The Real Reason for Muslim Decline By Husain Haqqani

The Real Reason for Muslim Decline

By Husain Haqqani

The Muslim world seems to be in the grip of all kinds of rumours. The willingness of large numbers of Muslims to believe some outrageous assertions reflects pervasive insecurity coupled with widespread ignorance. The contemporary Muslim fascination for conspiracy theories limits the capacity for rational discussion of international affairs. For example, a recent poll indicates that only 3 percent of Pakistanis believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the United States, notwithstanding Osama bin Laden and his deputies have taken credit for the attacks on more than one occasion. Ironically, many America haters express admiration for bin Laden on grounds of his willingness to attack American civilians while at the same time refusing to accept that Al-Qaeda’s biggest attack was, in fact, the work of Al-Qaeda.

The acceptance of rumours and the readiness to embrace the notion of a conspiracy does not apply exclusively to the realm of politics. Villagers in rural Nigeria are refusing to administer the polio vaccine to their infant children out of fear that the vaccine will make their offspring sterile. Some religious leaders in Pakistan’s Pashtun tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have also voiced concerns about a “Western-Zionist conspiracy” to sterilize the next generation of Muslims as part of what they allege is an “ongoing war against Islam.”


Mobile phones and internet, the pervasiveness of which is often cited as a measure of a society’s progress and modernity, have become a means of spreading fear in the Muslim world. Text messages, originating from the Pakistani city of Sialkot recently warned people of a virus if people answered phone calls from certain numbers. The virus would not hurt the phone, the messages said, but would rather kill the recipient. In mid-April, these messages swamped Pakistani cell phone users, causing many to turn off their phones, according to wire service reports.

The rumor was embellished with supposed first person accounts. One report cited a 45-year old man, who talked to a friend who said he saw it in the newspaper — that a man dropped dead just after answering his mobile phone. “When he got the call, he died like he was poisoned,” he said. The panic caused by the rumors forced the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to issue a denial. Phone companies sent out text messages urging people to be calm. A newspaper rejected the rumor but featured the headline, “Killer Mobile Virus.”

A text message widely circulated in an Arab country claimed that trucks carrying a million melons had been smuggled across the country’s northern border and the melons were contaminated with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS. The text message accused Israel of smuggling the contaminated melons as part of a “biological warfare campaign.” The Customs director on the northern border had to rebut the rumour with the explanation that no trucks full of melons had crossed the border in the preceding two days.



The Muslim world seems to be in the grip of all kinds of rumours. The willingness of large numbers of Muslims to believe some outrageous assertions reflects pervasive insecurity coupled with widespread ignorance. The contemporary Muslim fascination for conspiracy theories limits the capacity for rational discussion of international affairs. For example, a recent poll indicates that only 3 percent of Pakistanis believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the United States, notwithstanding Osama bin Laden and his deputies have taken credit for the attacks on more than one occasion. Ironically, many America haters express admiration for bin Laden on grounds of his willingness to attack American civilians while at the same time refusing to accept that Al-Qaeda’s biggest attack was, in fact, the work of Al-Qaeda.

The acceptance of rumours and the readiness to embrace the notion of a conspiracy does not apply exclusively to the realm of politics. Villagers in rural Nigeria are refusing to administer the polio vaccine to their infant children out of fear that the vaccine will make their offspring sterile. Some religious leaders in Pakistan’s Pashtun tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have also voiced concerns about a “Western-Zionist conspiracy” to sterilize the next generation of Muslims as part of what they allege is an “ongoing war against Islam.”

Mobile phones and internet, the pervasiveness of which is often cited as a measure of a society’s progress and modernity, have become a means of spreading fear in the Muslim world. Text messages, originating from the Pakistani city of Sialkot recently warned people of a virus if people answered phone calls from certain numbers. The virus would not hurt the phone, the messages said, but would rather kill the recipient. In mid-April, these messages swamped Pakistani cell phone users, causing many to turn off their phones, according to wire service reports.

The rumor was embellished with supposed first person accounts. One report cited a 45-year old man, who talked to a friend who said he saw it in the newspaper — that a man dropped dead just after answering his mobile phone. “When he got the call, he died like he was poisoned,” he said. The panic caused by the rumors forced the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to issue a denial. Phone companies sent out text messages urging people to be calm. A newspaper rejected the rumor but featured the headline, “Killer Mobile Virus.”

