Holte's corner

Sure enough

No sooner than I had posted my take on the latest news about Abu Gharaib and the ongoing scandal of how this administration decided to play fast and loose with the Constitution, international treaties and international law, when the Washington post came out with this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45319-2004Aug29.html
I have it excerpted at the "Buddhist dialogue group:"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddhist_dialogue_group/message/23689 If you want to read more later.

The below report shows just how much the latest report represents an
intermediate step in the unravelling of the Top Governments role in
the Abu Gharaib scandal. A clear chain of command link can be
identified between Dick Cheney, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, General
Sanchez and Pappas. This is not a mere case of the top officials
writing a "policy that was not clear" but of them writing a policy
that was sufficiently vague enough so that they could later deny that
they advanced it -- which is a different animal all together.

Again, my readings on the behavior of dictatorships in other
countries shows that the same pattern usually occurs. The top brass
writes rules that are vague enough so that they can later deny ever
writing them.

Fortunately, so far, we are lacking the next step. When the Brass
starts labelling those who try to expose their behavior as enemies
and arresting, disapearing, discrediting or killing them as well as
their previous declared enemies:
Documents Helped Sow Abuse, Army Report Finds
Top Officials Did Not Make Interrogation Policies Clear

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A01

"Early last September, attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq were spiking
and an Army general dispatched from a military prison at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, concluded in a classified study that the detention of
Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad 'does not yet set
conditions for successful interrogations.'"

"Under pressure to extract more information from the prisoners --
to "go beyond" what Army interrogation rules allowed, as an Army
general later put it -- the senior U.S. military commander in Iraq
sent a secret cable to his boss at U.S. Central Command on Sept. 14,
outlining more aggressive interrogation methods he planned to
authorize immediately."

"The cable signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez listed several dozen
strategies for extracting information, drawn partly from what
officials now say was an outdated and improperly permissive Army
field manual. But it added one not previously approved for use in
Iraq, under the heading of Presence of Military Working
Dogs: "Exploit Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during
interrogations."

"Sanchez's order calling on police dog handlers to help intimidate
detainees into talking -- a practice later seen in searing
photographs -- was one of a handful of documents written by senior
officials that Army officials now say helped sow the seeds of prison
abuse in Iraq. They did so, according to an Army report released
Wednesday, by lending credence to the idea that aggressive
interrogation methods were sanctioned by officers going up the chain
of command"

"But the issue of using dogs is also an example of how the U.S.
military's ad hoc and informal decision-making in Iraq created
confusion and allowed these harsh methods to infiltrate from
Afghanistan to Guantanamo and finally to Iraq, despite Bush
administration contentions that detainees in each theater of conflict
were subject to different rules and that Iraqis would receive the
most protections."

"The text of the Sanchez cable was not included in public copies of
the Army's report, but was obtained by The Washington Post from a
government official upset by what Sanchez approved."

"The authors of the Army report did not accuse Sanchez of directly
instigating abuse, and they did not cite the contents of his memo in
the unclassified version. But Army Gen. Paul J. Kern -- who oversaw
the drafting of the report -- said in an interview last week that
Sanchez "wrote a policy which was not clear," and that by doing so,
he allowed junior officers to conclude mistakenly that they were
following an official policy as they stepped over a legal line."

"This interpretation of the role senior officials played -- that they
committed sins of omission, rather than commission, by writing
ambiguous instructions and then failing to police the errant ways of
subordinates -- is likely to be challenged in court, according to
lawyers for some of the soldiers on trial in connection with the
prison abuse."

"No one above the military grade of the top intelligence commander at
Abu Ghraib was legally "culpable" for the abuse, the Army report
concluded. But a separate report on the abuse released Wednesday by a
panel appointed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld referred to
Sanchez's memo on Sept. 14 as one of several documents that led "some
soldiers or contractors who committed abuse" to believe 'the
techniques were condoned.'"

"Other such documents cited by officials who participated in the two
probes include a December 2002 memo signed by Rumsfeld that
authorized harsh interrogation methods for prisoners at Guantanamo,
and a controversial Feb. 7, 2002, memo signed by President Bush that
declared that fighters detained in Afghanistan were not entitled as a
matter of law to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions."

"The Rumsfeld memo included authorization for the use of dogs; the
Bush memo was cited by legal advisers to Sanchez as the basis for
their determination that some Iraqi detainees were not entitled to
the full legal protections provided by the Geneva Conventions,
according to the independent panel. This "confusion" between
interrogation rules devised for use at Guantanamo and Afghanistan and
the protections mandated by international law in Iraq contributed to
some of the abuse, according to the Army report's executive summary."

