Great article Tom.

I can see now why the Qaddafi's so miscalculated the threat that they faced. Surely the US does not believe the statements from these despots that they will move towards democracy, improve human rights etc etc. It's just a way to offer the US an excuse for bargaining and concessions. The politicians can point to these hollow assurances as progress being made and justification for negotiations.

In the past the US has been over eager to send in the helicopter gunships, but this current strategy seems far too easy on Uzbekistan.

Where is the United Nations? There needs to be international consistency when dealing with these issues to make dictators think twice before slaughtering innocent people. Maybe if they knew retaliation for these horrors would be swift and devastating, they just might not do them.

Great Article Tom.

Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."

However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."

In exploring this puzzling duplicity within Islam, we will examine first some examples from recent and ancient Islamic history. These examples demonstrate that lying is a common policy amongst Islamic clerics and statesmen.

In June of 1967 Egypt was defeated by Israel and lost the Sinai Peninsula during the "Six Day War." Subsequently, Egypt's primary focus became to regain the lost territory. President Nasser, and then, President Sadat, adopted the motto: "No voice should rise over the voice of The Battle." The soldiers that had been drafted in 1967 were kept in service and remained on high alert in the expectation that at any day "the battle" would ensue. Nonetheless, years pasted and Egypt's people became disgruntle with the political hype and the "no peace, and no war" status. In 1972 Sadat proclaimed with finality that it was to be the year for the long anticipated battle. Throughout the year he swore, "I swear to you by my honor that this year will not pass by, before we launch The Battle." People believed him because he was staking his reputation and honor through an oath. To everyone's amazement the year passed without a single shot being fired. As a result many, inside and outside Egypt, began to dismiss him as a "hot air bluff". This opinion was confirmed in the following year of 1973. He made no further mention of his oath about the battle. Many of the draftees were released and numerous officers were given vacation furloughs. Then without warning, in October of 1973, he launched the attack and what was known as the Yom Kippur war began.

As a military commander, Sadat was expected to use the element of surprise to trick the enemy. As a devout Muslim, Sadat was not the least bit concerned about his un-kept oath. He understood that the history and teachings of Islam would exempt him from spiritual accountability if he used lies as a foundation for a strategic military maneuver.

This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam's influence overrode Allah's initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had "Harmed Allah and His Apostle." At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to lie. With Mohammed's consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed's leadership. When he had gained Kaab's trust he lured him away from his house one night and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness.

A similar example can be found in the story of killing Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly. It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill Shaaban. Again, the would-be killer asked the prophet's permission to lie. Mohammed agreed and then ordered the killer to lie by stating that he was a member of the Khazaa clan. When Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, "From what tribe are you?" Abdullah answered, "From Khazaa." He then added, "I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight Mohammed and I came to join you." Abdullah started walking with Shaaban telling him how Mohammed came to them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and ruined the Arab's hopes. They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban's tent. Shaaban's companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside and rest. Abdullah sat there until the atmosphere was quiet and he sensed that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban's head and carried it to Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly shouted, "Your face has been triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho)." Abdullah returned the greeting by saying, "It is your face, Apostle of Allah, who has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah)."
Provisions for lying in Islam

Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:

War is deception.
The necessities justify the forbidden.
If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.

These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.
In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:

" Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." Surah 5:89

"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225

"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Surah 16: 106

The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabary explained Surah 16:106 as a verse that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, "If they turned, you turn." (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)

These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims' unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.

In the Hadith, Mohammed, emphasizes the same concept.

From "Ehiaa Oloum al-Din," by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 3: PP.284-287:

One of Mohammed's daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:

For reconciliation among people.
In war.
Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.

One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: "The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims."

Another says, "Aba Kahl, reconcile among people."(Meaning: even through lying.)

The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. "The sons of Adam are Travel Agency accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife."

Thanks

Mark

Malinowski makes a number of valid points in his article on the US treatment of Uzbek leader Islam Karimov. However, his conclusion is wrong- once US troops pull out of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan will be off the US' strategic map for good.

All of the Central Asian leaders have become adept manipulators of foreign powers with interests in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union to ensure an enduring grip on power. One only need look to the North (Kazakhstan) and the West (Turkmenistan) for validation. Uzbekistan in particular has volleyed between Russia and the United States (see the history of K2 Airbase- is the US even there now??? I've lost track of how many times it has been evicted) for the better part of the past decade- Karimov's flavor of the week has generally been whomever is willing to pay more. Once the US leaves Afghanistan, the United States will have very little incentive to pay Karimov off and very well may take a harder stance about human rights in Uzbekistan. However, it will be screaming into the wind.

Russia wants the US out of its "sphere of influence," and owns practically all of the Uzbek energy infrastructure. More relevantly, practically all Uzbeks speak Russian, thanks to over a century of Russian domination, and thus have much more in common with their mighty neighbor/patron to the far north who is much more lenient with dictators than is the US (at least as goes the official American stance).

America will probably shout louder once it leaves Afghanistan, but there won't be anybody listening.

Malinowski makes a number of valid points in his article on the US treatment of Uzbek leader Islam Karimov. However, his conclusion is wrong- once US troops pull out of Afghanistan, 0x80070017 Error Fix Uzbekistan will be off the US' strategic map for good.

Achilles' heels of the Karimov's regime are - 1) dependency on traditional markets (mainly the Russian and the rest of the former Soviet Union), 2) North oriented transport and transit infrastructure, 2) millions of labour migrants, again mainly in the North (Russia) 3) complains about human rights violation.

We seem to see a prelude for a major game launched recently by Putin and called 'New Eurasia'. To get everybody well convienced - and Uzbekistan is a corestone in this new game - these heels are getting pressed:
1. Ukraine tests banning import of cars from Uzbekistan, but this looks like alerting on possible problems on some other, more critical markets for Uzbek cars...
2. Russia launches a major campaing deporting hundreds of labor migrants from Tajikistan, but this looks like alerting for millions of Uzbek migrants and for the decision makers in Tashkent...
3. FP (and HRW) questions the rational for US administration talking to the regime in Tashkent, but this looks like pushing Tashkent towards Moscow (and Beijing).
A well thought plan and quite a solid coalition of implementing partners!

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

Thanks a lot for this information. :)

Good article. Nice that someone is shedding light to the average reader about Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan.

But not one mention of Russia and China?

If the US puts pressure or withdraws its support Karimov will turn to them, which he did in 2005 after Andijian.

That's not to say that I don't think that that is not a good thing. What can the US/West really offer the people of this region besides kickback to the leadership for airbases and access to natural resources? (In this respect Herman Cain's comments are quiet revealing.)

Their economic future is in broader economic and political integration with Russia and China. The only people who really oppose this are the local elites -- who maintain their power by playing off the great powers against one another -- and the West which is worried about rising Russian and Chinese power.

These "know it all" despot and dictators ruling in ME and Central Asian Countries, are nothing but a curse on these nations. These, arrogant modern day Pharoe's are intoxicated with their personal wealth and power. They are made from the sam cloth like Mubarak, Qaddafi, Assad. These countries which have become their fiefdoms, will be better off, the sooner they vanish. I will definitely use this topic for my next persuasive essay.

It seems once a leader shows weakness, they become a target for all those waiting in the wings to pounce on. The ones who are the first to toot your horn are now the first to stab you in the back. Isn't this what happens in the corporate world anyway? Performance Review Phrases