A new study published by the research group Open Net Initiative on Internet content controls in the Middle East and North Africa claims web censorship, both in scope and in depth, is increasing in the majority of countries in the Middle East and North Africa region. Fourteen out of the eighteen countries surveyed in the study censor Internet content using technological means.
By ALEXANDRA SANDELS
ONI
BEIRUT, August 13, 2009 (MENASSAT) — While governments in the Middle East and North Africa continue to make investments in media and IT projects, they are also investing in censorship technologies to prevent their citizens from accessing a wide spectrum of content considered objectionable by authorities.
That is the conclusion of the 2009 report on Internet content controls in the MENA region issued by Open Net Initiative–– a partnership among groups at four US, UK, and Canadian universities: Toronto, Harvard, Cambridge, and Oxford, funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
During the last few years there has been heavy investment in media and IT infrastructure projects in the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, among other MENA countries.
Take Dubai and Abu Dhabi for example. In addition to existing regional media and IT hubs such as Dubai Media City and Dubai Internet City, the UAE recently launched a new content creation zone in a bid to support media content creators in the MENA region. The new zone, based in neighboring Abu Dhabi, seeks to employ Arab media professionals in film, broadcast, digital and publishing. Major international media organizations such as CNN, BBC, the Financial Times, and Thomson Reuters are among the partners of the zone.
There is also the Jordanian plan that has emerged, to create a free IT zone in the capital Amman, which would give sales and income tax breaks to the IT and business firms based in the zone. Jordan’s plans to build an IT zone is part of its strategy to increase the number of Internet users from 26 percent to 50 percent and increase employment in the sector.
And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the Doha Center for Media Freedom –– the Qatar-based international institution founded in 2007 to boost press freedoms and provide refuge for threatened journalists in the region.
On the other side of the spectrum, when it comes to building free IT zones, more media hubs, and institutions in support of free speech and the protection of outspoken journalists are the somber statistics on web censorship, repressive media laws, and persecution of media workers and bloggers in the region that gives a bleaker outlook for the future of IT Arabia.
The MENA remains one of the world’s most heavily censored regions, the report claims. Not only is web censorship on the rise but so is the number of bloggers and cyber-dissidents being jailed for their online activism.
“Our latest research results on Internet filtering and surveillance in the Middle East and North Africa confirm the growing use of next generation cyberspace controls beyond mere denial of information," said Ron Deibert, ONI Principal Investigator and Director of the Citizen Lab at the Munk Center for International Studies, University of Toronto. "The media environment of the Middle East and North Africa region is a battle-space where commercially-enhanced blocking, targeted surveillance, self-censorship, and intimidation compete with enhanced tools of censorship circumvention and mobile activism."
According to ONI’s most recent round of testing, Internet filtering across the region is increasing, both in terms of scope and depth. While political censorship tends to be the most common type of filtering, social filtering is becoming more prevalent, says the study.
The countries that practice the highest amount of political filtering are, according to the report, Iran, Bahrain, Syria and Tunisia. The “ social filters” can mainly be found in the Gulf and include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. They usually filter pornography, LGBT sites, and pages containing information on sexual health.
Recently, social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have caught the attention of these regimes, especially when it comes to activists in Arab countries who use these sites for political campaigning and social activism.
ONI says that the blocking of social networking sites remains commonplace in MENA. Syria and Tunisia both block YouTube and Facebook, and the photo-sharing site Flickr is filtered in Iran and the UAE. The UAE and Saudi Arabia censor certain YouTube videos but do not block the entire site.
The report also states that several Arab countries have started to block outspoken and “morally objectionable” content in Arabic that was previously accessible.
The countries that do not filter any sites at the moment are Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank, according to ONI testing.
However some of them do instead use surveillance software to keep an eye on the browsing habits of those using the Internet in public. In free-wheeling Lebanon, for example, a country whose citizens enjoy perhaps the greatest amount of freedoms compared to any other country in the region, some Internet café operators have apparently admitted to using surveillance software to monitor their clients in a bid to protect security or prevent them from accessing pornography. In Egypt, Internet café users must provide their names, phone numbers, and email addresses before using the Internet.
According to ONI, there has been an overall increase in the monitoring of Internet activities, particularly in Internet cafés, by the authorities in the past two years.
Nokia spy system
Most governments are supposedly not transparent about their censorship practices, confusing Internet users by displaying various different “error messages.” Such actions also stem from Western companies who, on the one hand, build IT infrastructure needed for development in the region and then also provide the filterers with technologies and data used to censor the web.
"Governments…. continue to disguise their political filtering, while acknowledging blocking of social content, and censors are catching up with increasing amounts of online content, in part by using filtering software developed by companies in the U.S,” said Helmi Noman, the OpenNet Initiative's Middle East and North Africa lead researcher.
Most recently, the leading mobile phone company Nokia found itself in the midst of a scandal when media reports surfaced about the company selling an electronic surveillance system to Iran, which human rights activists say can target political dissidents. The “monitoring center” was delivered to Irancell by the cell-phone giant and Germany’s Siemens. According to a Nokia spokesman it was sold to the Islamic Republic for "lawful intercept functionality,” a term supposedly used by the mobile-phone industry to refer to law enforcement's ability to intercept phones, read e-mails and monitor electronic data on communications networks.
Iranian journalist Issa Saharkhiz says he recently fell prey to Nokia’s spy system and claims he was arrested due to Nokia’s technology, with authorities using his Nokia cell phone to track him down and take him into custody.
Apart from heavy Internet filtering, MENA is also home to a series of repressive media laws. Earlier this spring, The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urged a radical change in the media laws in the region, claiming that the laws in most countries still permit the jailing of journalists for undermining the reputation of the state, the president, the monarch or religion.
These types of laws are often used to hinder reporting of corruption and government actions, according to ONI. Bloggers and cyber-dissidents have not been exempt from the region’s current hostile media environment; research conducted by the US-based press freedom watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, claims Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia are four of the worst countries in the world to be a blogger in.
Laws and regulations used to control access in MENA range from press and publication laws, to special emergency and anti-terrorism laws and Internet-specific telecommunication law decrees. Morocco, for example, uses its anti-terrorism legislation, passed following suicide bombings in Casablanca in 2003, to persecute journalists. The bill provides the authorities with sweeping legal powers to arrest journalists for publishing content deemed to “disrupt public order by intimidation, force, violence, fear or terror.”
So is there any good news at all? Well, even though “increased filtering is the rule and unblocking the exception,” as ONI puts it, there are a few highlights of the latter included in the report.
Syria, for example, has unblocked the Arabic-language version of Wikipedia, Morocco has lifted a ban on several pro-Western Sahara independence websites, and Libya has started to unblock previously filtered political sites. Meanwhile, Sudan has lessened its censorship of LGBT and dating sites since ONI’s last report.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Story of a wise Imam
As salam Alaikum wr br
A Wise Young Muslim Boy Many years ago, during the time of the Tâbi'în
(the
generation of Muslims after the Sahâbah), Baghdâd was a great city of
Islam.
In fact, it was the capital of the Islamic Empire and, because of the
great number of scholars who lived there, it was the center of Islamic
knowledge.
One day, the ruler of Rome at the time sent an envoy to Baghdad with
three
challenges for the Muslims. When the messenger reached the city, he
informed the khalîfah that he had three questions which he challenged
the
Muslims to answer.The khalîfah gathered together all the scholars of
the
city and the Roman messenger climbed upon a high platform and said,
"I
have come with three questions. If you answer them, then I will leave
with
you a great amount of wealth which I have brought from the king of
Rome."
As for the questions, they were: "What was there before Allâh?" "In
which
direction does Allâh face?" "What is Allâh engaged in at this
moment?"The
great assembly of people were silent. (Can you think of answers to
these
questions?) In the midst of these brilliant scholars and students of
Islam
was a man looking on with his young son. "O my dear father! I will
answer
him and silence him!" said the youth. So the boy sought the
permission of
the khalîfah to give the answers and he was given the permission to
do
so.The Roman addressed the young Muslim and repeated his first
question,
"What was there before Allâh?"The boy asked, "Do you know how to
count?""Yes," said the man."Then count down from ten!" So the Roman
counted down, "ten, nine, eight, ..." until he reached "one" and he
stopped counting"But what comes before 'one'?" asked the boy."There
is
nothing before one- that is it!" said the man.
"Well then, if there obviously is nothing before the arithmetic 'one',
then how do you expect that there should be anything before the 'One'
who
is Absolute Truth, All-Eternal, Everlasting the First, the Last, the
Manifest, the Hidden?"Now the man was surprised by this direct answer
which he could not dispute. So he asked, "Then tell me, in which
direction
is Allâh facing?""Bring a candle and light it," said the boy, "and
tell me
in which direction the flame is facing.""But the flame is just light-
it
spreads in each of the four directions,North, South, East and West. It
does not face any one direction only," said the man in wonderment.The
boy
cried, "Then if this physical light spreads in all four directions
such
that you cannot tell me which way it faces, then what do you expect of
the
Nûr-us-Samâwâti-wal-'Ard: Allâh - the Light of the Heavens and the
Earth!?
Light upon Light, Allâh faces all directions at all times.
"The Roman was stupified and astounded that here was a young child
answering his challenges in such a way that he could not argue
against the
proofs.
So, he desperately wanted to try his final question. But before doing
so,
the boy said,"Wait!
You are the one who is asking the questions and I am the one who is
giving
the answer to these challenges. It is only fair that you should come
down
to where I am standing and that I should go up where you are right
now, in
order that the answers may be heard as clearly as the questions."This
seemed reasonable to the Roman, so he came down from where he was
standing
and the boy ascended the platform. Then the man repeated his final
challenge, "Tell me, what is Allâh doing at this moment?"The boy
proudly
answered, "At this moment, when Allâh found upon this high platform a
liar
and mocker of Islam, He caused him to descend and brought him low. And
as
for the one who believed in the Oneness of Allâh, He raised him up and
established the Truth. Every day He exercises (universal) power (Surah
55
ar-Rahmân, Verse 29).
"The Roman had nothing to say except to leave and return back to his
country, defeated.
Meanwhile, this young boy grew up to become one of the most famous
scholars of Islam. Allâh, the Exalted, blessed him with special wisdom
and
knowledge of the deen. His name was Abu Hanîfah (rahmatullâh 'alayhi-
Allâh have mercy on him) and he is known today as Imâm-e-A'dham, the
Great
Imâm and scholar of Islam.
[Adapted into English from "Manâqib Abî Hanîfah" written by Imâm
Muwaffaq
Ibn Ahmad al-Makki (d. 568 Hijri). Dar al - Kitâb al-'Arabiy, Beirut,
1981/1401H.]Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa - by Dr. G.F. HaddadLife of
Imam
Abu Hanifa No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG -
www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 -
Release
Date:
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For you are the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. (Al Qur'an 2:127)
__________________________________________________________________
A Wise Young Muslim Boy Many years ago, during the time of the Tâbi'în
(the
generation of Muslims after the Sahâbah), Baghdâd was a great city of
Islam.
In fact, it was the capital of the Islamic Empire and, because of the
great number of scholars who lived there, it was the center of Islamic
knowledge.
One day, the ruler of Rome at the time sent an envoy to Baghdad with
three
challenges for the Muslims. When the messenger reached the city, he
informed the khalîfah that he had three questions which he challenged
the
Muslims to answer.The khalîfah gathered together all the scholars of
the
city and the Roman messenger climbed upon a high platform and said,
"I
have come with three questions. If you answer them, then I will leave
with
you a great amount of wealth which I have brought from the king of
Rome."
As for the questions, they were: "What was there before Allâh?" "In
which
direction does Allâh face?" "What is Allâh engaged in at this
moment?"The
great assembly of people were silent. (Can you think of answers to
these
questions?) In the midst of these brilliant scholars and students of
Islam
was a man looking on with his young son. "O my dear father! I will
answer
him and silence him!" said the youth. So the boy sought the
permission of
the khalîfah to give the answers and he was given the permission to
do
so.The Roman addressed the young Muslim and repeated his first
question,
"What was there before Allâh?"The boy asked, "Do you know how to
count?""Yes," said the man."Then count down from ten!" So the Roman
counted down, "ten, nine, eight, ..." until he reached "one" and he
stopped counting"But what comes before 'one'?" asked the boy."There
is
nothing before one- that is it!" said the man.
"Well then, if there obviously is nothing before the arithmetic 'one',
then how do you expect that there should be anything before the 'One'
who
is Absolute Truth, All-Eternal, Everlasting the First, the Last, the
Manifest, the Hidden?"Now the man was surprised by this direct answer
which he could not dispute. So he asked, "Then tell me, in which
direction
is Allâh facing?""Bring a candle and light it," said the boy, "and
tell me
in which direction the flame is facing.""But the flame is just light-
it
spreads in each of the four directions,North, South, East and West. It
does not face any one direction only," said the man in wonderment.The
boy
cried, "Then if this physical light spreads in all four directions
such
that you cannot tell me which way it faces, then what do you expect of
the
Nûr-us-Samâwâti-wal-'Ard: Allâh - the Light of the Heavens and the
Earth!?
Light upon Light, Allâh faces all directions at all times.
"The Roman was stupified and astounded that here was a young child
answering his challenges in such a way that he could not argue
against the
proofs.
So, he desperately wanted to try his final question. But before doing
so,
the boy said,"Wait!
