Aggregator

Taj Hargey is wrong: there is no ‘British Islam’

Indigo Jo Blogs - 27 December, 2013 - 23:00

Yesterday (Boxing Day), there was a letter in the Guardian from Taj Hargey, the self-appointed leader of the so-called Muslim Education Centre of Oxford and a regular go-to figure for media wanting someone to tell them that most Muslims were doing Islam wrong, praising Marks & Spencer, the British department store chain, for backtracking on a supposed policy of allowing staff with religious beliefs to refuse to serve goods such as alcoholic drinks and directing customers buying them to other tills. Naturallly, despite this policy applying to people of all religions, the story was spun as being primarily about Muslims (it seems to have stemmed from a single incident involving a Muslim woman, as the JC article explains). More recently, the chain apologised, and said that what they actually did was try to assign staff to roles that did not infringe their religious beliefs.

The letter from Taj Hargey reads:

The embarrassing turnaround by Marks & Spencer (Report, 24 December), revoking their policy to allow Muslim personnel not to handle alcoholic or pork products, must be applauded. It’s a major triumph for common sense against emerging Wahhabi-Salafi extremism in the UK. During the past decade, numerous Saudi-funded institutions and clergy in Britain have led an insidious theological campaign to impose primitive tribal mores and cultural rigidity of the most backward land of Islam upon British Muslims. Sadly, many ill-informed followers of the faith have been programmed by Wahhabi-Salafi fanatics to believe that the touching of alcohol or pork is impermissible in Islam. They have also been duped by these ultra-conservative zealots about gender segregation, female head-covering (hijab), face-masking (niqab) and other non-scriptural “customs”.

However, there is nothing in the Holy Qur’an that sanctions this or their repressive and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam. Fundamentalist zealots flaunt the reputed and manufactured oral traditions of Muhammad (Hadith), compiled some 300 years after his death, as the sole basis for their warped perversion of the faith. But educated British Muslims must resist this risible movement seeking to recreate the mythical seventh-century Arab utopia that is now foisted upon Muslim society worldwide by Saudi finance and fanatics. Right-minded Muslims uphold a British Islam that is integral to original Qur’anic precepts, but is also compatible with British social norms. We are relieved that M&S has played a small part in rejecting pernicious Wahhabi distortions.

For a start, he is assuming that the Telegraph story involving the woman who refused to serve someone alcohol is even true, and that the woman even exists. Secondly, he is assuming that even if she does, she is necessarily a “Wahhabi” for refusing to handle alcohol. The vast majority of Muslims in this country are not, and never have been.

Third, the prohibition against handling alcohol, pork and so on is not a “Wahhabi” invention. It is a sin in all major schools of Islamic law to sell or transport alcohol, as are all the practices he lists at the end of the first paragraph.

Fourth, the Qur’an is not the only source of Islamic law and never has been. This is a misleading statement and it appears that Hargey is relying on the ignorance of his readers yet again. Allah says in the Qur’an “obey Allah and His Messenger”. However, the majority of the rulings of the Shari’ah are not based on the collections Hargey disparages but on the much more direct knowledge that the four major imams had of the subject from knowing and learning from large numbers of people only one or two degrees removed from the Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It was a community of scholars, a community of inspired men and women who learned from each other, not from books. The collections he refers to, such as Bukhari, were used by later scholars, although many of them actually memorised hundreds of thousands of hadeeth themselves. So, his image of “Wahhabi fanatics” basing their religion on these collections is a ridiculous caricature.

Finally, there is no such thing as “British Islam” any more than there is an Egyptian Islam, a Moroccan Islam or an American one. It is one religion; a Muslim from this country can go to almost any country where there are Muslims and practise the religion with local people and feel more or less at home. It is also not a pick-and-choose religion in which you can just do away with rules that everyone agrees are part of the religion, just because it makes life a bit easier or meets with less disapproval from others. What Hargey is advocating would reduce Islam to a matter of occasional worship, not even praying five times a day if it would annoy one’s boss. It would be unrecognisable to any Muslim visiting from anywhere. It would, quite simply, not be Islam.

