No comments about Marking Ramadan; Muslim Winnipeggers take part in annual fast.(Faith): An article from: Winnipeg Free Press.

No comments about A Book of Fasting.

No comments about Road to Ramadan.

No comments about The Heart of Ramadan.

No comments about Ramadan Blues.

No comments about Remarks at the Iftaar dinner.(Week Ending Friday, October 21, 2005): An article from: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.

No comments about Satellites.

1 comments about Muslims against anti-Semitism: ways to promote common values.(Thinking Aloud): An article from: UN Chronicle.

1. Tariq Ramadan has been described in a number of different ways. Some folks have called him a scholar, who has had appointments at Oxford and Notre Dame (he was denied entry into the United States to accept his Notre Dame position). Others have called him basically a Muslim evangelist. One person called him a "Muslim Martin Luther." That would indeed be relevant to anti-Semitism, as Luther had plenty to say about Jews, especially at the end of his career.
   
   Well, what does Ramadan say in this article? He recommends "two concomitant intellectual stances: objective self-criticism and promotion of common values."
   
   In this article, Ramadan addresses primarily the need for self-criticism on the part of anti-Jewish Muslims. He says we do not need false claims about Jews controlling the media, or about Jews not showing up for work at the World Trade Center the morning of the terrorist attacks there. He argues against a "tainted portrayal concerning the Jews."
   
   Some Muslims do not like some of the policies of the State of Israel. And Ramadan says that "the respect we have towards Judaism should not be subject to suspicion once we denounce the unjust policies of the State of Israel." I think that's not a good way to put it: some of what Israel does is clearly good, while some of what it does is more controversial.
   
   What about Jews? Should they indulge in some objective self-criticism as well, just as a means to improve dialog? Ramadan implies that they should.
   
   Normally, I'd give this article four stars. But I think Ramadan deserves less than that, because it is no oversight that he's failed to mention anti-Zionism as an aspect of anti-Semitism. Here's what he did recently.
   
   There is a book fair in Turin, Italy, scheduled for May 8 to May 12, 2008. Some folks noticed that this is right before the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the well-hated British Mandate in the Levant and the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Accordingly, the Turin Book Fair decided to honor Israeli literature. Some Israeli authors, including David Grossman, Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua, and Etgar Keret are scheduled to attend. By the way, these four have been particularly critical of Israeli policies.
   
   Ramadan took advantage of this to say something, namely "from now on we cannot recognize the legitimacy of celebrating the state of Israel, which leaves death and desolation in its wake." He said that "the issue is not an Islamic or Arab question, but a matter of world conscience." Well, it sure is. Israel has drained swamps and made the deserts bloom. It has built up a thriving society in a short time. And this has been in spite of having to win wars that have been thrust upon it, just to keep existing. Ramadan is not being quite fair here.
   
   Ramadan has asked for a boycott of the Turin book fair, as well as the Paris book fair (because it too is honoring Israel). He says he is not trying to prevent these Israeli authors from attending such fairs or "refusing to engage them in debate," but I'm not so sure that a boycott amounts to anything much different than this.
   
   If we're trying to be objective and self-critical, we have to realize that this is no way to counter anti-Semitism. We celebrate birthdays of all sorts of nations. Israel should be no exception.
   
   I'll give Ramadan two stars for his fine words. But no more than two stars, given his manifest hypocrisy. Maybe he's more like Martin Luther than some of us might have thought.

2 comments about Road to Ramadan.