You are the one who is asking the questions and I am the one who is
giving
the answer to these challenges. It is only fair that you should come
down
to where I am standing and that I should go up where you are right
now, in
order that the answers may be heard as clearly as the questions."This
seemed reasonable to the Roman, so he came down from where he was
standing
and the boy ascended the platform. Then the man repeated his final
challenge, "Tell me, what is Allâh doing at this moment?"The boy
proudly
answered, "At this moment, when Allâh found upon this high platform a
liar
and mocker of Islam, He caused him to descend and brought him low. And
as
for the one who believed in the Oneness of Allâh, He raised him up and
established the Truth. Every day He exercises (universal) power (Surah
55
ar-Rahmân, Verse 29).
"The Roman had nothing to say except to leave and return back to his
country, defeated.
Meanwhile, this young boy grew up to become one of the most famous
scholars of Islam. Allâh, the Exalted, blessed him with special wisdom
and
knowledge of the deen. His name was Abu Hanîfah (rahmatullâh 'alayhi-
Allâh have mercy on him) and he is known today as Imâm-e-A'dham, the
Great
Imâm and scholar of Islam.
[Adapted into English from "Manâqib Abî Hanîfah" written by Imâm
Muwaffaq
Ibn Ahmad al-Makki (d. 568 Hijri). Dar al - Kitâb al-'Arabiy, Beirut,
1981/1401H.]Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa - by Dr. G.F. HaddadLife of
Imam
Abu Hanifa No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG -
www.avg.comVersion: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 -
Release
Date:
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For you are the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. (Al Qur'an 2:127)
__________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Muslim Women, Domestic Violence and the Role of Education and Awareness Programs
By Altaf Husain
Imagine not knowing anything about Muslims except that they are sponsors of terrorism and that they are usually Arabs. With regards to women, the stories are even bleaker. They show that Muslims oppress their women, that they arbitrarily marry more than one wife and that their view of women is demeaning enough to condone honor killings. Sound a bit like the evening news? One can ask oneself just how much positive information is ever presented about Muslim women or the family structure in Islam?
A majority of the news about Muslims in North America rarely seems to be produced from an educational or informative point of view. Rather, the public is given unhealthy doses of sensational and unrepresentative stories about incidences of domestic violence, honor killings and child abuse in the Muslim community. What the media fails to mention is that among the six to eight million Muslims in North America, abuse is rare. There is no doubt that we have our problems. However, our problems are the exception and not, as the news media seem to present it, the rule. Even less is mentioned in the media about the efforts of the Muslim community in North American to address issues related to social services with children, youth, and the family.
Ironically, one of the most positive aspects of Islamic law is the freedom, honor and prestige it assigns to Muslim women regardless of their race, nationality or socioeconomic status. No other religion or ideology can parallel the high regard that Islam has for women. For example,
Two Nigerian women in school.
the truth about the modest head covering (the hijab) may be shocking to the average person unfamiliar with Islam. Muslim women do not consider themselves oppressed because they have to wear modest clothing and to cover their hair. On this point of Islamically prescribed clothing, a Muslim woman rarely considers it a factor limiting her personal growth. Indeed, given the vastly important role ascribed to women in Islam, it seems rather shallow to only limit the discussion to what kind of clothing they wear. Even a simple survey would reveal a surprisingly high number of Muslim women who are educated and involved in professional careers. Of course, much like in the larger American society, there are also many Muslim women who despite possessing degrees in higher education are choosing to stay at home despite possessing degrees in higher education. These women are choosing to do this in order to devote more time to their children and families.
Furthermore, the Muslim community in North America owes its tremendous growth and vitality to the adaptive abilities and resilience of our women. As a community of immigrants and new American entrants into Islam, we have relied heavily on Muslim women to help in all aspects of professional and community life. It is worth reiterating that the Quran in no way condones or tolerates the abuse of one human being by another and especially not the abuse of women. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stressed to his companions that the best among them in stature would be the one who is the best in his dealings and treatment of his wife. If there is so much to be appreciated about the Muslim women, what leads to the incidences of domestic violence or any other problem involving maltreatment and abuse of women? How prevalent is the problem?
Addressing Abuse in the Muslim Community
The Muslim community needs to make great strides towards the establishment of local social service providers. In addition, the community must undertake several measures to gather more information about the incidences of domestic violence and other forms of abuse in which women are the victims. In general, documenting cases of abuse possesses several challenges to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Women experience intense feelings of guilt and shame assuming that their actions perpetrated the abuse. Some women fear that reporting the abuse may bring harm to the abuser. The result in either case is that women rarely report cases of abuse. Further efforts are necessary to educate women about abuse and to increase their awareness about the availability of professional help. Such efforts may lead to greater self-reporting cases of abuse.
Role of Muslim Human Service Professionals
Similarly, Muslim human service professionals need to educate the entire Muslim community about abuse and about the negative consequences of abuse on the mental and emotional health of the women involved. Efforts in major cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto and Winnipeg are beginning to address domestic violence issues. More work is needed. Increased funding and support from government and foundation grants must be sought to sponsor educational and awareness programs. Overall, the pioneering efforts of human service professionals in some of the major cities deserve support from both the public and the private sectors. The abuse of women in any form tears the social fabric that binds together not only families but also communities in general. The Muslim community is very much concerned about the incidences of abuse and violence that occur in all families and especially in Muslim families. The media and policy makers must convince themselves that abuse is neither condoned nor tolerated in Islam. Finally, the Muslim community needs to take additional steps to increase the awareness of Muslim women about abuse and the availability of resources to address the mental and emotional health concerns arising from abuse.
Altaf Husainis a social worker in the United States and has been a contributing writer to IslamOnline since its inception.
Imagine not knowing anything about Muslims except that they are sponsors of terrorism and that they are usually Arabs. With regards to women, the stories are even bleaker. They show that Muslims oppress their women, that they arbitrarily marry more than one wife and that their view of women is demeaning enough to condone honor killings. Sound a bit like the evening news? One can ask oneself just how much positive information is ever presented about Muslim women or the family structure in Islam?
A majority of the news about Muslims in North America rarely seems to be produced from an educational or informative point of view. Rather, the public is given unhealthy doses of sensational and unrepresentative stories about incidences of domestic violence, honor killings and child abuse in the Muslim community. What the media fails to mention is that among the six to eight million Muslims in North America, abuse is rare. There is no doubt that we have our problems. However, our problems are the exception and not, as the news media seem to present it, the rule. Even less is mentioned in the media about the efforts of the Muslim community in North American to address issues related to social services with children, youth, and the family.
Ironically, one of the most positive aspects of Islamic law is the freedom, honor and prestige it assigns to Muslim women regardless of their race, nationality or socioeconomic status. No other religion or ideology can parallel the high regard that Islam has for women. For example,
Two Nigerian women in school.
the truth about the modest head covering (the hijab) may be shocking to the average person unfamiliar with Islam. Muslim women do not consider themselves oppressed because they have to wear modest clothing and to cover their hair. On this point of Islamically prescribed clothing, a Muslim woman rarely considers it a factor limiting her personal growth. Indeed, given the vastly important role ascribed to women in Islam, it seems rather shallow to only limit the discussion to what kind of clothing they wear. Even a simple survey would reveal a surprisingly high number of Muslim women who are educated and involved in professional careers. Of course, much like in the larger American society, there are also many Muslim women who despite possessing degrees in higher education are choosing to stay at home despite possessing degrees in higher education. These women are choosing to do this in order to devote more time to their children and families.
Furthermore, the Muslim community in North America owes its tremendous growth and vitality to the adaptive abilities and resilience of our women. As a community of immigrants and new American entrants into Islam, we have relied heavily on Muslim women to help in all aspects of professional and community life. It is worth reiterating that the Quran in no way condones or tolerates the abuse of one human being by another and especially not the abuse of women. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stressed to his companions that the best among them in stature would be the one who is the best in his dealings and treatment of his wife. If there is so much to be appreciated about the Muslim women, what leads to the incidences of domestic violence or any other problem involving maltreatment and abuse of women? How prevalent is the problem?
Addressing Abuse in the Muslim Community
The Muslim community needs to make great strides towards the establishment of local social service providers. In addition, the community must undertake several measures to gather more information about the incidences of domestic violence and other forms of abuse in which women are the victims. In general, documenting cases of abuse possesses several challenges to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Women experience intense feelings of guilt and shame assuming that their actions perpetrated the abuse. Some women fear that reporting the abuse may bring harm to the abuser. The result in either case is that women rarely report cases of abuse. Further efforts are necessary to educate women about abuse and to increase their awareness about the availability of professional help. Such efforts may lead to greater self-reporting cases of abuse.
Role of Muslim Human Service Professionals
Similarly, Muslim human service professionals need to educate the entire Muslim community about abuse and about the negative consequences of abuse on the mental and emotional health of the women involved. Efforts in major cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto and Winnipeg are beginning to address domestic violence issues. More work is needed. Increased funding and support from government and foundation grants must be sought to sponsor educational and awareness programs. Overall, the pioneering efforts of human service professionals in some of the major cities deserve support from both the public and the private sectors. The abuse of women in any form tears the social fabric that binds together not only families but also communities in general. The Muslim community is very much concerned about the incidences of abuse and violence that occur in all families and especially in Muslim families. The media and policy makers must convince themselves that abuse is neither condoned nor tolerated in Islam. Finally, the Muslim community needs to take additional steps to increase the awareness of Muslim women about abuse and the availability of resources to address the mental and emotional health concerns arising from abuse.
Altaf Husainis a social worker in the United States and has been a contributing writer to IslamOnline since its inception.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Muslims...The Importance of Manners ....Bukhari's Book of Manners #360, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Hakim
The Importance of Manners
________________________________________
...Abu Darda' reported that the Prophet of Allah, upon him be peace, said,
"Nothing is weightier on the Scale of Deeds than one's good manners."
Bukhari's Book of Manners #271, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Ibn Hibban.
________________________________________
Abu Huraira, r.a., said,
"I heard Abu al Qasim (the Prophet), say, 'The best among you in Islam are those with the best manners, so long as they develop a sense of understanding.' "
Bukhari's Book of Manners #286 and Ahmad
________________________________________
The Prophet (saaws) said:
"The most beloved of Allah's servants to Allah are those with the best manners."
At-Tabaraanee collected it, and Albani authenticated it in Silsilatul-AHaadeethis-Saheehah (#432).
________________________________________
... 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr said,
"The Prophet of Allah was never obscene or coarse. Rather, he used to tell us that the best among us were those with the best manners."
Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi
________________________________________
... Anas said,
"I served the Prophet of Allah for ten years. During that time, he never once said to me as much as 'Oof' if I did something wrong. He never asked me, if I had failed to do something, 'Why did you not do it?,' and he never said to me, if I had done something wrong, 'Why did you do it?' "
Sahih Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad
________________________________________
... Abu Huraira, r.a., said that the Prophet of Allah said,
"If one has good manners, one may attain the same level of merit as those who spend their nights in prayer."
Bukhari's Book of Manners # 285, Hakim, and Abu Dawud
________________________________________
... Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet of Allah said,
"And what is most likely to send people to Paradise? Being conscious of Allah and good manners."
Bukhari's Book of Manners # 290, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad
________________________________________
... Nawas ibn Sam'an reported
that the Prophet of Allah was asked about doing good and evil. He replied, "Doing good is having good manners. Doing evil is what troubles you inside and what you would not like others to know about."
Bukhari's Book of Manners # 296, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Darimi, Abu 'Awanah, Hakim, and Ibn Hibban.
________________________________________
The Prophet of Allah said,
"He who does not show mercy to our young or show esteem for our elders is not one of us."
Bukhari's Book of Manners #360, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Hakim
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Recession: When casino economy meets real economy
Falling economic activity in one or more industries or sectors is not uncommon even during more general periods of sustained economic growth. As an example manufacturing employment in the UK fell from 4.5 million to 3.2 million (1) between 1997 and 2007 - a 10 year period over which UK-wide economic growth rose by a robust 3% per annum on average in real terms (2).
It is however rare for a sub sector to cause the whole economy to go into recession. However, this is exactly what’s happened during the current financial crisis and subsequent recession. The collapse of high risk ‘sub-prime’ lending in the USA exposed the fragility and global interdependence of financial markets.The failure of this specific area of finance initiated a chain reaction that resulted in, until recently, highly profitable century-old global financial institutions filing for bankruptcy, sometimes, overnight. In the UK, Northern Rock, a bank from the North East of England, went bankrupt, after which other banks were kept afloat only as a result of Government bail-outs and guarantees.With domestic and international financial sectors in turmoil, the many heavily indebted businesses found it difficult to raise funds while debt-ridden individuals could no longer afford to borrow to finance unsustainable consumption levels.The subsequent fall in demand for consumer goods led to production cut-backs and rising unemployment. In the fourth quarter of 2008 the UK economy was officially in recession - defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. This is how the casino financial economy initiated and caused a devastating recession in the real economy.
DEBT FUELLED GROWTH
The finance sector (comprising mainly of banking, finance and insurance industries) has grown in significance in the last decade.While the manufacturing sector was in terminal decline, jobs in finance grew from 5 million to 6.6 million between 1997 and 2007 (1), accounting for 1 in 5 of all jobs in the UK. It is no coincidence that debt levels over this period also surged.
Britain’s total debt exploded during the economic boom.The total debt owed by government, businesses and individuals - commonly known as gross external debt - rose from 1.7 trillion in 1997 to £5.7 trillion in 2007, an increase of 238% (3). It was this astounding growth in debt from all sections of society that propelled continuous economic growth over the last decade.At the end of 2007, Britain’s total external debt stood at over 400% of GDP (the total value of goods and services produced by the UK) of approximately £1.5 trillion per annum. That’s equivalent to a debt of £94,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Indeed, this was in 2007 before the onset of the financial crisis and the bank bail-outs which have been largely funded by government borrowing. Given the estimated £1.5 trillion in new government debt to prop up banks during 2008 (4) UK debt per capita is estimated to comfortably exceed £100,000.
