldn't you stage an intervention to help them? How do you treat a disease without a diagnosis?

Please -- let's stop with the conspiracy theories. I understand it's a difficult addiction to kick (considering Pakistan's president himself thinks that the U.S. was behind the Taliban attacks), but we have a clear choice:

We can do something like what Japan did after Hiroshima and Nagasaki [grow to become a leading global industrial power], what the Jews did after the Holocaust [pull themselves back up and go on to earn 36% of all American Nobel Prizes while making up less than 3% of the population] or what the Africans did after centuries of slavery and oppression [having one of their descendants go on to be elected to the White House].

Or -- we can continue to burn more flags and effigies, revere shoe-throwers and the assassins of our governors as our heroes, lay our lives down to protect ridiculous issues like the blasphemy law and keep shouting "Amreeka Murdabad!" (Death to America) slogans -- and see which country goes "murda" first.

It really is now or never. Kamran Khan has a very good point.

Egypt Protests: Stories and Videos from January 25, 2011

Scroll down to see videos of today's protests in Egypt -- they're fairly fresh, with view counts only in the tens and hundreds so far. Help make them go viral.

I'll keep updating this post with more material as I get it.

If you have links to more pics and videos, post them in the comments section.

***

Protesters tearing up posters of Hosni Mubarak:






Protest Erupts in Egypt:




This one is stunning. Protesters chase the riot police:




Protest in Tahrir Square, downtown Cairo:




More from the Tahrir Square protest in downtown Cairo:




Eric Trager at The Atlantic writes about the would-be Revolution, with a great picture showing the size of the crowd: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/scenes-from-egypts-would-be-revolution/70191/

An Exclusive Interview with a Pro-Ahmadinejad Cleric in Qom, Iran

I lived in Lahore, Pakistan for a few years during high school. It was during that time that I met Hasan (name altered for anonymity). Hasan lives in Qom, Iran, and is training at the Islamic seminary in the city, the largest institution for the study of Shiite Islamic theology in the world, where both of Iran's Supreme Leaders, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, received training. Hasan is currently a Hojjat-ul-Islam, the rank Khamenei was when he was selected to succeed Khomeini as Iran's second Supreme Leader.

When I tracked him down, Hasan was more eager to speak to me than I had expected. He felt that his people's views on the Iranian elections were not being represented properly in the international media. Before I spoke to him on the phone, he also consulted with some of his colleagues, teachers, and friends at the seminary to ensure, in his words, that what he tells me is "accurate" and "representative".

As you'll notice, a recurring theme in many of his answers is his very strong belief that "foreign" Western powers, particularly England, are behind the current unrest in Tehran, an idea that is being played up significantly on Iranian state television, radio, and newspapers, which he cites often. Second, he does not make much of the scale of the protests, and downplays the idea of a rift in the clerical establishment, often expressing surprise when I inform him of some of the reports we have seen here.

All of the opinions and ideas presented here are solely his. Here is the interview.


Based on the media and resources that you have access to, can you give us a general idea about what you think is happening in Tehran?

There are several factors in this situation that have come together. There is one segment of the population that did want Mousavi to win the election. These people had done some propaganda to make it seem like Mousavi will get most of the votes. In particular, Tehran... because Tehran is a metropolitan city, you have people with all kinds of backgrounds and thinking. In Tehran itself, [Mousavi] had a lot of supporters. Tehran is part of what we call "Ustan-e-Tehran", where Tehran is the central city and the "ustan" includes the suburbs and smaller towns surrounding Tehran. An ustan is bigger than a district, but smaller than a province. If you look at the election results, in these suburbs and small towns in Ustan-e-Tehran, Ahmadinejad got more votes than Mousavi. But in the central city of Tehran, Ahmadinejad got fewer votes than Mousavi.

But you see, Tehran isn't all of Iran. People in Tehran sometimes think that because they are all supporters of Mousavi, all of Iran must be supporters of Mousavi, but this is not true. Overall, in 2 ustans, Azerbaijan-e-Ghardi and Ustan-e-Sistan-e-Balochistan, Mousavi got more votes than Ahmadinejad. In the rest of the ustans... I think Iran has a total of 24 ustans... in the rest of the 22 ustans, Ahmadinejad took more votes. Even in Ustan-e-Tehran, Ahmadinejad has more votes than Mousavi, but in the Tehran city, Mousavi has more votes.

So what happened is that the people in Tehran thought that he would win, Mousavi, because they had created a sort of atmosphere where they thought that the newspapers there, the Western media, and the American media was supporting him. But if you look at the rest of Iran, Ahmadinejad has done a lot of good work. I mean, there were projects that would take 7 or 8 or 9 years to complete, and he completed these projects in 2 or 3 years. He brought electricity to places that had none, clean water to places where water wasn't clean, and many things like this. He has greatly helped the poor people of Iran. The majority of Iran, therefore, was with Ahmadinejad.

That leaves Tehran, the Tehran city particularly. Now here there were groups led by important people like Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani [a powerful cleric who chairs Iran's Assembly of Experts, and a former president] and others who said they would support Mousavi. They said they would protest, but they wanted to protest peacefully. They never had the intention to come to Tehran and damage property, break things, or burn things, because in Iran, overall, this is not something that's in our history. It's very rare and even if it happens once in many years, it's done by small groups and it is considered very bad. Whoever you are protesting against, doing these things, damaging and breaking things is considered very bad.

Now Tehran has millions of people, and bringing out a few thousand to protest is not such a big feat. When some of these people were going back recently, they were arrested by the Iranian intelligence and questioned. They said that they were neither with Ahmadinejad, nor with Mousavi. In fact, they said they hadn't even voted at all. They said that they had specifically received orders from a lady in England named Zohra, which I think is a fake name, who had given them orders to do all of this breaking and damaging and violence. They recorded her phone calls, and showed it on TV here. I saw it myself. She would call them and give them orders to go out and destroy things, set fire to gas stations, and so on. And now the foreign minister of Iran has done a press conference and openly said that these people in England are calling people over here and telling them to go out and commit vandalism and violence. They had all of this planned ahead of time, well before the election.