A text message widely circulated in an Arab country claimed that trucks carrying a million melons had been smuggled across the country’s northern border and the melons were contaminated with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS. The text message accused Israel of smuggling the contaminated melons as part of a “biological warfare campaign.” The Customs director on the northern border had to rebut the rumour with the explanation that no trucks full of melons had crossed the border in the preceding two days.

No one paid any attention to the fact that the HIV virus cannot be transmitted by eating melons or that Israelis have not been engaged in a biological warfare campaign against any Arab or Muslim country. An American-Muslim friend of mine also pointed out that it would take more than a hundred trucks to haul a million melons. “Why ship melons if you can ship an army?” he asked.

Rumours can sometimes have serious consequences. In 1979, Pakistanis students burned down the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, killing several people, on the basis of a rumour. Islamist extremists had taken over Islam’s holiest shrine, the Kaaba in Makkah, and rumour-mongers claimed that the outrage had been committed by the United States. Those spreading the rumour, and those acting on it, showed no remorse over the loss of life caused by their actions.

The Muslim world has a high rate of illiteracy but ignorance reflected by the readiness to believe unverified (and sometimes totally outrageous) claims is not just a function of illiteracy. It is a function of bigotry and fear. Literate Muslims, such as those involved in the text message rumour-mongering, are as vulnerable to ignorant behaviour as illiterate ones. Conspiracy theories have been popular among Muslims since the twilight years of the Ottoman Empire as a way of explaining the powerlessness of a community that was at one time the world’s economic, scientific, political and military leader.

The erosion of the leadership position of Muslims coincided with the west’s gradual technological ascendancy. Soon after the Ottomans took over Constantinople, Johann Gutenberg printed a Bible using metal plates. Printing was introduced into the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512) only to be virtually banned for use by Muslims in 1485. In Europe, a full grown book industry evolved, facilitating wide dissemination of ideas and knowledge. By 1501, more than a thousand printing presses had produced approximately 35,000 titles with ten million copies. But in the Ottoman Empire, only Christians and Jews used printing technology.

Muslim use of the printing press did not start until 1727, causing the Muslims to lose more than 270 years in the greatest explosion of knowledge. The Persian, Mughal and Ottoman Empires controlled vast lands and resources but many important scientific discoveries and inventions since the fifteenth century came about in Europe and not in the Muslim lands.

Ignorance is an attitude and the world’s Muslims have to analyze, debate and face it before they can deal with it. The 57 member countries of the Organisation of

Islamic Conference (OIC) have around 500 Universities compared with more than five thousand universities in the United States and more than eight thousand in India. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an ‘Academic Ranking of World Universities’, and none of the universities from Muslim-majority states was included in the top 500.

There is only one university for every three million Muslims and the Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The U.S. has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. The Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the western nations spend around five per cent of GDP on producing knowledge.

The tendency of Muslim masses to accept rumours as fact and the readiness to believe anything that suggests a non-Muslim conspiracy to weaken or undermine the Muslims is the result of the overall feeling of helplessness and decline that permeates the Muslim world. Most Muslim scholars and leaders try to explain Muslim decline through the prism of the injustices of colonialism and the subsequent ebb and flow of global distribution of power. But Muslims are not weak only because they were colonized. They were colonized because they had become weak.

Conspiracy theories paper over the knowledge deficit and the general attitude of ignorance in the Muslim world. It is time for a discussion of the Ummah’s decline in the context of failure to produce and consume knowledge and absorb verifiable facts.

Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations, and Co-Chair of the Islam and Democracy Project at Hudson Institute, Washington D.C. He is author of the book ‘Pakistan between Mosque and Military’

Husain Haqqani
Director
Center for International Relations
Boston University
E-mail: haqqani@bu.edu

Hamba

Hari ini munkin aku mara setapak lagi dengan ujudnya blog ku. Blog yang baru dibuka umpama bakul yang kosong yang perlu di isi. Nah aku postingkan satu artikal yang lama tersimpan dan tersembunyi munkin kali ini ada yang minat...

Ulasan artikel "Institusi Perhambaan dalam Masyarakat Melayu Tradisional : Satu Analisa dari Segi Teori Nilai" oleh Hanapi Dollah dalam Jurnal JEBAT.