Household spending, which accounts for two thirds of all expenditure in the UK economy, was financed by cheap and easy credit following the deregulation of banking during the 1980s.When people ran out of income and savings to buy Banks encouraged the spending binge by offering ever greater credit to ever more riskier debtors. Banks made huge profits, with bankers earning colossal bonuses, and justified such lending arguing their new business models had diversified debtor risk by packaging riskier debt in the form of collateralised debt obligations (or CDO’s) and other such instruments. Governments encouraged these ‘gambling’ practices, no doubt allured by the prospects of greater tax revenues from the extraordinary profit-making banking sector and the not coincidental simultaneous property and asset booms, by further loosening banking regulation 5) to accommodate new banking ‘business models’
BANKING - THE FALSE ECONOMY
Bust followed boom in common with the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as asset bubbles (over priced property and share values) burst. However unlike the recent recessions, but not for the first time, the recession was associated with a collapse in the financial sector.
So-called financial assets like CDO’s, mortgaged debt obligation, and credit default swaps could not find willing buyers and proved to be effectively worthless, resulting in huge shortfalls in bank balance sheets.The previously acclaimed highly efficient banking business model proved unworkable as credit become scarce (liquidity crisis) when banks stopped lending to one another because each was protecting its own assets and no one trusted the value of the collateral they previously lauded. Banks worth multi-billions of dollars in market capitalisation filed for bankruptcy overnight as share values fell when investors realised the false and hollow nature of banking assets.This had a negative feedback effect as banking stocks and shares were the very ‘assets’ that the financial sector relied upon to prop up company balance sheets and so market capitalisation was further undermined.Together these events precipitated a systemic collapse of the whole interdependent financial system. More banks teetered on the edge of collapse. Free market economists, capitalist thinkers and political commentators paradoxically yet vociferously argued ‘banks were too big to fail’ implying the ramifications of banking failures were too monstrous to imagine.The government obliged their friends and close allies in banking and committed trillions of tax payer money to fully bailing-out the banking sector using loans, government guarantees and the buying up of so-called toxic (worthless) banking assets despite undermining competitiveness in the sector and encouraging banks to behave even more recklessly.
The financial sector had epitomised capitalism in terms of values, culture, policies and outlook more than any other sector in the economy.The systemic and fatal collapse of finance was thus a clear and damning indictment of capitalism itself.
FINANCE AND THE REAL ECONOMY
With the finance sector barely able to stand on its own feet how was it to continue to fuel the debt ridden economy. Despite central banks individually and collectively lowering interest rates (the cost of capital or borrowing) and pumping trillions of public money into the financial market to kick start lending, banks simply hoarded the funds to cover for their worthless collateralised assets which severely depleted their balance sheets. Businesses and households that had relied on borrowing to fund their spending, found credit more difficult to access. Since credit was fuelling economic growth this directly impacted on the real economy as spending on goods and services dropped, prices fell, and with it company profitability, thereby forcing businesses to cut back production and staff.
The biggest falls in economic activity have been in consumer goods: cars and ‘white goods’ such as washing machines and fridges.These are primarily financed by credit and in recent years loan agreements have been designed to be more manageable and more readily available to entice an ever greater number of households to continue to buy what they don’t need so that companies can maintain high and more profitable production growth schedules. Though this model of capitalist economic growth is clearly unsustainable, it has devastating consequences, as it causes a downward negative economic spiral.When production falls unemployment rises which in turn causes lower spending on goods and services, lower production and more unemployment.The economic decline quickly becomes more widespread and more prevailing, generating its own negative momentum. At the start of 2009 unemployment in the UK officially rose to 2 million and is forecast to rise to 3 million before the end of the year.The UK economy is presently forecast to contract by 3% in 2009 and remain in decline in 2010. These are probably optimistic forecasts given that official forecasts have been downgraded several times already since the start of the crisis.
HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECESSIONARY CRISIS
Capitalists view recessions in cold and calculated terms quantifying only the loss (destruction) of wealth and property - the number of jobs lost and business closures. However, recessions have huge social as well as economic consequences. Presently, unemployment is rising throughout the UK, across all sectors and industries.A loss of livelihood has huge ramifications for individuals, families, communities and society at large. Some communities will be blighted for decades as in previous recessions - for example coal mining communities remain largely ruined from the recession in the 1980s .Tens of thousands of families unable to pay their debts have already lost their homes and possessions. Some have even committed suicide unable to bear the consequences of their debts and a loss of livelihood. Job insecurity exists even among those who are still employed who fear that they may be next to be made redundant. During recessions government tax receipts drop while expenditure rises due to benefit payments to the unemployed and poor. Central and local government claw back funding from elsewhere by cutting back expenditure on schools and hospitals, assistance for the elderly and help for the weak and vulnerable - for example cut backs in local meals-on-wheels for the elderly and less funding for local libraries. Economically strained times lead to increasing demands on public services like police and hospitals from accelerating crime and rising stress levels and a general physical and mental deterioration in health. Family relationships tend to strain during recessionary times with potentially painful and lasting impacts on children. Thus recessions spread insecurity and instability contributing to a plethora of social ills.
ISLAM’S ECONOMIC APPROACH
In Islam the success of the economy is not judged by the size of GDP. High GDP in the UK, equating to income per head of £24,000 per annum, among the highest in the world, conceals the heavily debt ridden economy. Importantly, GDP or income per head says little about the distribution of wealth.This is exemplified by the fact that according to government data nearly 3 million children in the UK live in relative poverty (6) in spite of high GDP levels and growth rates.
In contrast to Capitalism, the success of the economic model in Islam is judged by its ability to secure the satisfaction of the basic needs of every citizen.
Bukhari narrated from Ibn Umar:The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said: “The Imam is in charge (ra’i) and he is responsible for his citizens.”
The Prophet (saw) also said: “Do you have, son of Adam, of your property except that which you ate and consumed, that which you wore and exhausted, and that which you donated and kept (for yourself)?”
Islam’s focus is on the real economy which is the wealth creating aspect of any economy. Finance in Islam is not an end in itself as there is no interest (Riba). “That is because they say: “Trading is only like Riba,” whereas Allah has permitted trading and forbidden Riba” [Surah al-Baqarah]
While finance plays an important role in business and economics in Islam it is exclusively (6) in the context of partnerships where the financial contributing partner(s) are involved with the ‘body’ (those running the day to day business) partners aiming to generate a profit from their business activities or sharing the loss if the business fails.
In contrast to capitalism, finance in Islam is intrinsically tied to the real economy and does not become an industry in itself.This eliminates the potential for generating self-destructive financial instruments that have been so pivotal in the collapse of the capitalist financial sector.
The prohibition of interest works in tandem with the ruling that the monetary unit in Islam is effectively the gold and silver standard and this prohibits credit creation.Thus the monetary base of the economy in Islam changes only with growth in the real economy through the creation of wealth or increase in productivity.This minimises inflationary pressures; provides economic stability and ensures sustainable growth without the destructive boom and bust cycle.
CONCLUSION
Capitalism’s flaws and systemic failures have been clearly exposed by the current crisis.The capitalist economic model, therefore, does not deserve to be emulated by the Muslim world. By contrast, the Islamic ideology and rulings provide real practical solutions to the economic problems of the day.The Islamic economic system with its focus on the real (not financial) economy has withstood the test of time, and with the money supply tied to gold and silver provides a model of sustainable and responsible growth, with distribution of the nations wealth at its core.
Notes:
1. Workforce jobs by industry : United Kingdom: Thousands: Seasonally adjusted http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=495&More=N&All=Y
2. GVA at Basic Prices, Seasonally adjusted http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/TSDdownload2.asp
3. Pink Book http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/TSDSelection1.asp
4. Business.scotsman.com http://business.scotsman.com/lloydstsb/Banks--add--1.5000273.jp
5. Basel II Banking Accords
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6497981.stm
7. Muslims are allowed to borrow and lend money without interest only
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Notes About Muslimah's Rights
"NIQAB" IS NOT MANDATORY
While identifying the parts of a woman’s body which should be covered, the Qur’an also gives us evidence to refute the claim of those who associate "Niqab" (Veils, face covers) as an ingredient of a women’s dress code ordained by Allah.
THE EXAMPLE OF MARY
Mary the mother of Jesus (p) is mentioned in the Qur'an as the woman chosen and purified above all the women of all the worlds.
"And when the angels said: O Mary! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of all the worlds." (3:42)
She has been called as an example for the believers and her conduct is called to exemplify:
"And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe . . . Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Sustainer and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones. (66:11-12)
In observing her behavior mentioned in the Qur'an, we see that as she appears from seclusion with young Jesus, her people recognised her. Now had she been wearing a "Niqab" to cover her face, her people would not have identified her immediately as she had appeared from seclusion. This informs us that she was not covering her face i.e. not wearing a "Niqab", as mentioned in the following verses:
"And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They (having recognized her) said: ‘O Mary! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroon! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.’ But she pointed to him. They said: ‘How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?’ He (Jesus) said: ‘Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet." (19:27-30)
Mary's recognition by her people indicates that she was not wearing a "Niqab" to protect her face from being seen.
In the Qur'an there is further evidence which negates the practice of wearing "Niqab". After Allah informs Nabi (SAW) about marriage with certain relations He further reminds:
"It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things." (33:52)
In the above verse it is clearly mentioned that Nabi (SAW) was also in a position to see the "Husn" i.e. Beauty of women and this clearly establishes that women not related to the Prophet did not wear "Niqab" or veils to cover their faces when they used to appear in front of him. We must realize that attributing anything to Allah which He has not ordained is a very serious action on our part. Allah has informed us through His messenger that attributing anything to Allah which He did not made as an obligation is "haraam" i.e Forbidden, as the following verse states:
"Say: Surely my Sustainer has prohibited (made haraam) indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know." (7:33)
"Niqab" has not been made mandatory by any verse of the Qur’an, it is a cultural practice of pagan tribes and unbelievers. The Qur’an also identifies unbelievers who used to cover them selves up with their garments. Allah informs us through Noah:
"And whenever I have called them that Thou mayest forgive them, they put their fingers in their ears, cover themselves with their garments, and persist and are puffed up with pride." (71:7)
We should strive to in-form and re-form our selves through Qur’anic guidance.
CAN WOMEN TALK TO MEN TO WHOM THEY ARE NOT RELATED (NOT MARRIED) ? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ?
In the Qur'an we have the example of Moses (p) as he is shown to hold a conversation with two women who are not married to him yet. This conversation clearly indicates that women can talk to men who are not related to them, provided it is for important tasks only and not complacent speech, as complacency in speech is not allowed by verse 33:32. The following verses identify the conversation of Moses with the two women who are not related to him.
"And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man. So he watered (their sheep) for them, then went back to the shade and said: My Sustainer! surely I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me. Then one of the two women came to him walking bashfully. She said: My father invites you that he may give you the reward of your having watered for us. So when he came to him and gave to him the account, he said: Fear not, you are secure from the unjust people." (28:23-25)
The above example which depicts the conversation of a messenger of Allah with two un-married girls is a clear indicator that women can talk with men who are unrelated to them provided it is for important tasks and is done within the limits ordained by Allah.
In talking with un related men or strangers the believing women are informed about the type of behaviour they should maintain. Allah informs us through the Nabi:
"O Women of the Nabi! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a recognised utterence." (33:32)
With unrelated men, a woman may engage in a conversation but it should be within the limits ordained by the divine code and should not be directed as complacent speech.
ARE MEN A DEGREE ABOVE WOMEN?
People having a narrow look at the guidance of Allah’s Book, are often seen intimating that men are superiour to women. They back up this statement just by a portion of verse 2:228 of Sura Al-Baqara, and do not present the whole context, but rather reach this short sighted conclusion and imply that Islam maintains the superiority of men against women. It is an irony that the very verse which equates rights and obligations of gender is usually quoted to say that men are superior to women. What they fail to realize is that in matters of biological construction men and women are different and have certain rights related to that aspect (i.e. maternity leaves are for women, not men) but apart from biological disposition, both men and women are equal according to Qur’an and both are equally capable and responsible for developing those qualities in themselves which the Qur’an has said are essential for believers. The Qur’an says:
"..And they (women) shall have rights similar to the rights against them in a just manner.." (2:228)
In other words, for every responsibility given to them, they acquire a right. This is the equality they have been granted. Thus men and women have same rights as each other. The above verse continues to say:
"..and they have rights similar to the rights against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them.." (2:228)
It would be contradictory to conclude from the statement: "li Rijaale alayhenaa darja" "men are a degree above them" that men are superior to women, as at one hand the verse says that women and men have rights similar to each other, and the implication that men are superior, will contradict this impression.. One gender cannot be superior to another if their rights and obligations are equal. The word used by the Quran is "Daraja" meaning "degree". This "degree" can be understood easily by reviewing the whole verse. The context of this verse informs us that it deals with the conditions attached to remarriage after divorce. The verse is:
"And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise." (2:228)
The context of the verse makes it clear that Divorcees should refrain (from remarriage) for three menstrual cycles, so that whatever has been created by Allah becomes pronounced etc, then it goes on to say that men have one advantage. This advantage given to men is that they can remarry right away and women have to wait almost three months, or more if found to be pregnant, before they can re-marry). Obviously, an advantage in a peculiar situation does not mean one is superior than the other. It is only for this reason only that men have one degree above women, because of their biological construction they do not have to wait for a stated period ("Iddat") for the purpose of getting married again upon divorce or if their spouse dies. Only in the matter of "Iddat", that men have a degree higher than women, but apart from this both have equal rights.