What are the people you know saying about Ayatollah Khamenei's sermon on Friday?

If you noticed, in the khutba [sermon] by the Rahber [the title used to address the Supreme Leader], he mentioned Rafsanjani by name and criticized him, but he also supported him and said good things about him. He also criticized Ahmadinejad, but also supported him. So after this, Rafsanjani and the other leaders who were supporting Mousavi withdrew from the protests. They said that after the Rahber's speech, we don't think it is right to continue this opposition, and the Rahber has now shown us the right path. But some of the small parties and groups supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continued their protests.

Another thing that happened was that during the debates, Ahmadinejad accidentally criticized Rafsanjani and portrayed him in a negative light. As a result, some of Ahmadinejad's supporters began to have a negative image of Rafsanjani. On the other hand, Rafsanjani's people also became angry, saying that Ahmadinejad's people have maligned them. But then, in his khutba on Friday, the Rahber admonished both Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. He scolded Ahmadinejad for saying negative things about Rafsanjani without any proof. Of course Khamenei and Rafsanjani have differences in their opinions. This is normal in politics. It happens everywhere. It does not discredit the other person entirely. Once the Rahber brought everyone together in this way, Rafsanjani's group withdrew and decided that they will not continue the protests.

The protests that continued after the speech were not done by people here. They were done by foreign influences, like this woman Zohra in England. I saw on the news that yesterday [Saturday], they even burned a mosque. Can you imagine that? You can completely forget about the idea that any real Iranian, even a supporter of Mousavi, would ever burn a mosque. Anyone who would burn a mosque... this means that he is not even a Muslim. When this news came out over here, everybody became completely convinced that the people doing all of this have been planted from outside Iran. Nobody burns a mosque! I told you before that even burning a bank or another building is something that is considered very bad over here. People here are very educated and civilized.


What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?

See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.

What do these people want? They want to delegitimize this record-breaking election we've had where 85% of people came out and voted. They want people to think that this report of an 85% turnout is fraudulent, that there is all this infighting going on in Iran and people don't have faith in the system. But the world has seen on the day of the election here, that there were endless lines at the voting stations before voting had even started... in such a big democracy, where 85% of people came out to vote.

Look, Ahmadinejad got 24 million votes, and Mousavi got about 13 million, and with the rest of the candidates, it's a total of 39 million people who came out and participated in the process of democracy. Think about that... why would so many people come out and vote if they did not have any faith in the system? Who votes? It is those people who know that they can get justice and a better life through the process. If a person thinks there is corruption and deception in the system, he wouldn't bother to vote, he would just stay home. People participated in this election and came out to vote because they accepted the system and had faith in it.


But there are some parts of the process that are very suspicious. First, by law, the final results of the election cannot be certified by the Supreme Leader for a period of at least three days, in order to allow for any grievances that participating candidates may have. Second, voting was done on paper ballots and counted by hand. How is it possible that 39 million votes were counted in such a short time, just a few hours?

As far as the three day law goes, I have to look into this myself and see what the methodology was exactly. [Hasan said that he will get back to me soon on this issue, and when he does, I will update this post.] But I will explain what I know to you about the vote counting.

During the election, there were about 47,000 polling stations for voting. [I have independently confirmed that this is accurate.] For each station, every candidate was allowed to have a representative present to oversee the process. Mir Hossein Mousavi had 47,000 representatives, one at each station, and Ahmadinejad I think had 42,000 or something like that. The other candidates had fewer representatives. When the voting ended at 11 pm, they immediately started counting. Once they had the final tallies at each station, the representatives were made to sign off on them, and the numbers were fed into a centrally computerized system where the tallies were collected.

Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very small number of ballots that can easily be counted in a short period of time, and the final tally from each station was submitted to the central computerized system immediately. They reported the results live on TV as the final tallies came in. Again, remember that the representatives of both candidates at each polling station were required to sign off on the final tally at that station.

Also, the ballots were present in a booklet, like a checkbook where you can rip out the checks. This is how the ballots were distributed, and like a checkbook, each booklet had a fixed number of ballots. As soon as a booklet was exhausted, they would enter that record into the computer, so that the computer would keep track of how many booklets had been used up. Even after all of this, the Guardian Council allowed for people to come forward and report any irregularities in writing so that they could be investigated. This was not done at first, but later, on prompting, when a complaint was filed, the Guardian Council agreed to a partial recount of 10% of the votes.


Speaking of the Guardian Council, Ali Larijani, the pro-Khamenei Speaker of Parliament, has implied that some members of the Guardian Council are taking sides in the situation, which takes away from Khamenei's statement that this was a clear victory for Ahmadinejad, and even contradicts it--

Ali Larijani said this? Really?


Yes, this is what was reported here on Sunday morning.

No, no. It's not true. I watched Ali Larijani on TV just last night [Saturday] and he said that the Western media wants to take our great success in this election with record turnout and portray it in a negative light. He said to the public of Iran that we should be celebrating our wonderful success as a democracy. I saw this myself, on TV, and everyone in Iran saw it, so no one here will ever believe this report. I think the Western media may have taken his words and edited them to quote them out of context.


I also wanted to ask you about your access to the media. Apart from state-run television broadcasts, do you have complete access to the internet, sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter for instance?

Yes, we have complete access.


Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?

Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.

You know, one of the biggest pieces of propaganda is that the forces here are allowed to use firearms. They're not. If you look closely at these videos, you'll notice that the legitimate police and officers are using clubs, tear gas, and water canons to control the crowd, not firearms. If you are seeing people using guns and firearms, these are the rogues from outside Iran who are terrorizing the people and vandalizing property. I'm telling you, all of Iran is against these people who are committing these acts of violence and vandalism.

