What is your impression of the current U.S. Foreign Policy?
Answer
Current U.S. foreign policy combines a desire for short-term stability with an unthinking support of Israel. These factors stem from politicians' general fear of change and domestic political considerations, respectively. As a result, American foreign policy has not been aimed at the best interests of the United States, nor has it aimed (despite assertions to the contrary) at liberalization, democracy or human rights.
In the area of trade, American interest in commerce is one-sided. It is pro-free trade where it would open markets for American exports, but anti-free trade where it would offer opportunities for those who would profit from export to the United States.
In the area of democracy, it has consistently opposed or been cool towards democratic reforms in areas where the popular sovereignty would threaten Israel or other perceived interests.
Human rights have been treated as a kind of joke. A club that can be used to bash in regimes which do not submit themselves as client states, but which is ignored in the case of states--most notoriously Isarel--whose dismal human rights record is embarrassing to a foreign policy predicated on short-term stability and Israeli domination of the Middel East.
Name
Saniyyah
- United States
Profession
Question
As-Salaam Alaikum,
How much of U.S. foreign policy caters to the Zionist lobby?
Answer
The Zionist lobby is one of the two main forces driving American foreign policy. The other is former cold-warriors seeking a new global enemy. This latter camp has been an easy tool for the Zionists to manipulate. This manipulation has been effected by the painting of the Islamic resurgence as a new competitor to replace the now defunct Soviet empire.
In order to understand the effectiveness of the Zionist lobby, one must recognize the role played by the "Zionist Christians."
These "Dispensationalists" (see Grace Halsell's outstanding books Prophecy and Politics, and Forcing God's Hand for an explanation of the movement) are milliniellists who believe that the end of the world and the return of Jesus (as) must be expedited by American support for Israel's continued existence until such time as Jesus returns to (as they believe) destroy those Jews who have converted to Christianity.
It is these Zionist Christians who are in the forefront of the smearing of, for example Sudan, which resulted in the horrific bombing of the pharmeceutical factory there in the aftermath of the African U.S. embassy bombings.
Name
adil
- Morocco
Profession
etudiant
Question
apropos des habits de l'homme comment doit être la longueure du pantalen .
puis je avoir "sahih el boukhari" sur internet. mercie.
Answer
Please direct your fatwa questions to either the live fatwa sessions or the fatawa bank here at Islam Online. Thank you for your participation. Was-Salaamu Alaikum.
Live Dialogue Coordinator
Name
Muhammad
-
Profession
Question
Salam Alaikum,
How can Muslims in America help to change policy concerning issue of U.S. foreign policy?
Answer
There are a number of things that can be one, all of which are important. I don't have time to give a systematic treatment here, but I shall list a few items as they come to mind:
(1) Form alliances with Christians. See this morning's bizzare op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that asks why Christians aren't opposing Palestine's control of the holy places in Jerusalem. The real question is why American Christians are oblivious to the Israeli persecution of the Palestinian Christians! This is in part our fault. American Muslims have ignored the plight of the Palestinian Christians, thus permitting the Zionists to paint the Palestinian issue as a strictly Muslim-Jewish question. Most American Christians are NOT zionists, they are merely uniformed. If we don't inform them, rest assured that the Zionist media will not do our job for us.
(2) Organize effectively. This includes political organization (e.g. register to vote) but even more importantly support the Islamic think tanks that can influence the media, academia, and the policy makers. (Here let me put in a plug for the Minaret of Freedom Institute, which has been doing this for six years now: www.minaret.org).
(3) Don't waste your voting block on the lesser of two evils. The American Muslim community has made a blunder of titanic proportions in supporting George W. Bush. His position on Jeruslaem is actually WORSE than that of Gore. Gore wants to move the American embassy to Jerusalem as soon as the "peace process" yields a final status solution. Bush wants to move it as soon as he gets into office. If the Muslims had lines up behind Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, or Harry Brown, all of whom have positions in harmony with ours on Jerusalem we would have had an impact on which ever of the two Zionist puppets won the close election: by being the balance of power between them. Instead, we can look forward to either Gore despising us for supporting Bush or Bush taking us for granted since we support him despite his utterly unacceptable postion. (By the way, the Muslim leadership that made this decision-without consulting the Muslim masses-made the excuse that Bush was willing to meet with the Muslims...Well, so was Buchanan.)
Name
Khalid
- United States
Profession
Question
As-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
With the upcoming election next week, do you think either of the candidates has a more fair and balanced stance on foreign policy issues concerning the Muslim world?
Answer
Wa Alaikum Salaam wa Rahmatullah,
The only major difference between Bush and Gore is that Bush will support Isarel for practical political reasons while Gore really believes in Israel. I do not consider this a significant reason to support one over the other. Bush is even more extreme in his support of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As I said in my answer to the preceding question, Muslims should vote for the third party candidate of their choice. Ralph Nader is an Arab, Pat Buchanan has gone on record criticising Israel, and Harry Browne supports a complete end of aid to Israel. It would have been best if Muslims could have voted as a block for one of these candidates. It is too late for that now. I intend to vote for Harry Browne since I agree with 97% of his positions, most importantly his complete opposition to American interventionism in foreign affairs and his belief in open immigration.
Name
Islam
- United States
Profession
Question
Is there any hope in the near future that foreign policy in the U.S. will change?
Answer
I don't see how it can significantly change in the short term. We need to lay the ground work for long term change. This means building alliances with Americans who would like to see American foreign policy determined by America's long-term interests rather than by short-term considerations of Israeli interests and getting Muslim Americans more actively involved in politics, civic activism, journalism, the media and the social sciences. Above all, it means that Muslims must develop our own communication network. This is already happening through the internet, but we need to become much more professional, more rigorous in our analyses, and more open and honest in our exchanges both amongst ourselves and with our fellow Americans.