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE EDUCATION
The Qur’an has stated that the acquisition of education is compulsory for all the believers. About the messenger it is stated that he taught the Book of Allah to his audience, which included men as well as women:
"He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca a messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and provides development to their personalities, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error." (62:2)
For imparting knowledge, no fee was charged:
"Say: I do not ask you any reward except that any who wills, may take the way to his Sustainer." (25:57)
In the acquisition of knowledge, women are also included, as the wives of the Nabi (S.A.W) were commanded:
"And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware." (33:34)
Thus the Qur’an has stipulated that women should also be educated and trained to know the realities of life.
RIGHT OF EXPRESSION
The Qur’an informs us that women in a Qur’anic society not only have the right to express themselves freely but she is in such a position that she may even argue and hold discussions with the head of the community. The messenger of Allah (p) who was not only the divine emissary to his people but also the first head of the Islamic state, gave so much freedom in society that the people, including women were in a position to argue with him. The Qur’an records this in the Sura titled "Al-Mujadilah" (the title of the Sura itself means "the woman who argues"). We are informed:
"Allah indeed knows the plea of her who argues with you (O messenger) about her husband and complains to Allah, and Allah knows the contentions of both of you; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing." (58:1)
Women are also to take an active part in public life. In Sura Al-Mumtahina we are informed of their public allegiance to the Prophet (See 60:12). Along with men, women were also included in these public discussions with the office bearers of the Islamic state: (See 60:10).
MARRIAGE
For the subject of marriage, the Qur’an has provided detailed guidance. We are told that marriage is the name of a contract between consenting adults who are believers in the divine values. It is clarified that women cannot be forced to get married and thus they have the right to express their will. The following verse tells us:
"O you who believe! You are FORBIDDEN to inherit women AGAINST THEIR WILL. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them -except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good." (4:19)
In Sura An-Nisa, the believing man is also given the permission to marry women of his choice,thus he too can excersize his free will.As reminded;
"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,so Marry women of YOUR CHOICE two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one." (4:3)
Thus both believing women as well as men have been given the right to have a say in their marriage,ie women cannot be married forcefully and men also have been given the right to marry women of their choice, as the expression in Arabic reads, "fankihu maa ta'aba lakum" (4:3)
Then again in (4:21), regarding marriage it is stated that women have taken a 'meesaq' (contract) from men;
"And how could you take it when you have gone in unto each other and they (Your wives) have Taken from you a solemn covenant? <.meesaq'an ghaliza>"(4:21)
A contract or covenant ( "meesaq" in Arabic) requires the free consent of both parties in agreeing to that contract.
An agreement in which a person is forced to do something against his/her will does not constitute a "meesaq". If the woman has been forced into getting married or the will of the man has been manipulated by coercion then such an agreement does not become a contract or "meesaq". Thus for a contract of marriage to come about, both parties, i.e. the man as well as the woman have to use their free will in coming to terms and agreeing to live the rest of their lives with each other. If out of these two any one is forced or does not have their free will involved then such would not constitute a "meesaq".
HUSBAND-WIFE RELATIONS
The main purpose of maintaining relations as a married couple is that love, compassion, and tranquility should develop between man and woman. In this way they live a life of harmony and become a source of solace to each other. The Qur’an says:
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect." (30:21)
The Qur’an has used the Arabic word "Zawj" for the husband-wife pair. This is an Arabic word which means such a pair which is complimentary to each other, and with the absence of one of its halves the other gets incomplete. Therefore the husband and wife should be as such that they provide fulfillment to each others personality and become a source of nourishment for each other. Thus the husband-wife relationship is not that of a boss and his servant, but one of mutual companionship and comradeship. To bring about such compatibility, it is essential that man and woman have a unified outlook of life and maintain a coordinated stance for various matters. Such a life, in which the life-partners are in harmony with each other will definitely be a life of exhilaration, and situations where people of conflicting tastes, views and ideologies are bound together, may result in kindling the fires of discontentment. That is why the Qur’an has stated that believers should be paired with like minded persons only, as otherwise if they selected spouses from the opposing camps, then that would cause discord. Thus we are reminded:
"And do not marry 'Mushrik' Women until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an 'Mushrik' woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to 'Mushrik' men until they believe, and certainly a believing servant is better than a 'Mushrik' man, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His revelations to mankind, that they may be mindful." (2:221)
The Qur’an has likened the husband and wife pair as "Garments" to each other, signifying the type of relations a Believing couple maintains:
"..They (your wives) are your garments and ye are their garments.." (2:187)
Thus as nothing comes between us and our garments, then such should be the outlook that believers are to maintain towards their spouses. A garment also protects us from the variation of climate and guards our shame, similarly a couple which considers the divine values as guidance for life, should protect each other from the harmful effects of society and guard each others weaknesses. The Believers are instructed that they should treat their spouses with mercy and compassion and should not be harsh on them, even though something about their wives may seem displeasing to them:
"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should inherit women forcefully. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them , unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it." (4:19)
HOOR
One of the objections raised against Islam is that it informs us of some beautiful maidens known as "Hoor" which will be reserved for the men of paradise as objects of luxury. Quite often, the Clergy, under the influence of the literature which was compiled and authenticated in those days when true Quranic government of Muslims was overtaken by that of the despotic rule of Monarchs and Theocracy, characterizes some verses of the Qur’an where the word "Hoor" occurs, to be as such.
However, it should be understood that the Arabic word "Hoor" which occurs four times in the Qur’an is plural of "Ahwar" which is for the masculine gender and "Hawrau" which is for the feminine gender.
Thus the word "Hoor" is not restricted to the female gender only, but represents both men as well as women. Its basic meaning is the whiteness of the eye, and also signifies a clean and pure intellect of a person, free from vile intentions. (cf.: Lane, Qamus. Asad-"The Message of the Qur’an").
From this word also comes the word "Al-Hawariyun" which has been used in the Qur’an for the disciples of Jesus Christ (p), as they were persons having purified souls.
In the Qur’an, where it is mentioned for the believers in a state of heaven:
"..and We shall pair them with companions of pure eyes.." (52:20)
Then it does not imply a relationship as a husband and wife, but simply means that in "Jannah" the believers will have companions of pure intellect, which will include, men as well as women.
INGREDIENTS OF WOMENS DRESS IN PUBLIC
The areas of body which are to be covered by women in public, are mentioned in 24:31. Allah informs us through His messenger:
"And say to the Believing Women, to lower their gaze and guard their private parts. And they should not display their adornment save what is apparent therefrom. And they should place their covers over their bossoms. And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or their brother's sons or sister's sons` or their women or those whom their right hands posses or those under their authority other than skillfull men or small children who are not aware of women's nakedness. And they should not strike their feet so as to make known what they hide of their adornment. O Believers turn you all together to Allah so that you may be successful."(24:31)
From the above verse the following points are derived:
1. Women have two types of "zeenah" i.e. beauty and adornment.
(a) "ma zahara minha" What is already apparent from their adornment and beauty.
(b) "ma yukhfaina min zinata hunne" That which is hidden from their adornment.
2. She is to cover her whole self publicly except those areas which are apparent from her adornment. These areas are the exposed areas which if covered will restrict daily work and have to be uncovered for performing ablution. (see 5:6). The other type of or adornment of a woman identified in the above verse is that which has been called as "ma yukhfaina min zinata hunne" That which is hidden from their adornment. This type of adornment is the one which becomes apparent when a woman strikes her feet or walks. Allah has ordered that this type of adornment be covered at all times. Thus the dress should be loose enough so as not to reveal the shape and features of the body which get obvious when the woman strikes her feet or walks.
3. They are to place their covers or shrouds over their bosoms. In Sura 33:59 they are also ordered to bring over them their over garments while going in public:
"O Nabi! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they bring their over-garments nearer to themselves (while in public); this will be more proper, that they may be recognised, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (33:59)
In public she is to take "Jilbaab" or over garment over herself according to above verse.
4. With her bosoms covered well, and dress loose enough so as not to reveal her hidden adornment, she is to maintain this type of dress in public in front of all relations. The only exceptions are:
(1) Husband (2) Fathers (Includes Grandparents as well). (3) The Fathers of their husbands. (4) Their sons. (5) The sons of their husbands. (6) Their brothers. (7) Their brother's sons. (8) Their sister's sons`. (9) Their women. (10) Those whom their right hands posses. (i.e. those who were freed from some tyrannical rule and are now under the care and guardianship of believing men and women) (11) Those under their authority other than skillfull men. (12) Small children who are not aware of women's nakedness.
CONFINEMENT
Contrary to the claim of traditionalists, who maintain that a woman should be confined within the boundaries of her house, the Qur’an states that the confinement of women within the four walls of the house is a punishment for lewdness and obscenity. In other words, they might not have fornicated, but outwardly acted in a way or enticed men which might lead to illegal sexual acts. This is said in the following verse:
"And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them." (4:15)
Quite often the reason for confinement is justified by misinterpreting a verse in Surat Al-Ahzaab. However this verse which is misinterpreted to justify the confinement of women within the boundaries of their homes, contains the Arabic word "qarna", which simply means ‘to be joined or linked, or connected with something or someone’ (F Steingass Arabic - Eng. Dictionary pp 332, A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran- J. Penrice pp 117), and plainly refers to the injunction for women in general and the wives of the Nabi in particular, to maintain a link and connection with their homes and familes, such that they do not become neglectful of their domestic responsibilities and does not justify the practice of confinement.
"And be linked with your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and establish Salat, and give Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying." (33:33)
Thus according to the Holy Qur’an, confinement is not the norm for women, but a punishment for certain offences. A woman may engage in activities outside of the house, but she has to maintain a link with her home and family and should not be neglectful of the responsibilities laid down for her by the divine code.
While identifying the parts of a woman’s body which should be covered, the Qur’an also gives us evidence to refute the claim of those who associate "Niqab" (Veils, face covers) as an ingredient of a women’s dress code ordained by Allah.
THE EXAMPLE OF MARY
Mary the mother of Jesus (p) is mentioned in the Qur'an as the woman chosen and purified above all the women of all the worlds.
"And when the angels said: O Mary! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of all the worlds." (3:42)
She has been called as an example for the believers and her conduct is called to exemplify:
"And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe . . . Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Sustainer and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones. (66:11-12)
In observing her behavior mentioned in the Qur'an, we see that as she appears from seclusion with young Jesus, her people recognised her. Now had she been wearing a "Niqab" to cover her face, her people would not have identified her immediately as she had appeared from seclusion. This informs us that she was not covering her face i.e. not wearing a "Niqab", as mentioned in the following verses:
"And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They (having recognized her) said: ‘O Mary! surely you have done a strange thing. O sister of Haroon! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.’ But she pointed to him. They said: ‘How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?’ He (Jesus) said: ‘Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet." (19:27-30)
Mary's recognition by her people indicates that she was not wearing a "Niqab" to protect her face from being seen.
In the Qur'an there is further evidence which negates the practice of wearing "Niqab". After Allah informs Nabi (SAW) about marriage with certain relations He further reminds:
"It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things." (33:52)
In the above verse it is clearly mentioned that Nabi (SAW) was also in a position to see the "Husn" i.e. Beauty of women and this clearly establishes that women not related to the Prophet did not wear "Niqab" or veils to cover their faces when they used to appear in front of him. We must realize that attributing anything to Allah which He has not ordained is a very serious action on our part. Allah has informed us through His messenger that attributing anything to Allah which He did not made as an obligation is "haraam" i.e Forbidden, as the following verse states:
"Say: Surely my Sustainer has prohibited (made haraam) indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know." (7:33)
"Niqab" has not been made mandatory by any verse of the Qur’an, it is a cultural practice of pagan tribes and unbelievers. The Qur’an also identifies unbelievers who used to cover them selves up with their garments. Allah informs us through Noah:
"And whenever I have called them that Thou mayest forgive them, they put their fingers in their ears, cover themselves with their garments, and persist and are puffed up with pride." (71:7)
We should strive to in-form and re-form our selves through Qur’anic guidance.
CAN WOMEN TALK TO MEN TO WHOM THEY ARE NOT RELATED (NOT MARRIED) ? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ?
In the Qur'an we have the example of Moses (p) as he is shown to hold a conversation with two women who are not married to him yet. This conversation clearly indicates that women can talk to men who are not related to them, provided it is for important tasks only and not complacent speech, as complacency in speech is not allowed by verse 33:32. The following verses identify the conversation of Moses with the two women who are not related to him.
"And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man. So he watered (their sheep) for them, then went back to the shade and said: My Sustainer! surely I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me. Then one of the two women came to him walking bashfully. She said: My father invites you that he may give you the reward of your having watered for us. So when he came to him and gave to him the account, he said: Fear not, you are secure from the unjust people." (28:23-25)
The above example which depicts the conversation of a messenger of Allah with two un-married girls is a clear indicator that women can talk with men who are unrelated to them provided it is for important tasks and is done within the limits ordained by Allah.
In talking with un related men or strangers the believing women are informed about the type of behaviour they should maintain. Allah informs us through the Nabi:
"O Women of the Nabi! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a recognised utterence." (33:32)
With unrelated men, a woman may engage in a conversation but it should be within the limits ordained by the divine code and should not be directed as complacent speech.
ARE MEN A DEGREE ABOVE WOMEN?