I'll tell you something which I'm not sure you know. Last week, the office of the Rahber called on hundreds of thousands of people to celebrate at a place called Meydan-e-Wali-Asr, not because Ahmadinejad won, but to celebrate Iran's democratic process, to celebrate our momentous election with a record-breaking turnout. A few days later, people were called out again to demonstrate against these people who were committing acts of violence and vandalism in the protests, and again hundreds of thousands of people came out for that demonstration. But the international media never covers these kinds of things. Instead, the media is taking a few protests with a few hundred or a few thousand people in Tehran and making them out to be much more significant than they are.

And then you have seen the huge crowd that attended the Rahber's speech at Friday prayers. Again, there were hundreds of thousands of people who came to hear him and support him, from all over the country. You have seen them on TV. People were so energized and so excited to see the Rahber that the first twenty minutes were just them cheering and chanting slogans praising him.

Who are these people? Are they not Iranians? Just because the media never shows this side of things, everyone thinks that these protesters committing violence is all that is going on here, while the rest of Iran is silent, and there is no other point of view. In fact, most Iranians are upset with the government for not being more aggressive in cracking down on these people.


In that case, why do you think the government isn't cracking down on these people more aggressively?

Because they are mixed in with the normal people. If you know 100% that the people standing in front of you are your enemy, you can be aggressive. But these people are in regular clothing, they are in the middle of the city, where there are also regular people mixed in, working, in the shops, walking around. So you have to be careful in how you go about tackling the situation. This is also why the government forces are not allowed to use firearms. If they fire at them, the rogues will fire back, and they won't care if the public is in the way. So you have to be careful.


You're speaking a lot about these videos on the internet that are being exaggerated to mean more than what they are, and you're also complaining that the media is not covering your side of the situation. However, if the government bans all foreign media outlets as they have, it forces them to rely on these videos, images, blogs, and Tweets as their primary source of information, which you claim are misrepresentative. Does the government understand that this works against them? Also, why hasn't your side organized events and made their own videos to present your side of the story?

This thing that you're saying is absolutely right. This is something that is lacking on our side. The supporters on our side should do this more of this kind of work. The people who are supporting Ahmadinejad, our government, and our police force need to express what they think, make videos, and send them out so that people can see the other side. We were discussing this among ourselves the other day. It has been shocking to us to see that what we are witnessing here is so different from what the international media is showing.

There are two websites you should read and let me know what you think, pakalert.wordpress.com and prisonplanet.com. On the second one, there is an article about how the BBC took a picture from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally and claimed that it was a Mousavi rally. [Note: Here's the link to the article that Hasan is talking about. The website deals with various conspiracy theories.]


In past protests like the one in 1999, the establishment in Iran was united. However, now there are reports of powerful figures like Rafsanjani and Khatami moving away from Khamenei. Neither of the two was present at the Friday sermon even though they were summoned by Khamenei to attend. Also, on Sunday morning Ayatollah Montazeri declared a period of mourning for those killed in the protests from Wednesday to Friday. Rafsanjani has made a statement saying that the protests and the voice of the people should be respected and supported. Mousavi has also reportedly declared that he is ready for martyrdom. Do you believe that there is a genuine rift in the clerical establishment?

[Expresses surprise at statements from Montazeri and Rafsanjani.] Look, there is no doubt that there are disagreements among some of these men. They are nothing new. Montazeri, although he is respected because he is a mujtahid [the highest rank achievable in Shia religious training], does not have much of a following here. As you know, he was originally selected by Imam Khomeini as his successor, but later the Imam denounced him because of a corruption scandal. It was a dark spot on his character, and although he is learned and respected, he was not qualified to become the next Rahber. He is a controversial figure who gets a lot of attention from the foreign media, but the media and the people here consider him insignificant.


But what about Rafsanjani? There are reports that Jawad Shahristani, the representative and son-in-law of Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, met secretly with Rafsanjani and the Assembly of Experts in Qom to consider redrafting the system of clerical rule in Iran by establishing a collective ruling body instead of a single Supreme Leader. Are you familiar with this? [Note: Sistani, based in Iraq, is one of the most influential Shia spiritual leaders in the region.]

Well, yes, we have heard something like this, that they are considering introducing the system of shoora-e-rahbariya, or a council of mujtahids that act as a supreme authority instead of one supreme leader. But you see, this is nothing new. The late Shaheed Muttahari, who was considered to be... well, you can think of him as number 2 to Imam Khomeini, also suggested the idea of having a mujtahid council. But this idea was not welcomed or accepted among the people. We do have a report from authentic sources that Rafsanjani, on his last trip to Iraq, met with Ayatollah Sistani, who advised him to obey Khamenei. He said that it was not in the interest of Iran to not obey the Rahber, who provides excellent leadership for the country.

The second thing is that if several people get together to float ideas... well, that is the job of the Assembly of Experts, which Rafsanjani is the chairman of. These are people who are mujtahids and are elected by the people of Iran. They keep watch over the supreme leadership, and God forbid if the Rahber makes a mistake or makes a wrong decision, they have the authority to replace him. So there already is a body that oversees these things. If there was a council of people to issue fatwas and edicts, without a singular figure of authority, it would not have as much authenticity and credibility among the people.

At our institution in Qom, in the Imam Khomeini Madrassa, we have many seminars, where ulema [scholars] from around the world come to speak and debate. They disagree very often and have open debates, where they sometimes have completely antithetical views on things. Open academic discussion and debate are very normal and encouraged here. This does not mean that there are any serious enmities within the clerical establishment.


Do you think, then, that despite their differences, eventually Rafsanjani and Khatami will end up supporting Khamenei?

Look, all of these men understand, accept, and revere the system. This is not something they disagree on. They're united on this. The difference is in their preference of methodology in order to get things done. For example, they often discuss how we should deal with the Western world. One group says that we should be firm and outspoken in our approach. The other says that we should be softer and more diplomatic. For example, Mohammad Khatami may be more open to engaging in talks and making concessions with the West about Iran's nuclear program to avoid sanctions and other headaches. Others believe that we should take a harder stance and stand our ground. These disagreements on policy are very normal. They happen in every country in the world. Remember, even when Mohammad Khatami was president, it was still Khamenei who was the Supreme Leader. Khatami did try his soft approach on the nuclear issue. The Rahber told him to make concessions, but if there is no response or accommodation on the other side, he should go back to being aggressive. So at the end of his presidency, after Ahmadinejad was elected, Iran returned to the aggressive stance.