To be fair, if someone takes a job with a company which they know sells alcohol and meat which is not halaal, it is a bit ridiculous for them to demand not to sell those products if they are on a till and someone has queued up to buy these things. It is better to work somewhere else, or ask for other duties. This particular situation should have been handled better both by this person, if she exists, and her supervisors. Still, it is entirely in keeping with Islam not to handle or transport these products, and it does not make one a “fanatic” or a Wahhabi; it is part of being an upstanding and practising Muslim.

Friday Links | December 27, 2013

Muslimah Media Watch - 27 December, 2013 - 06:00
In Iraq, much of the sex trade has now shifted to social media, where female pimps are offering prostitution services all over the country. Egyptian campaigners against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) say that the number of cases of female circumcision/cutting in Egypt is on the decline, but completely rooting out this age old tradition will [Read More...]

On the Shoulders of Giants

Muslim Matters - 27 December, 2013 - 05:01

By Musab Qureshi

In a country where many girls are still discouraged from going to school, Sushma Verma is having anything but a typical childhood. The 13-year-old girl from a poor farming family in north India has enrolled in a Master's degree in microbiology, after her daily-wage earning father sold his land to pay for some of his daughter's tuition.

Sushma finished high school at 7 and earned an undergraduate degree at age 13 — milestones she said were possible only with the sacrifices and encouragement of her uneducated and impoverished parents. When Sushma's father is asked about his thoughts, he says, “I can't tell you how much happiness it gives me to see my daughter excel. When my daughter studies well, all of my tensions wither away. The way I struggle with farming and labour work, I wish my children don't have to face these difficulties.”

When I came across this amazing story of a 13-year-old whiz kid, what struck me most was the key role her parents are playing in helping her fulfill her potential. Their commitment to their daughter's success is quite inspirational.

Living in Canada, a country which has one of the highest immigration rates in the world, I don't find this story too out of touch with realities here. One can see family after family immigrating here, sometimes even sacrificing what they've spent their entire lives working towards. I've always wondered why. Why would doctors, engineers or trained professionals sacrifice their careers to move here? Why would someone sacrifice everything they've worked for and choose to move to an alien country?

“We moved here for our children, so that they can have a better future.” Time and time again, we can hear this as being the sole motivation. This is perhaps why the Qurʾān places immense emphasis on parents, in many cases correlating “taqwa” or “God-consciousness” directly with being kind towards one's parents. In Surah Maryam, when describing the traits of Prophet Yahya 'alayhi'l-salām (peace be upon him), the Qurʾān makes special mention of his attitude towards his parents.

13

14

“And compassion from Our presence, and purity; and he was devout, And dutiful toward his parents. And he was not arrogant, rebellious.” [Surah Maryam; 13-14]

Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) reinforced the duty to be kind to parents.  A companion of the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him)once asked him which of the many good deeds a man can do is the most loved by Allāh.  Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) answered him by saying, “To offer the prayer in its proper time.”  The companion then asked, “And what is next?” to which the Prophet replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents…” The responsibility to be kind and good to parents is placed right after the greatest duty in Islam, the prayer.

Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” In pursuit of fulfilling our potential, these giants more often than not turn out to be our own parents. Through life's ups and downs, highs and lows, these giants are always by our side. Giants, who in a heartbeat, would trade their own success for the success of their children.

The post On the Shoulders of Giants appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Silence bleeds

This silence bleeds,
And I cannot tell you
it is okay,
That it exists
between bombs;
Or that ceasefires are,
written in the blood
Of children,
As they break bones across lines,
drawn like borders,
In a place where our dead,
Scream, still.

I cannot tell you
it is okay,
That there is silence
between the trembling breaths
of a young mother,
calming her child into sleep.
Wishing her fingertips,
could hold back the next bomb,
plummeting through eardrums,
So that no child would know,
the blood of severed arteries,
intimately.