People having a narrow look at the guidance of Allah’s Book, are often seen intimating that men are superiour to women. They back up this statement just by a portion of verse 2:228 of Sura Al-Baqara, and do not present the whole context, but rather reach this short sighted conclusion and imply that Islam maintains the superiority of men against women. It is an irony that the very verse which equates rights and obligations of gender is usually quoted to say that men are superior to women. What they fail to realize is that in matters of biological construction men and women are different and have certain rights related to that aspect (i.e. maternity leaves are for women, not men) but apart from biological disposition, both men and women are equal according to Qur’an and both are equally capable and responsible for developing those qualities in themselves which the Qur’an has said are essential for believers. The Qur’an says:
"..And they (women) shall have rights similar to the rights against them in a just manner.." (2:228)
In other words, for every responsibility given to them, they acquire a right. This is the equality they have been granted. Thus men and women have same rights as each other. The above verse continues to say:
"..and they have rights similar to the rights against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them.." (2:228)
It would be contradictory to conclude from the statement: "li Rijaale alayhenaa darja" "men are a degree above them" that men are superior to women, as at one hand the verse says that women and men have rights similar to each other, and the implication that men are superior, will contradict this impression.. One gender cannot be superior to another if their rights and obligations are equal. The word used by the Quran is "Daraja" meaning "degree". This "degree" can be understood easily by reviewing the whole verse. The context of this verse informs us that it deals with the conditions attached to remarriage after divorce. The verse is:
"And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise." (2:228)
The context of the verse makes it clear that Divorcees should refrain (from remarriage) for three menstrual cycles, so that whatever has been created by Allah becomes pronounced etc, then it goes on to say that men have one advantage. This advantage given to men is that they can remarry right away and women have to wait almost three months, or more if found to be pregnant, before they can re-marry). Obviously, an advantage in a peculiar situation does not mean one is superior than the other. It is only for this reason only that men have one degree above women, because of their biological construction they do not have to wait for a stated period ("Iddat") for the purpose of getting married again upon divorce or if their spouse dies. Only in the matter of "Iddat", that men have a degree higher than women, but apart from this both have equal rights.
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE EDUCATION
The Qur’an has stated that the acquisition of education is compulsory for all the believers. About the messenger it is stated that he taught the Book of Allah to his audience, which included men as well as women:
"He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca a messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and provides development to their personalities, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error." (62:2)
For imparting knowledge, no fee was charged:
"Say: I do not ask you any reward except that any who wills, may take the way to his Sustainer." (25:57)
In the acquisition of knowledge, women are also included, as the wives of the Nabi (S.A.W) were commanded:
"And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the communications of Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware." (33:34)
Thus the Qur’an has stipulated that women should also be educated and trained to know the realities of life.
RIGHT OF EXPRESSION
The Qur’an informs us that women in a Qur’anic society not only have the right to express themselves freely but she is in such a position that she may even argue and hold discussions with the head of the community. The messenger of Allah (p) who was not only the divine emissary to his people but also the first head of the Islamic state, gave so much freedom in society that the people, including women were in a position to argue with him. The Qur’an records this in the Sura titled "Al-Mujadilah" (the title of the Sura itself means "the woman who argues"). We are informed:
"Allah indeed knows the plea of her who argues with you (O messenger) about her husband and complains to Allah, and Allah knows the contentions of both of you; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing." (58:1)
Women are also to take an active part in public life. In Sura Al-Mumtahina we are informed of their public allegiance to the Prophet (See 60:12). Along with men, women were also included in these public discussions with the office bearers of the Islamic state: (See 60:10).
MARRIAGE
For the subject of marriage, the Qur’an has provided detailed guidance. We are told that marriage is the name of a contract between consenting adults who are believers in the divine values. It is clarified that women cannot be forced to get married and thus they have the right to express their will. The following verse tells us:
"O you who believe! You are FORBIDDEN to inherit women AGAINST THEIR WILL. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them -except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good." (4:19)
In Sura An-Nisa, the believing man is also given the permission to marry women of his choice,thus he too can excersize his free will.As reminded;
"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,so Marry women of YOUR CHOICE two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one." (4:3)
Thus both believing women as well as men have been given the right to have a say in their marriage,ie women cannot be married forcefully and men also have been given the right to marry women of their choice, as the expression in Arabic reads, "fankihu maa ta'aba lakum" (4:3)
Then again in (4:21), regarding marriage it is stated that women have taken a 'meesaq' (contract) from men;
"And how could you take it when you have gone in unto each other and they (Your wives) have Taken from you a solemn covenant? <.meesaq'an ghaliza>"(4:21)
A contract or covenant ( "meesaq" in Arabic) requires the free consent of both parties in agreeing to that contract.
An agreement in which a person is forced to do something against his/her will does not constitute a "meesaq". If the woman has been forced into getting married or the will of the man has been manipulated by coercion then such an agreement does not become a contract or "meesaq". Thus for a contract of marriage to come about, both parties, i.e. the man as well as the woman have to use their free will in coming to terms and agreeing to live the rest of their lives with each other. If out of these two any one is forced or does not have their free will involved then such would not constitute a "meesaq".
HUSBAND-WIFE RELATIONS
The main purpose of maintaining relations as a married couple is that love, compassion, and tranquility should develop between man and woman. In this way they live a life of harmony and become a source of solace to each other. The Qur’an says:
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect." (30:21)
The Qur’an has used the Arabic word "Zawj" for the husband-wife pair. This is an Arabic word which means such a pair which is complimentary to each other, and with the absence of one of its halves the other gets incomplete. Therefore the husband and wife should be as such that they provide fulfillment to each others personality and become a source of nourishment for each other. Thus the husband-wife relationship is not that of a boss and his servant, but one of mutual companionship and comradeship. To bring about such compatibility, it is essential that man and woman have a unified outlook of life and maintain a coordinated stance for various matters. Such a life, in which the life-partners are in harmony with each other will definitely be a life of exhilaration, and situations where people of conflicting tastes, views and ideologies are bound together, may result in kindling the fires of discontentment. That is why the Qur’an has stated that believers should be paired with like minded persons only, as otherwise if they selected spouses from the opposing camps, then that would cause discord. Thus we are reminded:
"And do not marry 'Mushrik' Women until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an 'Mushrik' woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to 'Mushrik' men until they believe, and certainly a believing servant is better than a 'Mushrik' man, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His revelations to mankind, that they may be mindful." (2:221)
The Qur’an has likened the husband and wife pair as "Garments" to each other, signifying the type of relations a Believing couple maintains:
"..They (your wives) are your garments and ye are their garments.." (2:187)
Thus as nothing comes between us and our garments, then such should be the outlook that believers are to maintain towards their spouses. A garment also protects us from the variation of climate and guards our shame, similarly a couple which considers the divine values as guidance for life, should protect each other from the harmful effects of society and guard each others weaknesses. The Believers are instructed that they should treat their spouses with mercy and compassion and should not be harsh on them, even though something about their wives may seem displeasing to them:
"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should inherit women forcefully. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them , unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it." (4:19)
HOOR
One of the objections raised against Islam is that it informs us of some beautiful maidens known as "Hoor" which will be reserved for the men of paradise as objects of luxury. Quite often, the Clergy, under the influence of the literature which was compiled and authenticated in those days when true Quranic government of Muslims was overtaken by that of the despotic rule of Monarchs and Theocracy, characterizes some verses of the Qur’an where the word "Hoor" occurs, to be as such.
However, it should be understood that the Arabic word "Hoor" which occurs four times in the Qur’an is plural of "Ahwar" which is for the masculine gender and "Hawrau" which is for the feminine gender.
Thus the word "Hoor" is not restricted to the female gender only, but represents both men as well as women. Its basic meaning is the whiteness of the eye, and also signifies a clean and pure intellect of a person, free from vile intentions. (cf.: Lane, Qamus. Asad-"The Message of the Qur’an").
From this word also comes the word "Al-Hawariyun" which has been used in the Qur’an for the disciples of Jesus Christ (p), as they were persons having purified souls.
In the Qur’an, where it is mentioned for the believers in a state of heaven:
"..and We shall pair them with companions of pure eyes.." (52:20)
Then it does not imply a relationship as a husband and wife, but simply means that in "Jannah" the believers will have companions of pure intellect, which will include, men as well as women.
INGREDIENTS OF WOMENS DRESS IN PUBLIC
The areas of body which are to be covered by women in public, are mentioned in 24:31. Allah informs us through His messenger:
"And say to the Believing Women, to lower their gaze and guard their private parts. And they should not display their adornment save what is apparent therefrom. And they should place their covers over their bossoms. And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or their brother's sons or sister's sons` or their women or those whom their right hands posses or those under their authority other than skillfull men or small children who are not aware of women's nakedness. And they should not strike their feet so as to make known what they hide of their adornment. O Believers turn you all together to Allah so that you may be successful."(24:31)
From the above verse the following points are derived:
1. Women have two types of "zeenah" i.e. beauty and adornment.
(a) "ma zahara minha" What is already apparent from their adornment and beauty.
(b) "ma yukhfaina min zinata hunne" That which is hidden from their adornment.
2. She is to cover her whole self publicly except those areas which are apparent from her adornment. These areas are the exposed areas which if covered will restrict daily work and have to be uncovered for performing ablution. (see 5:6). The other type of or adornment of a woman identified in the above verse is that which has been called as "ma yukhfaina min zinata hunne" That which is hidden from their adornment. This type of adornment is the one which becomes apparent when a woman strikes her feet or walks. Allah has ordered that this type of adornment be covered at all times. Thus the dress should be loose enough so as not to reveal the shape and features of the body which get obvious when the woman strikes her feet or walks.
3. They are to place their covers or shrouds over their bosoms. In Sura 33:59 they are also ordered to bring over them their over garments while going in public:
"O Nabi! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they bring their over-garments nearer to themselves (while in public); this will be more proper, that they may be recognised, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (33:59)
In public she is to take "Jilbaab" or over garment over herself according to above verse.
4. With her bosoms covered well, and dress loose enough so as not to reveal her hidden adornment, she is to maintain this type of dress in public in front of all relations. The only exceptions are:
(1) Husband (2) Fathers (Includes Grandparents as well). (3) The Fathers of their husbands. (4) Their sons. (5) The sons of their husbands. (6) Their brothers. (7) Their brother's sons. (8) Their sister's sons`. (9) Their women. (10) Those whom their right hands posses. (i.e. those who were freed from some tyrannical rule and are now under the care and guardianship of believing men and women) (11) Those under their authority other than skillfull men. (12) Small children who are not aware of women's nakedness.
CONFINEMENT
Contrary to the claim of traditionalists, who maintain that a woman should be confined within the boundaries of her house, the Qur’an states that the confinement of women within the four walls of the house is a punishment for lewdness and obscenity. In other words, they might not have fornicated, but outwardly acted in a way or enticed men which might lead to illegal sexual acts. This is said in the following verse:
"And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them." (4:15)
Quite often the reason for confinement is justified by misinterpreting a verse in Surat Al-Ahzaab. However this verse which is misinterpreted to justify the confinement of women within the boundaries of their homes, contains the Arabic word "qarna", which simply means ‘to be joined or linked, or connected with something or someone’ (F Steingass Arabic - Eng. Dictionary pp 332, A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran- J. Penrice pp 117), and plainly refers to the injunction for women in general and the wives of the Nabi in particular, to maintain a link and connection with their homes and familes, such that they do not become neglectful of their domestic responsibilities and does not justify the practice of confinement.
"And be linked with your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and establish Salat, and give Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying." (33:33)
Thus according to the Holy Qur’an, confinement is not the norm for women, but a punishment for certain offences. A woman may engage in activities outside of the house, but she has to maintain a link with her home and family and should not be neglectful of the responsibilities laid down for her by the divine code.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Fabrication for Material Gains?
Is it reasonable to assert that Muhammad, upon him be peace, might have claimed prophethood to attain some material gains? This question may be answered by looking into his financial status before and after prophethood. Before his mission as a prophet, Muhammad, upon whom be peace, had no financial worries. His loving and rich wife, Khadijah, may Allah be pleased with her, had made available to him all that he needed. As a successful and reputed merchant, Muhammad had a comfortable income. It is ironic that the same man, after his mission as a prophet and because of it, becomes worse off materially.
Describing their life, his wife, Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated that a month or two might have elapsed before fire was lit in the Prophet's house (to cook a meal), while the household subsisted on milk and dates. (Riyad al-Saliheen) After eighteen years of his mission, when Muslims emerged victorious, we still find a kind of revolt in Muhammad's household in protest to the difficult life characterized by a considerable self-imposed material deprivation. This incident took place at the time when the Muslim treasury was under his disposal (Bukhari, Muslim). Asked about Muhammad's bedding Hafsah, may Allah be pleased with her, answered, "It comprised of a piece of canvas which I spread double folded under him." Bilal, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Prophet never kept back anything for future use, tha t he spent what he had on the poor and needy, and that on one occasion, Muhammad received a gift of four loaded camels, yet he took nothing for himself and he further insisted that he would not go home until the whole lot was given away to the needy. (Riyad al-Saliheen) At the time of his death, and in spite of all his victories and achievements, Muhammad, upon whom be peace, was in debt, and his shield was in the hands of a Jewish citizen of Madinah as a collateral for that debt! (Riyad al-Saliheen)
One may then inquire: Are there any materialistic motives behind Muhammad's claim of Prophethood?
Compiled From:
Islam: A Way of Life and a Movement, "Muhammad's Prophethood: An Analytical View" - Jamal Badawi, pp. 69, 70
Friday, May 29, 2009
[al-sunni] (Hadith) Help your brother if opressed
The sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him)
"Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed," A man said, "O Allah's Apostle! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how shall I help him?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing (others), for that is how to help him."