Saya memang bersetuju dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh penulis artikel ini , "Institusi perhambaan dianggarkan telah wujud sebelum kedatangan pengaruh Hindu. Dan semasa Kerajaan Melayu Melaka ianya sudah bertapak dengan kukuh dalam masyarakat Melayu" Ini adalah lanjutan daripada pengenalan cara-cara pemerintah Hindu dan akibatnya wujud golongan bangsawan dan golongan rakyat.

Memang benarlah laporan yang dibuat oleh penjajah barat biasanya berat sebelah. Tapi terkadang-kadang jika difikirkan semula pendapat mereka ada benarnya juga. Seperti di dalam artikel menyebut, Swettenham melaporkan yang pembesar Melayu membelenggui rakyatnya dengan hutang. Dengan cara itu pembesar dapat menjadikan rakyatnya sebagai hamba. Manakala Maxwell pula berpendapat institusi perhambaan itu suatu bentuk 'ketidakadilan yang ganas'. Jika kita lihat atau singkap sejarah dahulu sememangnyalah rakyat dahulu ditindas oleh golongan atasan. Seperti komentar oleh Hugh Clifford dalam tulisan Hanapi bahawa rakyat tidak mempunyai hak ke atas harta, tanaman, anak dan isteri, hatta keatas dirinya sendiri kesemuanya milik Raja.

Di dalam artikel ini juga ada menyatakan pendapat Gullick,. .…orang Melayu akan menyerahkan kebebasan mereka….. Ini tidak bermaksud orang dahulu sengaja mencari susah dengan menjadi hamba, tapi bagi orang dahulu hamba itu adalah kerja yang mulia kerana sikap taat setia dapat ditunjukkan dengan jelas. Saya juga tidak setuju dengan penyataan masyarakat pada masa itu ramai yang tidak mempunyai rumah sendiri. Ini kerana masyarakat pada masa itu bukannya dalam zaman pra sejarah lagi yang tinggal di dalam gua dan suka berpindah randah. Dan satu lagi tidak dinyatakan zaman bila ini berlaku, bagi pendapat saya ianya mungkin zaman Kesultanan Melaka pada abad 15. Jikalau pada zaman inilah mana ada masyarakat dalam keadaan kacau bilau dan tidak stabil. Masyarakat pada masa itu dalam keadaan aman dibawah pemerintahan sultannya. Bagi pendapat saya masyarakat amat gemar menghambakan diri pada orang besar semata-mata untuk tunjuk bertapa mereka taat dan setia pada pemerintah. Kita dapat lihat dalam penyataan ini, Dalam sistem politik tradisi mustahil bagi seseorang rakyat biasa meningkatkan darjatnya dan masuk kelas pemerintah. Penyataan ' Perhambaan adalah institusi yang menjalinkan hubungan kerjasama antara golongan bangsawan dengan rakyat biasa…' Kerjasama yang dilakukan bermaksud sebagai penyokong kepada pemerintah, pengabdian yang dilakukan oleh rakyat telah digunakan oleh golongan pemerintah untuk mencari pengikut-pengikut. Mana-mana pemerintah yang mempunyai pengikut atau hamba yang ramai akan menunjukkan kekayaan atau status yang tinggi dalam masyarakat. Di dalam artikel ini juga ada menyatakan tulisan Swettenham, beliau mengatakan sesetengah orang Melayu secara sukarela membuat hutang dari pemerintah, tujuannya untuk menjadi hamba kepada pembesar atau Raja Melayu. Ini dilakukan oleh orang Melayu kerana mereka percaya berkhidmat kepada raja memberikan mereka peluang peningkatan keduniaan dan keakhiratan. Kerana konsep dewaraja dalam agama Hindu telah digunakan oleh orang Melayu pada raja-raja mereka. Dimana seseorang pemerintah itu kedudukannya sangat tinggi dalam masyarakat, dalam Islam raja dianggap sebagai khalifah atau pemimpin pada semua makhluk di muka bumi ini dan kita sebagai rakyatnya hendaklah menghormatinya. Saya amat setuju dengan penyataan penulis dalam artikel ini berkenaan …institusi sosial juga bergantung kuat kepada nilai-nilai dalam masyarakat tersebut. Ini termasuk juga institusi perhambaan, memang benar institusi perhambaan ini wujud dalam diri masyarakat itu sendiri, Dimana mereka beranggapan orang-orang besar menjadi penaung ekonomi kepada golongan rakyat yang susah dan hidup merana dan bagi masyarakat juga kerja sebagai hamba ini adalah mulia. Dikatakan juga hubungan antara pembesar dengan rakyat adalah "hubungan bertimbal balik" dimana pemerintah menyediakan kepimpinan dan keselamatan kepada rakyat sebagai balasan rakyat menyerahkan taat setianya dan tenaga kepada pemerintah. Ini memang benar tapi jika difikir secara logiknya adakah pemimpin itu jalankan tanggungjawabnya. Kebanyakan mereka hanya pentingkan perutisme sahaja, asalkan mereka kaya dan senang, akhirnya kehidupan rakyat tidak difikirkan.Tapi rakyat ini bodoh tunduk terus pada orang atas. Ini kerana rakyat telah mengelar sultan dan kerabat diraja sebagai penaung, mereka boleh dapat ketaatsetiaan yaang tidak berbelah bagi dari rakyatnya. Rakyat hanya berlindung bawah sultan dari musuh, manakala dari segi ekonomi hanya sultan sahaja ada hak mengerah rakyat bertani. Saya berpendapat taat setia yang mengenepikan kepentingan diri sendiri itu adalah taat setia yang membuta tuli. Contohnya di dalam Sejarah Melayu, Hang Tuah walaupun wira pada zaman itu tetapi dia telah difitnah berkehendakkan seorang dayang diraja. Walaupun begitu beliau tetap taksub pada pemerintahnya dan sanggup menerima apa sahaja hukuman yang dijatuhkan keatasnya walaupun dia tidak bersalah Hang Tuah langsung tidak mahu membela diri kerana beliau memegang prinsip "Pantang Anak Melayu Menderhaka" dan taat setianya itu sangat dihargai oleh masyarakat zaman itu. Tapi ini adalah taat setia yang betul-betul bodoh kerana dia lebih pentingkan diri orang lain berbanding dirinya sendiri. Baginya biar dirinya merana asalkan orang lain bahagia. Tapi apa boleh buat taat setia tidak berbelah bahagi ini telah lama tertanam dalam jiwa dan sebati dalam diri masyarakat Melayu. Masyarakat masa itu sangat memandang tinggi kedudukan sultan kerana dianggap mempunyai daulat dan sesiapa yang derhaka akan dapat nasib yang buru k. Kalaulah prinsip "Pantang Anak Melayu Menderhaka" masih terus dikekalkan , alamatnya orang Melayu kita tidak kemana masih ditampuk lama yang sentiasa akur apa yang orang atas kata dan suruh seperti burung belatuk yang sentiasa mengangguk-anggukkan kepalanya.