Regarding the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad has said that he wants to develop the nuclear program for energy, not to make a bomb. Khamenei has also issued a fatwa against building a nuclear bomb. Why should the rest of the world believe them?

You know, there is one fundamental thing that people in the West don't understand about Iran, and if they can understand this one basic concept, they will understand many other things. Look, the government of Iran is an Islamic government. Their view is, if there is something that isn't even allowed in Sharia, something that Islam does not allow us to do, how can we even think of doing this thing? The Rahber has said this many times, and as you said, issued a fatwa against making a nuclear bomb. He has said that if this is something I give permission for, it can jeopardize my own faith and my own stature as a Muslim. It's against our moral and religious beliefs.

America looks at this issue according to their own mentality. They think, we're lying, so they must be lying too. You can look through all of the speeches of the Rahber, and you will not find a single instance of deception or lying. He cannot do it. If he lies or does something wrong, he cannot stay the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts would have to replace him.


One of the biggest problems that people here have with Ahmadinejad is his stance on Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. It is one thing to be critical of Israeli policy, but what purpose does denying the Holocaust and holding conferences dedicated to Holocaust denial serve in helping Iran's interests and relations with the rest of the world?

Look, if you listen to his words carefully, he doesn't say that he accepts or denies the Holocaust. He is a university professor, an academic. He looks at it as a historical event, like any other. He doesn't understand why each event in recorded history is subjected to research and re-evaluation except for this one. In Denmark, they can make cartoons insulting the Holy Prophet and this is defended as freedom of opinion. But in this case, it is taboo to have any opinions on this issue.


You do see, though, that there are parallels in the way Muslims feel about the Danish cartoons and the way Jews feel about the Holocaust? It is a very personal, emotional issue for them. Academic debate is one thing, but do you think it serves any kind of purpose when people in powerful political positions express these opinions? If the goal is to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, why should people in political positions highlight an unnecessary issue that would only inflame the other side and complicate the potential for a solution? Wouldn't it be more effective to put the Holocaust issue aside and just focus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

Again, many of Ahmadinejad's statements have been misunderstood. He does not reject the Holocaust. Okay, suppose he says the Holocaust happened just as it is recorded in history, without challenging it. It still happened in Europe, right? Why then are the Palestinian people being punished for it? That is the real question.

Also remember, we have 30,000 Jews living in Iran very peacefully. They like the Iranian government. We have always made a clear distinction between Judaism and Zionism. This is very important. Our opposition is to the Zionists, not to the Jews. We have a lot of respect for Judaism... it is also a religion of God, from Abraham.


What kind of approach do you think the people of Iran want to see from President Obama and the United States during this time?

The Iranians have always maintained that that the United States should communicate with them at a level of equality, with mutual respect. They should remember that just as they are a nation, we are also a nation. If the United States talks down to Iran like they are our boss, and want to tell us what to do, we will not listen to a word they say. The same goes for Obama. Obama needs to be more honest. One one hand, he says that we should improve our relations with Iran, and on the other, he comes out and says he is very upset with the unjust treatment of these people who are committing violence and vandalism in Tehran. He should open his eyes and see how many supporters there are of the government and the Supreme Leader. These 85% that came out to vote... whoever they voted for, they are still supporters of the Rahber and the government. They vote because they have faith in the system. He should look in the United States. When has the United States had an 85% voter turnout? What do you have, maybe 40%?


Last year, it was around 60%.

Okay, 60%. Why was it higher than usual last year? Because people in America had some hopes and expectations in the last election. They had faith in the system and thought that Obama would come and change things. Iranians have the same support for their system. This is why there was such a high turnout. So Obama needs to be more honest, specially with his own people. He is taking their taxes and sending American soldiers into different countries where they are dying for no reason, to protect the interests of the rich people in the United States. If Obama can stop this and just take good care of his own people, that is good enough, we will not have any problems with him. The American government spends more time protecting the interests of Zionism than it does the interests of its own people. We have never been against the people in America, just the policies of its government.


My last question is a personal one. You still enjoy a very close relationship with your brother, who lives in the West, is non-religious, and has strong secular beliefs. You on the other hand live in Qom, and are a few years shy of being a religious scholar at the highest (mujtahid) rank. To what extent, if any, have your stark ideological differences had an effect on your relationship?

You know, as I've lived and studied here, I have learned many things. My faith teaches me that human beings are the creations of God, and God has created this world and everything in it for human beings. This is very important. God has given human beings a great stature, and thus humanity is of great importance. If there is any ideology that is against this universal concept of humanity... this is what we are at war with. This concept is present in all belief systems. These other systems and religions only differ in how they translate this concept of humanity. We may try to help them understand our beliefs and they will try to help us understand theirs, but we will never fight them. We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.

I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.

However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other. This is what I mean when I say our conflict is not with Jews or Judaism, but with Zionism. We place great importance on this difference.


Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.

Thank you.

What Pakistan Was Meant To Be

Now is a good time for Pakistanis to remind themselves of the vision that their founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, held for the country as he outlined it three days before it gained its independence, in August 1947:

"We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish.

Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this.

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days.

We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.

The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.

Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.

Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to take up any more of your time and thank you again for the honour you have done to me. I shall always be guided by the principles of justice and fairplay without any, as is put in the political language, prejudice or ill-will, in other words, partiality or favouritism.

My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world."

[Thanks to Shahjahan Chaudhary for the link.]

Religious Fundamentalism Spreads... Beyond Islam

In the same week that Hindu fundamentalists obliterated plans to build a Charlie Chaplin statue, on the grounds that Chaplin was a Christian who made no contribution to India, video clips of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Varun Gandhi surfaced online, showing him glorifyingly speaking of "cutting the throats" of Muslims, and mocking their "scary" names.

Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalist group Sri Ram Sena vowed to continue its attacks on women drinking in bars and couples courting in public -- expanding their target population to include female British tourists in the city of Goa.

In the Varun Gandhi videos, Hindu extremist groups like the Taliban-inspired anti-statue, anti-woman Sri Ram Sena may feel as if they've found a high-profile voice: Varun is the grandson of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and the great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, a declared secularist and atheist who couldn't have been more removed from his descendant's crazed religion-fueled nationalist diatribes.

It isn't just the Hindus. Mere days after ending the controversy over his lifting of the excommunication of Holocaust denier and 9/11 conpiracy theorist Bishop Richard Williamson, Pope Benedict XVI decided to elaborate further on his view that abstinence works 100% of the time as a birth control method (right, ask The Virgin Mary how well that worked for her) by declaring that the use of condoms aggravates the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Now, the Pope has publicly pulled several other Ahmedinejads in the past. He has written that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" and an "objective disorder". He has also claimed that non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation", without the "fullness of the means of salvation". Most recently, the Vatican declared its support for the Brazilian Church's decision to excommunicate a group of doctors who performed an abortion on a 9-year old girl -- pregnant with twins -- as a result of being raped by her stepfather.

The Pope's homophobia and bigoted statements about non-Catholics who don't necessarily think Jesus is their savior aren't all that different from Varun Gandhi's Muslim-bashing -- which, in turn, isn't all that different from the sentiments that fuel the ideology of the Taliban. There are millions of people in the world who think that way.

However, these two examples are unique: one of these men is the most significant spiritual and religious leader in the world, and the other belongs to a family that gave the world's largest democracy three of its most legendary prime ministers, including its first.

So, is Talibanization going mainstream? To religions beyond Islam?

Well, we know that the Catholic authorities aren't throwing acid on teenage girls' faces like the Taliban do. That, actually, is something that Jerusalem's Jewish Haredi Modesty Patrol did to a 14 year old girl last year. Her crime? Wearing pants. In the same week as the Pope's condom controversy and Varun's inflammatory videos made news, a member of the Modesty Patrol was sentenced to four years in prison in a separate incident -- a sexual gang assault on a divorced woman.

Although it's tempting to dismiss these incidents as aberrations, religious extremism and bigotry do seem to be going mainstream in Israel. On the same day that the Modesty Patrol mercenary was sentenced, news broke that Avigdor Lieberman, the right-wing hardliner whose Israel Beiteinu party had a strong showing in Israel's recent elections, is in consideration as Israel's next foreign minister.

Lieberman is a man who has, among other things, openly advocated the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from the Promised Land, and offered to provide buses to transport Palestinian prisoners to the Dead Sea, where he has recommended drowning them.

More disturbingly, Lieberman suggested in 2006 that Israel should conduct itself in Gaza like Russia did in Chechnya, that is, without any concern for civilian deaths. This moves the issue beyond the realm of aberrant extremist ideology, not only because Lieberman is now a prominent leader in the Knesset possibly destined to become Israel's foreign minister, but because his suggestion was put into practice in a significant way during Israel's recent offensive in Gaza.

In last week's investigation into the Israel-Gaza conflict, IDF soldiers talked about how they were encouraged to kill Palestinian civilians. They also described how the assault was framed as a religious war by military rabbis, who distributed literature to the troops saying among other things that this was a holy war, that "we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land" and that they needed to "fight to expel the Gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land." Somehow, Israeli authorities appear to be drawing inspiration -- like Hamas -- from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban.

Meantime, the Adiv fabric-printing shop in south Tel Aviv sold hundreds of T-shirts, caps, and other items of clothing custom-made for Israel soldiers, featuring pictures of dead children and bombed mosques. Included was one of a dead baby clutching his teddy bear, his mother weeping at his side, bearing the inscription, "Better Use Durex".

In Canada, a different aspect of religious fundamentalism surfaced last week, when Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear, a central figure in the controversy over the science funding crunch in the country, was asked whether he believed in evolution. He refused to answer. "I'm not going to answer that question," he said. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." The Pope, I'm guessing, would have been a little more unequivocal in his response.

These events, most of which occurred in the span of one week, are reflective of a dangerous resurgence of religious fundamentalism in non-Islamic countries. The most perplexing part of it is that it isn't just limited to a few seemingly random incidents fueled by fringe extremist groups. The characters in these stories -- the Pope, a member of India's Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, a powerful Knesset leader, and a Canadian federal minister -- are influential, mainstream figures whose ideas and decisions impact the lives of billions of people every day.

In the early days after 9/11, a lot of false dichotomies were created in an attempt to place the attacks in some sort of context. It was said that terrorism has no place in Islam. That it is not religion, but the "cultural distortion" and "misinterpretation" of it that's the problem. That Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. That Sharia law has nothing to do with Islam. That all religions preach love and peace.

Unfortunately for the apologists, people who couldn't reconcile these assertions with the events they were witnessing around the world found it easier to see through them than ever before.

The Torah, Bible, Quran, and other ancient religious scriptures are easily available online in their entirety, complete with translations in multiple languages, by multiple translators, supplemented with commentary. Easy -- and searchable -- access to these these texts has opened them up to intense scrutiny, and the anonymity-driven confrontation-friendly forum provided by the internet has resulted in unprecedented, taboo-shattering, critical discussions on their contents.

One consequence of this is that religious people who believe that the scripture of their respective faith is truly the word of God -- the majority of whom only selectively familiar with it -- have found reinforcement for their beliefs.

For example, it isn't difficult to sell the idea of a holy war to Israeli soldiers when passages from the Torah such as Shmot 23:31-33 instruct them to drive non-Jewish inhabitants out of the land promised to them by God himself (described in detail as "from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines"), and to "make no covenant with them." This gives some hefty, divine weight to Avigdor Lieberman's arguments, and shatters the misconception that Zionism is merely the "politicization" of Judaism.