Sahih Bukhari Hadith No. 84 Book 85, Volumune 009 Narrated by Anas (r.a.)
"Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed," A man said, "O Allah's Apostle! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how shall I help him?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing (others), for that is how to help him."
Sahih Bukhari Hadith No. 84 Book 85, Volumune 009 Narrated by Anas (r.a.)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Haneyya's gov't urges Muslim FMs to declare Jerusalem capital of Palestine
[ 23/05/2009 - 09:38 PM ]
GAZA, (PIC)-- The democratically elected PA caretaker government of Premier Ismael Haneyya has called on Muslim foreign ministers to declare the occupied city of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and urged them to bridle the Israeli activities in the city.
In a statement he issued and a copy of which was obtained by the PIC, Tahir Al-Nonu, the spokesman of the PA government, called on the Foreign Ministers of Islamic countries meeting in the Syrian capital Damascus to support the Palestinian people in Jerusalem against the Israeli schemes that aim at forcing and removing them out of the city.
"They [Palestinian Jerusalemites] need swift and decisive action from their Arab and Muslim brothers now more than any time else as the Israeli campaign to Judaize the city reached alarming levels", Nuno pointed out in the statement.
Nuno also invited the foreign ministers of the 57 Muslim countries to take clear and decisive decision to renovate and to rebuild the destroyed Mosques in the 1948-occupied Palestinian lands after the Zionist occupation demolished tens of them, and turned many of them into casinos and nightclubs.
"We should all work together to preserve historic Muslim features that testify to the Palestinian people's rights in Palestine", Nuno underscored.
He said that Muslim foreign ministers should immediately layout the practical mechanisms to implement their decision to lift the siege on Gaza Strip, inviting them to visit the Gaza Strip so as to see for themselves the adverse repercussions, and the aggravated suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Israeli war on Gaza last January.
Furthermore, Nuno stressed that it is about time for the Muslim countries to start the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, and to rebuild what the Zionist occupation has destroyed.
Finally, Nuno urged the convening ministers to support the Egyptian efforts to restore the Palestinian national unity, and to achieve the national reconciliation, and not to deal with the "illegitimate" government of Salam Fayyadh that was installed by Abbas against the will of the Palestinian people, and through an undemocratic process.
Page Top
Comments
GAZA, (PIC)-- The democratically elected PA caretaker government of Premier Ismael Haneyya has called on Muslim foreign ministers to declare the occupied city of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and urged them to bridle the Israeli activities in the city.
In a statement he issued and a copy of which was obtained by the PIC, Tahir Al-Nonu, the spokesman of the PA government, called on the Foreign Ministers of Islamic countries meeting in the Syrian capital Damascus to support the Palestinian people in Jerusalem against the Israeli schemes that aim at forcing and removing them out of the city.
"They [Palestinian Jerusalemites] need swift and decisive action from their Arab and Muslim brothers now more than any time else as the Israeli campaign to Judaize the city reached alarming levels", Nuno pointed out in the statement.
Nuno also invited the foreign ministers of the 57 Muslim countries to take clear and decisive decision to renovate and to rebuild the destroyed Mosques in the 1948-occupied Palestinian lands after the Zionist occupation demolished tens of them, and turned many of them into casinos and nightclubs.
"We should all work together to preserve historic Muslim features that testify to the Palestinian people's rights in Palestine", Nuno underscored.
He said that Muslim foreign ministers should immediately layout the practical mechanisms to implement their decision to lift the siege on Gaza Strip, inviting them to visit the Gaza Strip so as to see for themselves the adverse repercussions, and the aggravated suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Israeli war on Gaza last January.
Furthermore, Nuno stressed that it is about time for the Muslim countries to start the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, and to rebuild what the Zionist occupation has destroyed.
Finally, Nuno urged the convening ministers to support the Egyptian efforts to restore the Palestinian national unity, and to achieve the national reconciliation, and not to deal with the "illegitimate" government of Salam Fayyadh that was installed by Abbas against the will of the Palestinian people, and through an undemocratic process.
Page Top
Comments
Friday, May 22, 2009
Internet Threatened by Censorship, Secret Surveillance, and Cybersecurity Laws
By Stephen Lendman
(The Intelligence Daily) -- At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy's last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it "the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content" enough to have veto power over what's allowed and what it costs. Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned.
Media reform activists have drawn a line in the sand. Net Neutrality must be defended at all costs. Preserving a viable, independent, free and open Internet (and the media overall) is essential to a functioning democracy, but the forces aligned against it are formidable, daunting, relentless, and reprehensible. Some past challenges suggest future ones ahead.
Censorship Attempts to Curtail Free Expression
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nonetheless, Congress and state legislatures have repeatedly tried to censor free speech, allegedly regarded as indecent, obscene, hateful, terrorist-related, or harmful to minors. However, the Supreme Court, in a number of decisions, ruled that the government may not regulate free expression, only its manner such as when it violates the right to privacy "in an essentially intolerable manner" - a huge hurtle to overcome, including online, because viewers are protected by simply "averting (one's) eyes (Cohen v. California - 1971)."
In 1998, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) passed, but was blocked by federal courts as an infringement of free speech and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable. In 1999, the law was struck down at the Appellate Court level, but it stayed on the books. In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed the ruling and returned the case for reconsideration. It remained blocked. Then in March 2003, the Appellate Court again ruled it unconstitutional on the grounds that it would hinder protected adult speech that's likely what it was about in the first place.
Other litigation followed at the District and Appellate levels until on January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court killed COPA by refusing to hear appeals to affirm it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this way: "After 10 Years, an Infamous Internet-Censorship Act is Finally Dead." At least that's the hope, but censorship attempts never die. They just reinvent themselves in new forms made all the easier when powerful corporate interests and their congressional allies support them.
In 2000, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) became law, and the Supreme Court upheld it - to regulate online content deemed "indecent (or) harmful to minors." The law requires schools, libraries and other public institutions to install blocking software to prevent minors from having access to it.
In 2006, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) passed the House but not the Senate. It also would have mandated schools, libraries and other public institutions to prevent minors from accessing "commercial social networking websites (and) chat rooms."
Its language was broad enough to apply also to sites like Amazon, Yahoo, Wikipedia and others and would have made the FCC a gatekeeper/censor. As the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, the law was reintroduced in the Senate in January 2007 but never passed.
In February 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed - to regulate alleged indecent and obscene online content in violation of the First Amendment. Under the law, classic fiction would be banned as well as any material deemed offensive. In June, 1996, a three-judge federal panel partially struck it down for restricting adult free speech. In June 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
The Act was Title V of the 1996 Telecommunications Act titled Broadcast Obscenity and Violence that applied broadcast standards to the Internet. Under Section 230, Internet services operators aren't considered publishers and thus have no liability for the words of third parties using their services.
In 2003, Congress amended CDA by removing struck down indecency provisions. In 2005, a three-judge Southern District of New York panel rejected Barbara Nitke's obscenity provisions CDA challenge (in Nitke, et al v. Ashcroft). The Supreme Court upheld the decision.
In 2005, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (VAWDOJRA) became law - and another blow to online free speech by prohibiting "any device (like a modem) or software that can be used to originate....(anonymous or other) communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the internet" for the alleged purpose of harassment, even if only vigorous constitutional debate was intended or ordinary free speech.
In October 2007, the House passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act called "the thought crime prevention bill." It was introduced in the Senate, referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, but never voted on or passed.
If it ever becomes law in its present form, it will establish a commission and Center for Excellence to study and act against "thought criminals" (including online ones) for alleged acts of "violent radicalization (and) homegrown terrorism" defined as follows:
-- "violent radicalization (to mean) adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change;"
-- "homegrown terrorism (to mean) the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
In other words, this law, if passed, will criminalize whatever the government wishes to include under the above two categories, including constitutionally protected speech online or elsewhere.
Another ongoing censorship issue involves craigslist - a worldwide online community network featuring classified ads for "jobs, housing, for sale, personals, services, local community, and events."
On May 5, South Carolina Attorney (AG) General Henry McMaster notified its CEO, Jim Buckmaster, that unless an "erotic services" section is removed in 10 days, "craigslist management may be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution." Other AGs in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Connecticut issued similar threats even though all of them are baseless.
Previous courts have held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects "interactive computer service" providers like craigslist and lets them be self-regulating and free from liability. The law clearly states that they shouldn't be responsible for third party content because they didn't do enough to comply with individual State standards that may violate the First Amendment and federal law.
In craigslist's case, it's gone way beyond its legal obligations. In November 2008, it agreed to technical and policy changes to curb the use of its site for illegal purposes by third parties, including requiring telephone and credit card verification for "erotic services" ads to reject ones deemed illegal.
Earlier, craigslist screened out 90% of these ads. Nonetheless, it's being unfairly targeted by AGs interpreting Section 230 and First Amendment rights as they please. Federal law, however, protects craigslist, but not against ambitious AGs harassment for their own political advantage and self-interest.
On May 20, craigslist announced that it filed suit against South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster seeking "declaratory relief and a restraining order with respect to criminal charges he has repeatedly threatened against craigslist and its executives." Craigslist is on solid footing. It's in full compliance with the law, but McMaster's persistent threats forced it to sue in federal court.
These and numerous other congressional and other attempts aim to censor protected speech, including online. Expect more of this ahead, some legislation to be enacted, at times upheld by the courts, and, as a result, our liberties to be chipped away incrementally and lost - unless a line in the sand is drawn and defended by enough of the committed to do it.
On February 29, 2008, one skirmish turned out successfully when a federal judge let the anonymous whistle-blowing WikiLeaks resume operations after a week earlier ordering its US hosting company and domain registrar (Dynadot) to shut down and lock out its site. In his reconsidered ruling, District Judge Jeffrey White conceded he was having second thoughts regarding "serious questions of prior restraint (and) possible violations of the First Amendment." He added that "the court does not want to be a part of any order that is not constitutional." Even so, one triumph doesn't mean victory. The struggle for unimpeded free speech continues.
Secret Unconstitutional Surveillance, Including Online Data Mining
The right to privacy is sacred even though no constitutional provision specifically mandates it. Nonetheless, the First Amendment guarantees free and open speech and beliefs. The Third Amendment the privacy of our homes against demands to be used to house soldiers. The Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and privacy of our personal information.
Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain (of the Bill of) rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects privacy in a case affirming the right to use contraceptives and that banning them violated the "right to marital privacy."
In Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion, he cited the Ninth Amendment in defense of the ruling. Earlier High Courts also affirmed the constitutional right of privacy on matters of marriage, child rearing, procreation, education, termination of medical treatment, possessing and viewing pornography, abortion, and more as well as overall privacy protection.
The 14th Amendment's "liberty" clause also relates to privacy by stating: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Courts have broadened the meaning of "liberty" to include personal, political and social rights and privileges. Thus, invasion of private spaces is unconstitutional.
In Olmstead v. US (1928), Justice Louis Brandeis stated:
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
George Bush institutionalized lawless spying invasions of privacy on Americans and others. Barack Obama continues the practice under the same federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA. On April 15, The New York Times headlined: "Officials Say US Wiretaps Exceeded Law."
It cited the NSA's practice in recent months of intercepting private emails and phone calls of Americans "on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year...." Briefed intelligence officials and lawyers called it "significant and systematic....overcollection" in violation of the law.
The Justice Department acknowledged the problem but said it was resolved. For its part, the NSA said its "intelligence operations, including programs for collection and analysis, are in strict accordance with US laws and regulations." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in overall charge, downplayed the The Times story, referred to "inadvertent mistakes," and claimed efforts were immediately implemented to correct them.
Nonetheless, the issue remains unsettled, and new details reveal earlier domestic surveillance, including wiretapping a congressional member without court approval, and systematically doing it against many American citizens.
Tom Burghardt writes often on these issues for various publications, web sites, and his Antifascist Calling blog...."Exploring the shadowlands of the corporate police state." In calling "Spying on Americans: 'Business as Usual' under Obama," he reported that working cooperatively with private corporations, the NSA collects vast amounts of "transactional data such as credit card purchases, bank transactions and travel itineraries....sold to (the agency) by corporate freebooters." It's then data-mined for "suspicious patterns," a practice begun pre-9/11 but expanded greatly since then.
More than just financial transactions are monitored. According to investigative journalist Christopher Ketchum, "as many as '8 million Americans are now listed (as) secret enemies....who could face detention under martial law (and subjected) to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning" and possible internment.
Nothing under Obama has changed in spite of serious privacy, civil liberties, and other constitutional issues. Director Rod Beckstrom of DHS' Cyber Security Center resigned in March because of NSA's "greater role in guarding the government's computer systems" and its concentrated power without checks and balances.
According to Electronic Frontier Foundation's senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston: Obama's "Justice Department (is continuing) the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts...." because doing so would harm national security.
Worse still is the DOJ's assertion that the US government is immune from illegal spying litigation even when in violation of federal privacy statutes, an unprecedented claim exceeding the Bush administration citing "sovereign immunity." Obama is going Bush one better by saying the Patriot Act immunizes the government from being sued under surveillance provisions of the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) enhanced warrantless wiretapping powers in cooperation with complicit telecom providers. In other words, Obama's DOJ absolves itself and its corporate allies of accountability under existing federal statutes that prohibit illegal spying on Americans.