Saya setuju dengan penyataan hamba memberi khidmat dan taat setia, kerana setiap hamba yang berada dibawah naungan tuannya pastinya akan menumpahkan segala taat setia yang tidak berbelah bagi terhadap tuannya dan sanggup melakukan apa sahaja walaupun melibatkan nyawanya. Tetapi saya kurang setuju dengan penyataan tuan menyediakan jaminan hidup, ini kerana tidak semua tuan pada hamba itu yang menjaga semua hamba dibawah naungannya. Kebiasaannya tuan itu hanya memeras tenaga hamba itu kerana mereka beranggapan yang hamba itu hina . Perbezaan hamba orang Melayu dengan orang Barat memang ketara, orang Barat menganggap perhambaan itu adalah dasar penindasan sesama manusia yang paling hina. Bagi orang Barat hamba adalah barangan yang boleh digunakan dan diperdagangkan sesuka hati pemiliknya. Ini terbukti dengan jelas pada penindasan atas kaum wanita. Wanita dijadikan barang untuk memuaskan hawa nafsu lelaki sedangkan selama ini mereka tidak dipedulikan.

Nietzsche tidak pernah jemu mencaci wanita. Bidalan yang tegas dibuatnya, 'Kamu pergi berjumpa wanita? Jangan lupa cemetimu.' Di dalam Will to Power beliau berkata: 'kita menikmati wanita seperti kita menikmati makhluk lain, mereka sentiasa jadi keseronokan kepada jiwa setiap lelaki yang tegang dan mempunyai pengetahuan mendalam.'