"Kern said: "We found not culpability" among senior officers such as
Sanchez, but "clear responsibility" for not deterring junior officers
and enlisted men from inappropriate behavior. "They didn't clarify
for those young interrogators what their responsibilities were."

"Several abuses in particular are highlighted by the two reports
released last week: the use of dogs to frighten detainees, the
repeated stripping of detainees, and the use of extended isolation
and sensory deprivation. Each clearly violated Army rules and
violated Geneva Conventions that protect civilians under military
occupation from threats of violence, isolation from visits by the Red
Cross, and humiliating and degrading treatment, the Army report said."

The issue of using military dogs illustrates how a blizzard of memos
from senior officials sowed an impression of tolerance, if not
approval, for aggressive interrogations. It has been a particular
embarrassment to the Pentagon since photos of dogs snarling and
barking in front of cowering Iraqis -- and in one case preparing to
bite a detainee -- were made public in June, about six months after
soldiers there recorded the images.

It also illustrates how, as the independent panel's report concluded,
the migration of lists and interrogators from one theater to another
resulted in "policies approved for use on al Qaeda and Taliban
detainees, who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva
Conventions, [being] applied to detainees who did fall under the
Geneva Conventions."

Army investigators probing the abuse in Iraq traced the initial idea
of using dogs -- a technique that does not appear in the service's
standard field guide -- to interrogation practices followed by U.S.
intelligence officials and Special Forces teams deployed in
Afghanistan. Kern said the officials there concluded that Afghans
feared dogs because of religious beliefs that those bitten are
unhealthy or condemned, and became convinced that this fear could be
exploited to compel intelligence disclosures.

The technique migrated first from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, via
Washington. In late 2002, aides to Rumsfeld -- responding to a
request by officials at Guantanamo for approval of more aggressive
interrogation methods -- canvassed officers in Afghanistan and
elsewhere. On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved techniques for use only at
that site, which included "the use of dogs to induce stress and the
removal of clothing as Counter-Resistance techniques," according to
the Army report.

Rumsfeld rescinded his memo the following month, after a private
protest by Navy general counsel Alberto J. Mora over its sanctioning
of practices in violation of international law and military
regulations. The independent panel's report faulted Rumsfeld for not
obtaining "a wider range of legal opinions and a more robust debate"
before he approved the rules. It also said his promulgation of these
guidelines -- even temporarily -- contributed "to a belief that
stronger interrogation methods were needed and appropriate."

By April, after a Pentagon review, Rumsfeld approved a new list of
interrogation techniques that omitted the use of dogs. But U.S.
Special Operations forces in Afghanistan, meanwhile, continued to use
many of the practices on Rumsfeld's Dec. 2 list, including "isolating
people for long periods of time, using stress positions, exploiting
fear of dogs, and implementing sleep and light deprivation," the Army
report concluded.

U.S. military commanders there urged the removal of clothing on
grounds that "no specific written legal prohibition existed." The
Pentagon has not released details of abusive Special Forces
activities in Afghanistan. But the independent panel said an
unreleased Defense Department report has found "a range of abuses and
causes similar in scope and magnitude" to those involving
interrogators at Abu Ghraib.

In Afghanistan, these tactics were also employed by members of the
Army's 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, a unit transferred to
Iraq in the summer of 2003. After Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the
top official at the Guantanamo prison, visited Abu Ghraib from Aug.
31 to Sept. 9 and called for more rigorous interrogations there, some
of these tactics -- including the use of dogs -- were incorporated in
a memo drafted by Sanchez's legal office on Sept. 10 and sent to
prison interrogators.

Sanchez's legal advisers subsequently drew on both this guidance and
the legal justifications in Bush's 2002 directive while drafting the
Sept. 14 cable from Sanchez to Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of
U.S. Central Command, the independent panel's report said.

"Enclosed is the policy modeled on the one implemented for
interrogation conducted at Gitmo," Sanchez said in his cable,
referring to Guantanamo Bay. It authorized not only exploiting
prisoners' "fear" of dogs but also the use of isolation; "sleep
management"; "yelling, loud music, and light control . . . to create
fear, disorient detainees and capture shock"; deception, including
fake documents and reports; and "stress positions," such as forced
kneeling for as many as four hours at a time.

The cable placed no restrictions on the use of dogs on "detainees"
and "security internees," but said any use involving enemy prisoners
of war would require Sanchez's direct approval. In fact, as Maj. Gen.
George R. Fay, an intelligence official who co-wrote the Army report,
said in an interview last week, the use of this narrow qualifying
phrase in Sanchez's memo reflected bad "staff work" by the lawyers
who drafted it for Sanchez's approval, because U.S. military
forces "did not have very many enemy prisoners of war at that point."

Within one month, Sanchez's cable was rescinded on instructions from
senior officials at U.S. Central Command and replaced with a more
cautious memo that allowed the use of muzzled dogs during
interrogations only when Sanchez gave his direct approval --
something he told investigators he was never asked to do.

