You can follow the "Prime Minister's Questions" session in the British Parliament on America's CSPAN network.

I know this will be stale news for news junkies and almost everyone else might be going "Why do I care?" Well, there are a lot of reasons. For one, it gives non-Britons a chancce to see how things are done in another system. To people that are following global politics, it will give them a chance to follow British politics first hand. And one reason, especially for people in the US, whether you are pro-, say the Bush Admnistration's policies, or against them; whether you strongly support Israel or think they are in classic over-reach or worse, this will give you a reality-check on what is essentially a part of Europe is thinking.

To get specific; where is the Western Muslim that will seriously engage the following topic and either debunk it or try to do something about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4208771.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4206909.stm

Notice that in the first case, at least, the local Muslims are as unhappy with the situation as anyone else.

Ahmad Rashid is on NPR's Fresh Air. The man's been one of the most important voices on Afghanistan; let's see what he has to say about Iraq (Fresh Air's segment is titled "Iraq, Seen Through Pakistani Eyes"):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4466660

First it was Newt, now Christine Todd-Whitman is back on the trail, too? Dare I say these are the people that will be taking on W's anointed successor?

She was on Leonard Lopate's show on WNYC this morning:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/01262005

and she has a PAC and website:

http://www.mypartytoo.com/ (the advisory board includes Bill Weld...hmmm...)

And she "doesn't see" getting back into politics?!

There as a time I classified her with Giuliani as a kinda authoritarian figure—and this was long before my drift towards starting to tentative self-identify as "progressive", when I still was pretty open to working with Republicans I lived and worked in areas governed by them. But mebbe I was wrong...

The following interview on CSPAN:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter_wj012205_bonazzi.rm

had me curious. So I went googling and here's what I turned up:

"In a report from Washington this week, Britain's Financial Times said that the neocons were backing an Iranian opposition group, the Alliance for Democracy in Iran, which is hoping for a big injection of American funds. Several senators have also urged the administration to back "regime change" in Iran."
(http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=11967)

"As a result, new exiled Iranian opposition groups backed by some of Washington's neoconservatives are springing up in the hope of seeing large doses of US funding.

One such group the Alliance for Democracy in Iran is taking shape, strategically located in the heart of the capital's think-tank quarter. Activists described it as an opposition umbrella group that would act as a “clearing house” for US taxpayers' money dedicated to advancing the cause of democracy."
(http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15132.shtml)

A friend forwarded the following yesterday:

http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=who_islam

I guess it caught me in a cynical mood, because I replied to him with a "Feel-Good TV, huh?". When he challenged that, I explained my reason for calling it that:

This seems like something that will salve the ego of American Muslims by having them feel "See! Our religion is so nice and peaceful--we are just misunderstood." and the ego of "civilized viewers" by having them feel: "See! We are so nice, we are not demonizing Islam, we are making serious efforts to understand it..." I hope I am wrong, but I really don't see this starting the kind of conversation that is so necessary today.

However, the same friend did, later in the day forward the following--which seems like it is something that provokes some questions:

http://www.matmedia.org/films.htm

But then, like I said, maybe the first one caught me in an odd mood—it does have a wonderful line-up of speakers; one that promises an interesting discussion, especially for the wonk. As my friend pointed out, the comparing and contrasting of fatwas with a person like Shaikh Hamza Yusuf participating should be brain-candy, no doubt.

Lots of South Asian News today:

Pakistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4182151.stm
India: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm
Sri Lanka: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4172313.stm (You will remember Hasan Jafri commenting on this in an earlier entry on this blog.)

Interesting controversy brewing out East:

http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/optical_character_recognition/baring_my_religion.html

(BTW, the Chapati Mystery is a very interesting blog.)

This was posted on another blog on Monday, April 14, 2003, at 4:01 PM, soon after the start of the Iraq War. The report it refers to was one by Robert Fisk (or was it Christopher Hitchens) about the destruction of historical documents. I still haven't been able to contact Gauhar Raza:

Of Oppressors, and The Oppressed

Someone on a South Asian e-mail list requested a translation of a poetic piece in Urdu apparently by Indian Activist, Poet, and Engineering researcher Gauhar Raza obviously anti-the first war of the 21st Century to come to Baghdad, a city that has seen a multitude of wars over the centuries.

I personally cannot seem to formulate a clear position mentally against the "War in/on Iraq", but a news report had caught my ear just hours before that had me, for the first time, smacking my head in exasperation. And I started the following as an idiomatic translation. It seems to have taken a poetic life of its own.