Di dalam artikel ini juga ada menyebut tentang hamba yang mendapat layanan yang baik dari tuannya, tetapi tidak semua hamba mendapat layanan yang baik kebiasaannya hanya hamba raja sahaja yang mendapat layanan baik iaitu orang merdeka yang telah melakukan jenayah, kemudian ditangkap lalu dapat pengampunan raja. Saya tidak bersetuju dengan pernyataan yang mengatakan hamba mengambil kesempatan dengan bermalas-malasan dan berpeleseran apabila dapat layanan yang baik dari tuannya. Ini kerana tidak ada bukti yang menunjukkan adanya hamba yang bermalas-malasan itu.

Sebagai kesimpulannya, perhambaaan dalam masyarakat Melayu merupakan institusi sosial yang mendukung nilai-nilai masyarakat. Saya amat bersetuju dengan pendapat ini kerana sebenarnya istilah hamba kerapkali disebut-sebut dalam Sejarah Melayu berhubung dengan tugas mereka dalam berbagai-bagai kegiatan masyarakat untuk kepentingan tuannya. Dan kemunculan institusi hamba di Melaka, sering dikaitkan dengan tradisi perhambaan dalam masyarakat Arab atau Islam dan wujudnya sistem kasta dalam masyarakat Hindu. Seorang hamba dalam masyarakat Melayu bukanlah seperti hamba yang ditakrif oleh Barat yang mana menjadi barang dagangan serta menjual maruah diri kerana kesengsaraan hidup. Bagi masyarakat Melayu rakyat kena patuh pada pemerintah dan dalam sistem perhambaan yang penting adalah ketaatsetiaan rakyat kepada pemerintahan. Tiada dorongan perubahan diri untuk bekerja keras dalam lapangan ekonomi kecuali kerja-kerja bagi kepentingan raja sahaja.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliografi

A. Aziz Deraman, Masyarakat dan Kebudayaan Malaysia, Cahaya Pantai (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, 1994.

Bertrand, Russell, Sejarah Falsafah Barat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, 1993.

Hanapi Dollah, Mandat Pemerintahan Raja-raja Melayu : Satu Perbincangan Berdasarkan Teks Sistem Sejarah dan Ketatanegaraan dalam Jurnal Sejarah Universiti Malaya, No. 4, 1996.

M.A Fawzi Basri, Cempaka Sari, Sejarah Kesultanan Negeri Perak, United Selangor Press, 1986.

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 30, 2004

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:

§ As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.

§ If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.

§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.

So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:

§ The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:

§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:

§ The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:

§ The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:

§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:

§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from

§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:

§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:

§ The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:

§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:

§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:

§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:

§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.

As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The terroritories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history.

The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, aeons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17^th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair-skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?

Back to the Arabs

I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict, and Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

10 biggest Mistakes Most Event Planners Make ……… and How to Avoid Them By Darlene Lyons

10 biggest Mistakes Most Event Planners Make ……… and How to Avoid Them
By Darlene Lyons

Mistake #1 Failing to identify meeting objectives
This is a very common mistake. Be sure to know one hundred percent what your management expects from this meeting. Examples: education, recruiting, awards presentations, new product roll-out, executive installation, etc.

Mistake #2 Failing to budget properly
Many planners make this mistake by overlooking some very costly items. Specifically speaker travel, audio/visual, program handouts, shipping charges, decorations, security, and afternoon breaks. Don’t overlook these costs!

Mistake #3 Failing to select the right facility
This mistake can destroy the best event. Things to consider when planning your event: Location, location, location! Depending on the locale of your attendees, proximity to the airport, sleeping room costs, freeways, major thoroughfares and traffic patterns are critical. Meeting room location, meeting room size, and parking fees all affect your attendance.

Mistake #4 Failing to hire the right speaker/entertainer
Every planners worst nightmare is a “flop”. Be sure to use a reputable, skilled speaker or entertainer whom you have personally seen or who’s references you have checked!


Mistake #5 Failing to identify and secure a prospect list in advance
I can’t tell you haw many times I have seen events fail because of this one factor. Secure your entire list before securing your date in writing. Be sure your list has all names, titles, mailing addresses, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses. Your attendees can’t register if you can’t reach them.

Mistake #6 Failing to prepare a marketing plan
This definitely ranks in the top three in regards to importance when planning an event. Be sure to layout your time lines. Back out your contacts by your target dates. Plan your contacts by mail, e-mail, telephone and fax by week. This will
insure maximum contact in a timely manner and will drive your attendance.

Mistake #7 Failing to secure strong contracts
Here’s where you can really run into trouble. Do NOT promote your event without legible, signed contracts for everything including your speaker, facility, and other contractors.