His new memo was based in part on an outdated 1987 version of the
Army Field Manual for interrogations, which was more permissive than
the 1992 version then in effect because it allowed complete control
of light, heat, food, clothing and shelter as interrogation
techniques, the Army report concluded. Investigators attributed this
error by Sanchez's office to the Army's failure to update a key Web
site with the 1992 report.

But whatever Sanchez's intent or policy, the practice of "abusing
detainees with dogs started almost immediately" after the Army,
acting at Miller's urging, brought several dog teams to Abu Ghraib in
November 2003.

The fact that at least three "confusing and inconsistent"
interrogation directives were approved within a month-long
period "contributed to the belief" that illegal interrogation
techniques were condoned, the Army report stated. An absence of
leadership and oversight also left room for what the Army report
described as "word of mouth" techniques to be passed around and
followed by interrogators deployed to Iraq.

The Army report quoted Sanchez as saying he "never approved use of
dogs." Fay also said in the report that "no documentation was found"
showing approval by the Combined Joint Task Force 7, headed by
Sanchez, "to use dogs in interrogations."

Asked to explain the apparent conflict between language in the report
and the text of Sanchez's cable, Kern said that what Sanchez meant is
that he never specifically approved an interrogation plan submitted
to him for review that involved the use of dogs, while Fay said that
Sanchez believes he only endorsed the general presence of muzzled
dogs at the time interrogations were being conducted, rather than
inside prison interrogation booths -- a practice that was clearly
misunderstood.

"Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the senior intelligence official at Abu
Ghraib, told Army investigators that Miller, in addition to Sanchez,
had authorized the use of dogs to "set the stage" for productive
interrogations. But the authors of the report accepted Miller's
contrary contention that he only recommended using dogs for detainee
custody and control at Abu Ghraib. Miller is the head of U.S.
military detainee operations in Iraq."

Knowing who is the Enemy

The Republicans are having their national convention. I probably should be watching on TV but I can no longer stomach the people. I force myself to read their words in the Paper instead. Republicans are not my enemies, but they seem to feel that somehow "liberals" like myself are their enemies. All their talk about "unity" has been used as a weapon to secure advantage for their Party and for their Parties economic backers. They accused us, with dripping venom, "Democrats" of wrapping ourselves in the flag a month ago, and now they are doing the same thing. That is the problem with venom. It is poison that is aimed at incapacitating the victim.

At any rate, Democrats are not the enemy of the US. Republicans would be wise to remember that. They started forgetting this fact back during the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations when they were seeking "commies" everywhere. And again when Nixon employed his rat pack of plumbers to break into the Democratic Party headquarters. Subsequently the loony fringe of the Republican party has acted as if to be a liberal and a Democrat was to be a commie stooge, and they have trotted out the rumor sheets of foreign intercepts and the confessions of the genuine subversives of the time to reinforce that notion.

Yes, people are often their own worst enemy. But that sort of enemy is within. The Republicans have also done things that were to the advantage of the "Enemy." And they continue to do so. I'll listen to the convention to see whether they are listening to the "loony fringe" or their own best inner voice. It won't affect my vote in November, but it may affect how I vote in future years. Four years ago they gave us an impressive display of salesmanship. I think their platform is still at that level. On the one hand you have the "compassionate conservative." On the other you have Hannity and Rove, and Anne Coulter. Which voice dominates? We'll see....

Dealing with "Islamicists"

I started researching the history of the founder of Islam. The Koran is a good place to start. And I started there. But the Hadith and their meanings and histories are even more useful. One argument among Moslems is how seriously to take the Hadith. The Koran is considered sacred and inviable. But many modern Moslems have to struggle with Hadith? Why? Because it represents a mindset very similar to that reflected in parts of the Torah and Haftorah that recount ancient events. Mohammed lived in a time of blood-thirsty wars, disputes, and if the stories are to be accepted on their face, of a powerful, bloodthirsty and expanding religious and secular movement. The Islam portrayed in the Hadiths is one of "black and white", of dreams, of stories of revenge and conflict, betrayal and opposition. If the stories are to be believed Mohammed had 12 wives, talked to angels, and did some extraordinary things.

The stories may well be true. And I'm sure Moslems must take them seriously. Fortunately for the West and for Moslems, there is a command for them to struggle with the text. They don't have to "freeze" their minds into a 6th century mindset. They don't have to try to literally ape the stories they read in the Koran, anymore than modern Jews would be justified for labelling them as Amelykites and trying to kill them all in revenge for those who do. I'm not qualified to do this. But I implore Moslems to try.