While the religious Jewish community has remained adherent to these scriptural accounts of the Promised Land, it has, for the most part, been quick to brush aside other passages from the Torah that advocate, for instance, death by stoning for everything from not being a virgin on your wedding night (Devarim 22:20-21) to blasphemy (Vayikra 24:16). Interestingly, stoning people to death is a practice associated more widely with Islamic law, probably because it is still practiced widely in many parts of the Muslim world. This is not without reason: while not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, stoning is widely accepted as punishment for sins such as adultery in the hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad).

Also, even though the majority of Muslims are horrified by the idea of child marriage or domestic violence, both of these practices have strong footing in Islamic history and scripture, and it would be naive to dismiss them simply as "cultural distortions". By almost all accounts, Muhammad did take a nine year old bride as his eleventh wife; and beating your wife if you "fear disobedience" is permitted in Islamic scripture (Quran, verse 4:34). Other concepts like armed jihad against infidels (9:5) and resistance against Christians and Jews (5:51) are also present in the Quran.

The Christian Bible, which recognizes the five books of the Torah as the Old Testament, forms the basis for the beliefs of Pope Benedict XVI and evangelists like Pat Robertson about issues like homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13). And the aggression against women practiced by Indian extremist groups such as Sri Ram Sena has its roots in the sacred Hindu text Manu Smriti, which purportedly contains the word of Brahma, the god of creation, and allows men to have virtually complete, unfettered authority over women.

While this renewed interest in scripture has affirmed the beliefs of many, giving legitimacy to their extremist leanings and possibly even radicalizing them, it has also allowed skeptics, rationalists, and even some moderately religious people to question that which was previously unquestionable. Many who believed that it wasn't religion at fault but the people who "misinterpret" it, are beginning to ask whether it might actually be the other way around. And they're speaking out. How do you condemn the occupation of Palestinian lands and still defend the Bible or Torah -- which command it explicitly as an instruction from God -- as sacred books? Can you denounce a 47 year old Yemeni man's marriage to an 8 year old girl while you defend the prophet Muhammad's child marriage with an even wider age difference? If you speak out against the Torah/Old Testament-endorsed execution of gay men and stoning of non-virginal single women, does that make you anti-Semitic? Or a "Christophobe"?

Questions like this, which would easily have made one an outcast in the recent past -- or worse, invited a death fatwa -- are now being asked more frequently and more loudly. Most of the response to these completely legitimate and important questions has come in the form of ad hominem accusations of religious bigotry directed at the questioners, taking offense, and hurt feelings. Flawed terms like "Islamophobia" and "Christophobia" have emerged, and accusations of anti-Semitism are being flung around so loosely that the phrase is in danger of losing its deserved significance.

And this is where a fundamental distinction needs to be made.

Hating Jews, Muslims, or Christians for what they believe is clearly wrong. Criticizing the belief systems themselves, however, is not. Human beings have rights. Cultures, religions, and ideological belief systems do not.

This basic concept was sadly lost on the United Nations when it passed a non-binding anti-blasphemy resolution last year, curtailing any criticism of religious belief. The resolution, brought forth by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is a massive impediment in the fight against human rights abuses carried out under systems such as Islamic Sharia law. Rational, reasonable people worldwide are rightly outraged by this move to put ideology before human beings.

There is now a push by the OIC, a group of 57 Muslim countries, to make the resolution a binding one. But this isn't a one way street. Will Arab and Muslim countries still be able to criticize the Torah-supported Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory under the same legislation?

Or is Islam finally losing its long-held monopoly on fundamentalism?

The Atheist Bus Campaign: Who Should Really be Offended?

First off, I have to admit that initially, the idea of an "Atheist Bus Campaign" made me cringe a bit.

I thought that the campaign, which has already been launched in Britain and Spain and is now coming to my hometown of Toronto, blurred one of the distinctions that I think separates non-believers from many religious groups -- an opposition to large-scale proselytization.

But seeing what the campaign consists of made me chuckle: it's a series of ads in buses, subways, and trains that simply proclaim, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" -- an upbeat, somewhat tongue-in-cheek-sounding statement that can just as easily be translated to, "Don't worry, be happy!"

Also, although the word "probably" was placed into the statement to satisfy legal advertising standards, it maintains another distinction between the rationalists and the religious -- the rejection of absolute certainty in the absence of evidence.

The idea for this campaign -- which is very controversial and has outraged religious groups in Europe and North America -- was first proposed by Ariane Sherine, who saw two bus ads from a website called JesusSaid.org, that quoted Luke 18:8, on her way to work. She expressed her response in a column in The Guardian last year:

"[Apart from the Biblical quote], there was also a web address on the ad, and when I visited the site... I received the following warning for anyone who doesn't 'accept the word of Jesus on the cross': 'You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)' (Matthew 25:41). Lots to look forward to, then.

Now, if I wanted to run a bus ad saying 'Beware - there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!' or 'The bits in orange juice aren't orange but plastic - don't drink them or you'll die!' I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims. But apparently you don't need evidence to run an ad suggesting we'll all face the ire of the son of man when he comes, then link to a website advocating endless pain for atheists."

At the end of the day, non-believers and rationalists will use words: they will question, challenge, and ask the religious for evidence supporting their beliefs and ideas -- applying the same standards to religious claims as they would to any scientific theory, political ideology, or legislative proposal. At the very most, they may satirize these beliefs and make jokes, all of which falls in the realm of non-violent free speech.

But what do the holy books -- which billions believe contain the indisputable word of God -- say about non-believers or those who question religion?

Start with Leviticus 24:16 in the Torah/Old Testament, which states clearly that "blasphemers" who question the Lord are to be stoned to death. (Remember, for Jews and Christians, this is God speaking.)

In Islam, the blood of one who converts out of Islam is halal (the Islamic equivalent of "kosher"), and numerous verses in the Quran speak about a "terrible fire" awaiting non-believers, where they will dwell for eternity.

The view of Christianity towards non-believers is pretty clear in Sherine's citation of Matthew 25:41. And to Catholics who have been outraged and hurt by this ad campaign, is it really worse than what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his Dominus Iesus?