1. Mohamed Heikal is one of the few Egyptian writers to have been widely published in the Western World and his ?Road to Ramadan? is one of his earliest works detailing the Arab (Egyptian and Syrian) part in the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Egypt, Israel and Syria and in a larger context between the superpowers of the USA and USSR. I have long studied military history as well as the background of the Middle Eastern conflict and was interested in hearing the Egyptian side of the 1973 Yom Kippur War (which he also calls the Ramadan War and the October War). Unfortunately, Heikal tells very little about the war and instead focuses on his worship of Nasser, his own ?wondrous? exploits and praise of the Socialist institutions of Egypt at that time. It?s only in the last seventy pages of the 283-page book that he even begins to address the war and only then in terms of praise for the Egyptian army (which was summarily beaten on the 1973 Yom Kippur battlefield even though Heikal has difficulty saying that).
   The book turns into a paean of praise to the wonders of Egypt?s autocracy under Nasser, and later Sadat, presenting one-sided views of the Egyptian government?s failings, many of which Heikal repudiates in his later books when it became politically expedient to do so. Among the more blatant of his gaffes is praise for Sadat, whom at one point he calls the ?elected? leader of Egypt, which is a statement that has little to no truth in it. My copy of this book was written in 1976 before Muslim extremists assassinated Sadat and Heikal spends much of the book alternately praising Nasser and Sadat. In some of Heikal?s later books written after Sadat?s assassination, he readily demeans Sadat and calls him a fool. The book is really no more than the semi-official government opinion of the ruling Egyptian elite as expressed through the mouthpiece of Heikal. Having lived in the former Soviet Union, I can say that this book not only resembles shoddy Soviet propaganda but also is a poor copy of propaganda that already stunk in the first place.
   Among the book?s other failing are a very large number of typos and English usage errors (which I?m assuming Heikal himself wrote since he constantly praises his own command of the English language and no translator is credited). The reason I call the book an ?Anti-Imperialist Egyptian Passion Play? is because of the presence of the large number of speeches that Heikal claims are paraphrased from Nasser?s secret meetings with Soviet and other world leaders. In Heikal?s writing, Nasser always utterly out-speaks everyone else in the world, ?proving? how much better he is than everyone else. The speeches resemble nothing less than the passion plays of early Christianity. As an enthusiast of military history, I find that the book provides little in the way of maps, orbats or other useful information. This book is a political diatribe: no more, no less.

   I cannot recommend this blatant and dated piece of propaganda, which is both poorly written and edited.

   Review by: Maximillian Ben Hanan




2. Early on Saturday morning, after ten days of `fighting', the confused, but still contemplating, Egyptian High Command prepared to leave the Headquarters to see President Sadat.
   General Ahmad Ismail Ali (then sick of cancer) headed the Egyptian Army.
   
   ((It is to be noted that General Ismail - a personal friend of Sadat - replaced General Sadiq who was against a limited war in 1973 in Sinai and who, a little before 1973, made coup attempt against Sadat that was foiled in the nick of time))
   
   It is not difficult to understand the way General Saad ad Dine Shazli (Chief of Staff) described the situation the day he resigned when Sadat and Shazli quarrelled over the conduct of the war. General Shazli left for Syria and made perpetual Radio broadcasting against Sadat.
   
   General Shazli described General Ahmad Ismail Ali more disheartened than sick. He labelled Sadat `the most disenchanted of men, the one entrusted with the destiny of Egypt and the man responsible for the country actually tottering towards defeat, abandoning Syria at the worst moments contrary to what Asad/Sadat agreed upon shortly before October 1973'
   He detested Sadat so much that it was difficult to give President Asad of Syria unbiased advice.
   General Shazli left Egypt with a heavy heart for he felt terrible guilt at leaving his country's fortunes to Sadat. Shazli was haunted by the bitterness of `Every man for himself ` attitude made by the defunct 1967 Leadership. For those retreating troops who then were able to survive Sinai's heat was very much a matter of chance.
   
   But, none of those in power had a total picture of what was happening in October 1973.
   One of the revealing points that Mr Heikal omitted to mention is this:
   The Soviet Union was persuaded by the Russian Ambassador to Syria that the joint Syrian/Egyptian fighting capacity was much greater than it was, while through him the Syrian government was led to expect far greater aid than could possibly have been forthcoming from the USSR at that time.

No comments about Ramadan and Eid Gift Box - 6 Books.