There is room in this world for progress and love and charity. And there is a time when people have to acknowledge that conditions do change. There is no longer a moral justification for looting rivals or taking their women as one's own. And there never was a moral compulsion to follow the 'fatwah's' of sick people who claim to speak in the Prophet's name. There never was a moral justification to kill women and children in the name of the prophet or to strap explosives around one's waist to that end. Just as there is no justification for stripping prisoners of their dignity or torturing people to get information that may or may not be useful. We have a choice in this world of destroying our nest or of improving it.
for more see:
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/000206.html

Chris

Spinning Abu Gharaib

The military's latest investigation has expanded the list of people involved. The tune has changed from a "few people violating the law" to:

"Seven military police soldiers have been charged so far with crimes as a result of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the report released by the Army this week could ultimately result in additional criminal charges against as many as 29 military intelligence soldiers, four more MPs, two medics and six civilian contractors who either were directly involved in abuse or failed to report it. That could mean more than two dozen courts-martial or civilian trials on charges including dereliction of duty, sexual humiliation, forcible sodomy and rape."

As the lawyer for the defense says:

"Both reports leave two options for what happened: that it was a failed command structure that led to the abuses, or that the failed command structure is a cover-up to hide sanctioned violations of the law," said Richard A. Hernandez, England's lead attorney. "I think it clearly confirms what we've been saying all along."

I believe that as the trials progress, if they progress fairly and evidence isn't squashed or a coverup successful, the trail of culpability will head up the chain of command. I think that ultimately the culpability does indeed rest with General Miller, General Sanchez, and ultimately with the current administration and those Lawyers who tried to redefine Torture so that it could be used under another name.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36943-2004Aug26.htmlhttp://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/world/ktla-fg-prison26aug26-lat,0,3831321.story?coll=ktla-news-1

In progress (according to LA times):
• A review by the Navy's inspector general, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church, of the operations and interrogation procedures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. It is expected to be completed next month.

• A delayed review of conditions at U.S. jails in Afghanistan by Brig. Gen. Charles Jacoby, a deputy to the top general in Afghanistan.

• An Army Reserve inspector general assessment of training of reserve units in military intelligence and military police functions.

• A Pentagon administrative investigation into the treatment of detainees by Army Special Forces units.

• Various investigations into the abuses at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan being conducted by the Army's Criminal Investigation Command.

• Justice Department reviews of several investigations referred by other agencies, including the CIA, into wrongdoing by individual civilians. So far one case has resulted in charges against a contractor.

Spinning the economy

If you want a laugh. Well maybe the humor is too dry or sardonic for most people, but it had me laughing anyway, you should watch a pro spin bad news. Todays Post has that in our distinguished pundit Robert Novak's column:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040818.shtml. It seems the Congressional Budget Office has just released a new report which confirms what "intellectuals" and ordinary people have already noticed; that the current recovery is benefiting the rich and empoverishing the middle.

"That study concluded that President Bush's cuts had shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to the middle class, though everyone enjoyed an income tax reduction. That was the old-fashioned way of scoring consequences of tax legislation, an exercise of arithmetic rather than economics. Kerry could not have been happier. "This is the straw that will break the back of middle-class families," proclaimed a written statement by the senator."

To read the actual report, you see that indeed the economy has not been kind to either the "middle class" nor to blue collar workers:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=0
He picked right up on the salient points:
"The differential increase in effective tax rates among quintiles is reflected in a shift down the income distribution in shares of taxes paid (see the third and fourth panels of Table 2). The share of taxes paid by the top quintile falls from 65.3 percent in 2001 to 62.8 percent in 2014, even though that group's share of income does not change. Four-fifths of that decline occurs for the top 1 percent of taxpayers, whose share falls by 2 percentage points, to 20.7 percent of federal taxes in 2014. The share of taxes paid by each of the middle three quintiles climbs by about 0.7 percentage points."

Turns out I'm not the only one who felt Novak's article was unfair:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42714-2004Aug28.html

Swift Boats and Truth

Now I know a lot of other folks are talking about the controversies over Kerry and his swift boat experience. But here are three things to keep in mind.
First, most of the people who are denigrating and attacking at him are not primarily angry at his behavior in Vietnam, no matter their protests to the contrary. It is pretty obvious that what they have been disagreeing with is what he did after Vietnam. They didn't like his leading the "Vietnam Veterans against the War" {example: Vietnam veterans against John Kerry} and protesting the continued fighting in Vietnam. There is a kind of a "omerta" in most professions, and the profession of making war is one of the oldest and very similar to the other old profession, though with more opportunity for genuine honor.
Second, the very fact that he showed up should be grounds for appreciating his patriotism and commitment to our country.
Third, this kind of demagoguing of people's personal record needs to cease and desist. There are good arguments pro and con for any group and their ideas. The fact that people resort to slurs and what is basically "Gossip" to accomplish their ends should worry any of us.