"[Followers of other religions are] in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the [Roman Catholic] church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."

Another argument against the campaign from the religious right is that it is "hate speech". Again, there's no comparison.

It's well-known that the holy books advocate many forms of sexism, from saying that a woman's word (Quran, 2:282) or monetary worth (Leviticus 27:3-8) is half that of a man, to declaring that a woman who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night should be sent to her father's doorstep to be stoned to death (start at Deuteronomy 22:20 and read on), and that's just scratching the surface. Homophobia also figures prominently in the holy texts, and the Pope himself pulled an Ahmedinejad when he called homosexuality an "intrinsic moral evil" and an "objective disorder".

And again, what do the scriptures say about the non-believers?

Apart from being sentenced to death here on earth for simply questioning these beliefs and scriptures, non-believers are also promised eternal damnation in hell, and considered to be immoral, evil agents of Satan that have gone astray. Hate speech, anyone?

Which side over here should really be offended?

Let's get real. The ad may not be the best idea ever, but it's fun, it's satirical, and it's a smart, funny response to similar ads from the religious community that aim to use fear and guilt to make you feel bad about yourself and give them your support and money (that they don't have to pay taxes on, by the way). These are the people that persecuted Galileo for saying the world was really not flat, but round, and still reject evolution in the face of evidence like fossils, molecular genetics, and the innumerable species of bacteria that have evolved over the last few decades to become resistant to penicillin. Worse, these ideas frequently find their way into our legislation, foreign policy, and public schools.

Let's welcome the much-needed dialogue that the ad campaign brings to Toronto and other cities after it. When President Barack Obama acknowledged non-believers in his inaugural speech, he was acknowledging between 10% to 16% of the population of the United States (more than 25% of 18-25 year olds) -- that's more than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists combined and doubled.

It'll be okay. Now stop worrying, and enjoy your life!

'Religulous' Speaks for a Large, Growing Silent Minority

When Sarah Palin was stumped by perfectly legitimate questions that she couldn't answer in two major network interviews, she deflected the blame onto the questioners.

This is a common dynamic that's part of human nature, and it seems at least partially to be what's driving the controversy being generated around Bill Maher's new comedy Religulous, which raked in $3.5 million on its opening weekend, cracking the top ten despite a limited release on only 502 screens nationwide.

Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, doesn't seem to have much of a problem with Jesus. He actually reminds some of his interview subjects, like the blinged out pastor Jeremiah Cummings, wearing lizard-skin shoes and gold bracelets, that Jesus would never have dressed or decorated himself that way. He asks a Vatican priest - on location - whether Jesus, known for his humility and modesty, would live in such opulence. He questions an ex-gay pastor about his mission to convert gay people to heterosexuality, when Jesus was never even known to address homosexuality.

What Maher does seem to have a problem with, though, is the increasing involvement of religion in politics, its self-proclaimed monopoly on morality, and its infiltration into everything from US foreign policy (complete with a W. quote) to science education in schools - illustrated adeptly with an immensely entertaining tour through a creationism museum in Kentucky showcasing animatronic human children and dinosaurs happily playing side by side.

The central focus of Maher's quest is to finally ask the questions that have always been taboo to ask, including the questions that many religious people are often afraid to ask themselves - and to do it with an element of lighthearted humor. He does this by questioning the unwavering certainty that his subjects have in their beliefs more than the beliefs themselves; his operating premise is, "I don't know, so how do you know?"

If you're expecting a serious discussion, debate, or detailed investigative analysis on the dynamics and intricacies of belief, this movie will probably leave you dissatisfied - it's constructed as a comedy, not a documentary.

And if you're sensitive about your religious beliefs, you may find yourself offended at Bill Maher's methodology. He is definitely provocative in his questions, and because this is a comedy, he tries to get laughs, which he does successfully even when he comes across as glib and condescending.

The good news is, he covers all of the major Abrahamic religions, and even people of faith like critic Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times and Ebert and Roeper), who gave the film three and a half stars out of four, report taking some guilty pleasure in it:

"...I report faithfully that I laughed frequently. You may very well hate it, but at least you've been informed. Perhaps you could enjoy the material about other religions, and tune out when yours is being discussed. That's only human nature."

A lot of criticism has been directed at Maher for interviewing those considered aberrations and "kooks" instead of learned theologians. In some cases, this is true. His interview with Yisroel Dovid Weiss, the anti-Zionist rabbi who attended and spoke at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference in 2006, falls under this category. Others, with geneticist and Human Genome Project head Francis Collins, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, and Vatican astronomer and priest George Coyne - do not, yet some of them do come across as conflicted when they attempt to reconcile their faith with their own perceptions of modern reality.

And some of the "fringe" characters that Maher is accused of unnecessarily focusing on are actually significant, like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, who believes he is the second coming of Christ. Miranda, portrayed as one of the "kooks", is very entertaining until you learn that he has actually managed to amass a following of over 100,000 people who believe in his claim to divinity. This - in addition to his inherent, priceless comedic value - rightly earns him his place in the film.

Though he focuses primarily on Christianity, Maher also takes on Judaism and Islam. As someone who grew up in a Muslim environment, I can all but confirm his suspicion that Muslims generally tend to tout the "religion of peace" claim unequivocally in front of outsiders, while they remain very conflicted about it within. He interviews Aki Nawaz (aka Propa-Gandhi), the controversial UK rapper, as well as a more mainstream, moderate Muslim woman in Amsterdam, both of whom struggle to reconcile their faith and their ideals in response to his questions.

And that is the point of this film - to ask questions. In one of the earlier scenes, where Maher holds interviews in a small church for truck drivers, one of the truckers immediately says, "You start disputin' my God, and you've got a problem," to which Maher replies, "I'm only asking questions." The trucker walks out shortly afterwards.

Maher points out that non-religious people now constitute over 16% of the US population - a higher percentage than than blacks, Jews, or homosexuals. He provides a voice for this large, silent, fast-growing minority, encouraging them to speak up and reclaim their right to what is actually a completely legitimate alternative view of the world - a view that is just as moral, and based on at least equivalent values of reason, rationality, and consistency. This is the group that this film is directed to.