On April 26, Burghhardt reported that "The Pentagon's Cyber Command Formidable Infrastructure arrayed against the American People" will be headed by the NSA's director, Lt. General Keith Alexander, to protect the military's networks from hacker attacks, especially from countries like China and Russia. How this will "affect civilian computer networks is unclear. However, situating" it alongside NSA at Fort Meade, MD "should set alarm bells ringing (because of NSA's) potential for (greater) abuse....given (its) role in illegal domestic surveillance....(and its) tremendous technical capabilities."
"As a Pentagon agency, NSA has positioned itself to seize near total control over the country's electronic infrastructure, thereby exerting an intolerable influence--and chilling effect-- over the nation's political life." Recent history shows that "NSA and their partners at CIA, FBI, et. al. have targeted political dissidents," including anti-war protesters, environmentalists, and others for their activism and beliefs. Greater NSA powers will "transform 'cybersecurity' into a euphemism for keeping the rabble in line (and) achieving 'full spectrum dominance' via 'Cyberspace Offensive Counter-Operations.' "
Directed against ordinary Americans, democratic freedoms will be severely compromised. No matter as "the Obama administration (prepares) to hand control of the nation's electronic infrastructure over to a (rogue) agency" - with General Alexander telling the House Armed Services subcommittee that America needs a digital warfare force for defensive and offensive cyber operations. More resources are required to do it, not for public security, but for imperial conquest and containing dissent at home - in violation of constitutional freedoms and international law.
In a follow-up May 4 article, Burghardt explored the secret, unaccountable world of FBI data mining through its Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW) containing over a billion documents, including many on US citizens. They come from our personal records and history, including what's obtainable online through illegal spying.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Kurt Opsahl, "The IDW includes more than four times as many documents as the Library of Congress, and the FBI has asked for millions of dollars to data-mine this warehouse, using unproven science in an attempt to predict future crimes from past behavior." This illegal spying violates our constitutional right to privacy and endangers our freedom by generating unsubstantiated threats based on pure supposition.
Besides the FBI, it's virtually certain that other, perhaps all 16, government intelligence agencies conduct similar spying illegally, and as such, endanger everyone's freedom.
Earlier on July 14, 2008, an ACLU press release headlined: "Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names" based on government reported figures. They include: "Members of Congress, nuns, war heros and other 'suspicious characters' (like anti-war and environmental activists)....trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape."
According to the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program director, Barry Steinhardt, this data base represents "what's wrong with this administration's approach to security: it's unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of (people) in this country. Putting a million names on a watch list is a guarantee (it) will do more harm than good" besides being ineffective to catch real criminals.
Given the current scope and intent of FBI data mining, with millions under surveillance, its potential for abuse far exceeds where it stood less than a year ago - because the Obama administration supports it. No longer is anything about us private, including:
-- all our financial transactions and records;
-- every check written;
-- every credit card or other electronic purchase;
-- our complete medical history;
-- every plane, train, bus or ship itinerary;
-- our phone records and conversations; and
-- every computer key stroke.
Our entire private world is now public - if spy snoops decide to invade it.
Key Internet-based companies, like Google, do it routinely - the company UK-based Privacy International ranked worst in its September 2007 "Race to the Bottom" report. It stated:
"....throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations." It tops them all "as an endemic threat to privacy. This is in part due to the diversity and specificity of Google's product range and the ability of the company to share extracted data between these tools, and in part due to Google's market dominance and the sheer size of its user base."
It's also unmatched in "its aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques." It's able to "deep-drill into the minutiae of a user's life and lifestyle choices" irresponsibly. Its attitude toward privacy is blatantly hostile at worst and benignly ambivalent at best. Specifically:
-- Google retains a large amount of user information with no limitation on its subsequent use or disclosure and with no chance for users to delete or withdraw it;
-- it retains all "search strings and associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months (retention) and does not provide users with an expungement option;"
-- it has other personal information, including hobbies, employment, addresses, phone numbers, and more, and retains it even after users delete their profiles;
-- it "collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user's web movement;" it also retains information indefinitely with no expungement option;
-- it doesn't follow OECD Privacy Guidelines and EU data protection law provisions;
-- users have no option to edit or delete obtained records and information about them; and
-- they can't access log information generated through various Google services, such as Google Maps, Video, Talk, Reader, or Blogger.
In 2004, Google also acquired the CIA-linked company Keyhole, Inc., that has a worldwide 3-D spy-in-the-sky images database. Its software provides a virtual fly-over and zoom-in capability to within a one-foot resolution. It's supported by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital CIA-funded firm that "identif(ies) and invest(s) in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests."
In 2003, its CEO, John Hanke, said: "Keyhole's strategic relationship with In-Q-Tel means that the Intelligence Community can now benefit from the massive scalability and high performance of the Keyhole enterprise solution."
In 2006, former CIA clandestine services case officer, Robert Steele, said:
"I am quite positive that Google is taking money and direction from my old colleague Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development at CIA, and that Google has done at least one major prototype effort focused on foreign terrorists which produced largely worthless data....I think (Google is) stupid to be playing with CIA, which cannot keep a secret and is more likely to waste time and money than actually produce anything useful."
On April 29, Willem Buiter's Maverecon site headlined "Gagging on Google" and said:
"Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women's rights and civil liberties: a daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual property."
This company should be rigorously regulated, "and if necessary, broken up or put out of business." With about half the global internet search market, it threatens enhanced "corporate or even official Big Brotherism."
For example, Google Street View, an addition to Google Maps, "provides panoram(ic) images visible from street level in cities around the world. The cameras record details of residents' lives" on all sorts of personal matters that no one should be able to snoop on, then save, without permission, for whatever purposes.
The company also invades our privacy through tracking cookies or "third-party persistent cookies" to assist interest-based advertising, a practice known as behavioral targeting. In the wrong hands, this information can be used "to put a commercial squeeze on people, but also to extort and blackmail them." And in government hands, it enhances "a pretty effective and very nasty police state."
Can Google be trusted to use this information responsibly? "Of course not." It's a business run by "amoral capitalists," out to make as much money as possible by any means necessary. Google and other Internet search engines "should not be trusted because they cannot be trusted." However, because of its size and dominance, Google is "the new evil empire of the internet," a "Leviathan" that must be tamed.
Cybersecurity Legislation
On April 1, two bills endangering a free and open Internet were introduced in the Senate:
-- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 "to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes."
S. 773 was then referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and thus far not voted on.
-- S. 778: A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor (aka czar). The bill was referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and not yet voted on.
Accompanying information said Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced the legislation to address:
"our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."
We presently face cyber espionage threats, they said, as well as "another great vulnerability....to our private sector critical infrastructure - banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications - from disruptive cyber attacks that could literally shut down our way of life."
"This proposed legislation will bring new high-level governmental attention to develop a fully integrated, thoroughly coordinated, public-private partnership to our cyber security efforts in the 21st century" through what's unstated - government affecting our private lives by threatening the viability of a free and open Internet.
During a March Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, Senator Rockefeller said that we'd all be better off if the Internet was never invented. His precise words were: "Would it have been better if we'd never have invented the Internet and had to use paper and pencil or whatever!" Left unsaid was that without a free and open Internet, few alternatives for getting real news and information would exist, at least with the ease and free accessibility that computers can provide.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jennifer Granick expressed alarm about the risk of "giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. (These bills) should be opposed or radically amended."
Here's what they'll do:
-- federalize critical infrastructure security, including banks, telecommunications and energy, shifting power away from providers and users to Washington;
-- give "the president unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in (whatever he calls) an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds....;"
-- potentially "cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop" through one provision (alone) empowering the Commerce Secretary to "have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...."
In other words, the Commerce Department will be empowered to access "all relevant data" - without privacy safeguards or judicial review. As a result, constitutionally protected private information statutory protections will be lost - guaranteed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, and financial privacy regulations.
Another provision mandates a feasibility study for an identity management and authentication program that would sidestep "appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections."
At issue is what role should the federal government play in cybersecurity? How much power should it have? Can it dismiss constitutional protections, and what, in fact, can enhance cybersecurity without endangering our freedoms? S. 773 and 778, as now written, "make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards (without) address(ing) the real problems of security."
In late February, Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, told the House Intelligence Committee that the NSA, not DHS, should be in charge of cybersecurity even though it has a "trust handicap" to overcome because of its illegal spying:
"I think there is a great deal of distrust of the National Security Agency and the intelligence community in general playing a role outside of the very narrowly circumscribed role because of some of the history of the FISA issue in years past...." So Blair asked the committee's leadership to find a way to instill public confidence.
On February 9, Obama appointed Melissa Hathaway to be Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils - in charge of a 60-day interagency cybersecurity review, now completed.
On April 21, NSA/Chief Central Security Service director, General Alexander, told RSA Conference security participants that "The NSA does not want to run cybersecurity for the government. We need partnerships with others. The DHS has a big part, you do, and our partners in academia. It's one network and we all have to work together....The NSA can offer technology assistance to team members. That's our role."
But someone has to be in charge. It may or may not be NSA, but no matter. At issue is our constitutional freedoms. Any infringement on them must be challenged and stopped.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
(The Intelligence Daily) -- At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy's last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it "the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content" enough to have veto power over what's allowed and what it costs. Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned.
Media reform activists have drawn a line in the sand. Net Neutrality must be defended at all costs. Preserving a viable, independent, free and open Internet (and the media overall) is essential to a functioning democracy, but the forces aligned against it are formidable, daunting, relentless, and reprehensible. Some past challenges suggest future ones ahead.
Censorship Attempts to Curtail Free Expression
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nonetheless, Congress and state legislatures have repeatedly tried to censor free speech, allegedly regarded as indecent, obscene, hateful, terrorist-related, or harmful to minors. However, the Supreme Court, in a number of decisions, ruled that the government may not regulate free expression, only its manner such as when it violates the right to privacy "in an essentially intolerable manner" - a huge hurtle to overcome, including online, because viewers are protected by simply "averting (one's) eyes (Cohen v. California - 1971)."
In 1998, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) passed, but was blocked by federal courts as an infringement of free speech and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable. In 1999, the law was struck down at the Appellate Court level, but it stayed on the books. In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed the ruling and returned the case for reconsideration. It remained blocked. Then in March 2003, the Appellate Court again ruled it unconstitutional on the grounds that it would hinder protected adult speech that's likely what it was about in the first place.
Other litigation followed at the District and Appellate levels until on January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court killed COPA by refusing to hear appeals to affirm it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this way: "After 10 Years, an Infamous Internet-Censorship Act is Finally Dead." At least that's the hope, but censorship attempts never die. They just reinvent themselves in new forms made all the easier when powerful corporate interests and their congressional allies support them.
In 2000, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) became law, and the Supreme Court upheld it - to regulate online content deemed "indecent (or) harmful to minors." The law requires schools, libraries and other public institutions to install blocking software to prevent minors from having access to it.
In 2006, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) passed the House but not the Senate. It also would have mandated schools, libraries and other public institutions to prevent minors from accessing "commercial social networking websites (and) chat rooms."
Its language was broad enough to apply also to sites like Amazon, Yahoo, Wikipedia and others and would have made the FCC a gatekeeper/censor. As the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, the law was reintroduced in the Senate in January 2007 but never passed.
In February 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed - to regulate alleged indecent and obscene online content in violation of the First Amendment. Under the law, classic fiction would be banned as well as any material deemed offensive. In June, 1996, a three-judge federal panel partially struck it down for restricting adult free speech. In June 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
The Act was Title V of the 1996 Telecommunications Act titled Broadcast Obscenity and Violence that applied broadcast standards to the Internet. Under Section 230, Internet services operators aren't considered publishers and thus have no liability for the words of third parties using their services.
In 2003, Congress amended CDA by removing struck down indecency provisions. In 2005, a three-judge Southern District of New York panel rejected Barbara Nitke's obscenity provisions CDA challenge (in Nitke, et al v. Ashcroft). The Supreme Court upheld the decision.
In 2005, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (VAWDOJRA) became law - and another blow to online free speech by prohibiting "any device (like a modem) or software that can be used to originate....(anonymous or other) communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the internet" for the alleged purpose of harassment, even if only vigorous constitutional debate was intended or ordinary free speech.
In October 2007, the House passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act called "the thought crime prevention bill." It was introduced in the Senate, referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, but never voted on or passed.
If it ever becomes law in its present form, it will establish a commission and Center for Excellence to study and act against "thought criminals" (including online ones) for alleged acts of "violent radicalization (and) homegrown terrorism" defined as follows:
-- "violent radicalization (to mean) adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change;"
-- "homegrown terrorism (to mean) the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
In other words, this law, if passed, will criminalize whatever the government wishes to include under the above two categories, including constitutionally protected speech online or elsewhere.
Another ongoing censorship issue involves craigslist - a worldwide online community network featuring classified ads for "jobs, housing, for sale, personals, services, local community, and events."
On May 5, South Carolina Attorney (AG) General Henry McMaster notified its CEO, Jim Buckmaster, that unless an "erotic services" section is removed in 10 days, "craigslist management may be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution." Other AGs in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Connecticut issued similar threats even though all of them are baseless.
Previous courts have held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects "interactive computer service" providers like craigslist and lets them be self-regulating and free from liability. The law clearly states that they shouldn't be responsible for third party content because they didn't do enough to comply with individual State standards that may violate the First Amendment and federal law.
In craigslist's case, it's gone way beyond its legal obligations. In November 2008, it agreed to technical and policy changes to curb the use of its site for illegal purposes by third parties, including requiring telephone and credit card verification for "erotic services" ads to reject ones deemed illegal.
Earlier, craigslist screened out 90% of these ads. Nonetheless, it's being unfairly targeted by AGs interpreting Section 230 and First Amendment rights as they please. Federal law, however, protects craigslist, but not against ambitious AGs harassment for their own political advantage and self-interest.