And indeed, it turns out that the stories about Kerry don't mesh with the reality.

Freedom and Tradition

What is the point of studying "religion" if one doesn't take the teachings literally? Aren't we supposed to have "faith" that these things, despite all the evidence of the senses to the contrary, are somehow "true?" Why keep attached to beliefs that always were literature, and that have held people back or even caused misery in the past? Why should I or you try to tread a thread between old and new? Why not just discard the old for the new, dump all that garbage, and start over?

Well that is what people tried to do at the beginning of the so-called "modern era" -- which is now over.

PaRDS

There are four ways to study and teach religion. One is "surface", in hebrew it is known as "peshat." Buddhists usually refer to it as "discourses". The second is to use "Reshit"; allegory or figurative language. Most religions use allegory to convey abstract concepts. The third is to use "Drash" or "homiletic" teachings, which usually involve either interpreting existing teachings, creating allegories based on them, or trying to tease out insights from them using various methods. Often it involves "filling in the blanks" or reading into the text new ideas. And the final "method" is "Sot" or insight, and involves using meditative techniques or similar activities to tap into inspirations.

Religious teachers use these techniques generally, but rarely advertize that they are doing so, or that by doing so they are creating anything new. Instead, you'll see them defend their teachings as "orthodox" even when they've turned the source texts upside down. If you understand what they are doing it helps to understand why they'd do this. Understanding the various ways by which religious teachers teach can help you distinguish between teachings and evaluate their worth to you. And if this understanding becomes more widespread then we can do two things with it. One is to hold them to their own standards so they don't go flying or get twisted. And the second is to be able to navigate religion peacefully.

The problem with fundamentalism is that fundamentalists are rarely fundamental enough. That is they read or hear a mystic or a teacher and they accept what he says on it's face value. Or if they don't. They go back to canonical texts and they accept those on their face. The result is that people get confused. They think that they have to accept that a story is historical and "scientifically true" to be history and convey truth.

The problems we have with religion have two elements. One is with the original teachers, but the second one is with their followers who accept their teachings on face value and don't try to learn truth from them. By adopting the foibles and weaknesses of a teacher, one is in fact betraying that teacher and teaching. Teachings help people only when the traditions they spawn can grow and advance with time.

The Dangers of Mysticism

The reasons that people get into trouble with religious experience are universal. It matters not the name of the religion. One of the fundamental truths of spiritual and religious experience, is that because that experience is universal so are the pitfalls. That is all of us, as human beings share similar psychological and physical make up, and the internal language and experience of religion flows from that. The physical and the spiritual are not seperate realms, but are interpolated realms that we experience seperately but which influence on another. Hence, the "realm of dreams", which is experienced most fully in "Vision" or "altered states" is universally available to human beings. And the deceptions which those dreams can give us are also universal. Most of us experience some form of it, some of us are open to experiencing such experiences intensely.

The people who feel them can either be "true prophets" or "false ones." They can either be "holy people" or poseurs. Or both. Those special people who tap into this "realm" systematically are often seen as "prophets." The realm of "Prophesy", where the "Unitary divine"[God/Buddha-BlissRealm/ DharmaRealm/ UniversalMaster] speaks to all of us; is available to everyone who makes sufficient effort. But if it is a realm from which great truths can "boil up" from the unconscious, it is also a realm from which internal evils can flow to the surface from that same unconscious. Thus it is also a realm of deception.

Kabbalists refer to the realm of deception as the "Sitra Accra" or the other side. The paradox is that this realm is effectively interpolated with the same "Heavenly realm" where the Kabbalist mystics go when they dream or tap into visions. And that is why they warn people that one should not put the cart before the horse. Interpreting the letters of the PRDS with their associated hebrew meanings. One should not go flying before one has mastered himself enough to be able to live on the ground. This is why the Jewish Mystics hit on the good combination of their mystics being required to have a secular living and be married. The temptation for mendicants and solitary people to "fly" -- and thus develop highly abstract or abstracted theories and beliefs is just too great. I also believe it is why they told the PaRDeS story I've written about in other places. I guess I'll have to talk about that story now. I come back to that story and that accronym again and again.

Mohammed II

The History of Mohammed's origins and behavior is important to understanding current events because much of the anti-semetism of Islam owes it's roots to Hadith and stories related to the life of Mohammed. He was both aided by and opposed by Jews. And the stories told about his relationship to Jewish people are told by people who were passionately on his side and who believed his understanding of that relationship. And they are repeated by people of like mind in our own day and age. Islamic Anti-Semetism is similar in some ways but very different from that of the West because it is founded in this "fundamental" or "foundational" conflict. Resolving them first requires us to understand them in context.

