Doc's Talk: Kuwaiti Columnist Ibtihal Al-Khatib Criticizes Hizbullah

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Kuwaiti Columnist Ibtihal Al-Khatib Criticizes Hizbullah

MEMRI

Declares That a Secular State is the Only Way to Protect Religious Rights in the Arab World

Liberal Kuwaiti Sh'ite activist Dr. Ibtihal Abd Al-Aziz Al-Khatib, an academic, has received numerous death threats for her criticism of Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah over the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, and for calling for a commission of inquiry like Israel's Winograd Commission to examine his activities in that war.(1)

The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Al-Khatib, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on March 14, 2008:

"When An Infrastructure Worth Billions Is Destroyed, When You Have Thousands Of Casualties... How Can This Be Considered In Any Way A Victory?"

Interviewer: "Don't you think that Hizbullah won the July 2006 war, when it stopped the Israeli war machine, and put an end to the Israeli conceit?"
Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Our problem is that we have a somewhat naïve view of this issue – as if an Israeli defeat necessarily means that we won, and since there is a loser, there must be a winner. If only wars were as simple as that. It is possible for both sides to lose – and that was the case here. Israel suffered some material losses, as well as a few casualties, and it lost its reputation as an invincible army. But if you consider the situation in Lebanon... I always say that we must define 'victory' first. When an infrastructure worth billions is destroyed, when you have thousands of casualties, when your country has regressed, and when your tourism has been completely destroyed – how can this be considered in any way a victory, and how can we possibly take to the streets in celebration, in light of such regression? It would be better if we could evaluate the negative things that happened, in order to avoid them in any future political circumstances. That's what I was talking about."

[...]

Interviewer: "Do you think it was Hizbullah's aura of sacredness that brought upon you all this criticism, this rejection, and those threatening letters, calling you a Jew, a collaborator, and an apostate?"

"We [Arabs] are Constantly Waiting for a Hero... Who Will Come and Save Us From Our Ruin and Decay"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "I encountered a lot of rage because I criticized a so-called religious party. In my opinion, the Islamic and Arab peoples are still waiting for a savior. We are constantly waiting for a hero – a person who will come and save us from our ruin and decay. In the political history of the Arab and Muslims, one sees that we adhere to certain leaders and we follow them, without any consideration for the consequences."

[...]

Interviewer: "Do you have a problem with religion?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Of course not. My problem is with religious coercion. That is what goes on in most Arab countries."

Interviewer: "What do you mean by religious coercion?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "When you impose a particular school of religion on a certain country... Let's take Kuwait as an example, since I am a Kuwaiti. In Kuwait, the predominant school of Islam is Sunni."

Interviewer: "That is because the majority of the population is Sunni?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "The government is Sunni too. Hence, a certain group inevitably faces injustice and violation of some of its rights."

Interviewer: "How can you claim the government is Sunni while it has some Shiite ministers?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "True, but most of the ministers are Sunni."

Interviewer: "But we cannot claim that the government is Sunni in character."

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Of course it is Sunni in character."

Interviewer: "Even though there are some Shiite ministers?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Of course. The ruling family is Sunni, and the leading school of Islam is definitely... The Islamic curricula taught to our children are Sunni. The charity law for companies is a purely Sunni law. The Shiites don't have such a thing."

"Secularism Protects Religions... When You Treat All Religions on the Same Level, You Guarantee Everybody's Liberty to Exercise Their Religious Rights"

Interviewer: "So you are defending the Shiites because their rights are not respected?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "That's not what I mean. In Iran, for example, it is the Sunnis whose rights are violated, and they suffer from pressure because they are a minority. If you separate religion from state and have full civil rights... secularism protects religions and does not oppose them. When you treat all religions on the same level, you guarantee everybody's liberty to exercise their religious rights.

[...]

