THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
*1* In response to the Stephen Schwartz's, Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist, I would like to reply to several erroneous statements. I was deeply dismayed at the way in which quotations were taken out of context as well as Schwartz's total disregard for fact. Schwartz offers no credible support for his attack on the good name of Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens. In a bizarre stretch of imagination, he even argues that Yusuf Islam's adopted religious view on music somehow proves that while "probably not" a terrorist himself, he is a supporter of terrorism, and thus a threat to national security.
Schwartz attacked Yusuf Islam for his alleged condoning of the late Imam Khomeini's political fatwa which sentenced Salman Rushdie to death--something Mr. Islam has consistently denied since these allegations first arose several years ago. At the time, he did, however, explain the pre-modern Islamic view of blasphemy, which is shared with pre-modern Christianity and Judaism. If that is a crime, all orthodox Abrahamic peoples are criminals for quoting Old Testament passages that express similar views. Mr. Islam's remarks were intended to elucidate why an Iranian scholar trained in a pre-modern educational institute might utter such a fatwa in the first place. At the time, al-Azhar, Islam's most prestigious university, condemned the fatwa and Mr. Islam has consistently held that same position.
Schwartz argues that Yusuf Islam is a threat to U.S. national security primarily for three reasons: Mr. Islam's views on music (which are misrepresentations); erroneous inferences deduced from statements Mr. Islam made 15 years ago; and finally the inclusion of my name on Mr. Islam's website.
Schwartz claims that Mr. Islam reveals his radical bent due to the "notorious American Islamist" Hamza Yusuf being mentioned on his website. Yet I am also mentioned in a positive light on the BBC's website (in their religious section), as well as on Beliefnet, Amazon.com, the British newspaper the Guardian and a host of other sites. Does this reveal the radical and fundamentalist bent of those websites, too?
Schwartz further impugns my honor by stating I have "boasted of 'advising'" President Bush, attempting to make me appear supercilious as well as deceitful. His quotation marks around "advising" would indicate it is simply not true. Far from a boast, it is on record that I did advise the president in a non-official capacity. In my visit to the Oval Office I made several suggestions and later informed the president that "Operation Infinite Justice," if translated into Arabic, could be misconstrued as blasphemous to Muslims. To his credit, the president's response was immediate and resolute and indeed the name was changed to "Enduring Freedom." Later, the president personally thanked me for my advice and I was invited by the first lady to be her guest that evening.
Those familiar with my work know me to be a consistent voice in the West for traditional Islam, as opposed to the current Islamism that has spawned terror in the name of Islam. My commitment to speaking out against what I termed the "rhetoric of rage" was crystallized in an article entitled "A Time for Introspection" which I wrote in London's Q News magazine, immediately after the devastation of 9/11.
I have readily admitted that on rare occasions I myself have been guilty of strident rhetoric and, when appropriate, I have acknowledged that fact, not as "camouflage," as Schwartz alleges, but because I am willing to admit my mistakes. Like any person committed to lifelong learning, I desire to grow both intellectually and morally.
The quotations that have been consistently used against me were largely said many years ago, and even before 9/11, my understanding had grown considerably. September 11 was a powerful wake-up call for us all and much has changed since then--including my own life and views. To focus on a few remarks at the expense of a man's core beliefs is simply unfair and malicious. Schwartz reveals either poor research or malevolence when he uses a partial quote from my speech at Islamic Circle of North America conference in 1996: "[T]here should be no voting or debate . . ." Interesting ellipsis: I was referring to whether the conference should vote on condemning a specific hate crime or not. I felt a vote was inappropriate and that one should simply condemn the condemnable.
My speech at this year's Islamic Society of North America's conference was a heartfelt condemnation of all forms of terrorism and in particular, the heinous events which occurred in Russia involving hundreds of innocent children. The de-contextualized quotes Schwartz chose implied that I did not believe there was any threat to this country from fanatics. On the contrary, I do believe that there is a very real threat and I have mentioned that in many speeches around the world, but basing an entire election on the threat from a few fanatics is, in my estimation, misguided. I do however thank God I live in a country where I can state my views without threat of persecution--but apparently not without being pilloried in the press.