Mistake #8 Failing to create the right environment
With the hundreds of details we put into every meeting, don’t overlook your meeting environment. Lighting, seating, room temperature, music, decorations, audio/visual, and location of the bathrooms and telephones are all important.



Mistake #9 Failure to secure the right audio/visual
Oh Boy! I can remember one time my client spent over $35,000.00 for Audio/visual and my headlining speaker (Zig Ziglar) went on stage and looked dumbstruck because we had ordered what we thought his staff had ordered for him. A powerful lesson. Get it in writing! Request a written list of audio/visual needs from every presenter and feed back to them your staging set up.


Mistake #10 Failure to market the event properly
Once you’ve created your marketing plan, stick to it! Once your event is booked it’s critical all of your marketing contacts go as planned. Remember, use every means to reach your attendees. One method alone doesn’t reach everyone because we are all different. Use every means available to you. Don’t forget e-mail and better yet, your sponsors! Good Luck!

What is a Cigar?

CIGAR
A cigar is a tobacco leaf wrapped around a tobacco leaf filling. Bigger than a cigarette, and taking longer to smoke, the cigar is considered by aficionados to be the finest way to enjoy tobacco.

Cigars come in several shapes and sizes. The standard shape is the round-headed cigar with parallel sides. Perfecto refers to a cigar with a pointed head and tapering sides; Panatella is a long, thin, straight cigar; Cheroot is an open-ended cigar, usually made in India or Asia. A special vocabulary denotes cigar sizes. From the smallest [3.5 in (8.9 cm)] to the largest [7.5 in (19 cm)] they are the Half Corona, Tres Petit Corona, Petit Corona Corona, Corona Grande, Lonsdale, and Double Corona. A set of initials usually stamped on the bottom or side of a box of cigars refers to the color of the tobacco leaf: C C C is Claro (light); C C means Colorado-Claro (medium); C means Colorado (dark); and C M stands for Colorado-Maduro (very dark). The darker leaf is generally the stronger tobacco.
History
The earliest cigars were probably those rolled by native Cubans. Columbus encountered Cubans smoking crude cigars, and subsequent Spanish and Portuguese expeditions to the New World brought back cigars to Europe. Many sailors smoked cigars, and brought the habit to port cities, but the habit did not become widely popular until the end of the eighteenth century. Cigar factories existed in Spain at this time, and in the 1780s factories were established in France and Germany as well. English officers who fought in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars brought cigars home to England, where they became a fad with the upper classes. Cigars were expensive, especially because of high import duties on them, and by the end of the nineteenth century, they had become a mark of luxury. Smoking cigars was for men only (even smoking in sight of a woman was considered vulgar), and special smoking clubs called divans sprang up where men could enjoy their habit.
In the twentieth century, cigars were associated with notable public figures, from presidents to gangsters to entertainers. Winston Churchill, Calvin Coolidge, Al Capone, and Groucho Marx, to name a few, were all avid cigar smokers. After World War II, the cigar increasingly became the old man's smoke. Instead of being considered suave, the cigar became something conspicuously inelegant. This perception of the cigar has reversed recently, as cigar smoking became newly fashionable in the 1990s. Special cigar clubs and cigar "smoke out" dinners in cities across the United States in the 1990s put forth a revamped image of the cigar as a luxurious vice for men and also women to enjoy. By the mid-1990s, there were an estimated eight million cigar smokers in the United States, and cigar manufacturers were hard pressed to meet booming demand.
Though the finest cigars still come from Cuba, cigars are manufactured all across the globe. As early as 1610, cigar tobacco was grown in Massachusetts, and other early centers of tobacco cultivation were the Philippines, Java, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Russia. American cigar tobacco was mostly exported to the West Indies, rolled there, and then imported as finished cigars, until the beginning of the nineteenth century. A domestic cigar industry developed after 1801, and by 1870 there were cigar factories all across the country. Tampa, Florida, was a center for cigar manufacturing, though Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York also had hundreds of cigar factories.
Cigars were made by hand until the beginning of the twentieth century. The industry mechanized rapidly between 1910 and 1929. The number of cigar factories in the United States fell dramatically—from almost 23,000 in 1910 to only around 6,000 in 1929—but the mechanized factories produced many more cigars than the old handwork ones. Today, the finest cigars are still made entirely by hand. But the majority is made either entirely or partially by machine.