But today the screams,
Of earth trembling
as bombs plummet through
her surface;
Of distressed loved ones
piecing together torn limbs
like hands could grow back together,
the broken flesh of babies born
into this chaos,
Never leave us.

And we teach our children,
A geography
defined by these scars,
Strong cities line bullet holes.

Because

We once had enough fingers,
to name the dead.

But then they dropped shells,
upon our history.

This silence bleeds,
And I cannot tell you
it is okay,
That it exists
between bombs.


Judge Nathaniel T. Gorton Strikes Down Geller’s AFDI/SIOA anti-Muslim Ad Campaign

Loon Watch - 26 December, 2013 - 22:21

gellar-savage

Judge backs T on Israel posters

By Akilah Johnson

A federal judge rejected a pro-Israel group’s assertion that its free speech rights were violated when the MBTA turned down a subway advertisement on the grounds that the ad was “demeaning or disparaging.”

The ad is paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a New York organization that seeks to combat the spread of Islam in the United States. With bold, all-capital-letter text placed against a stark black background, the ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel; defeat Jihad.”

Officials with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority rejected the ad in November on the basis that it violated the agency’s advertising guidelines, which include rejecting advertisements that demean and disparage individuals and groups, promote alcohol or tobacco, and depict graphic violence.

On Friday, US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton sided with the state’s transportation authority, saying in the ruling that “it was plausible for the defendants to conclude that the . . . pro-Israel advertisement demeans or disparages Muslims or Palestinians.”

MBTA general manager Beverly A. Scott said in a statement that the agency is “gratified” by Gorton’s decision.

“We will continue to administer our guidelines evenhandedly, so that our customers will not be subjected to advertisements that demean or disparage any person or group,” the statement said.

While the MBTA applauded the ruling, lawyers for the nonprofit did not, saying an appeal is imminent.

“This thing’s just wrong; it’s just wrong,” Robert J. Muise, a lawyer with the American Freedom Law Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm whose mission is to fight for faith and freedom, said during a phone interview. “We’re dealing with government censorship. We’re not talking about Macy’s telling us we have to modify our ad. We’re talking about the government.”

The dispute over the proposed subway poster sprouted from another controversial ad on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that first appeared in October on 80 posters at T and bus stops. That ad depicts four maps with the title “Palestinian Loss of Land — 1946 to 2010.” Text with the maps says: “4.7 million Palestinians are classified by the UN as refugees.”

In response, the American Freedom Defense Initiative sought to put up 10 of its own ads in the same stations where the other posters appeared.

At issue are the words used in the proposed ad, which riffs on statements made by the author Ayn Rand, specifically the use of “savage” and “jihad.”

The American Freedom Defense Initiative argued, according to the ruling, that it used the terms war and jihad to “clarify that their message is aimed at people who engage in terrorist acts that target innocent Israeli citizens and not Muslims or Palestinians in general.”

The MBTA countered that “the ‘reasonably prudent person’ would believe that the advertisement demeans and disparages Muslims or Palestinians,” the ruling said. The transportation agency also pointed out, the suit said, that courts in New York and Washington, D.C., “concluded that the advertisement equates Muslims with ‘savages.’ ”

Gorton said the advertisement’s wording was ambiguous and subject to interpretation. And the transit agency did not have to apply the best interpretation of the vague statement but only a reasonable one because the T advertising program is not regarded as a public forum. It was, therefore, “plausible for the defendants to conclude that the . . . Pro-Israel advertisement demeans or disparages Muslims or Palestinians.”

In contrast, the Palestinian Refugee ad, the judge said, “conveys information that portrays Israel in a negative light” but does not violate the MBTA’s advertisement guideline, as a reasonable person may disagree or dislike it without finding it degrading or reproachful.

“Thus, the question is not whether the advertisement upset some transit riders but instead whether a reasonably prudent person would find that it ‘ridicules or mocks, is abusive or hostile to, or debases the dignity and stature of Israelis or Jews,’ ” Gorton wrote.

“The quote plaintiffs selected to express their message does not criticize ‘savage’ acts but instead contrasts the state of Israel with the ‘savages’ who oppose or fight against it.”

Akilah Johnson can be reached at ajohnson@globe.com.

A British Islam | @guardianletters

The Guardian World news: Islam - 25 December, 2013 - 21:00

The embarrassing turnaround by Marks & Spencer (Report, 24 December), revoking their policy to allow Muslim personnel not to handle alcoholic or pork products, must be applauded. It's a major triumph for common sense against emerging Wahhabi-Salafi extremism in the UK. During the past decade, numerous Saudi-funded institutions and clergy in Britain have led an insidious theological campaign to impose primitive tribal mores and cultural rigidity of the most backward land of Islam upon British Muslims. Sadly, many ill-informed followers of the faith have been programmed by Wahhabi-Salafi fanatics to believe that the touching of alcohol or pork is impermissible in Islam. They have also been duped by these ultra-conservative zealots about gender segregation, female head-covering (hijab), face-masking (niqab) and other non-scriptural "customs".

However, there is nothing in the Holy Qur'an that sanctions this or their repressive and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam. Fundamentalist zealots flaunt the reputed and manufactured oral traditions of Muhammad (Hadith), compiled some 300 years after his death, as the sole basis for their warped perversion of the faith. But educated British Muslims must resist this risible movement seeking to recreate the mythical seventh-century Arab utopia that is now foisted upon Muslim society worldwide by Saudi finance and fanatics. Right-minded Muslims uphold a British Islam that is integral to original Qur'anic precepts, but is also compatible with British social norms. We are relieved that M&S has played a small part in rejecting pernicious Wahhabi distortions.
Dr T Hargey
Director and imam, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford


theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Born in Jerusalem, 1979: A Revealing Glimpse at the “War on Terror”

Loon Watch - 25 December, 2013 - 18:54

Islam and the Magic Mushroom Cloud

 

by Ilisha

Contrary to popular opinion, the War on Terror was not conceived in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001. The War on Terror was born more than three decades ago in Jerusalem, and a glimpse into that historical narrative is quite enlightening.

The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was convened by the Jonathon Institute in July of 1979. The Johnathon Institute was founded by Benjamin Netanyahu, in memory of his brother, Richard Netanyahu, a commando in the Israeli army killed during Operation Entebbe in Uganda.

Many of the themes back then were shockingly similar to the themes of today. Despite the fact more than three decades have passed, the cast of characters was also largely the same.

The similarities are striking. But what’s even more striking is that one major theme is not the same at allThe War on Terror is an old script with a new twist, as we shall see. 

First, the similarities. In Netanyahu’s own words, the purpose of the conference was seems familiar enough:

To focus public attention on the grave threat that international terrorism poses to all democratic societies, to study the real nature of today’s terrorism, and to propose measures for combating and defeating the international terror movements.’ - International Terrorism, foreword by Benjamin Netanyahu

Attendees included Senator Henry M. Jackson, who gave a talk entitled, Terrorism as a Weapon in International Politics. Today we still have the Henry Jackson Society, actively spreading the neoconservative message under the auspices of front groups and well orchestrated propaganda campaigns.

Also in attendance was Professor Richard Pipes, a consultant to Senator Henry Jackson and close associate of the notorious “Prince of Darkness,” Richard Perle. Pipes and Pearl both served on the fear mongering Committee on the Present Danger and the Council on Foreign relations. The neoconservative torch was later picked up by Richard Pipes son, well-known anti-Muslim propagandist, Daniel Pipes.

Other familiar neoconservative luminaries in attendance included Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz, along with several notable figures from Israel, Europe, and Japan. Representing the US were Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Will and a number of key political and military figures, including Jack Kemp, Major General George Keegan, Jr.,Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Senators Alan Cranston, Paul Laxalt, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The man would would later become the 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, was also in attendance.  As president, Bush waged war on Iraq, one of Israel’s key rivals in the region. His son, George W. Bush, who followed in his footsteps, also become president of the United States. Under the tutelage of prominent neoconservatives, Bush Jr. continued the systematic destruction and disintegration of Iraq, following 12 years of deadly economic sanctions, with a second military invasion in 2003.

The destruction of Iraq was a dream come true for the neoconservatives, who expounded clearly on their ambitions in a report written in 2000 entitled, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Authors included many of the usual suspects. Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser explained in concert that, with Iraq effectively neutralized, Israel would be free to pursue its regional ambitions:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.

The guiding philosophy that would eventually justify the invasion of one Muslim-majority country after another was established at the Jerusalem conference, held over the course of three days. Though the context was different, the topics covered are hauntingly familiar:  (1) The Face of Terrorism, (2) State Support for International Terrorism, (3) The Threat Posed by Terrorism to Democratic Societies, (4) Terrorism and the Media, (6) Proposed Countermeasures for the Democratic World, (Closing) The Challenge to Free Men.

In Netanyahu’s subsequent book, ”Terrorism: How the West Can Win,” he further elaborated on the root cause of this global menace. From a book review published in the New York Times:

On one thing virtually all the contributors seem agreed. Over and above any local and immediate aims, terrorism is directed, by its very nature, against democracy; it seeks to demoralize democratic regimes and ultimately bring them down. And whatever ends individual terrorists may suppose or contend they are serving, their basic assumptions remain irredeemably totalitarian. Indeed, as Senator Moynihan puts it, ”The totalitarian state is terrorism come to power.”

Sound familiar? Today we hear about state-sponsored terrorism, especially with regard to who whatever country is  currently in the cross hairs.

Except, shockingly, that the “irredeemably totalitarian” ideology Netanyahu referred to was NOT Islam. In fact, Islam emerged virtually unscathed. From the same book review in the New York Times:

In a discussion entitled ”Islamic Terrorism?,” the scholar Bernard Lewis emphasizes that there is nothing in Islam as a religion that is especially conducive to terrorism. Like the other great religions, it condemns the maltreatment of the innocent; from early on it laid down rules for the humane treatment of noncombatants during a war. And though it has always had a more explicitly political character than other religions, Islamic terrorism [sic] as practiced today is essentially an importation from the West.

In two companion pieces, the writers Elie Kedourie and P. J. Vatikiotis both concur about the Western roots of Islamic [sic] terrorism, while analyzing some of the ways it has subsequently flowered on its own account…

What a shocking deviation from the current script! How can those jaw-dropping statements possibly be explained in the present context?

Yesterday the same propagandists recognized Islam was not “especially conducive to terrorism” and that “terrorism as practiced today is essentially an importation from the West.” Today we are constantly bombarded with the notion that Islam, cleverly cloaked in terms such as ”Islamism” and “Political Islam,” is the Evil Mastermind of global terrorism.

The key to understanding this dramatic reversal is historical perspective. At that time, the alleged evil ravaging the Free World was not “Islamism,” but Communism. In The Pope and the Axis of Terror, BBC blogger Adam Curtis explains the neoconservative “Red Scare” narrative:

It had a dramatic thesis.

It said that there was a “Global Terror Network” underneath the surface of most Western societies and the Middle East.

That all of them – the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof gang, Provisional IRA, South Moluccans, Japanese Red Army, Iranian terrorists, Turkish People’s Liberation Army, Spain’s ETA, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Fatah, the military arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization were all part of a grand Soviet scheme.

Communism was the shadowy evil force that justified runaway military spending, repression at home, and permanent war abroad. The dramatic narrative was also expounded upon by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), with a particular focus on the Palestinians, following the conference in 1979:

Behind the Headlines USSR Training Palestinian Terrorists
July 24, 1979

The Soviet Union is training “hundreds of Palestinians” in terrorist schools near Moscow and along the Black Sea, and there are similar training camps in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, a British newspaper reported.