I urge readers to go to the websitezaytuna.org and listen to my speech in its entirety.
--Hamza Yusuf
Stephen Schwartz responds: I can well understand that Hamza Yusuf finds citations of this and other examples from his extensive record of provocative tirades embarrassing, and therefore attempts to escape from a difficult situation with the usual claim that they were taken out of context. They were not. They were essential elements, at ISNA 2004, in yet another of his typical harangues, delivered at a forum for politicized Muslims. His diatribe at ISNA 2004 had nothing in common with religious opinion or instruction; nor did the previous such rant delivered before Muslims, from which I also quoted accurately. I note that Hamza Yusuf does not attempt to deny that he made the statements.
That Hamza Yusuf is endorsed by other journalists or websites does not make them or their proprietors Islamic fundamentalists; it only reveals their ignorance of Islam and gullibility.
*2* I live in Massachusetts and was up in New Hampshire canvassing for Sen. Kerry the other weekend. I was appalled at the level of cluelessness demonstrated by most of the Bush supporters that I spoke with. It occurred to me that we in Massachusetts must be just more educated or get more accurate news, or something. After reading Daniel McKivergan's Nothing To Do With the Truth, I now understand fully. Yes, al Qaeda was in Iraq, but the training camps were beyond the influence of Hussein. And my mother visits regularly from Canada, but has never met President Bush. Is one going to infer from her visits that she and Mr. Bush have been up to no good? I don't think so.
--Patricia Blau
*3* As a reporter in Vietnam for four years, I came to know Eddie Adams, Vo Suu, Huynh Cong ("Nick") Ut, and other famous photographers. Duncan Currie's Photographs Do Lie, about Eddie Adams's misgivings about "the shot" is 100 percent accurate. After the war, I met Eddie while he and I (then with CBS News) were both working on stories about Vietnamese boat people. He expressed to me then precisely the feelings Currie attributes to him. Thanks for writing this story and putting it all in context.
--Peter Collins
*4* Stephen Schwartz's This is Security and Co-operation? accuses the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina with many misdeeds, including support of communist parties, creation of economic hardship, rewards for Slobodan Milosevic, and control of the media.
The OSCE has been working since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which brought an end to three years of bloodshed in the region, to bring lasting stability to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the traumatic legacy of war remains strong. Under Dayton, and in a subsequent decision reached by the foreign ministers of the 55 participating states of the OSCE, of which the United States is one, the OSCE was given a number of tasks to be carried out by its field mission in Bosnia. Among other things, it was to establish a democratic election process in the country. (After conducting a series of elections itself, the OSCE handed over this responsibility to domestic authorities in 2002). As part of that process, the OSCE did indeed encourage citizens to vote and participate in the electoral process under the slogan "Vote for Change"--a campaign similar to those seen in any Western democracy eager to bolster voter turnout, and not a political endorsement for a particular political party or candidate.
Contrary to Schwartz's claim, the OSCE has no role in determining when political sovereignty is transferred. The structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established by the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995. Schwartz charges that the OSCE "stands as a barrier to privatization and investment" but fails to explain how that is done. In fact, although a number of other bilateral and international organizations have taken the lead over the years in both these fields, the OSCE has been working within its own remit to create conditions that will improve the quality of life and prospects for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the economy itself remains a barrier to post-war development. Hence, our efforts to address the obstacles that prevent economic recovery, through support for domestic human rights institutions and democracy building projects and in the coordination of reforms in security, education, the rule of law and municipal governance.
Finally, on the media, the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina employs no censors. We should not forget that in the Balkans in the 1990's the use of government-controlled media to stir up ethnic hatred and fear contributed powerfully to the length and savagery of the conflict. The international community, therefore, sought to aid the establishment of a free and independent press in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As part of this process, in fact, in earlier years the OSCE worked actively to encourage independent television and other private media.
Readers will no doubt agree that state building is not an exact science. But they are also owed an accurate picture of that process, and the OSCE's role in it, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is regrettable that Schwartz has failed to provide it.