"Our mission, as journalists, is to make it clear that the principles of secularism and liberalism, which have gained a bad reputation recently in the Arab world, are not... "

Interviewer: "Why have they gained a bad reputation?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Because they are characterized as heretical."

Interviewer: "You mean that they are confronted by accusations of heresy."

"Religion Belongs to God, and the State Belongs to All"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Yes. Anyone who is secular is accused of being a heretic, which is absolutely untrue. Secularism is the belief in the separation of religion and state. In other words, religion belongs to God, and the state belongs to all. Every person is free to practice his religion and follow his spiritual path, but all are subject to a civil state. That way, we ensure just treatment for all, instead of Sunnis enjoying more rights than Shiites, or vice versa, and Christians having no rights whatsoever in an Islamic state.

[...]

"I won't say that I am either Shiite or Sunni – I declare myself to be a Kuwaiti, and that's it. As for my spiritual path, it is between me and my Creator."

Interviewer: "So you prefer not to present yourself as belonging to any school of Islam..."

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Absolutely. I present myself only as a Kuwaiti."

Interviewer: "Do you think that presenting oneself as a Kuwaiti, for example, rather than as a follower of a particular school of Islam, has become necessary in our countries, in light of the rise of sectarianism?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "It has become essential. Let me ask you a question..."

Interviewer: "Usually I am the one asking the questions..."

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Today, I will ask you a question. If you asked people about their religious authorities – their sheikhs, mullahs, ayatollahs, whatever... If your religious authority were to issue a fatwa, which runs counter to the interests of your country, who would you follow? Would you act in accordance with your country's interests or the fatwa? The answer would have very grave consequences. That is why we are calling for the separation of religion and state..."

Interviewer: "What do you expect the consequences of this answer to be?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "There is a strong sectarian bias toward the religious authorities rather than the state, and this is catastrophic for our Arab countries."

[...]

Interviewer: "The people would answer that religion is more important that the state. They would say that they were created for the sake of religion."

"We Draw a Comparison Between Religion and State, But They Are Not Comparable"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Do you know why? Because we draw a comparison between religion and state, but they are not comparable. Religion is a spiritual path, which is based on intent. You cannot establish states on the basis of spiritual paths – on the basis of intent, on what one conceals rather than reveals."

Interviewer: "Don't you think this runs counter to the path of the prophets, to the path shown by the Prophet Muhammad?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "The Prophet Muhammad is a great and unique phenomenon. In addition to being a wise politician who bore a divine message, he was holy in a way that will never recur in another human being. That is why he could gather those people around him, and rule them in matters of politics, religion, and society. All the people listened to him, and therefore, what happened after he died? What happened hours – not years – after his death? Sectarianism broke out immediately, because he was the one uniting them."

[...]

Interviewer: "But the sanctity did not disappear. It remains in the holy texts."

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "I do not dispute this. All I'm saying is that you cannot use these texts to build a modern state. I say this is impossible, because there are many different ways of understanding these texts. In addition, in modern countries, there are not only Muslims. You cannot build a country on Islam alone, and exclude followers of other religions."

Interviewer: "So you want a state that has nothing to do with Islam?"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "I want a state that is not based on religion – a civil state. But one of the conditions is to protect people who want to practice their religion. Let me give you an example. The Bohra is a Muslim sect, which has recently been denied the right to have a mosque in Kuwait. Why?"

Interviewer: "You want to defend religious rights with secularism."

"We Are All Equal And Protected by the Secular Regime, Which Treats Us All Without Discrimination"

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "Secularism protects the rights of minorities, and all the religious rights. Of course."

Interviewer: "Sometimes the rights of the majority are lost amid all the talk about the rights of the minorities."

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib: "How can they be lost, if you establish a civil regime that protects everybody, and tells you that just as you are free to follow your Sunni path, I am free to follow my Shiite path, and Christians and Jews have their rights too? This way we are all equal and protected by the secular regime, which treats us all without discrimination."

Endnote:
(1) http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/5206.htm.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk