Kurdish demonstrators have clashed with Turkish police a day after Turkey's pro-Kurdish political party was banned by the constitutional court.
A crowd threw firebombs and rocks at police vehicles including an armoured bus in the town of Yuksekova close the border with Iraq on Saturday.
Police detained about a dozen protesters in the neighboring city of Hakkari, officials said.
The move came after after a mob attempted to lynch two police officers but were prevented by local Kurdish politicians, the state-run Anatolia news agency reported.
Protests took place elsewhere in the region and the western cities of Ankara and Izmir, Anatolia said.
Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Turkey, said: "We've seen an escalation of street protests, we're now seeing fatalities."
The violence followed the banning of the pro-Kurdish DTP party, which Turkey's constitutional court had found guilty of co-operating with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been fighting for autonomy in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast in a conflict that has lasted 25 years and claimed 40,000 lives.
Ahmet Turk, the chairman of the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and one of two pro-Kurdish legislators who were expelled from parliament, said on Saturday the entire group had withdrawn from the assembly and would boycott parliamentary sessions.
"Our group has withdrawn from the parliament effective today," Turk said.
The Kurdish party had a total of 21 seats in the 550-seat assembly before the court shut it down.
The court also barred Turk and Aysel Tugluk, another legislator, from joining any political party for five years along with 35 other party members - including Leyla Zana, a prominent Kurd who served a decade in prison on charges of separatism.
Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, defended the court decision during a visit to Montenegro on Saturday.
"What else can the court do when there are party administrators who declare the terrorist organisation to be their reason of existence," the Anatolia news agency quoted Gul as saying.
The ruling is likely to hamper Turkey's efforts to join the European Union, which had warned Ankara that banning the party would violate Kurdish rights.
Turkey's Kurdish population, whose language was outlawed for years, has long complained of discrimination.
But Hasim Kilic, the constitutional court chairman, said the party's closure "was decided due to its connections with the terror organisation and because it became a focal point of the activities against the country's integrity".
The ruling comes after weeks of clashes between police and protesters angry at the the prison treatment of Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the PKK.
Earlier this week a protester was shot dead as 15,000 pro-Kurdish protesters marched in the city of Diyarbakir.
The DTP was founded in 2005 as a successor to several Kurdish parties that were forced to wind up for collaborating with the PKK.
The PKK is listed as a "terrorist" group by Turkey and much of the international community.
The party says it has "no organic links" with the separatists, but insists the group should be considered an interlocutor in efforts to resolve the Kurdish conflict.
Cengiz Aktar, a columnist with the Turkish Hurriyet Daily News, said there are "some links" between the DTP and the PKK but criticised Turkey for making party closures "a habit".
"The links apparently are there, according to the constitutional court. But in modern democracy, party closures are very seldom," he told Al Jazeera.
"This one really comes at a very unfortunate moment when the country was making a very important opening towards its Kurdish minority.
"It's a totally new era and suddenly comes this unacceptable decision that may overturn the whole democratisation process and bring the country to the verge of chaos."
This month, hundreds of thousands of Muslim pilgrims from around the globe are converging upon the Saudi Arabian holy cities of Mecca and Medina to perform the hajj, the pilgrimage that believers are supposed to make at least once in their lives as long as they have the health and the means to manage it.
The hajj takes place this year from Nov. 25 to 29, but many of the faithful are already thronging the airport and docks of Jeddah, the main entry point for pilgrims.
It's an event of huge religious significance. Some three million Muslims from all around the world -- Indians and Pakistanis, Nigerians and Bosnians, Arabs and non-Arabs, rich and poor, Sunni and Shia -- will commune, worship, and celebrate the global unity of Islam.
They'll be performing the same set of ritual acts, dressed in exactly the same clothes, all equal in the sight of God. For those who've completed the hajj, it's a lifetime landmark, a transformative religious experience.
In reality, though, there's another reason why the hajj is important -- even if most Muslims would rather it weren't the case.
Today's hajj -- given the widening sectarian rifts within Islam -- is also very much about politics.
To some extent, of course, it's always been that way. The royals in Riyadh have always taken their guardianship of the Two Holy Places in Mecca and Medina as a key to the spiritual and political guidance of the global community of believers. (It should be said, by the way, that though the Saudis invariably evoke the "nonpolitical" character of the hajj, they've also been known to shower pilgrims with literature espousing the benefits of the sere Wahhabi version of Islam that holds inside the kingdom.)
Given this potentially explosive mix of politics and religion, the recent war of words between the governments of Iran and the hajj's Saudi Arabian hosts deserves to be taken seriously.
On Oct. 26, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, met with officials from the Iranian hajj organizing committee and seized the occasion to rail against alleged past mistreatment of his compatriots during the pilgrimage.
"Such acts are against the unity of Muslims and contribute to the goals and wishes of the U.S. and foreign intelligence services," he said. "The Saudi government should fulfill its duty in confronting these acts."
The upcoming elections in Iran could signal ideological change
By Aissata Sow
There will be no campaigning today on the streets of Iran.As in past, campaigning is banned the day before elections, which are scheduled for Friday.With two distinctly different candidates the campaign has revealed a desire for change among the country’s youth.
Former PM (1980-1988) Mir Hossein Mousavi has proven to be the strongest opponent to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.A reformer, Mousavi has gained widespread support amongst Iran’s youth, a significant accomplishment in a country where the median age is 27.
Mousavi’s popularity is due in part to his stated commitment to civil rights. Throughout the campaign he has promised to amend the "discriminatory and unjust regulations" that leave women subject to violence and oppression. Newsy.com has more:
The competitive campaign has seen vitriol on both sides and analysts are predicting that neither candidate will receive enough votes to win the first round of elections.
President Ahmadinejad has gone so far as to accuse Mousavi of using “the tactics of Hitler”, arguing that his opponent is spreading lies about the state of the economy; an issue that has been a huge weakness for the president.
Meanwhile, Mousavi’s wife has threatened to sue Ahmadinejad for claiming that her doctorate was won from class privilege and is therefore illegitimate.
The U.S. has had little to say about the election. Former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns argues, “The election on Friday is going to be consequential in the sense that the candidates are clearly different in ideology and style -- and there seems to be a stronger reformist element in Iranian politics ".
Political parties don’t last long in Iran, often banding together before elections then disbanding shortly after the elections end. However, a coalition of reform groups have been gaining support since 2000, another indication of a popular shift in ideology which bodes well for Mousavi. However, Ahmadinejad is expected to retain the support of the military, state owned media, and government insiders.
Both candidates support continued construction on nuclear energy facilities, a point of contention between the U.S. and Iran. Though he was PM during the Iran-Iraq War Mousavi does not have the diplomatic baggage that has been an albatross to Ahmadinejad. Critics within the country take issue with Ahmadinejad’s approach to foreign policy, which has been seen as hostile in the west.
It is unclear whether or not the U.S. would have a different approach to bilateral relations if Ahmadinejad were to be ousted. The BBC reports that if Mousavi were to win, President Ahmadinejad would become the first president to be defeated at the polls since the foundation of the Islamic republic.
There is growing circumstantial evidence that former Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish is waging a stealth campaign in his bid to win Tuesday's Democratic primary for Virginia's House of Delegates District 35.
As we've noted, the Omeish campaign has been silent on his past leadership at MAS, an organization founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. And he has done all he can to ignore his incendiary 2000 speech praising Palestinians who choose "the jihad way" to liberation.
In 2007, media attention on that speech prompted Omeish to resign from a state immigration panel to which Gov. Tim Kaine had appointed him. But it didn't stop Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from including Omeish in a conference call Thursday featuring Muslim Americans reacting to President Obama's speech to Muslims from Cairo.
On Friday, MAS issued a call for Election Day volunteers. Although the solicitation does not mention Omeish, it was distributed through Omeish's Falls Church mosque, the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center. According to a May 9 story on the swine flu outbreak, Omeish was still an imam at Dar al-Hijra just weeks ago. He remains listed as a member of the mosque's board of directors. Read more ...
Hollywood rarely shies away from delving into politics, and it routinely rewards films that comport with its political worldview. It couldn’t get enough of Michael Moore’s screeds against guns and “Bush’s war,” and it warmed up nicely to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. This year, Hollywood celebrated Che, the sympathetic biopic about the Castro lieutenant, mass murderer and cult hero to leftwing radicals.
But Hollywood’s favorite political film this year was Milk, which chronicles the life of slain gay rights advocate Harvey Milk. For his portrayal of Milk, Sean Penn won the Best Actor award at this year’s Academy Awards. Taking the stage to accept his Oscar last weekend, Penn started in on a rant over the passage of Proposition 8, California’s marriage protection amendment. He said, in part:
“... I think it’s a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”
Putting aside the ridiculousness of Sean Penn, a man who holidays with tyrants like Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, advising others to “sit and reflect on their great shame,” there is a larger point. Given how often Hollywood sees fit to rail against this or that perceived political or social injustice, there is one area about which Hollywood has remained conspicuously silent: the brutality of radical Islam.
Not only has the film industry consciously avoided using Muslim characters in its many films about war and terrorism, Hollywood has also been missing in action when it comes to speaking out against some Muslims’ unacceptable views on gays and women. Read more ...
Liberal Author Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi: Secularism Will Triumph in the Arab World; Terrorism's Crimes Are 'The Death Struggle of Fundamentalism'
On May 15, 2008, the liberal Arab website Aafaq.org published an interview with prominent Jordanian-American liberal author Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi. In the interview, Al-Nabulsi discussed the meaning of secularism and its importance to the future of the Arab world.
The following are excerpts from the interview:
"'Secularism'... [Is] In the Interest of Religion - To Keep the Sacred (Religion) Apart from the Profane (Politics)"
Interviewer: "What is your concept of secularism?"
Nabulsi: "'Secularism' means the separation of religion from the state, excluding the clergy from politics, and not permitting religious political parties. These measures are all in the interest of religion, to keep the sacred - religion - apart from the profane - politics.
"This is because when, throughout the ages, politics made use of religion, the joining of religion and politics was to religion's detriment. Politics gained, and religion lost. And likewise, this separation [exists] in order to hold the politician accountable for his political activity, and not [let him] take refuge under the umbrella of religion to avoid accountability and punishment. It is difficult to oppose or hold to account the clergy who combine religion and politics.
"In fact, the separation of religion from politics is easier for the Shi'a than for the Sunnis. Shi'ite institutions evolved like the Church, and the Shi'ite hierarchy resembled the ecclesiastical hierarchy, so that both hierarchies remained separate from the state. Read more ...
Freedom Party leader says appointing Moroccan Ahmed Aboutaleb as Rotterdam mayor is as ridiculous as having a Dutchman become mayor of Mecca.
17 October 2008
AMSTERDAM -- The right-wing leader of Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, on Friday slammed the upcoming appointment of Moroccan Ahmed Aboutaleb as mayor of Rotterdam.
"Appointing a Moroccan as mayor of the second largest Dutch city is just as ridiculous as appointing a Dutchman as mayor of Mecca," he said.
Instead, Wilders said, Aboutaleb "should become mayor of Rabat in Morocco."
"With him as mayor, Rotterdam will be Rabat on the banks of the river Maas. Soon we may even have an imam serving as arch bishop. This is madness."
On Friday, the city council of Rotterdam determined Moroccan-born Muslim Ahmed Aboutaleb will be mayor from 1 January.
The government still has to approve 47-year-old Aboutaleb's appointment, but this is considered a formality.
The Labour politician is the first mayor to be born and raised outside the Netherlands. He is also the first Muslim to become a mayor in the Netherlands.
Aboutaleb was born in Morocco and migrated to the Netherlands at the age of 14. He is currently deputy minister of social affairs, and previously served as an alderman in Amsterdam.
The second largest party in the Rotterdam city council, Leefbaar Rotterdam, responded furiously to development, slamming the fact that Aboutaleb has double nationality, Moroccan and Dutch.
This was supported by the national Freedom Party PVV, whose legislator Fleur Agema announced it would request an emergency debate in parliament about Aboutaleb's likely appointment.
It is the second time in two years Aboutaleb's Moroccan citizenship has caused controversy in Dutch politics.
On his appointment as deputy minister, the Freedom Party also criticised the fact that Aboutaleb held double citizenship, "at the least creating the appearance of double loyalties," legislator Agema said.
Both the national Freedom party and the local Leefbaar Rotterdam advocate a strict immigration policy and harsh measures against crime by migrants.
However, Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen (Labour) praised Aboutaleb, calling him "highly capable" - although he criticised fact that Labour now has three mayoral posts of the Netherlands' four biggest cities, while it also occupies a majority in cities of intermediate size.
"Not having any mayor from the largest government party Christian Democrats will complicate receiving national funding for local projects," Cohen said.
Moroccan citizens cannot revoke their citizenship. Even their children born in the Netherlands are automatically Moroccan citizens.
Repeated Dutch attempts to negotiate with Morocco about granting its citizens the right to revoke their Moroccan citizenship have failed.
Some 45 percent of the 582,000 citizens of Rotterdam were not born in the Netherlands or have foreign-born parents.
In Rotterdam, which has a broad range of socio-economic problems, crime involving the migrant community is an ongoing issue that causes tension with Dutch-born citizens.
TWO out of three voters fear a major terrorist attack on home soil even though their support for Australia’s military involvement in the war on terrorism is weakening.
The mixed emotions, revealed in a comparison of exit polling from the 2004 and 2007 elections, stem from a turnaround in public attitudes to the war in Iraq. Voters moved from being mildly supportive of John Howard’s handling of the war in Iraq in 2004 to being opposed three years later.
The shift raises complications for Kevin Rudd because, while the electorate supports his withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq, it still wants Labor to retain the Howard-era laws to combat terrorism at home – a feeling at odds with the views of many Government MPs who want to tilt the scales of justice back toward personal liberty.
A clear majority of voters believe freedom of speech should not extend to groups that are sympathetic to terrorists (56.8 per cent agreed with this proposition and only 23.2 per cent disagreed). A smaller majority also said police should be allowed to search the houses of these people without a court order (50.5 per cent in favour versus 33.2 per cent opposed).
The Australian Election Study suggests that voters have become relatively less fearful of terrorism as time passed without a follow-up attack on the scale of September 11, 2001, or the first Bali bombing on October 12, 2002.
At the 2004 election, 67.7 per cent of voters thought Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq had increased the threat of terrorism on home soil. This figure slipped to 56.5 per cent at the 2007 election.
The Australian Election Study posed a new, more general question last year: “How concerned are you that there will be a major terrorist attack on Australian soil in the near future.” Two out of three (65.7 per cent) said they were concerned.
Iraq and terrorism were viewed as second-order issues at both the 2004 and 2007 elections. But it is apparent from the published exit polls, and from what sources from the main parties have said, that Iraq moved from a small vote switcher to the Coalition in 2004 to a small minus in 2007.
The difference can be seen in how voters rated Mr Howard’s handling of the war in Iraq. At the 2004 election, when the occupation was only 18 months old, Mr Howard had 52.3 per cent of the electorate approve his handling of the issue. By 2007, the mood had soured, and only 44.2 per cent of voters gave the then prime minister a tick on Iraq.
Support for Australia’s involvement generally in the war on terrorism dropped over the same period, from 57.5 per cent in 2004 to 51.9 per cent in 2007.
Contemporary Iranian philosopher, theologian and Shia secularist, Mohammad Shabestari states that it is ‘incomprehensible’ for Islam to be construed as a political agenda.
He says ‘In my opinion, Islam is a religion in every sense, not a political agenda… as a religion it can also provide inspiration for the creation of a fair and democratic state.’
Shabestari also rejects ‘re-establish(ing) past political, social and economic systems’ based on Islam in order to preserve one’s identity in a so called modern ‘world of conflict’. Rather, he believes that Islam, and generally religion can ‘become a moral force exerting influence on politics’. Read more ...
In order to explain better the possible evolution of United States' policy vis-Ã -vis Jihadist movements following the American presidential election, Dr. Walid Phares dedicated the first part of his speech to analyzing the dual nature of the Jihadist movements worldwide. The term "Jihadist" is another - mostly American- equivalent of Islamism, a term used in Europe and in the Middle East to define radical Islamic Fundamentalists.
Academically, the "Jihadist movements" can be explained through a two trees metaphor. The first tree is the Salafist one. We can not write it off to a "violent activist movement"; it is a global movement that has a common ideological vision of the world. This ideology, which emerged in the 1920s, has been metastasizing since the beginning of the cold war. Its long term objective is the establishment of a caliphate mainly through an indoctrination process and the spread of the ideology throughout societies and governments. These Global Salafists - Wahhabis in Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Deobandis in the sub Indian continent - opposed the rise of modern and secular Arab and Muslim states and aimed at transforming them back into what was a Caliphate.
In early 1990s, Dr. Phares observed a clash between two schools within the Global Jihadi Salafists; he coined it the "Khartoum debate." Many Salafist activists -including those Jihadists returning from the War in Afghanistan - claimed that the long term process of indoctrination and penetration of societies was not efficient enough. As a consequence, they chose to engage themselves in "direct Jihad" or warfare against their perceived global enemies. Al Qaeda is the most visible example of a movement that follows this doctrine. This warfare occurs in such lands as Chechnya, Sudan or Algeria, but it is also targeted against the United States and other democracies. The other Islamists continued to follow a long term strategy of indoctrination and the spreading of their ideology. Read more ...
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
Kurdish demonstrators have clashed with Turkish police a day after Turkey's pro-Kurdish political party was banned by the constitutional court. 
Posts