For those who feel that this film is disrespectful and dismissive of the faithful, remember: most widely followed religious texts have declared skeptics and nonbelievers to be morally bereft, lost, strayed souls that are potentially punishable by death and condemned to damnation and eternal hellfire.

In response, all Maher is offering on our behalf is a little film, a comedy which at the very least is laugh-out-loud hilarious - whether you're a believer or not.

Where Headscarves Meet Strippers

In April 2007, Dr. Muriel Walker, a non-Muslim professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario attempted to organize an event to show solidarity with Muslim women at the campus, inviting non-Muslim women on campus to wear the traditional Islamic headscarf - the hijab - for a day. To her horror, this attempt at interfaith unity resulted in the spray-painting of anti-Muslim graffiti on her office door, declaring her a "raghead lover" among other things.

Jonathan Kay, blogger for Canada's NationalPost.com, posted his reaction to the event, condemning it as most reasonable people would - but also expressing his disapproval of Walker's intent to celebrate the wearing of the hijab:

"The problem is that the Hijab is not a politically neutral symbol of religious or ethnic identity, such as, say, a crucifix necklace, a yarmulke, or a Scottish kilt. Like the shaved heads and wigs that many married ultra-orthodox Jewish women endure, the Hijab signifies a coerced strain of social conservatism that symbolizes the lower status - or, at least, the institutinalized subservience - of women within a society. In some societies (not ours, yet) Muslim women who do not wear the hijab are beaten or imprisoned by religious thugs who see female modesty as a state-enforcable duty. Ms. Walker's blog suggests she sees the hijab as a purely aesthetic/cultural/religious symbol. But I think she's wrong: Her "Hijab Day" was arguably a celebration of that which is repressive and anti-feminist in Islam."

This prompted a response from a Muslim woman who defended the hijab, not so much directly, but instead by way of condemning the sexual objectification of women in Western culture:

"As a Muslim woman, I find your lack of understanding of the hijab offensively ignorant... If you want to talk about institutionalized subservience, open your eyes to mainstream media, and look at the way women's bodies are constantly exploited as if they're commodities to be sold. Fashion dictates that dressing like a stripper is en vogue, while engaging in as much intellectual discourse as Jessica Simpson, makes a girl more likeable. Watch 15 minutes of an MTV music video and tell me that women are truly liberated and not just succumbing to media pressures constructed largely by a male dominated industry, to degrade themselves and sell their sexuality for commercial purposes. Please, don't tell me that Hijab, which serves to demonstrate modesty, is a tool for oppression when in our society you have men salivating over the PUSSYcat dolls, the latter being everything that the women's liberation movement has worked so hard for."

Even though I don't identify or align myself with any specific religion, I was born and raised in a moderate to liberal Muslim family, the female (and male) members of which - nuclear and extended - are all accomplished, professional, and independent, but show very distinct, palpable, sometimes conflicting variability in their approaches to reconciling their faith and cultural sensibilities with their social progressivism; this includes frequent wavering on issues ranging from hijab to arranged marriage to traditional gender roles.

But, like both Jonathan Kay and the articulate commenter on his blog, there is a "splitting" tendency to their arguments, where one side is declared completely good and the other declared completely bad - and it doesn't always have to be that way.

I have, on occasions like this, found myself agreeing with both Kay's and his disagreeing commenter's viewpoint: to me, the traditional hijabi (headscarf-wearer) and the Western exotic dancer appear to be opposite sides of the same coin.

The tradition of hijab is the product of a patriarchal system that is geared towards and tailored to pleasing men by placing the responsibility of curbing male lust primarily upon women.

Similarly, the modern stripper is the product of a patriarchal system that is geared towards and tailored to pleasing men by catering to that lust.

Both are designed to sustain the dynamics of a male-dominated society.

Both maintain the status of women as sexual objects - whether it's by having them covered from head to toe, or exposed from head to toe - depending on whether the men in the surrounding environment want to curtail their seemingly uncontrollable sexual urges or exercise them. Hijab, so to speak, seems to be the objectification of women just the same - but in reverse.

Finally, both are not only insulting to women, but also to men, perpetuating the stereotypical notion that men have virtually no self-control over their testicular physiology, no discretionary sense, and no self-respect. I've heard men and women - including both hijabis and strippers - say, "That's just how men are..." innumerable times, setting a dangerous precedent potentially allowing boys and men to get away with pretty much anything, as they often do, while girls and women think of them as insatiable horndogs.

My dissociation with the faith that I was born into was primarily because of the status accorded to women in most religions.

I've often engaged in conversations with feminists, Muslim and non-Muslim, who believe strongly in the idea of being vocal and unabashed in their opposition to a patriarchal societal system, even if it offends conservative traditionalists. I believe that feminism benefits both women, men, and society in general, and I agree with them.

However, when I am critical of their religion, many of the same women view it as offensive or blasphemous, when from my standpoint, I am only doing the same thing they are: being vocal and unabashed in my opposition to a patriarchal societal system, even if it offends conservative traditionalists. In this case, though, they are playing that role themselves.

That said, many women who choose to be exotic dancers or wear the hijab do so out of choice, pleasure, and in many cases, for liberation. So I do understand that like anything else, this is about insight - and a mindset. In the end, feminism, masculinism, and humanism are about the same thing - autonomy, individual choice, and equality. I am not opposed to a woman's choice to wear the hijab. Nor am I opposed to exotic dancing - female or male. Both choices should be respected. The danger is in the notions that surround these phenomena: that women are sexual objects that need to be covered or exposed depending - in both cases - on the state of a man's lust, and that a man's lust is somehow well beyond his control more than a woman's is.

I would like to hope that Dr. Walker will be hosting an event in the near future inviting all the women on campus to dress as exotic dancers for a day - better yet, encourage the men to do the same - let 'em know what it's like. It would certainly increase attendance.