Details of the connection between the Soviet Union and the Palestinians were given in the Daily Telegraph by Journalist Robert Moss, a specialist on subversion who two weeks ago attended the Jerusalem conference on terrorism. Moss said that because of the Soviet support for Palestinian terrorism, as well as its toll of innocent lives, it is a “tragic error” for any Western government to confer legality on the Palestine Liberation Organization.

He named the Military Academy at Simferopol in the Crimea as “a primary reception center for PLO men selected for sabotage and terrorist training in the Soviet Union.” Courses, said to include river crossings and all types of sabotage, are attended by mixed groups of 50 to 60 PLO trainees, drawn from different guerrilla organizations according to a quota system.

A “typical” course at Simferopol included recruits from Yasir Arafat’s El Fatah, the Syrian backed Al Saiqa, the Palestine Liberation Front and George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Moss claims that Palestinians of above-average aptitude are sometimes transferred to special courses in KGB or GRU (Soviet military intelligence) schools, which also receive a steady intake of intelligence officers from Libya, Syria, Iraq and South Yemen.

PLO SEEN AS USEFUL ASSET

In the Soviet view, Moss added, the PLO is a “tremendously useful asset.” It can supply shock troops, like the members of Idi Amin’s bodyguard in Uganda; subversive agents in the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia “that can now hold a knife to the throats of pro-Western monarchs”; and “all-purpose terrorists,” he wrote. The PLO “can also serve as the middleman in supplying arms to the national liberation movements,” as well as carrying out missions of specifically Soviet rather than Palestinian interest.

“One such case was the PLO plot to blow up fuel depots in West Berlin…. Another was the attempt by a Palestinian hit team in Holland in 1975 to hijack a train carrying Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union,” Moss stated.

Rolling the Palestinian nationalist struggle into the Red Scare narrative was an ingenious plot. Despite initial skepticism, the “War on Terror” with the Soviet Union playing the role of Evil Terrorist Mastermind was the centerpiece of neoconservative propaganda for the next decade.

Then the Soviet Union Collapsed.

The inevitable end to the Cold War hysteria that had prevailed for decades was a disaster for the neoconservative enterprise. Hawkish disciples, including Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were devastated. When asked in 1990 why he had stopped writing, Podhoretz said he has lost his compass. He no longer knew what to think, noting with irony that Kristol had moved all the way to Washington, D.C, just as the “the spirit blew out of the Beltway.” 1

But the neoconservatives are a resourceful and patient lot. Yes, the Soviet menace had disappeared from the world stage, but fortunately, new villains quickly emerged. The Green Menace of “Islamism” replaced the Red Menace of Communism, and the neoconservatives were off and running again.

The new narrative eerily similar to the old narrative, employing many of the same simplistic slogans and inflated threats. The neoconservatives were quick and nimble, retooling their propaganda in the wake of the Soviet collapse. The precious narrative could be saved, but sadly for the propagandists, progress would be slow.  Whipping up mass hysteria is not always an easy task.

The neoconservatives openly expressed their dreams of a catalyzing event that would galvanize the public behind their militaristic agenda. Fortunately for them, the event came in the fall of 2001.

The New Pearl Harbor they’d longed for came in the form of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, delivering the neoconservative dream on a silver platter. They openly recognized the attacks as a blessing, and soon the entire chorus began evangelizing with renewed passion. The script is eerily familiar, but this time around, the Mean Green Menace has taken center stage.

Propaganda is always calibrated to an audience swimming in a particular historical moment. Even people who have bought into the propaganda of the day hook, line, and sinker can often easily recognize the absurdity of the propaganda campaigns of an earlier era.

The trick is being able to recognize the carefully engineered propaganda campaigns that resonate in the current climate. Sometimes all it takes to see what’s in front of your nose is a brief glimpse into the historical archive.

1. Gary J. Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 14.

Pages

Subscribe to The Revival aggregator