Understanding this poetic piece independent of the idiom, metaphor and poetic tranditions based on the events that give the town of Karbala in southern Iraq its significance to world and, particularly, Muslim history would be, at best, cursory and at worst misguided. Much has been said about the Shias and how their oppression by the erstwhile ruling clique in Baghdad as being one of the "reasons" for this war. The poetic piece below is an ironic--to use the "Western" Media's word--indication of how much more complicated the whole issue is. To say anything more requires a much more detailed--and preferably much more interactive discussion--than I am not qualifed to lead. (The requested byline for the translation hints at why.)

And if an attribution is to be made for the translation, please note the lines below Gauhar Raza's signature.

Now on to the translation:

Sham-e-Ghariban
Even'o'the Oppressed

Qatilo Yeh jagha kuchh naee to naheen
(Oh) Murderers! This place is not unfamiliar
Ye jagha is se pahle bhi sajti rahee
This venue has been prepared often before
Fauj ke silsile aur tabl-o-alam
Successions of Armies; the Drums and the Banners of War
Lashkaron ki safen, azm ke qafile
Ranks of Legions; Caravans of Resolve
Jan lene ka dar, jan dene ki dhun
The fear of taking a life; the rapture of giving one's own
Puri dunyan pe qabze ka tha ek nasha
World Domination was a drug in its own
Taj ki takht ki bhook thi ek taraf
On one side there was the hunger for crown and for throne
Aur yaheen the who sab,
And here were the rest
Sar pe bahdhe kafan
Bedecked in their shrouds
Jo usulon pe mitne ko tayyar the
Ready to be martyred for principle
Is jagha zulm ki had muqarrar hui
It was here that the bounds of oppression were set
Aur shahadat ke paimane banche gaye
And vessels of martyrdom were wrought all anew
Yeh wahee ret hai, yeh wahee dhool hai
This is the same sand; the same dust
Nainawa hai wahi, karbala hai wahee
This Nainawa is the same; this Karbala is the same
Teer bhi, sang bhi, bediyan bhi wahee
The arrows as well, stones too; the same ball and chain
Ham ne pahle bhi parkhe hain zalim yahan
Here we have tested oppressors before
Ham ne pahle bhi dekhe hain naizon pe sar
We have seen here before heads on spears
Khoon-e-nahaq ki khushboo hai ab tak yahan
Murder most foul is still in the air
Is ko pahchan lo,
See them; learn them; know them well

Qatilo Yeh jagha kuchh naee to naheen
(Oh) Murderers! This place is not unfamiliar
Ye jagha is se pahle bhi sajti rahee
This venue has been prepared often before

Jeet kar jang pahle bhi hare the tum
You have won the war but lost before
Jeet kar jang phir har jao ge tum
You will win the battle and lose, again
Aur tareekh apne ko dohraigee
And history, indeed, will repeat itself
Qatilo is se pehle bhi aisa hua
(Oh) Murders, this has all happened before
Qatl ho kar bhi bazee hamari rahee
Murdered, we have carried the day before

Qatilo Yeh jagha kuchh naee to naheen
(Oh) Murderers! This place is not unfamiliar
Ye jagha is se pahle bhi sajti rahee
This venue has been prepared often before

(Iraq ke awam ke naam, jinhon ne tisree dunyan ke awam ki laj rakh lee)
(To the People of Iraq, who have kept the honour of the people of the Third World)

Gauhar Raza
05.04.2003

The translation is dedicated to the barbarity of war, fought under any rules: http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=25219
Aurangzaib Ansari
05.14.2003

...and gratitude to boot:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4164915.stm

There really is not much else to say, except to restate that working like this across boundaries is just plain noble.

"War is like a poison. And just as a cancer patient must at times ingest a poison to fight off a disease, so there are times in a society when we must ingest the poison of war to survive. But what we must understand is that just as the disease can kill us, so can the poison."

NEW YORK TIMES reporter Chris Hedges, author of WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING.
Full interview at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week622/p-hedges.html

Listening to an interview of an anti-war kind of person (Grace Paley is the Poet Laureate of Conneticutt, among other things) brings up a rather interesting point: one underlying assumption for a lot of the most sincere and passionate anti-war folk--folks that were against the war because it was for all the wrong reasons--was that the "War in Iraq" was that they believed that the US would win quickly, brutally, and completely. Which is very different from people that believed it would just be a mess...

[Related link: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R412300900 from the SF Bay Area NPR station KQED's "Forum" program with Michael Krasny.]