The basic story we should all be familiar with. The Prophet began his ministry in Mecca. A Hadith by "Aisha" tells us:

"Hadith 1:3
Narrated 'Aisha:

"(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read."

According to the legend he went to get help. He had to learn to read:

"Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.

of pause in revelation reporting the speech of the Prophet "While I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw the same angel who had visited me at the cave of Hira' sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, 'Wrap me (in blankets).' And then Allah revealed the following Holy Verses (of Quran):

'O you (i.e. Muhammad)! wrapped up in garments!' Arise and warn (the people against Allah's Punishment),... up to 'and desert the idols.' (74.1-5) After this the revelation started coming strongly, frequently and regularly."

So Mohammed first learned to read using hebrew letters from a man who was a Christian and a member of his tribe. But essentially, what he came to teach would be an oral teaching. He would memorize what Gabrielle told him, and tell it verbatum to his followers who would memorize it in turn. There is little evidence that he ever learned to read. Mohammed began to teach based on his experiences of dreams and divine revelations. He even began to attract a following.

But when he grew to have a following the people there began to be afraid of him. Part of this was that their stock in trade was in "idolatry." Mecca was the religious Mecca for pagan Arabs throughout the Peninsula, who came to worship at the Kaaba and other shrines. The Meccans made money from a business that included selling incense all over the world, and selling a lot of religious goods in the City. Mohammed was preaching a strict monotheism. This directly challenged their economic base. Few people are willing to stand for that. It doesn't matter if the "other guy is right." It's their money they are worried about. Mohammed was forced to flee Mecca.

It is in Medina that the story starts of his relationship with Jews. It may have begun before. But before he went to Medina there is little record of real conflict. In Medina "Yathrib" Mohammed began to acquire real power. And it was when he acquired real power that the tone of his teachings changed. And when the tone of his teachings changed his relationship changed with the Jews. This relationship is portrayed as having been one that was ordained and full of conflict from the beginning. For instance this website claims that it was a "cold war" from the beginning, with the usual misrepresentations about the relative causality of the conflict: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/12_ali_bin_talib.htm. This website has a different take on the same story: http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h03is.htm

But we will examine these allegations in context. Mohammed began to preach differently as he acquired power. Jews could accept him as a prophet for Arabs, but they were not going to forcibly convert or accept second class status without a fight. And Mohammed could accept no potential challenges to his religious authority. Which the very presence of Jews and Christians potentially represented. And that was the real issue then, and still is the real issue now.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/hudaybiyya.html
That is one reason why well meaning exegites of Islam often are quoting from his earlier teachings. This is an important point. It reflects the changing relationship he had to both his neighbors and to his own power. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Maybe not prophets. But that is certainly true with everyone else.

And it is also important to remember that while the claim is made that he was the "seal of the Prophets" -- he never claimed to be an angel, and I'm not sure he ever claimed to be infallible. All of us would like to be infallible. And anyone teaching a religion is going to insist on unquestioned faith, but that is secondary to whether in fact a teacher is perfect or not. If one can accept that a teacher might not be perfect, then one can begin to suspect that the teachings while divinely inspired, might be transmitted fallibly. That is why some heretical Moslems reject the Hadith -- or the oral records passed down immediately after his death and only accept the words of the Koran itself. I would not suggest they do that. Rather I'd suggest that they should reject unquestioned acceptance of Hadith or any tradition unless it makes sense on the basis of reason and experience. That is different. One involves a complete cutting of roots, the other simply requires the interjection of common sense when required.

to be continued.

Mohammed I

This is a first of a series of essays on the prophet who founded Islam. I've been studying the history of the guy for the past few months with a central question in mind. How did this mans life affect so many people and what is the relationship of this mans life to present troubles. What I found was highly interesting. Islam has it's opponants. Many of them are former Moslems. I don't want to take that route. I'd rather offer a more friendly critique. That might be dangerous too. But I offer it in the spirit of "all teachings lead to the same place." But first I have to start by examining the relationship of Islam to other religions. Specifically with Judaism. The relationship of the founder of Islam with Judaism is troubling on more than one level.