Name
Mustafa
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
Do you think that the stance that the U.S. is taking towards Osama Bin Laden is a sincere one, or do you think that the U.S. needs a scapegoat for the chaos going on around the world?
Answer
Both. There are people in the highest levels of the American government who really think that Osama Bin Laden is the mastermind at the pinnacle of some enormous highly centralized terrorist cabal, and there are others who think he makes a convenient symbol for smearing Islam and Muslims. Consider that the military-industrial complex is an expensive social subsystem intent of self-preservation. How can it defend itself against those who say that now that the Societ Union has fallen we don't need so many weapons, so many soldiers, or such a wide disprsal of our armed forces around the globe? They will pick at any straw (including the cynical and now discredited claim that they wish to protect Muslims in Bosnia and Kosova) to justify expanding American military presence around the world. Obviously, a boogieman like Bin Laden, out to kill American civlians wherever he finds them makes a wonderful excuse for American military imperialism.
Name
Khalid
-
Profession
Political Researcher
Question
How do you think the events in Palestine contribute to enhanced solidarity between Muslims in the West and those in the East? What practical steps can contribute to strengthening this by building on the momentum?
Answer
Clearly, the persecution of the Palestinians is enhancing Muslim solidarity all over the world. There may be many ways of building on the momentum, but I hesitate to state off-the-cuff what is best.
Let me put it this way. Keep your eyes open for Allah's signs as to how to proceed. When you hear of a demonstration, join in. When you see someone criticizing the Palestinians, defend them. Go to your mosques, Islamic centers, and other Muslim organizations and look for opportunities.
Perhaps I am not the best person to suggest PRACTICAL steps to build bridges bewteen Muslims of the East and West, since I have spent so little time outside this country. Yet, I feel comfortable saying keep your eyes open for opportunities and say YES to them, even if it means that you must sacrifice to take advantage of them. Sacrifice is part of struggle.
Name
Ishaq
- United States
Profession
Question
As-Salaamu Alaikum,
Could you elaborate on the reason that the U.S. feels that it needs to have such a physical prescence in the Middle East militarily? I think that it has to do with the fact that the Middle East is the main outlet for the U.S. to obtain oil (its own oil sources in Alaska, etc. are very thin). If I am wrong, then what is the logic in their prescense there?
Answer
Oil is one of the two reasons. The other is logistical. Military people like having bases in as many strategic locations as possible. Iran may be a weak country compared to the United States now, but it has enormous potential. The United States likes the idea of having bases in Saudi Arabia just in case they are needed to counter Iran. Simlarly, the beachhead they established in Yugoslavia was not to protect the Bosnians nor the Kosovars, but to obtain a strategic foothold (in case Turkey should turn Islamist, for example). But these moves are not just, nor even primarily, aimed against potential Muslim power. On the contrary, I suspect that fear of China is a major factor. Bases in the Arabian peninsula are very useful in that respect. But the particular identity of potential foes is not the issue. A strategic infrstructure is what is desired regardless of against whom it is eventually brought to bear.
Name
Ishaq
- United States
Profession
Question
In what ways is China more of a threat to the U.S. than any other foreign nation? What do they have that the United States is concerned about?
Answer
China has one-fifth of the population of the world organized under a single regime. With the liberalization of their economy, they are acquiring an economic strength to match. They already have a respectable military including ballistic missles and a nuclear program. They are still formally communist and therefore embrace an ideology hostile to America. Add to this that they have not yet had their native culture overpowered by that of the West. Go back and read Sam Huntington's infamous Foreign Affairs article and you will see that he was not concerned only about Islam but also about China. In fact, what really scared him was the possibility of of a Chinese-Islamic alliance. You can see this fear echoed in the daily news: concerns about Chinese arms sales to Muslim countries, the International Religious Freedom Commission's obssession with China and Muslim countries, etc.
Name
Muslim
-
Profession
Question
Realistically, from what steps you were talking about American Muslims taking to improve the situation here in America, how long would something like that take? Is it very realistic, considering that there is so much opposition towards Muslims being involved in U.S. politics (both from the Zionist propaganda machine as well as by Muslims who would prefer for us to isolate ourselves and not get involved politically at all)?
Answer
I'll take your second question first. Yes, it is realistic (which is not to say easy!). Recenetly I was elected President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, a federation of civic associations all over Montgomery County Maryland. This was despite the fact that I am a visible Muslim activist. I won't pretend there was no opposition to my accession, but the fact is that I was elected.
But how long would it take? Well, now that is indeed a tough question. Let's look for a precedent. How long did it take the Jews? The modern Zionist movement was founded around 1896. By 1956 the Zionists had a stranglehold on the American Congress. That's sixty years.
Name
Ishaq
- United States
Profession
Question
Again though, doesn't the whole "Communist Regime" paranoia go back to the U.S. looking for a scapegoat to keep their military active give them the very excuse to make us continue believing that there really is a threat out there?
Honestly, what Muslim country on its own accord, could stand up to the U.S. if it ever came to that?
Answer
You are correct. But the fact that no Muslim country could threaten the United States today doesn't mean that none ever could. Besides, depending on your definition of "stand up" you're premise may not be correct at all. It is possible to "stand up" to the United States without threatening its territorial integrity. Both Iran and the Lebanese have done so.
The concern that counts in the long run is the concern of the average American. He neither wishes to rule the world nor is he afraid that Libya is about to bomb his house. He IS worried, though that his neighbor might be on a hijacked airplane or taken hostage on a visit to a Muslim country. While such fears are exaggerated (and in any case would not be a problem in the absence of American interventionism) they are still real fears that can be manipulated by the Zionists and the cold warriors.