On May 20, craigslist announced that it filed suit against South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster seeking "declaratory relief and a restraining order with respect to criminal charges he has repeatedly threatened against craigslist and its executives." Craigslist is on solid footing. It's in full compliance with the law, but McMaster's persistent threats forced it to sue in federal court.
These and numerous other congressional and other attempts aim to censor protected speech, including online. Expect more of this ahead, some legislation to be enacted, at times upheld by the courts, and, as a result, our liberties to be chipped away incrementally and lost - unless a line in the sand is drawn and defended by enough of the committed to do it.
On February 29, 2008, one skirmish turned out successfully when a federal judge let the anonymous whistle-blowing WikiLeaks resume operations after a week earlier ordering its US hosting company and domain registrar (Dynadot) to shut down and lock out its site. In his reconsidered ruling, District Judge Jeffrey White conceded he was having second thoughts regarding "serious questions of prior restraint (and) possible violations of the First Amendment." He added that "the court does not want to be a part of any order that is not constitutional." Even so, one triumph doesn't mean victory. The struggle for unimpeded free speech continues.
Secret Unconstitutional Surveillance, Including Online Data Mining
The right to privacy is sacred even though no constitutional provision specifically mandates it. Nonetheless, the First Amendment guarantees free and open speech and beliefs. The Third Amendment the privacy of our homes against demands to be used to house soldiers. The Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and privacy of our personal information.
Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain (of the Bill of) rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects privacy in a case affirming the right to use contraceptives and that banning them violated the "right to marital privacy."
In Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion, he cited the Ninth Amendment in defense of the ruling. Earlier High Courts also affirmed the constitutional right of privacy on matters of marriage, child rearing, procreation, education, termination of medical treatment, possessing and viewing pornography, abortion, and more as well as overall privacy protection.
The 14th Amendment's "liberty" clause also relates to privacy by stating: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Courts have broadened the meaning of "liberty" to include personal, political and social rights and privileges. Thus, invasion of private spaces is unconstitutional.
In Olmstead v. US (1928), Justice Louis Brandeis stated:
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
George Bush institutionalized lawless spying invasions of privacy on Americans and others. Barack Obama continues the practice under the same federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA. On April 15, The New York Times headlined: "Officials Say US Wiretaps Exceeded Law."
It cited the NSA's practice in recent months of intercepting private emails and phone calls of Americans "on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year...." Briefed intelligence officials and lawyers called it "significant and systematic....overcollection" in violation of the law.
The Justice Department acknowledged the problem but said it was resolved. For its part, the NSA said its "intelligence operations, including programs for collection and analysis, are in strict accordance with US laws and regulations." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in overall charge, downplayed the The Times story, referred to "inadvertent mistakes," and claimed efforts were immediately implemented to correct them.
Nonetheless, the issue remains unsettled, and new details reveal earlier domestic surveillance, including wiretapping a congressional member without court approval, and systematically doing it against many American citizens.
Tom Burghardt writes often on these issues for various publications, web sites, and his Antifascist Calling blog...."Exploring the shadowlands of the corporate police state." In calling "Spying on Americans: 'Business as Usual' under Obama," he reported that working cooperatively with private corporations, the NSA collects vast amounts of "transactional data such as credit card purchases, bank transactions and travel itineraries....sold to (the agency) by corporate freebooters." It's then data-mined for "suspicious patterns," a practice begun pre-9/11 but expanded greatly since then.
More than just financial transactions are monitored. According to investigative journalist Christopher Ketchum, "as many as '8 million Americans are now listed (as) secret enemies....who could face detention under martial law (and subjected) to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning" and possible internment.
Nothing under Obama has changed in spite of serious privacy, civil liberties, and other constitutional issues. Director Rod Beckstrom of DHS' Cyber Security Center resigned in March because of NSA's "greater role in guarding the government's computer systems" and its concentrated power without checks and balances.
According to Electronic Frontier Foundation's senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston: Obama's "Justice Department (is continuing) the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts...." because doing so would harm national security.
Worse still is the DOJ's assertion that the US government is immune from illegal spying litigation even when in violation of federal privacy statutes, an unprecedented claim exceeding the Bush administration citing "sovereign immunity." Obama is going Bush one better by saying the Patriot Act immunizes the government from being sued under surveillance provisions of the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) enhanced warrantless wiretapping powers in cooperation with complicit telecom providers. In other words, Obama's DOJ absolves itself and its corporate allies of accountability under existing federal statutes that prohibit illegal spying on Americans.
On April 26, Burghhardt reported that "The Pentagon's Cyber Command Formidable Infrastructure arrayed against the American People" will be headed by the NSA's director, Lt. General Keith Alexander, to protect the military's networks from hacker attacks, especially from countries like China and Russia. How this will "affect civilian computer networks is unclear. However, situating" it alongside NSA at Fort Meade, MD "should set alarm bells ringing (because of NSA's) potential for (greater) abuse....given (its) role in illegal domestic surveillance....(and its) tremendous technical capabilities."
"As a Pentagon agency, NSA has positioned itself to seize near total control over the country's electronic infrastructure, thereby exerting an intolerable influence--and chilling effect-- over the nation's political life." Recent history shows that "NSA and their partners at CIA, FBI, et. al. have targeted political dissidents," including anti-war protesters, environmentalists, and others for their activism and beliefs. Greater NSA powers will "transform 'cybersecurity' into a euphemism for keeping the rabble in line (and) achieving 'full spectrum dominance' via 'Cyberspace Offensive Counter-Operations.' "
Directed against ordinary Americans, democratic freedoms will be severely compromised. No matter as "the Obama administration (prepares) to hand control of the nation's electronic infrastructure over to a (rogue) agency" - with General Alexander telling the House Armed Services subcommittee that America needs a digital warfare force for defensive and offensive cyber operations. More resources are required to do it, not for public security, but for imperial conquest and containing dissent at home - in violation of constitutional freedoms and international law.
In a follow-up May 4 article, Burghardt explored the secret, unaccountable world of FBI data mining through its Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW) containing over a billion documents, including many on US citizens. They come from our personal records and history, including what's obtainable online through illegal spying.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Kurt Opsahl, "The IDW includes more than four times as many documents as the Library of Congress, and the FBI has asked for millions of dollars to data-mine this warehouse, using unproven science in an attempt to predict future crimes from past behavior." This illegal spying violates our constitutional right to privacy and endangers our freedom by generating unsubstantiated threats based on pure supposition.
Besides the FBI, it's virtually certain that other, perhaps all 16, government intelligence agencies conduct similar spying illegally, and as such, endanger everyone's freedom.
Earlier on July 14, 2008, an ACLU press release headlined: "Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names" based on government reported figures. They include: "Members of Congress, nuns, war heros and other 'suspicious characters' (like anti-war and environmental activists)....trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape."
According to the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program director, Barry Steinhardt, this data base represents "what's wrong with this administration's approach to security: it's unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of (people) in this country. Putting a million names on a watch list is a guarantee (it) will do more harm than good" besides being ineffective to catch real criminals.
Given the current scope and intent of FBI data mining, with millions under surveillance, its potential for abuse far exceeds where it stood less than a year ago - because the Obama administration supports it. No longer is anything about us private, including:
-- all our financial transactions and records;
-- every check written;
-- every credit card or other electronic purchase;
-- our complete medical history;
-- every plane, train, bus or ship itinerary;
-- our phone records and conversations; and
-- every computer key stroke.
Our entire private world is now public - if spy snoops decide to invade it.
Key Internet-based companies, like Google, do it routinely - the company UK-based Privacy International ranked worst in its September 2007 "Race to the Bottom" report. It stated:
"....throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations." It tops them all "as an endemic threat to privacy. This is in part due to the diversity and specificity of Google's product range and the ability of the company to share extracted data between these tools, and in part due to Google's market dominance and the sheer size of its user base."
It's also unmatched in "its aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques." It's able to "deep-drill into the minutiae of a user's life and lifestyle choices" irresponsibly. Its attitude toward privacy is blatantly hostile at worst and benignly ambivalent at best. Specifically:
-- Google retains a large amount of user information with no limitation on its subsequent use or disclosure and with no chance for users to delete or withdraw it;
-- it retains all "search strings and associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months (retention) and does not provide users with an expungement option;"
-- it has other personal information, including hobbies, employment, addresses, phone numbers, and more, and retains it even after users delete their profiles;
-- it "collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user's web movement;" it also retains information indefinitely with no expungement option;
-- it doesn't follow OECD Privacy Guidelines and EU data protection law provisions;
-- users have no option to edit or delete obtained records and information about them; and
-- they can't access log information generated through various Google services, such as Google Maps, Video, Talk, Reader, or Blogger.
In 2004, Google also acquired the CIA-linked company Keyhole, Inc., that has a worldwide 3-D spy-in-the-sky images database. Its software provides a virtual fly-over and zoom-in capability to within a one-foot resolution. It's supported by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital CIA-funded firm that "identif(ies) and invest(s) in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests."
In 2003, its CEO, John Hanke, said: "Keyhole's strategic relationship with In-Q-Tel means that the Intelligence Community can now benefit from the massive scalability and high performance of the Keyhole enterprise solution."
In 2006, former CIA clandestine services case officer, Robert Steele, said:
"I am quite positive that Google is taking money and direction from my old colleague Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development at CIA, and that Google has done at least one major prototype effort focused on foreign terrorists which produced largely worthless data....I think (Google is) stupid to be playing with CIA, which cannot keep a secret and is more likely to waste time and money than actually produce anything useful."
On April 29, Willem Buiter's Maverecon site headlined "Gagging on Google" and said:
"Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women's rights and civil liberties: a daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual property."
This company should be rigorously regulated, "and if necessary, broken up or put out of business." With about half the global internet search market, it threatens enhanced "corporate or even official Big Brotherism."
For example, Google Street View, an addition to Google Maps, "provides panoram(ic) images visible from street level in cities around the world. The cameras record details of residents' lives" on all sorts of personal matters that no one should be able to snoop on, then save, without permission, for whatever purposes.
The company also invades our privacy through tracking cookies or "third-party persistent cookies" to assist interest-based advertising, a practice known as behavioral targeting. In the wrong hands, this information can be used "to put a commercial squeeze on people, but also to extort and blackmail them." And in government hands, it enhances "a pretty effective and very nasty police state."
Can Google be trusted to use this information responsibly? "Of course not." It's a business run by "amoral capitalists," out to make as much money as possible by any means necessary. Google and other Internet search engines "should not be trusted because they cannot be trusted." However, because of its size and dominance, Google is "the new evil empire of the internet," a "Leviathan" that must be tamed.
Cybersecurity Legislation
On April 1, two bills endangering a free and open Internet were introduced in the Senate:
-- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 "to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes."
S. 773 was then referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and thus far not voted on.
-- S. 778: A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor (aka czar). The bill was referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and not yet voted on.
Accompanying information said Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced the legislation to address:
"our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."
We presently face cyber espionage threats, they said, as well as "another great vulnerability....to our private sector critical infrastructure - banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications - from disruptive cyber attacks that could literally shut down our way of life."
"This proposed legislation will bring new high-level governmental attention to develop a fully integrated, thoroughly coordinated, public-private partnership to our cyber security efforts in the 21st century" through what's unstated - government affecting our private lives by threatening the viability of a free and open Internet.
During a March Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, Senator Rockefeller said that we'd all be better off if the Internet was never invented. His precise words were: "Would it have been better if we'd never have invented the Internet and had to use paper and pencil or whatever!" Left unsaid was that without a free and open Internet, few alternatives for getting real news and information would exist, at least with the ease and free accessibility that computers can provide.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jennifer Granick expressed alarm about the risk of "giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. (These bills) should be opposed or radically amended."
Here's what they'll do:
-- federalize critical infrastructure security, including banks, telecommunications and energy, shifting power away from providers and users to Washington;
-- give "the president unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in (whatever he calls) an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds....;"
-- potentially "cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop" through one provision (alone) empowering the Commerce Secretary to "have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...."
In other words, the Commerce Department will be empowered to access "all relevant data" - without privacy safeguards or judicial review. As a result, constitutionally protected private information statutory protections will be lost - guaranteed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, and financial privacy regulations.
Another provision mandates a feasibility study for an identity management and authentication program that would sidestep "appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections."
At issue is what role should the federal government play in cybersecurity? How much power should it have? Can it dismiss constitutional protections, and what, in fact, can enhance cybersecurity without endangering our freedoms? S. 773 and 778, as now written, "make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards (without) address(ing) the real problems of security."
In late February, Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, told the House Intelligence Committee that the NSA, not DHS, should be in charge of cybersecurity even though it has a "trust handicap" to overcome because of its illegal spying:
"I think there is a great deal of distrust of the National Security Agency and the intelligence community in general playing a role outside of the very narrowly circumscribed role because of some of the history of the FISA issue in years past...." So Blair asked the committee's leadership to find a way to instill public confidence.
On February 9, Obama appointed Melissa Hathaway to be Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils - in charge of a 60-day interagency cybersecurity review, now completed.
On April 21, NSA/Chief Central Security Service director, General Alexander, told RSA Conference security participants that "The NSA does not want to run cybersecurity for the government. We need partnerships with others. The DHS has a big part, you do, and our partners in academia. It's one network and we all have to work together....The NSA can offer technology assistance to team members. That's our role."
But someone has to be in charge. It may or may not be NSA, but no matter. At issue is our constitutional freedoms. Any infringement on them must be challenged and stopped.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!