Mohammed appears to have been deeply impressed with Judaism. Jews and Isreaelites appear to have been living among other arabic speaking peoples in the Peninsula since at least the time of the Babylonian Captivity. One group even traced it's lineage to the time of Moses, claiming decent from a group of Jews sent to attack Amalek who were punished for bringing back their king. The story seems to mix up a story set in the time of Saul with stories from genesis, but like all stories told by people, it's mythic quality was meant to convey the ancientness of the time with which that tribe had lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Due to the highly mobile character of the various peoples living in the Peninsula, it appears that Jews were as basically indiginous to the area as the Arabs. According to their own legends the Arabs descened from Abraham and his son Ishmael. They were brothers to the Jews. This was the "archetypical" source of their later conflict. As the bible states:

"Those who bless you I will bless, those who curse you I will curse. All the tribes of the earth shall bless themselves by you....Your issue shall be kings. I will establish my covenant between myself and you, and your descendants after you, generation after generation, a covenant to you and your descendants after you." (Genesis 12:3, 17:3)"

The various tribes of arabic speaking peoples living in the Peninsula were basically the same people, except in religion. The Beduin were still believers in a very personal and traditional religion of local spirits, while the folks in the towns and oasis were attracted to the teachings of Judaism. Some even believe that Mohammed started as a Jewish Proselyte. The peoples were always feuding with one another; "Hatfield and McCoy" style, often shifting alliances and eventually making peace one with another. But they didn't feud over religion. They feuded over land, power, trading rights, the usual economic stuff.

The Arabs were not united, and with the help of Geography had avoided being forcibly included in the great Empires around them. There had been great kingdoms in Arabia. One of the most famous was that of "Sheba" which embraced also lands across the Red Sea in what is now Somalia and Ethiopia. The Arabs were not that different from other East African and south Asian people. It was into this world that Mohammed was born.

Exegisis

One of the great joys of studying a "Master" or great teacher, is the joy of interpreting his writings. This takes study. No one should ever call himself the disciple of anybody without deeply studying the teachings of that person. That being said, the result of such study is that someone can be labelled as a "fundamentalist." In itself that is not a bad term. A fundamentalist is one who goes to the roots of one's teachings and explores their beginnings.

The real problem with most fundamentalists is that they are not fundamentalist enough. They go to the "roots" and stop there. But that is a mistake. To truly understand a teacher, you must understand his roots. And that is when fundamentalism leads to real revolutions in understanding and becomes valuable. Study a teacher in his context and suddenly you learn universal things and things that detach you from literal mindedness.

In the Lotus Sutra there is the story of the "Phantom City." It is early in the Sutra, just before Shakyamuni begins to reveal his "core" or "Homon" teachings. In that story a magician is leading a party on a treasure finding expedition through a wilderness. The people are tired, thirsty, hungry and feeling exhausted. So he conjures up a magic city for them to stay in. They move into the city and for a time it gives them great joy and comfort. But then at some time the people are rested, and the magician makes the city to disapear.

Teachers build "magic cities" for people to live in. They also give "guidance" and information designed to help people to reach their goal and find the "treasures in their lives." In truth the "magic cities" are the creation of the "Universal" and we actually participate in creating their magic. To reach such "magic cities" requires concerted efforts of discipline, self-control, and coordination. Hence every master gives teachings that involve discipline and rules. The archetype of all masters is located in the concept of "God" or a "Dharma-body" Buddha himself, because while temporal teachers may give us teachings that contain precepts that we may live if we live by, those human teachers are themselves fallible. Hence, man has invented the notions of "law", "Dharma" and an ultimate ineffable law in order to express the higher unity of all such teachings.

The individual teachings themselves may be empty. The God who demands sacrifices at one time (Moses) may find them abhorent in the hands of otherwise perverse people (Isaiah). The Buddha who teaches precepts at one time, may tell his disciples later to abandon precepts so they can grasp the principle behind those precepts. Even Paradise or Heaven is ultimately a "magic city" for us to reach, rest in, learn from, and "move on" from.

Somehow we can find the "treasures in life" -- if we continue living in a disciplined and spiritually seeking manner -- on to the next resting place. And we can learn to take refuge in the Ultimate in the meantime. To gain, sometimes we have to let go. We won't find the jewels in life if we cling to the ruins of our magic cities and don't continue to grow. Even the death (literal or figurative) of our heroes and teachers is to help us learn the truths of life: God/Buddha is within.

Hence, if you want to be a fundamentalist. More power to you! But don't stop with the Bible, go and read it's origins. Follow the teachings in all directions. Don't cling to the magic cities. If you like Mohammed, read him in context. If you like Jesus, read him in context. You do that and you will find congruence, and you will abandon conflict. You will find enlightenment, and you will abandon "stiff necked" ideas.

Chris

Creative Commons

Well, I decided to go ahead and put a "creative commons license" on the materials posted here:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Truth and Consequence

I frequently hear people tell me that truth is relative. And this premise usually is coupled with the notion that somehow contradictory or even fantastic teachings are somehow true, because -- after all -- truth is relative. But it doesn't work that way. It becomes pretty obvious that truth is complex, that there is a fantastic dimension to our lives (in our minds and in the interface between the minds around us often known as "spirit"), that we have trouble comprehending the ever changing complexities of the truths of our lives. But truth itself relative? No, I wouldn't say that. And it is a delusion to mistake that fantastic element of our lives for the reality of our lives, even though in many ways "fantasy", "dreams" the "fantastic" is a more real part of reality than the material reality around us.