--Elmira Bayrasli
Spokesperson
Director of Press and Public Information
OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovinia
*5* If you look at only at consumer prices, as Irwin M. Stelzer does in The Wal-Martization of America, then you might conclude that Wal-Mart is good for America. I think that in all other areas, and even in the area of retail pricing, Wal-Mart is bad for consumers and the retail community. In general, the Wal-Marts in our area offers crowded aisles, slow, pitiful service, and poor selection. Their food stores have a very limited variety of products. I'm concerned that our local Kroger store is going to concentrate on matching prices instead of continuing to offer the large selection of products that we have grown accustomed to.
I don't like the fact that Wal-Mart lowers consumers expectation for service. I have several friends who shop at Wal-Mart. When I mention that I hate the unreasonably long lines, poorly maintained aisles and overall stressful shopping experience, they all agree with me. They think that the few pennies they save on some of the products are worth it.
Finally, Wal-Mart is bad for manufacturers and their workers. The same people who are shopping at Wal-Mart are losing their jobs because Wal-Mart is forcing unreasonable price cuts on companies. These companies respond by cutting jobs or moving to countries where they can produce things cheaper.
--Amy Bolick
*6* Like Powl Smith, I am also serving in the U.S. military in Iraq (Facing Our Madrid). Smith is correct that we face a dangerous mix of Saddam loyalists, Islamic fundamentalists and foreign fighters. However, their actions and motivations have nothing to do with American electoral politics. Some are motivated by fear of lost power from the Saddam era; some are motivated by the hope of an Islamic state taking root here; some are simply tired of the American occupation; and some flat out hate Americans and would attempt to kill us, even if we never invaded Iraq. Though their motivations are different, they share at least one commonality: They do not care who wins between President Bush and Senator Kerry.
I fear for our long-term success in Iraq if senior officers allow their political ideologies to influence the assessment of our situation here. Whether President Bush or Senator Kerry prevails in the coming election, I hope that Americans choose our leader based on rational thought and not partisan-fueled fear.
--Kevin M. Corcoran
*7* As an "Austrian-American" I can tell you that Elfriede Jelinek hates Austria. (Stephen Schwartz, Oops . . . They Did It Again) She even said Austria must not be proud of her getting the Nobel Prize. It's hard to decide which she hates most: Austria, America, or men in general. It is the chattering class which likes her--masochists who love to hear how depraved their country is.
--Gerald Naus
*8* As Jonathan V. Last points out, John Edwards told a whopper during the vice presidential debate ("Rope-a-dope" or "No mas"?), implying that medical liability costs have no impact on the cost of healthcare. Liability costs and concerns are the most expensive part of healthcare and add billions of dollars in unnecessary tests and unnecessary paperwork and staffing.
We at the American College of Emergency Physicians see tort reform as the number one issue in healthcare today. If a doctor can't practice, if a hospital can't afford to keep its doors open, what else matters?
The OB-Gyne issue is the most obvious (and most quoted) but the tort system accounts for at least 50 percent of the cost of medical care in the U.S. today and the Republican party has a solid, proven plan for reform based upon success in California, Indiana, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and other states.
--Charles L. Kalsted, M.D.
*9* In Pray He Doesn't Alter Them Any Further, Jonathan V. Last horrifies us by pointing out how earlier, probably more coherent versions of the Star Wars films are disappearing into an Orwellian memory hole. But I don't think he even mentions George Lucas's real problem: It seems to me that this is a man who has something in common with George W. Bush in last week's debate--a lack of imagination. Lucas ought to have produced many more stories and movies than he has actually given us. A man chock-full of ideas would feel less inclined, and probably simply not have the time, to constantly tinker with past productions. Maybe MoveoOn.org ought to go after a different George.
--Eric Fern
*10* Normally, I would never be one to argue military history with a military officers, but I must disagree with Powl Smith's belief that Iraq Is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal. While Smith's basic premise is sound, I would say that Iraq would be New Guinea. Afghanistan would be Guadalcanal, since it was first.
--Brad Miklosovic