Mainspring of Islamic Civilization

Land-Use and Land-Ownership in Islamic Civilization
A study-kit for governments and NGOs by John Paul Maynard, legal anthropologist


Laws and practices relating to land-use and land-ownership are the mainspring of traditional Islamic civilization. These laws are rarely discussed, never analyzed, almost never mentioned, in books about the Islamic religion and its history. Why this is so is a question important in itself. We'll save that for the end. First, we will examine how these old laws and practices worked together, not just out in the villages, but in the cities as well. Far from being autocratic, fiqh and the shari'a grew up in dissidence to (Umayyad and more directly, to Abbasid) imperial power. A decentralized system falls easily to the centralized secular bureaucracy and army for several reasons. Eventually the state claimed all land, 'dead' and common, even private property, and taxed the capitalist life out of many communities..

The Seven Types of Land-holding in Islam

1. Mawat, or 'dead land' Land nobody owns, usually barren, unproductive. Muhammad said “Anyone who revives a piece of dead land, gets to own it.” First one stakes out a plot, then does one of four things: opens a well, plants vegetation, constructs a wall around the plot, or builds a house, corral or workshop. After a few years, the land becomes yours. You get a deed, and must now pay taxes.

2. Mulk land – simple private ownership, usually by a man. But his heirs are all his family. In other words, his wife and daughters and mother and sisters (if they live there) all get a tranche, a slice, a share, of ownership.

3. Mirri land – land owned by the community and later, by the state. The typical Islamic city has a maidan next to it, a large lawn of grass where shepherds can feed their animals while at market. The maidan is mirri land. So also are places like springs, wells, river fords, upland pastures, the shores of rivers and the sea. As they did in the 18th Britain, the big men, the state, seized the commons.

4. 'Iqta – land bestowed by the emir or caliph. Usually heritable but subject to re-appropriation by the emir. This is not feudalism per se. Early on, Muslim ghazis (warriors for the faith) were prohibited from expropriating or even buying, any enemy land or property. Obviously this caused Islam to be welcomed by non-Muslims, while causing revolts amongst the Muslim soldiers, who had families to provide for. Many of these warriors would take part in the founding, almost overnight, of new cities - Baghdad, Kufa, Fustat, and Marrakesh. In these new cities, 'iqta could be awarded to numerous local citizens, not just given to family members, cronies and commanders. Some land lords were highly inventive in how they used their properties: mixed farming, new seeds and crops, livestock breeding, small industries, welfare institutions, and long-range trade. Others were corrupt, negligent.

5. Waqf land – land bestowed by individuals for creating a religious or social institutions, such as schools, hostels, hospices, monasteries for sufis, mosques, cemeteries, caravansaries, and hospitals. These properties are dedicated 'forever' simply by stating the dedication three times in front of two witnesses.  In consequence, most (old) Islamic towns and cities contain many waqf properties. Some excellent institutions were created and maintained, serving the poor, the sick, travellers, the dying and the dervishes – sufis. But too much waqf property dampens and constrains economic activity. Waqf takes the land off the market. Only sometimes do waqf properties remain true to their original intent. It is all too easy for the clergy managers to just rent out the land or building. Or just let it decay. Modern Muslim states all have ministries of auqaf, (plural of waqf), who manage the managers of auqaf. In short, Muslim societies could create welfare organs without the state.

6. Ijare land – rented or leased land. This is the same as in the West, short-term rents and long-term leases. Problems arise when improvements are made, orchards planted, wells opened. In fiqh and shari'a the renter could claim these improvements. Multiple ownership is no stranger to the algebra-equipped Muslims. Ownership in Islam is often divided. Two owners of one place may become partners in a larger common enterprise. If a bank lends money, it too becomes a partner.

7. Muzara'a land – land being sharecropped. A farmer contracts with a land owner, grows a crop, the landlord taking a portion of the harvest. That portion kept increasing, with disastrous results: the impoverishment of millions.

There is also land being revived, which becomes privately owned, or in Arabic, mulk. This land-in-transition is called 'ihya, or 'revived.' In addition there exist merchants' offices and warehouses. (called tijaratkhane in old Persia). These institutions rent rooms very cheaply, and are hotbeds for the hatching of capitalism 'plots' and long-distance trade. As for networking, Muslims did it better, it seems, without electricity.

PART TWO: The maps. Property maps are rare in the Muslim world, and paper, of course, was not much used, as such documents, even deeds, can be so easily forged or used to trick illiterate people. Islamic law accepts paper documents but qualifies them in ways we in the West do not. Ownership is verified by testimony from neighbors. Note: NATO and Afghan army units in Afghanistan know this reality very well, by now.
Let me list the questions in play:

- (1) Where did these Islamic laws really come from?
- (2) Are these seven ways of holding the land a stable array?, a system? A spectrum?
- (3) Does the system degenerate or alternate in environmental and social cycles?
- (4) What has been the impact of imperial power on land use and land ownership in the Muslim world? Is there a political cycle?
- (5) How do joint ventures form, get set up, as a result of shared land ownership?
- (6) How does the Islamic system aid private enterprise?
- (7) Finally, can these laws be of any utility in modern age?

We will come back to these questions in Part Four.

PART THREE: Cycles of Change in Islamic land-use and -ownership

How does this ancient system change and adapt when up against the state? Strong urban-based war lords with their henchmen and security, can seldom resist the temptation to impose themselves top down onto this delicate localized system based on ancient custom. The modern state is no different. Indigenous people everywhere barely survive. Revolutions come and states recast themselves, not every generation, but every few years or so.

 In Islam, the heirs are many; but this does not in itself fragment estates. Instead, all the children, the wives and sisters, and the old folks – are all legal heirs. However, property deeds (if existent), usually mention just a single male, or brothers; but, legally, before the proper Muslim court, all family members have a tranche, a share.

Dead land gets revived, while land once revived, is abandoned, returning to dead land, which no one owns; until someone stakes it out and starts to develop it.
Common lands (mirri) are taken over by big private operators, friends and family of the emir, the caliph, or, later, by the more abstract state. This syndrome has been well studied in Britain (the field enclosure process.)

Land held by 'iqta, is land given by the emir for service. But if the land is neglected, the emir might take it back. Quite often the land revert back to the townspeople when the emir dies, or the state retracts or falls altogether. Sons and daughters, his whole household, including even his slaves, may inherit, but this is not certain, or backed by law, as 'iqta land is not private land.
Dedicated property (waqf) provides facilities that can make social welfare possible without state intervention. Those services range from caring for travellers and students, to mental hospitals, wells, libraries, small mosques, tombs of holy men and women, lodges for the dervishes, the homeless. Or a big kitchen - a free meal every day, and place to sleep.

But waqf property accumulates. After a few hundred years, as much as 2/3rds of a town's property might be 'dedicated forever.' This stifles the economy because so much property is taken off the market. Often the mullah is not able to keep up maintenance, so the buildings decay and must be torn down. In some cases, the mullahs just rent waqf properties out, pocketing the money, which is, of course, corruption, and recognized as such by the people.
In modern times, the state confiscates all land except mulk, which was taxed. The state became a potential developer. But these well-intended interventions from the top, are not nearly as effective or as a healthy, vibrant Islamic market. There one buys shares in all kinds of things, pooling capital for, say, long distance trade. Even poor people, orphans and women have ownership shares in the homes of their parents, rights to a home which are inalienable. This cuts anxiety and desperation, so the home becomes a platform for new, far-reaching ventures.

Now we'll go back and address the earlier questions in Part Two.

PART FOUR: Questions Pertaining to a Social Spectrum of Use and Ownership

1. Where do these land laws come from?
From the Neolithic, beginning roughly 10,000 years ago, when agriculture led communities to settle, and a bit later, when nomads evolved stock breeding. The two Neolithic life-ways were sometimes in conflict, but they had more reasons to trade. That meant co-operation, even joint ventures. So there evolved a set of 'understandings' which became 'custom' and eventually laws. The nomads may have been the barbarian enemies of civilization, but all in all, they contributed more than they took. The imperial armies used them as 'spear tips.' In fact, animals were critical. Mixed agriculture uses animals manure to fertilize crops, the stubble of which is eaten by the flocks and herds. There were other opportunities for nomads and farmers to come together, to get rich or to manage resources held in common. Long distance merchants needed safe, open roads. Finally, the laws relating to land improvement or 'ihya 'land-revivification,' offered a huge reward for anyone willing to work to improve the land – ownership.

2. Are these laws a spectrum, a system?
A spectrum implies an array of seven 'stops.' A spectrum is also a process, one in which the seven elements bear simple mathematics ratios with each other. That is to say, the octave is internally organized, each 'tone' or 'note' joining the others to produce social harmony, 'the melodies of prosperity,' or just survival. Since these land laws have characterized the Middle East for some 10,000 years, we might call it stable, durable. For though the big men and, later, state move in, confiscating the common lands, the local people know that these big men die early; that the sons are profligate. As soon as the regime loosens its grip, this older 'Islamic' system re-emerges. It's perennial.
The spectral organization suggests seven parts playing together synergistically. Taxes are collected by the village headman, who sends some of it up to the emir, but saves some to invest locally, say, in the improvement of mirri or commonly-owned structures, resources and lands. He might even bankroll a marketing scheme, e.g., co-ordinating transport to send local produce to distant markets.
Out of these seven, three relate to private ownership (mulk, ijare and muzara'a), and four serve the collective ('iqta, mirri, waqf, mawat). Growth occurs when public, collective ownership serves the small entrepreneur, or business family, who, in turn, can't trash the land. The market square is considered mawat or 'dead land' which can be revived by anyone who spreads a blanket. The old women with just three eggplants, can be there and make a sale with the same access to the market as SONY or Siemens.

3.How does the Islamic land system alternate and change in time?
Muhammad enshrined custom and used Medina as a prototype of a model Islamic system. That polity was quickly stressed by emirs and caliphs, their families and henchmen. Common land was taken over, fields were enclosed. Taxes reduced the small farmer to bare subsistence. Sharecroppers received less and less of their harvest. Big estates working slaves so undercut the price of grain that small farmers went belly-up, losing their homes, to drift into the cities.
In Arabic, the word for government (daulat) is the same for 'turning', for 'revolving,' as in revolution. Big governments collapse, emirs die, the land reverts back to the communities; workers and managers return from the capital city with resources and special knowledge. Then we see the Islamic system re-emerge. Taxes fall off. No big government interferes in the market. The rich do not prevent or co-opt ownership of resources. That ownership was extended as widely as possible, so everyone had a share, be it in property or in joint ventures.

4. How did empire and the modern state impact on Islamic lifeways?:
Emir and caliph exerted their own pressures – the annexation of common lands, to be given out to cronies and protegees. The imperial system, with its bureaucracy, ruthlessly collected taxes, taxes based on the land, and long-distance trade. The nascent proto-state conscripts young men, commands corvee labor, capitalizes on monopolies, and extracts all kinds of resources.
But in better times, during peace, the state might establish a currency, spread the money around, train artisans, breeders, and engineers; even receive and send merchants – a vital part of diplomacy. The empire was a tolerant world made up of diverse ethnicities and religions. To some extent, 'citizens' were willing to fight and die for the empire's ideals. The Romans, who were not a nomad people, turned empire into a religion, with a temple in every town, to which every citizen had to attend and vow allegiance. But in the end the nomads inherited the whole thing, leading to the high barbarian cultures of Europe. Sedentary farmers in Scandinavia became sea nomads, while Charlemagne put Alans at the tip of his cavalry wedge. The crenelated crown of European kings is, of course, the Parthian crown. The divine right of kings was passed on, along with fancy metal work. In short, the mature empire was sacred. It not only integrated many tribes and towns, but made them prosperous citizens in a whole world, a world that naturally stood above ethnic and sectarian identifications.
The empires I speak of were the Abbasid (Sunni, then Shi'i), the Seljuks (sunni Turks), the Persians of Bukhara (Samanids) and before that, Balkh; the Fatimid (Shi'i, Ishmaeli), the Mogul (sunni in N. India), the Umayyads in Andalus, and the Ottomans, both sunni.

Note: In the early 19th century, the Ottomans reformed the shari'a, modernizing much of it. Sections of this imperial up-date have been translated from Turkish and published in European languages. This attempt at modernizing kept close to the original Muhammad, and recognizes these ancient land laws, put in place during the Neolithic, when farmers, nomads and traders worked out the laws. Islam and Judaism, too, carry on this old way. So did the Sumerians and the Hittites.

A BRIEF REFERENCE TO INNER ASIA -

We omitted the Mongols. In a way, they did it better than anybody else. Freedom of religion pulled in many intelligent people, technology was accrued and perfected, many sects and tribes and settled city folk mixed, plus all the infrastructure, the caravansaries on the Silk Road, the postal system, the great tent cities of Karakoram all this was critical. The main thing, however, was the transfer of technology from China to Europe and the Middle East.

The Mongols had their own native codes of land-use and ownership, the Yasa. But it's similar to the shari'a, which enshrined those land laws to help nomads and farmers and traders work symbiotically.

The United States has been called an empire. It used the same land-revivification laws to settle the west, the Homesteading incentives. If you improve land, you own it. One can still homestead in Alaska. Like the Mongols, these laws were popular, allowing people with few assets, or no assets, to improve the land and eventually to own their homes. Both empires cherished and enforce, freedom of religion. Like the Mongols, numerous tribes and sects and artisan guilds came together in America to be caste in new combinations. Like the Mongols, the American people are nomadic, if not in residence, then in work. They both elect their leaders. They both produced continent-wide polities. Their armies used rockets and high explosives, 'shock and awe.' Both discovered news uses of paper. Both encouraged trade, long distance commerce. Both hated big government. That utter disgust with hypocritcal clergies was as much a part of the Mongols as it is in Euro-America. It was virulent statism in Germany and Japan that caused the Mongols to target them. Even as the Mongol empire broke up, these attacks went through.

5. How did, does, the Islamic system encourage and support business?
The genius of the Islamic economy stems from old customary practices in land-use and land-ownership. Capitalism began in the Middle East thousands of years before Islam. Most every family was a firm, and these family companies enjoyed a high degree of security, as trusted family members opened branches in other regions, even overseas. The family firm might be able to access international capital and markets, hence its role in the pooling of capital, and its concentration on joint ventures and public-private enterprises.

The bank joined the entrepreneurs as another partner. A typical venture might involve 20 investors, and three banks. Even at this early date, land ownership and risky long-distance trade, involved buying and holding shares. By this way risk was narrowed, shared, while ownership was distributed right down the line. The caliphs encouraged business start-ups and gave ownership to the landless lower classes, refugees, retired soldiers, so that taxes might be collected from them.

The ingenious formula for reviving 'dead' land was applied to the urban environment. Cities could be established within months, from scratch, by permitting the homeless to stake out plots of land, 'revive the land' by building on it, or planting something or by opening a well. They then come to own these plots. Many used these plots to launch businesses. Often urban builders used existing walls, building houses off their neighbor's, giving rise to the typical medina with its labyrinth of alleyways. That labyrinth seems so organic, something from Nature, not from women, men. It is.

The market square itself was considered 'dead land' – no one owns it. So it can be revived, temporarily, by anyone who spreads a blanket. The old woman with two egg plants will have a place at the market, guaranteed. Business exchange and development were even more fluid, more free, more flexible and daring, more finely grained and more pervasive, in the Islamic town, than in its American or European counterparts. And any study of this maximizing economy needs start with land.  Because there was, traditionally, no national state, there were very few taxes. This permitted the rapid aggregation of capital while political initiatives, expansion and incorporation of new Muslims, opened up new markets, making new ventures highly lucrative. With caravansaries, hostels, and mosques serving food for free, the whole of Islam was open to travellers trading things and/or ideas.Islamic business law frowns on making money off money. Banks lend money, but take no interest. Rather they receive shares in the enterprise. New businesses get solid support and expertise, from their banks. As for the poorer young father with no assets, he can enter business with no permission, no license, and no overhead. The market is free. The roadsides are free. No one owns them.

A new understanding of nomadism: My history teacher at Harvard, Joseph Fletcher, was clever in showing how nomadic pressures from Inner Asia, like the Huns, impacted decisively on the formation of the European nations and various northern Chinese states. Our experience and research validates these ideas, but goes farther, claiming that nomads were important in peace, as well. Nomads had an imperial talent: They looked after the settled folk in much the same way they looked after their sheep and goats. Farming, pastoralism and trade combined to make some empires lively, prosperous 'systems.' Highly successful. The Ottoman Empire originated as a nomadic protection racket but after the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, it matured, to typify the mature classical empire. At one point, Istanbul ruled from eastern Iran to Morocco; from Yemen in the south, to the Sea of Azov in the north.

Like any empire, it featured ethnic and sectarian diversity. The milli or 'sectarian nation' system, whereby religious leaders were to reside in Istanbul, coming to know their counterparts in other religions, induced 400 years of peace. One exception was the caliph's wars against Shi'i rebels, backed by Iran, in eastern Anatolia. Another was Russia. The Osmanlis needed some magic, just as did the Old Persians, and the Romans, in order to make non-Muslims loyal citizens.

The Ottoman Empire, following the rashidun caliphs, did not give ownership of land to its Muslim warriors. Janissaries were to have no base ambitions, no greed. The Timar, wrongly translated as 'fief,' is better defined as a corporation: farms, mines and forests were all timars. It was the job of the army, the janissaries, to manage, supervise and protect them. The Mongols did the same thing.
It should not surprise us that the greatest, most useful, empires were run by nomads. Nomadism was, is, a more complicated lifeway than farming. The Sumerians were either horse nomads or sea nomads. The Greeks, the Dorians, were Central Asian tribes living on the northwest edge of the Caspian Sea. Persians, Seljuk, Osmanli are good examples, while the Mongols is probably the best example.
The nomads bring much, but nomads do require some contact with settled folk. There are examples of the lifeways co-operating, not just for security and trade but to improve infrastructure, collect seeds, breed and introduce new kinds of sheep, goats, camels and horses; to build bridges and roads, hospitals and hospices. Back in the days of Muhammad, many Arab bedouin and other nomads, started settling down. But it also happened in reverse: settled people reverted back to stock-raising, to semi- or full pastoralism.

Muslim law guarantees rights to non-Muslims. Their land was no confiscated, their young men not conscripted. In return, non-Muslims (dhimmies) paid a tax of 6% of income and/or assets. Were the first four caliphs following Muhammad's instructions, that these foreign societies not be molested? Probably not. Muhammad had no dreams or plans of conquest, and died before Muslim armies left Arabia. The Muslims understood that, economically, it would be best not to molest settled communities, rightly seeing that such interference would freeze commerce, violate laws and prevent joint ventures - trade. Also, Muhammad's law of land revivification made economic development possible. When Muhammad died in 632 AD, Arab armies prepared for liberating Arabs in Byzantine Damascus and Palestine. Once these settled people knew that the Muslims armies were not going to change anything, except imperial oppression, Islam spread like wildfire.

6. Why does the system prove resilient?
The emir and later the state may annex the land and usurp authority, tax and conscript the young men, but villagers and townspeople know that these dynastic emperors and emirs, always die. In Arabic the word for government is daulat, which means 'turning,' or 'revolving' implying a a rise and a fall. So even today old Islamic ways of using, sharing and owning the land re-emerge from the failure of the state to offer services: an impartial legal system, security, resources, re-occupying empty estates, squatting, constructing new neighborhoods overnight. Some aspects of the Islamic land-ownership spectrum, have particular relevance to today. Land should be offered to those who improve it. There must exist incentives for those marginalized to work themselves back into the economy. Joint ventures, the pooling of talent and capital led Islamic communities to evolve their own forms of capitalism. Making money off money just will not do. Monopolies, the fixing of prices, the re-selling of mortgages, speculation – these have no place in the Islamic system, though they can be found today in the wealthy, westernized stratum of each modern Muslim nation.

7. Can these laws be of use in the modern age?
All through history we see a desperate attempt by elites to centralize their power. Such schemes, backed by taxation and conscription, plus an army and a bureaucracy, appear to gather together capital, focus it, then invest in projects. But this does not happen always or even often. Most resources go to the army, then to reward cronies and family, then on new estates, palaces, mosques and churches. Artisans providing luxury goods may prosper, but clearly, the money is not being used in a socially integrative way, that is, it's not making its way all through the people. Quite the contrary.
Decentralization of power leads to democracy. Decentralization of capital, is all but synonymous with prosperity. Communities know better than anyone how surplus funds might be invested. Earlier, this surplus was not invested directly, but distributed as gifts. In those countries, people have grown to expect these hand-outs. The enterprising spirit fades, as poverty sets in. So where are they distributing salaries?

As for why these laws are largely unknown to scholars, one has to consider the modern state. It expropriated, replaced these old Islamic laws, without study or comment. We are all children of that modern state, so cannot conceive of another way. Muslim scholars also overlooked these very earthy customary practices, preferring symbolic appeal to actual social improvement. It is as if their feet no longer touched the ground. -JPM


www.middleeastspeculum.blogspot.com

ISLAM UNDER THE KNIFE
Only Reform Will Bestow Power

By John Paul Maynard


Over time a spiritual tradition picks up more and more extraneous details not part of the original teaching, the original revelation. Pruning the tree then becomes essential, critically important, if the original message is to be preserved. Otherwise it will be absorbed. Little precepts exist amongst big precepts, and there is no way of delicately focusing on the important ideas. So the religion actually loses itself, carrying so much baggage. It's not exactly baggage. Baggage is your own stuff, but here we see Islam entangled with what is not is own. The inhumane elements of Islamic law are not part of Islam, as originally understood by the prophet and his companions.
We will look at these extraneous additions, these add-ons. Most remarkably, these are the same 'laws' which have become issues poisoning Islam's relations with the rest of the world.
Think how many billions of times Muslims have tried to get back to the original Islam, the Islam of the prophet, as he lived and taught it, in Mecca and Medina and then in Mecca again (622-32). It is as if these devotees were in a dream. In reality, there is no one Islam. It is understood differently by every human. But the dream, the aspiration, is potentially useful, if it leads to study, the study of history, and to ever deeper understanding of the Recitation (al Qur'an). But to do that one has to call into question some basic beliefs.
If one lacks a genuine critical capability, nothing is possible. There are many decent people in Islam who hate the cruel stonings and the cutting off of hands and gouging out of eyes, not to mention countless acts of terror by evil people speaking loudly about Islam and God. How can they fight the false teachers except through reform of their own false laws?
It is genuinely recognized that Islam the religion is different than the Sunna, the ways of life, of the prophet Muhammad. Yet when Muslims try to get back to ancient Medina (where Muhammad established an esoteric community), they end up focusing on phenomena, things, events, rather than noumena, ideas, insights. As ibn Hanbal (of all people) teaches: “Verily God does not consider your appearances or your wealth, but He considers your hearts and your deeds.”
There is an old proverb: “The letter of the law killeth the spirit of the law.” All this attention to the beard, the clothes, the rituals, the prohibitions, the prayers, controversies, the texts, and not much attention is left to actually achieve genuine spiritual perfection, which is unfortunate. “This work requires the very best of myself, yourself.”
Over time, Islam has picked up foreign material and alien ideas. A 'fit' Islam, one ready to go to battle, needs subtract, cut out, what is not Islamic. Not surprisingly, these extraneous laws and false injunctions, are precisely those which alienate people from Islam
Westerners (and moderate Muslims) do not like the shari'a for four (4) reasons:

1. the hadd punishments (cutting off of hands, stoning, FGM etc.)
2. the repression of women
3. Islam's autocratic, anti-democratic features
4. Islam's war-like nature – jihad

What is extraordinary is that none of the above issues have anything to do with Islam. Even more extraordinary, most Muslims have not the power and knowledge necessary to purify their own faith.
The stoning of adulterers is an old Jewish practice, found in the Old Testament and the New Testament as well. “Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone.” See Matthew 21:35, 2 Chronicles 11:25, Hebrews 11:37, 12:20, 2Corinthians 11:25. Old Testament passages include: Numbers 15:36, Joshua 7:25, 1 Kings 12:18, 21:13, 21:14. Why on earth are Muslims following such an alien and inhumane Jewish practice?
The hadd punishments (cutting off of hands) are Byzantine in root and practice, derived by corrupting the supposed words of Jesus Christ: “If your right hand offends thee, cut it off. If thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out.” They are Christian, not Islamic, laws, and bad ones at that, so why on earth do Muslims support such an alien and degraded set of laws not from their own religion?
The Qur'an says men and women are equal, equal in rights, intelligence, and in the divvying up of resources. It is written down first in the Qur'an: a woman's right to divorce, to be supported thereafter, to inherit, to be free of physical abuse, and slander. Muhammad was deeply attached to women friends, and to his wives. So the oppression of women is not Islamic. It has nothing to do with Islam. It is primitive tribal custom or life way. Amongst primitive tribes in the ancient Near East, women were sometimes a kind of property to capture and trade, or to protect and maintain. The veiling of women, is an old urban, upper class Byzantine (and Babylonian) custom which Muhammad let stand. FGM of course has nothing to do with Islam.
Democracy in Islam is a huge pressing issue. The Arabs are no strangers to elections and the vote. Bedouin chiefs were usually elected. So called 'primitive democracy' is real democracy, from the bottom up, and sometimes from the top down. The first four caliphs were supposedly elected, actually appointed after consultation, consultations ending with the show of hands. “Government and the people must consult together at every step” said Muhammad.
As to holy war, jihad, there is no theory of war, just or otherwise, in the Qur'an. Muhammad's experience in war was defensive. (His own tribe tried to kill him repeatedly, then the Meccans invaded Medina with a large army.) Remember that much of the Qur'an was channeled through Muhammad at critical moments, advising his actions, sometimes from hour to hour. Foolishly, the Islamist radicals take supposed sayings (ahadith) of Muhammad, sent down, say, at 5:46 pm in Medina on the 7th of Nisan, year 4. The foolish extremists then take these purported sayings out of context, and turn them into universal Muslim laws which must be believed and acted on.
So obviously Muslims the world over must redefine what is Islamic. Why hold on to cruel stupid laws that have nothing to do with Muhammad and Islam? These barbaric practices seem to be deeply embedded. Even 'liberal' jurists like Malik ibn 'Anas kept the hadd punishments, including stoning.
One might object. If these are not Islamic laws, why did Muhammad support them? Muhammad did not support them – he left them alone, let them stand. He did not see himself as a great reforming law giver. Muhammad did have a legal background, as a mediator. Later, as prophet, he did concentrate on a set of definite legal reforms, pertaining to the exposure of girl babies, the rights of women, orphans, regarding inheritance and education, charity, laws relating to non-Muslims, settlements and cities, charitable institutions (waqf), commerce, money, war and the treatment of prisoners. But otherwise Muhammad just let the old laws stand. Why?
Muhammad did not see himself as some great law giver or revolutionary. He was not nearly so presumptuous. He did not see himself as founding a brand new religion, and indeed, many of the aspects of the Muslim religion accrued after Muhammad died. The Qur'an itself is a rather haphazard collection of oral sayings memorized from a limited group of very old men (and some women) – the Sahaba and Sahabat, the Companions, that is, any believer who was with the prophet, saw him, heard him speak.
There is occasional evidence of interpolation. The passage that says “Men and women are equal” is followed by the line “And men are above (or over) women” and then “You can hit them.” Obviously this does not make sense. And since the Qur'an does not contradict itself, we are safe in saying that the latter lines were interpolated.
Certainly most hadith were composed after Muhammad's death in 632. The Muslim sees his book as perfect, even uncreated, but any scholar, even one who doesn't know Arabic, can see the marks of humans in the book's transcription, editing and organization.
Let me put it this way. We glorify the great prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. To us, they become giants of history. Yet each of them was an ordinary man and all of them were bedeviled by weaknesses which proved problematic if not fatal.
Abraham, who was not Jewish, married his half sister (Sarah) and unjustly preferred her over his concubine, Hagar, mother of Ismael, who was abandoned with her baby in the wilderness. Moses was a murderer who never got to see the so-called promised land. Jesus Christ could not help but display his powers, with fatal consequences.
Muhammad? Muhammad left no instructions as to what to do after his death. He did not picture a lawful designated successor. Muhammad was not so presumptuous. He never called himself the exclusive teacher of God. He did not see himself as a revolutionary law giver. Or a universal teacher. His Recital was in Arabic and for the Arabs. He did not plan or prepare his patrimony, his legacy. Muhammad left no instructions, no way to choose a successor, no world vision of conquest, no theory of war, little religion and no texts (he was illiterate) except what a few old timers remembered 25 years after his death.
Not being presumptuous is, of course, a virtue, an honesty, a modesty. Godly things can't be known unless the personality is seen through, neutralized.
Maybe the Magian Zarathushtris are right when they say that the good and the evil grow together in a man or a woman, as he or she evolves. The great prophets had huge shadows. They were basically ordinary people who struggled with themselves. True, they were superb magicians. The Islamic prayer is a ritualized invocation aimed at calling up the Divine Presence. 'Magic,' the word, the art, comes from 'Magian', i.e., the Old Persian religion, linked to Zoroastrianism – the Zarathushtris.
Some Muslims, like some Jews and Christians, think their religion is 'unique on earth' and 'the one true way to God.' But the Bible says Abraham, who was not Jewish, Christian or Muslim, came out of Ur – Sumer/Babylon -, and that Moses came out of Egypt and was likely an Egyptian medical doctor, probably one of the last followers of Ikhnaten, the monotheist pharaoh.
Islam also has deep debts to other cultures. So much of the Qur'an is simply the re-telling of Old Testament stories. Though the Qur'an tells Muslims to pray three times a day, like the Jews, Abbasid Baghdad adopted Zoroastrian precepts, ordering Muslims to pray 5 times a day, like the Zarathushtris, and perform ritual ablutions, again taken from Magian Zarathushtris.
Much of what we call Judaism, Christianity and Islam are au font Zarathushtri concepts, like angels, archangels, the idea of an after life, the end of days, Satan. The very idea of a One God, who is beneficent, just, and who cares for His people – was a Zarathushtri innovation.
I spell this out because it is time now for moderate Islam to counter-attack. But first it must be ['fit' and wholesome (so God can support it again). So Islam must lose all that dead weight – non-Muslim ideas which somehow got wound up in what people call Islam. A few probable interpolations in the Qur'an should be corrected. All hadith should be dismissed except those which show the mark of a superior intelligence, an all-embracing love.
The radical hotheaded ignoramuses who have hijacked Islam use bad false hadith all the time. True, Muhammad left some sayings about war. Some warn against fanaticism, aggressive or pre-emptive war, static war, and all prolonged conflicts. Curiously, the Qur'an says to stop war-making as soon as the situation changes, which will be sooner than later. Prisoners of war are to be treated with respect and cared for. Non-Muslims are to be tolerated, even protected. Islam has its own injunctions against forced conversions and fanaticism.
Here are two hadith about war which are probably true sayings by Muhammad, because they cut against those calling themselves Muslims: “If you have a choice between following an un-righteous Muslim, or a righteous non-Muslim, choose the righteous non-Muslim.” Or this one: “If violence breaks out, find out who started it, then attack him.” These are not like the jihadi hadith. They are superior, and true.
As to holy war, jihad, there is no theory of war, just or otherwise, in the Qur'an. There are, however,definite laws promulgated regarding the costs and the victims of war. The enemy is given his due respect. Prisoners of war were to be cared for meticulously. No compulsion should be used, to convert anyone. The rights of non-Muslims were spelled out, and I should say the benefits also, as the 6% tax that dhimmis (Jews, Christians, Sabaeans and Zarathrushtris) paid in order to not have to be in the army, is the about the same tax on income that Americans pay for their grotesquely bloated defense departments and industries.
Linguistically, jihad means struggle, any kind of going against oneself, or the willed intent required to evolve and not perish, physically, culturally. Remember, Muhammad became a general against his will. His war was defensive. His own tribe, the Qurayshis, tried to assassinate him, repeatedly. Since he challenged all the gods, Muhammad was a dangerous man. Mecca's prosperity depended on pagan pilgrims. The Hijra – the flight – to Medina - year Zero - is the stuff of epic legend: how Mecca organized ever larger armies of mercenaries to cut down the Muslims; how a Jewish tribe swore allegiance to the Muslims, then turned sides right during Mecca's attack, stabbing the Muslims in the back.
Remember that much of the Qur'an was channeled through Muhammad at critical moments, informing his actions, sometimes from hour to hour. Foolishly, the Islamist radicals take supposed sayings of God (or Muhammad), sent down, say, at 5:46 pm in Medina on the 7th of Nisan, year 4. The foolish extremists then take these purported sayings and turn them into universal Muslim laws which must be believed and acted on. God forbid.
So obviously Muslims the world over are anxious to accurately define what is actually Islamic. Why hold on to cruel stupid laws that have nothing to do with Muhammad or God or any humane utility of law?
For over 30 years moderate Islam has been on the defensive. Now it is gathering for an offensive against the fundamentalist usurpers. Fewer people are falling for the politics of symbolic appeal, and it is generally recognized amongst Muslims that the extremists are injuring Islam, acting against Islam's best interest. Many moderate Muslims have studied fanaticism, per the Qur'an “There is no fanaticism in Islam.” But the question is, can these same moderate Muslims, intellectuals or not, shepherd in a series of changes that would purify and focus Islam?
Islam originally was a method of self-transformation. Those esoteric teachings remained secret, and some traditions were quickly swamped by matters of survival. But these teachings did persist, handed down through several women colleagues of the prophet, as well as male lines, like the one through Ali, Hussein and Hasan – the Shi'ia traditions.
Esoteric schools exist just for a short period, rarely go public, and are unlike religions which stay the same (uncorrected) and to which accrue everything including the kitchen sink. That inner part of Islam can be found amongst the Sufis, and others, e.g. the Ahmediyya, the Ishma'ilis, the Druze, the Alawites, and the Imamite traditions of Yemen and Iran, et al.). But nobody can own, still less monopolize, the holy spirit.
Put it this way. Most Muslims who pray, who adopt and call their own that rigorous discipline of ablutions and prayer, expect and hope for some relief, some real knowledge, some personal perfection. But that wish can easily be turned into something irrelevant, or even dangerous. Islam affords a way to escape from the ego, but contrast this to the political Islamists. They are strong by deceit, aiming to increase their influence. But Islam means 'surrender' and the aim is to weaken the ego, the personality. This inner, holy, divine part of Islam goes in a opposite direction than the Salafists, Deobandis, Wahhabis, and al Qa'ida. Not surprisingly, the devil speaks in the name of God and His prophets, most loudly. Yet their blind fundamentalist teachings are void of truth, justice, mercy, and extremely inimical to world peace. As the sufi master Bistami said: “If you want to see the devil, look in the mirror.” And “I have seen Satan and he is a Muslim.”
Why do Muslims fall for the politics of symbolic appeal? In the West, if one starts talking about Jesus Christ, the Bible, and/or ancient Moses with any emotion, one is considered as 'possibly very crazy, maybe even dangerous.' But those false usurpers of the Muslim religion who loudly publish their cruel, divisive fatwas, are not much challenged by moderates. Why? Is it because of the threat of violent retaliation? Or because the politics of symbolic appeal are still considered valid in the culture at large? Or is it that Muslims are just not well schooled in their own traditions of tolerance, critical thinking, and scientific investigation?
Close attention to history offers some guidance. The Qur'an says it was written for the Arabs, a teaching for the Arabs. Muhammad believed Arabia should be Muslim. That's as far as he went in using force and compulsion. He told his troops not to force conversions, but to neutralize all the false prophets – pagan figures who could influence the people. There was a copy cat effect, with several talented leaders claiming to be prophets from God. Muhammad went after these guys for 'copyright infringement.'.
After Muhammad's death in 632, rebellions broke out. Many tribes reneged on the terms they worked out with Muhammad (to form an umma, a nation, and an ulama (council of elders), and a confederation). So less than a year later, the Ridda (Apostasy) Wars break out, and a powerful enemy is defeated, in the Battle of al Aqabah (master general Khalid ibn Walid). The Muslims did not execute the enemy general, Khalid ibn Walid, which had great benefit, because, when Khalid converted to Islam, he became an impeccable general, not terrorizing populations, but assuring them. Since Khalid was granted tolerance, he acted tolerantly. We also see that Muslim leaders were early oriented to the north. They aimed to liberate all the Arabs, including the Bedouin in the Sinai, the Negev, plus Nabatea, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and the Lakhmids of the Persian empire (Iraq and Iran) where Arabs lived.
Initially Muhammad tried secret diplomacy with the Byzantine Empire but Emperor Heraclius showed no desire to negotiate. Then the Muslims tried to secretly win over the Arab chiefs. But the Greek imperialists were alert and determined. So the Muslim armies, battle-hardened, highly mobile, took apart the Greek 'Rum' army apart at Ajnadayn and Marj al Saffar, and annexed the part of the Greek and Persian empires in which Arabs lived. I say 'liberate' because the Byzantine empire was basically a big cruel tax machine, impoverishing the middle class. No wonder Islam spread so quickly.
Some talk of Muhammad's militarism, but this is a modern term which yanks us out of the context. First of all, this is the early middle ages, a very violent, lawless period that should not be judged and condemned by modern norms. Muhammad was unlike Charlemagne in that he didn't have the hatred for the other that would lead Muslims to commit genocide, as did Charlemagne and the later Crusaders. Muhammad was a mediator before he was a prophet, so he instinctively used the law and diplomacy to work out possible compromises. This tradition was followed.
After defeating the Byzantines in north Arabia, Khalid ibn Walid 'the Sword of Islam' did not hesitate but turned his whole army to the right, and went east, where they defeated the Persians at Hira, in southern Iraq. Hira was capital of the Arab Lakhmid state and culture, under dominance by the imperial Persians.
Muhammad had no plan of conquest outside Arabia, and there really is nothing like that in the Qur'an. Yet under his successors, the Rashidun, the first four khalifs, this 'militarism' is expanded. Arab armies go into Egypt, North Africa, and eastwards into Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. Everywhere they let people worship freely and left in place not only local institutions, but the same personnel. That's why Islam 'exploded.'
There are a host of reasons why Islam expanded out of Arabia. Expansion unified contesting tribes, directing martial energies outward. In this they resembled the European Christian crusades six hundred years later. But unlike the crusades, there was little hatred of the other. Right from the start Islam was tolerant, much more tolerant than the Catholic Church. It is true that the first caliphs were more tolerant to non-Muslim outsiders, than to the Muslims themselves, who were not allowed to take over land without payment.
The tolerance of Islam is worthy of deep reflection. Where did it begin? Remember that Muhammad was not raised by his birth mother, that his father died early, that his uncle Abu Taleb likely knew how to read Hebrew, that Arabia was populated with Jews and Christians and pagans, that the greatest military leaders, the two most responsible for the expansion out of Arabia, Khalid ibn Walid and Caliph Omar al Khattab, were originally sworn enemies of Muhammad. Each tried to kill him. Yet both were completely forgiven and given command of the biggest armies.
Though the Qur'an says its teaching is for the Arabs, Islam spread like wildfire into areas where Arabs did not live. It pointedly became a supra-ethnic faith. It became in the process a religion, a system of psycho-social development, enjoining Muslims to do a few things: To say “There is no god – but God, and Muhammad is his messenger.” To pray 5 times a day (after washing), to take a pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj, a pre-Islamic tradition), to give to charity (zikat), to meet collectively on Juma (Friday), to obey legal authorities, to learn to read in order to study the Qur'an, and the great legal scholars, to struggle for justice.
There exists a political teaching in the Qur'an, a political dimension. Medina was a think tank where new ideas were tried out. To me, as a scientist, the most important aspect of Islam are the laws pertaining to land use and land ownership. How did the Arabs construct huge cities almost overnight? How was marginal land used? How were small poor individual merchants given access to the marketplace? How could any society become so mobile? How were land taxes legislated and collected? Unfortunately the religious Muslims ignore the core teachings re land. So-called 'encyclopedias of Islam' omit them. Even amongst Islamic scholars in the West, these Islamic land laws are little known, and not yet studied or analyzed.
Since Islam was born at a time of transition from nomads to townsmen, one can see the effort made, an effort of law, to rationalize customs. New houses had to be designed and built – quickly. Mosque orienation and architecture had to be just right. Hospitals needed to be invented, as were caravansaries. The Arabs were no barbarians.
The standardazation of the Qur'an was put together 25 years after Muhammad's death, by caliph Uthman. He appointed Zayd ibn Thabit, formerly a scribe of Muhammad's, to lead the effort. The book was organized in an arbitrary way, not chronologically, or by theme, but by simply making the book begin with the longest sura, and end with the shortest. The suras (or chapters) were all given names, but that name usually has little to indicate what the sura is about. The actual passages often exhibit a taping together of diverse, unrelated themes and motifs. Yet of all the scriptures, only the Qur'an captures the true nature of humans – that they are duplicitous, deceitful, lying, unforgiving, bigoted, vengeful, depressed, and their personalities are fissionable, and fragmented, that is, not whole or wholesome. Humans can say one thing, and then act, behave, completely contrary to the ideals professed verbally, without even seeing the contradiction. They are so perverse because they are asleep. Men and women are deluded, particularly in regard to wealth and material security. Humans have basically 'fortified their prisons.'
Muhammad did not like to talk, to speak. He limited himself to pithy one liners like “There is no harm, or benefiting from harm, in Islam.” Or “Pray as a woman prays.” Under the pressure of battle, he may have said some harsh things about the enemy of the day. But that is no reason for Muslims to take those purported statements, and turn them into universal laws demanding battle, violence.
Most Americans and Europeans see Islam as a cruel, intolerant medieval religion, which has lost its first virtue – mercy.. But in sum, on the whole, Islam is not that. Islam has been of incalculable benefit, particularly to the West. Consider the medical knowledge that came from the Islamic world. Take any medical doctor and you can trace his skills back to Islamic civilization, indeed to the prophet's own words. The Qur'an rejects all the demonology, all the superstitions, saying “Do not believe that illness, injury, death, is punishment from God.” Then Muhammad went on to say: “Every disease has its cause and its cure.” That was a radical departure. In rejecting accepted paradigms of illness (Greek humorism), Muhammad spoke as a scientist.
Instead of listing who discovered what, let me just list the inventions of Islamic medicine.
The hospital was invented in the sixth century (Baghdad), and spread to the west during the crusades. Think of all those elite Christian warrior knights who, as Hospitalers, Templars, dedicated themselves to building and running hospices and hospitals, first in Palestine, then in Rhodes, Malta, Sicily, Spain, then in western Europe. (Paris had the first hospital.)
The Qur'an mentions male sperm and female eggs. How did those 'primitive' Arabs know that? There is a scientific streak in the Qur'an. God often suggests that one look keenly at the worlds interior and exterior, “to see signs therein.” Curiously, the Qur'an takes a celestial or cosmic perspective, as if the speaker were looking down on earth. The old Mid East God of the skies, the storm God, endures. Here is a typical passage paraphrased: “look at the clouds, how they glide in billows, one upon the other. Look at the ships, how they scud before the wind. See therein signs (ayat) from God.” Islamic doctors anticipated bacteriology by concluding that tiny parasites and vectors spread disease, that these diseases can be contagious. This was a big breakthrough, leading to the practice of quarantine.
Islamic medicine, which included many Jewish and Magian (Persian) doctors as well, soon specialized into some thirty different medical specialties. Let me just list some or their discoveries. One sees breakthroughs in:
ophthalmology, where superior optical knowledge (nur, or light) corrected the Greeks and the whole ancient world
contagion, through tiny animals, anticipating bacteriology.
immunology – the Zarathushtri view of the body as a battlefield
the use of anesthesia (fennugreek mixed with cannabis and some opium); the use of smells, to dull pain.)
dentistry. Muhammad enjoined flossing the teeth (with a twig) on all believers
close inspection of the metabolism, and homeostasis, as a balance, a harmony;
pathology (the classification of disease, compilations of knowledge into encyclopedias)
the first use of experiments and studies using controls.
pediatrics and diseases of childhood
geriatrics and aging
the cause and treatment of diabetes
knowledge of the circulatory system
surgery, particularly cancer surgery (first they cut the arteries to the tumor, then later excise it, using leeches to gobble up the last of the the tumor and the bacteria)
the use of drugs (in which inorganic chemicals are precisely dosed)
pharmacies, pharmacy schools, (a pharmacopeia of over 700 simple and compound drugs)
the hypodermic syringe, originally used to extract bad lenses from eyes
the invention and use of many surgical instruments (over 200 kinds).
an early focus on mental diseases and disorders– psychiatry and psychology. Muslim doctors distinguished between three kinds of depression, and drew a careful line between neurosis and psychosis. They also invented humane mental hospitals. They closely compared physical and mental disorders, assessing the ishtibak, or the interweaving, the intermingling, the fusion, of mental and physical (dis)orders, clarifying psychosomatic illnesses.
first use of plaster casts to heal bones.
a theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, environmental adaptation (every plant and animal has its own strategy of survival), and food chains.

The goodness of, the benefit from, Islam went even deeper. Mathematics was used to precisely grade and compound medicines, and to rate their strengths. The Muslims may not have invented the zero, but they applied it widely, using it all the time, often ingeniously. The kalema - that one thing you need say to be Muslim - is usually translated as “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” But the kalama might also be translated as “There is no such thing as God, as you think – God is what is.” In any case, the Muslims used algebra to keep families together, that is, to accurately determine inheritances (everybody gets some fraction), and to graph specific trends and processes. They were very faithful to Euclid, but added elements, tying together advanced algebra and geometry e.g, quadratic equations). A few schools even understood the laws of the octave, and applied the laws of harmony to the body, the seven spheres of the universe, and to the human soul.
Just as those great Muslim doctors applied scientific reasoning to illness, so must Muslim 'experts' apply the same sharp knife to their own ideas about Islam. Or put it this way: just as the world needed desperately what Islam had to offer, Islam now needs desperately scholars of Islam who know the texts, the histories, and the laws. For some reason, self-professed devotees of Islam fail, because they put their allegiances and hopes in the Muslim religion, not the teaching of the prophet Muhammad. To understand that difference, one must be a scientist, disinterested, uncommitted and have access to the texts. One must also know classical Arabic, and history.
Looking at Arab advances in medicine, one sees how these doctors applied critical thinking to free themselves and their patients, from many harmful practices and concoctions. Today that same critical capacity is required if we want to know about, and follow, real Islam.
In conclusion, it is important to see Islam as a modernizing western development, based on traditional knowledge drawn from Egypt, Persia, India, old Phoenicia, Byzantium and from the Arabs themselves. It was the last of the classical civilizations – and the first of the modernizing.

by JPM

O.I.C. JURISTs DEPLOY TO AFGHANISTAN

Secular and sectarian judges and law teachers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference began arriving on the 14th of July. Our office immediately sent a registered letter to Mikey Mullen urging him to just cancel the big offensive on the city of Kandahar. We explained why in detail. The US Army is an armored bureaucracy and we suspect it is not able to adapt in time. Our view is that the OIC teams should be deployed immediately, even if they are supplied or prepared. Otherwise they'll sit around drinking tea.
Our Spring 'retreat' was a disaster. I humiliated a colonel in front of his staff officers. And for good reason: what he proposed would have killed a lot of people, his own men. The superintendent of West Point thinks I am a dangerous man.
I looked into the eyes of American men and women who were prepared to sacrifice their lives, that women in Afghanistan might be free. I am deeply humbled.
Why don't these armies put women in their front line combat units? They're such good fighters. Men became men by hunting, women became woman by trapping, and gathering. A woman's brain is 3% less than a man's, by body weight. It's more compact. Therefore it thinks 3% faster.
In Afghanistan women create their own society. They have their own sufi groups, their own medical people, their own safehouses. Men care deeply for their wives, and that may be part of the problem. This fettering of the female is not Islamic, and actually countravenes the Qur'an. "Men and women are equal" it says, then details the exact rights of a woman - the right to divorce, to material support (even without children), to inherit, and to be free from abuse, for the first time in history. For the Qur'an says women should be "handled as if they were eggs."
Muhammed once gathered all his battle hardened soldiers, to say just one thing: "Pray as a woman prays."
One key to our (unexpected) success was that we were able to engage 'players' in their own languages, to explain to them using their own symbols, laws and lessons, to speak to them from the heart. For example, in engaging Saudi officials we use pre-Islamic and Islamic symbolism. In choosing what books to put in the 34 libraries, we had to go back to the time of the prophet, and pick up the law scholar Malik ibn 'Anas (715-795). We flattered the king, but asked him to make Malik, not ibn Wahhab the tip of his spear.
Will the Taliban submit to these international jurists? If they don't, they'll look awfully anti-Islamic. The OIC is worried about the security of its personnel. Because they're independent brokers, they can't depend NATO security. They think it might be dangerous to have these legal scholars on the staffs of the 34 libraries. But i try to explain that neither the Taliban or al Qaeda would target Islamic institutions.
Other nations deserve our attention. Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Dagestan and Chechniya, Kosovo, Palestine, Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mali, Mauritania, Somalia, the Kurds in Turkey, and the Yemen. It's all in process, looked at. So stay tuned.

Israel's destiny is not as a cramped fortress against the world, but as a nation amongst nations.

If Jersualem were a sacred place, then the city could and would be shared.

There is a demographic race: were it not for the orthodox Jews, Palestinians would out grow the Israeli population three to one. The plan is to settle a million orthodox Jews. They do not even have to work, thanks to the largesse of the government and Jewish people of the United States.

Fait complis have a way of disappearing in desert mountains. The water table is faltering.

Egypt affords a curious spectacle as it nears succession. Hosni Mubarak is ill, while Muhammed Baradai cuts across the Cairo skies like a comet. Baradai is a scientist, better equipped to deal with Egypt's water issues, and the peaceful use of nuclear power, for desalination as well as power.

Ethiopia is going ahead with its dam(s) on the upper Blue Nile. Can these water projects be managed?

Take the case of the Euphrates. Turkey has in place several dams, and the water has dropped in Syria and in Iraq. But what can either of these countries do? Certainly they have a case. Fortunately, water levels can be controlled, thereby preventing catastrophically low water levels on the river.

Water is an issue in every Middle Eastern, North African and Central Asian nation. Water plans are all very intricate. Focus is on small tributaries that still freely enter larger rivers. For example, with the Tigris, there are the Greater and Lesser Zab rivers, freely flowing tributaries.

The rivers in Afghanistan may not be large, but they are long, tortuous, and highly utilized. Thanks to American efforts, the Helmand valley 'system' was engineered with endless irrigation channels. It became the world's largest opium field. He recent fighting in Marja' is a test case – the struggle for control goes on.

The Arghandab, Tarin, Tarnak, and Lurah Rivers run roughly parallel to the Helmand, and each features extended villages. Communications are so bad that sections of these rivers remain completely cut off from the outside world. Google Earth is an excellent tool to use to study all these rivers, because the fields and aqueducts and canals and villages are all visible. One can even find lost cities if you know where to look.

Afghanistan is a tough case for NATO and the world. There seem to be no good options. All the more reason to look deeply. Afghanistan's judiciary and courts were completely destroyed over 37 years of tumult. The Italians were charged to help resurrect the judicial system, but had nobody competent in Shari'a, so they were worse than worthless. President Hamid Karzai took over judicial reform, and if you read Persian, you can see on the web site how they are seeking to make tentative reconstruction of the much-abused shari'a. Of course the Taliban claims to have its own qualified judges (not true) and they use the law, the Shari'a, to step into the breach.

Slowly, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is coming around. We hope they will form and deploy a group of Islamic jurists, led by the Maliki school, into hot spots like Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Balkans and the Caucasus. If the extremists want a caliphate, let us give them one.