More on AMIA

In giving a presentation on the AMIA bombing a certain person I know quoted from the "Jewish Gauchos of the Pampas" and a story of a Rabbi who was accused of stealing a horse. He didn't steal the horse, but that didn't matter to the accuser. It was a busy and hectic time and in order to settle with his accuser he paid the accuser for the horse, noting that the accuser depended on that horse for his living. Instead of this settling the problem, the story was only moderated to say "they're thieves those Jews-- but I'll say one thing for them -- they'll confess right away." This person quoted from the book and the Rabbi's foreboding that "the eternal condemnation of the Jews had somehow been transplanted to Argentina." Both form a set piece for how perceptions and prejudices often influence our thinking before we even consider any facts.

For that reason, the AMIA bombing is instructive on a lot of levels. Aside from it being an atrocity comparable with any other atrocity. It is also an example of how atrocities come to happen and maybe what it takes to prevent them. Before the bombing Argentina was warned repeatedly of Terrorist Activity (in this case Hezbollah and Iranian). They chose to look the other way, or even to help the bombers. At the time Carlos Menem was President, and as a converted Arab, he felt great love and affection for both his former religion and his place of birth. With money from the Saudis he built one of the largest mosques in the world. And in 1992, the Isreali Embassy was bombed. And in 1994 the AMIA was bombed. And to this day the investigation of that bombing has been hampered on all quarters.

Now someone said, "this is because of the Palestinians." No it wasn't. In 1994 the dispute with the Palestinians was in negotiation. Someone else has suggested that this was a punishment to Argentina for helping the World Coalition in Desert Storm. Maybe, but like most such loopy logic, that doesn't constitute any kind of justification. Anymore than the behavior of the World Financial community justifies attacking the twin towers in New York and killing 2000 people. Terrorism is simply not an appropriate response to troubles.

And this witness of mine, went to the AMIA the day it was bombed. And heard people on the street claiming that the Jews had blown their own building up. At such times a peculiar gleeful hate comes out of some people. They can dance in the street with joy as people are burned to death and die. I've seen it in my own country too. Only it was directed at Arabs. This kind of perversity is a deep sickness.

And after my first article on this subject. Someone took issue with me noting that the world has not asked for justice and instead condemned Isreal for building it's wall to try to stop similar bombings in it's own country the same week. Indeed not only the two World Trade Center bombings. The bombings in North Africa, Turkey, France, and dozens of other places, all have gotten about the amount of notice in the General Assembly that you'd give a cock fight on the Mexican border. You don't see daily general assembly tirades against terrorism. You don't see the Mullahs and Emirs getting up on the Podium and preaching against Moslem extremism. They take their cue from the prophet instead. Maybe soon they'll decide to quote a different chapter. One of the questions the folks marking the 10th anniversary of the AMIA was to ask the Argentine President to at least not sign off on the regular condemnations of Isreali perfidy. He was ignored. No plowshares yet.

Generally the US, and to a lesser extent our allies will make such statements in a watered down generalized form. We've learned the bitter way what it's like to be on the receiving end of "Islamic-Extremist" hate. But the rest of the world tends to condemn us for arresting these people or trying to stop them. Our intervention in Pakistan and Iraq has met universal condemnation not for the facts, but simply because the world is afraid of offending Arabs, and because many Arabs see any efforts to end their Jihad as "crusades" many Europeans seem to try to find a symmetry in the situation. They see the propaganda pictures coming out of the West Bank and read in some kind of equivalence there. The logic is that, if the Palestinians really want peace with jews, it won't be that hard to get it, and then they'll be able to live and do what they want -- as long as it doesn't involve killing Jews with bombs, guns, knives, rocks, rockets, and who knows what else.

It is getting nearly easy to condemnt the US as they have done for 60 years now with Isreal. We pursue our interests, and it becomes easy to blame the "usual suspects." We are a "superpower" for now, and so it seems we can invade a country like Iraq and try to take it's oil. Nevermind that we really aren't getting a whole lot of "oil" for the effort. The US and Isreal have become the "Usual suspects" of the world. And like with that Rabbi, no amount of facts is going to change their minds. And while I give Bush exaggerating the links between Saddam and Osama for part of that. The real problem is something called "religious prejudice." Like the Goucho whose horse was stolen. Isreal didn't "steal" the Palestinians land. Is willing to give it back and pay them to boot. And the Palestinians are still going to consider them thieves and keep trying to kill them for revenge. Unless this underlying cause is addressed. A similar incident is recounted in the Koran. And Mohammed used it as a pretext to expell or exterminate all the Jewish tribes who lived in his lands.