[Oct. 17 Seattle] Good talk but erroneous leaflet

[chr2eemail at comcast.net]

Anton and all,
I must have handed Theodore both the little “mobe” flyer and the SAIC leaflet, and he then assumed that they were put out by the same group. At any rate, I don’t think that his criticism of the SAIC leaflet belongs on this listserv. But since Theodore’s letter is now here I may as well add the reply that I sent to him yesterday. (BTW, I did like your reply, and we are correcting the error about Dostum.)--Fk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Theodore, 
Thank you for sending your critique of the August 14 leaflet. Since we don’t get many critical letters, it’s much appreciated.
The leaflet says that the Afghan government’s constitution is based on Sharia law, which no one can deny. But what is Sharia law? Sharia law according to whose interpretation of Islam? (Were we dealing with a Christian fundamentalist state with a constitution based on the teachings of Christ the same problem would arise because of the differences among the Christian sects over how to interpret these teachings.) The problem is that when religious law is written into a constitution the state has the prerogative of deciding what is the “true teaching,” and forcing this upon the people under penalty of fines, imprisonment, or worse.

Naturally many Afghans oppose this particular law---especially women, but also men---and it has been changed in various ways. Some no doubt oppose it because they don’t believe it’s “true” Sharia law. Others oppose it because it’s based in male-supremacy and violation of democracy. And still others no doubt oppose it on grounds that are a combination of both. But, again, having Sharia law (or the laws of other religions) written into a constitution means that there is going to be tyranny, including over believers who don’t believe the “right way.” So while it’s not our business to enter into debate over what is “true” Sharia law, it is our business to oppose religious tyranny, and to stand up for the rights of women everywhere.

You’re right about Dostum: like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar he’s switched sides, and more than once. This goes with warlordism. Insofar as his political ideology is concerned, because of our basis of unity we as a committee can’t take the position that since the Soviet imperialists were not communists, then it would be unlikely that Dostum was a communist when he was allied with them. Nor can we take the position that his entire career shows that he’s a mortal enemy of communism. But many of our members believe this. Nevertheless, we do thank you for pointing out that Dostum is not a fundamentalist warlord, and we may clarify this by changing the wording for our next printing. 
Lastly, it’s hard to understand your objections about the leaflet not being sympathetic to the plight of all Afghan people. True, it’s not sympathetic to the warlord-dominated government, nor to the Taliban and other oppressors of the people, but from beginning to end it expresses sympathy for the plight of the masses of people. Indeed, it calls upon working class and progressive people in the U.S. (the vast majority) to come to their aid by building the anti-war movement.

Moreover, we think that to really bring out the sympathy of the exploited workers and other oppressed people in this country to the plight of the Afghan people means doing more than pointing out that the Afghans are victims. No, they’re living and thinking people who find ways to struggle against their domestic and U.S.-NATO enemies despite everything. They’re a people with courage; and "you can cut down the flower, but nothing can stop the coming of the spring" is an old Afghan expression.

Again, thanks for writing, and we hope to see you at the October 17 demonstration!
Frank Arango, SAIC member

----- Original Message -----

From: October 17 Seattle 

To: Theodore Lang 

Cc: antiwar at lists.hcoop.net

Sent: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:58:00 +0000 (UTC)

Subject: Re: [Oct. 17 Seattle] Good talk but erroneous leaflet



Theodore--

Thanks for your email and your comments.  You are correct that Dostum is not a fundamentalist  (nor is he a communist in any meaningful sense of the term).  

I took another look at the SAIC leaflet.  There is certainly no intent to put down the people-- it is denouncing their oppressors.  I'm sure this could be made more clear.   To put the Afghan Shia personal status law in perspective, marital rape was widely legal in this country (U.S.) till the 1980's.    In the U.S. sexual assault is both widespread in society and is endemic both in prisons the military-- the same U.S. military which is waging war on the people of Afghanistan.  Check out:


http://www.packparachute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&Itemid=138 

I run with a different group myself (check out http://vvawai.org).  SAIC, VVAWAI and others are working together to build antiwar protest in Seattle on Oct 17.


Groups and individuals in this collective/coalition are putting the demo info on their own literature as part of building for it.  A growing variety of views on these issues are represented. 

I encourage you to work with us and help build a powerful antiwar protest.  We will be meeting


Wednesday, September 2, 7:00 p.m
Miller Community Center, small conf rm.
330 19th Avenue East, Seattle



I'm Cc'ing this to our organizer's litserv, which includes SAIC people.  If you want to work with us, let us know.  Your comments and criticism are always highly welcome.

--Anton Black




http://october17antiwarseattle.blogspot.com/



On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Theodore Lang <theodoreplang at gmail.com> wrote:





I hope this message finds you well,

 I had a great talk with a man who was handing out fliers on the Ave in the University district. After bidding farewell, I read the pamphlet he was handing out and was surprised with some of the errors in it. After checking your website, I found this to be the same leaflet: http://www.seattleaic.org/leaflets/us_out_of_afghanistan_and_pakistan







The leaflet described that the at the end of the year sharia law would be passed giving husbands the right to rape their wives. Can you provide where in sharia that something like this is allowed? Don't confuse Afghan law with sharia - also, in an Islamic marriage the husband and wife both have the right to ask for intimacy but neither is allowed to force the other. If neither partner fulfills this right, both can file for divorce. 







In the following paragraph the leaflet went on to mention how the government is filled with grisly fundamentalist warlords and then it went on to give the example of Rashid Dostum. This is accurate except the for the word fundamentalist. Dostum could best be described as an opportunist and if he followed any political ideology it would probably be communism, based on his long allegiance with the Soviets.







I'm sorry to say this, but when I read the pamphlet it created two thoughts: the US should get out and Afghans are savage disgusting people. War creates extremism and both of the wars they didn't ask for. I hope that if you publish another leaflet it will be more sympathetic to the plight of all Afghan people.







Insha Allah there will be a great turnout for this protest but many Muslims who consider Afghans to be as close as family are turned away by pamphlets like these. 

take care,





-- 
Theodore Lang


langt2 at uw.edu
(206) 802 8796






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hcoop.net/pipermail/antiwar/attachments/20090826/7a96f86d/attachment.htm