A Remarkable Day at Columbia U.

Things are in the saddle
And ride mankind.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Like a rubber band pulled to its very limits before snapping, tensions regarding the "War on Terror", the Israeli issue, and the seemingly inevitable military
conflict with Iran charged the atmosphere with electricity on Monday afternoon when President Amadinejad spoke at Columbia University. Not since the riots of ’68, which in part fomented the ideological foundations for Neoconservativism, has a University event caused such a ruckus.

Should he be invited or not? was the core question newsmakers were posing on all the networks, amidst the latest news about the scandals of Britney Spears and periodic updates about OJ’s fate. What a diverse menu of interests, or, put another way, what a pathetically superficial treatment of a truly momentous occasion. To be fair, no one involved should be spared incriminations, especially the school’s president, Lee Bollinger, who, obviously buckling to prevailing pressures, ridiculed the controversial, but virtually powerless President at least in Iran) by equating him with a petty dictator. As if the edified audience couldn’t differentiate between good and bad on their own.

Regardless what you may think about Ahmadinejad, he’s no intellectual slouch nor deficient in wit. His rejoinder to Bollinger, and all those advocates accentuating freedom yet bemoaning his appearance, was biting and deserving of the applause it received. It only further punctuated the lack of intellectual dexterity shown by W - the supposed leader of the free world, whose flippant physiognomy is better suited for harsh schoolyard banter - as well as many Americans who felt indignant about his appearance. Those same Americans who, by the way, couldn’t discern the differences between Arabic and Farsi, who are ignorant of the Balfour Declaration, Gertrude Bell’s plan to unify Iraq as a country, the shameful treatment of Palestinians over the decades, and how chemical weapons provided by the U.S. to Iraq killed countless Iranian soldiers not that long ago.

Yep, Ahmadinejad is, at least in part, legitimized by the momentum of Blowback - a diminutive representative of a people whose democratic hopes were sundered when the U.S. installed the Shah. There’s no question about it, he’s got a right to bellyache, and Americans should feel compelled to listen, for he only comes armed with rhetoric whereas the U.S. is currently threatening Iran with nukes. Trade places for a minute. What if Iran had installed ibn Hazlihad Khomento as the U.S. President in place of, let’s say, Reagan for the sake of manipulating the OPEC markets? How soon would Americans forget that? Would we simply send a bright fellow clad in a sports jacket over to lecture them 40 years after the fact?

Anyone aching inside because of the wretched state of affairs, both globally and domestically, justifiably hopes that every time a world leader such as Chavez or Ahmadinejad speaks, there will be an inspiring Martin-Luther-King-Jr. moment when righteous criticism characterizes the situation so well that the heart is moved to transform itself on a grand scale. Iran’s President approaches moments like that, but too often his points are fractured into ambiguous tangents, such as his insistent praise of God, or devolves rapidly into amorphous summaries, such as his views about the existence of Israel and whether or not Iran sponsors terrorism Yes, America’s actions over the years could be considered terrorist in nature - a point he’s quick to make, but, nonetheless that doesn’t provide quid pro quo for Hizbollah and suicide bombers.

The answer is - Yes, as currently defined, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. And, moreover, as a way of restoring a sense of Persian greatness, and bolstering the popularity of that regime, a sort of Iranian Neoconservative cabal is pursuing subnationalist Islamist objectives in order to dominate the jihadi movement. And in the process coopt al-Qaeda rebels by operating a highly organized, Shia militancy that promises to be an Islamic mob willing to advance the cause of Allah on Earth. For proof, you need to look no further than his opening remark: "Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness." See: http://www.president.ir/en/#b39 speech Hasten the arrival? Wait just a minute.

Al-Mahdi is the Islamic messiah due to return, in the minds of many if not most Muslims, during the End Times. Sound familiar? On Pennsylvania Avenue Bush is awaiting the return of Christ. On the one hand Ahmadinejad is extolling science and research so that he sounds like a disciple of Enlightenment secularity, so much so you’d think he’d concur with the separation of Church from State required for there to be a truly democratic society. But this is not the case. Overall, society is to be ruled by Shiria and Fiqh - Islamic jurisprudence. For further clarification consider the views of his mentor, Ayatullah Mesbah Yazdi.

Following are excerpts from his writings:

"Therefore, if there are clear, definite and specific instances of right and just for the common man, undoubtedly there are many ambiguous and doubtful cases wherein it is not every specific rules and complex formulae.

"Also, the first duty of a man originates from the real overlordship of the Almighty Allah and no duty can take precedence over it. All other rights and duties spring from this right and duty.

"If and when there is a clash in the perfection of different creatures, the lesser perfect beings are sacrificed for the sake of more perfect beings.

"Therefore, the pious and trustworthy scholars who distance themselves from the ornaments and despicable commodities of the world, and who devote themselves to the knowledge of the Book of Allah, and the tradition of His apostle and his progeny, they are the authority to whom people should refer in order to be guided toward the sound way and the straight path.

"...we are expected to do our best in actualizing Islamic rulings in our personal as well as social life, and to establish the Just Islamic System all over the world in order to pave the way for the reappearance of Baqīyat-Allah al-a’dham (may our souls be consecrated for him, and may Allah hasten his auspicious return.)"

For more see: http://www.mesbahyazdi.org/english/...

Sad to say, Huntington’s proposition about the Clash of Civilizations has its merits. During the Ottoman empire, when Islamic educational standards were unparalleled, after the Muslim world had absorbed the secular concepts of Plato and Aristotle, which led to the invention of algebra for instance, there was a religious flexibility that was akin to what is now called cafeteria-style Catholicism. But since around 1917 each fragment of that once great empire fell back into its own tribal customs and traditions. Further hardening attitudes and fortifying rigid religiosity among Muslims was the imperialist mistreatment of Islamic people, particularly by Britain, and then the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

Now, clinging to the Qur’an’s legitimacy to fight against the infidels, Muslims retreat into progressively more orthoprax ways as a form of defense. The most radical minds embrace violence as a panacea. The question for American leaders is, Will an attack on Iran reverse this pattern or worsen it?

There is absolutely no historic record indicating that a brutal attack on a culture already rallied around the revengeful notion of modern jihad will soon forget the past. Indeed, an attack will only inflame those who lose what little they have in the process. Think of the criminal on death row who has nothing to lose if he kills yet another person. As it stands now, many Islamic clerics approve of striking back at the West. If there’s an attack on Iran the number will, likely, grow exponentially.

History has shown but one way out of this mess: social evolution, but not one that’s forced by "smart" bombs and occupation. No, the changes that led to American democracy were indigenous to Western cultures, consisting of revolutions - call them civil wars if you want - that overturned ancient feudal oppression and religious zealotry, opening the door to an astoundingly better way of life. One of the key battles was the Protestant Revolution, which, unintentionally led to greater secularity.

The same trajectory must happen among the Islamic cultures until their version of the Salem witch hunters are stopped in their tracks. Militarism, on the other hand, will make them retreat into heightened oppressive conditions while retarding the inevitable progression of secular reform that has affected nearly every culture on Earth, including Muslims during the Ottoman period.