The “Self-Defense” Canard, Genocide Denialism, and Wayward Theology

Thoughts on Palestine

Photo by Jakob Rubner on Unsplash

The “Self-Defense” Canard

If you’ve heard it once, chances are you’ve heard it a thousand times by now: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” This cliche has been employed recently with unfailing efficacy against any who dare question the legitimacy of the Israeli military's aggressions against the Palestinians. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew to Israel and addressed the Israeli press, reiterating “our [i.e., the US government’s] support for Israel’s right to defend itself, indeed its obligation to defend itself.” Like Blinken, President Biden has repeatedly appealed to self-defense in the face of rapidly rising death tolls and humanitarian atrocities and, in the immediate aftermath of October 7, offered his “rock solid” defense for Israel. Not to be outdone, the House recently passed a resolution with the title “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists.” Although the vote on the measure was not exactly unanimous, it passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 412–10. Recent weeks have seen members of the Senate, the Vice-President, Cabinet members, governors, and a raft of domestic political actors join the chorus of “self-defense” advocacy.

And it’s not just politicians. Media members far and wide repeatedly invoke the “self-defense” defense as a catch-all justification for Israeli militancy. Piers Morgan, who, to his credit I suppose, has hosted more pro-Palestinian voices than arguably any mainstream media host, falls back on “Israel’s right to self-defense” almost any time he’s confronted with uncomfortable facts. That and his “Do you condemn Hamas?” rejoinder have become lazy and stale, a sort of meme for the seemingly congenital limitations surrounding the space for open discourse on this topic. Bill Maher, who has spent the better part of the past decade railing against political correctness and the “woke” left, now spends his days expressing disappointment at those urging caution against warmongering and pushing for peace. In a recent episode of Real Time, Maher exasperatingly complained, “When they fire at Israel, it's a war. When Israel fires back, it's a war crime.” For Maher and others, Israel only ever fires back – once again, all in “self-defense.”

Given its ubiquity, the “self-defense” card can seem impenetrable and the argument watertight. And in a sense, it certainly feels that way: why wouldn’t Israel have a right to self-defense? However, in spite of the intuitiveness of the self-defense appeal, the notion of self-defense with respect to Israel is question-begging on multiple counts.

Legal scholar Marko Milanović has written a lengthy exposition on the topic of self-defense as it pertains to international law, arguing, among other things, that the very notion of self-defense as a matter of law is predicated on the recognition of statehood for participating parties. The uncertain status of Palestine renders the question of international law and the appeal to self-defense by Israel problematic, and although some may well say that states throughout the world have recognized Palestinians’ right to self-determination and, by extension, their statehood, Israel has studiously denied any such status. Noura Erakat’s discussion of the self-defense card argues in a similar vein, further outlining how the deliberate denial of state status to the Palestinians has been key to the occupation and to the rejection of humanitarian law as applying to the Palestinian people.

Setting aside questions of international law, there are substantive questions of who started it. Self-defense conceptually presupposes that one is responding to aggression that he has not provoked nor been a meaningful party to. This premise is often justified by delimiting the timeline of current events to October 7. As Norman Finkelstein has gone to great lengths to demonstrate in his scholarship and, more recently, in public appearances, October 7 is not an especially meaningful point of reference for the start of the current conflict. In this, he is not saying that the actions were precipitated by ongoing aggression that was inflamed on the day of the 7th, but instead that violence has played a significant role in subordinating the Palestinian people into lives of dispossession, subjugation, and despair. In this, Finkelstein has likened October 7 to Nat Turner’s slave revolt: Turner’s rebellion did not merely begin in August 1831 out of nowhere but was instead a byproduct of clashes and subjugation that existed long before Turner and his fellow enslaved and free black men took up arms and fought back. Erasing inconvenient history has been key to popular chronology when framing events by those in power, but it is decidedly dishonest when properly evaluating what took place on October 7 and why.

It is also unclear how Israel’s actions following October 7 have remotely resembled the actions of a state engaged in “self-defense.” How, for instance, does the deliberate starvation and deprivation of water to an entire population of 2.3 million people contribute to self-defense? Cutting off medical supplies? Electricity? Fuel? Hospitals in Gaza have been performing surgeries without anesthesia, while scores of people have been forced to drink sewage and seawater. What justification is there for such barbarism and inhumanity?

Finally, “self-defense” employed in this context is the unique preserve of the occupier. No one would dare utter  that Palestinians have a right to self-defense (or, better yet, that Hamas has a right to self-defense). Indeed, very few would even consider the concept of self-defense as applying to the Palestinians. Their humanity, ability to live with a modicum of dignity, and basic human rights are disregarded, ignored, and dismissed as irrelevant. Their only choice is to persist interminably in conditions that former conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron described as an “open air prison.”

In truth, “self-defense” is a tired canard, used maliciously to run interference for Israeli oppression and indiscriminate killings, to absolve it of any guilt, no matter how high the casualty count of Palestinians, and to grant it free rein over the Palestinian territories without allowing the slightest objection to enter the conversation when speaking to the blatant and undeniable atrocities being carried out by the state.

Genocide Denialism

Andrew Sullivan recently published a piece as part of his Weekly Dish on what he termed the “genocide” canard. As Sullivan told the story, genocide is the exact opposite of what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. His reasoning? (1) if Israel wanted to eradicate the Palestinians by now, it could have, and (2) the population of Palestine and Arabs in Israel have grown over the years. A state committed to genocide would presumably have prevented that from happening.

Sullivan’s objections have been repeated as of late by others. During a recent discussion with Owen Jones, Piers Morgan repeated the point as allegedly undermining the accusation of genocide, saying if Israel wanted to wipe Palestine off the map, raze Gaza and the West Bank, and systematically kill every last man, woman, and child, it could well do so. That it hasn’t serves as explicit evidence that genocide is not occurring. Or so the argument goes.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has long described Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as a program of ethnic cleansing. In his seminal 2007 work The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Pappé draws on a definition of ethnic cleansing registered in the Hutchinson encyclopedia which describes it as follows: “expulsion by force in order to homogenise the ethnically mixed population of a particular region or territory. The purpose of expulsion is to cause the evacuation of as many residences as possible, by all means at the expeller’s disposal, including non-violent ones…” Pappé notes that this definition has been taken up by the US State Department, though they have incorporated a crucial addition: “the eradication, by all means available, of a region’s history.”

As Pappé demonstrates in his book, the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians, the masses killed indiscriminately, the erasure of their history, the countless atrocities conducted against them, and the demonization of their very existence is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. He further notes that the reluctance to apply the definition often relies on raw numbers, a political and bureaucratic tendency to view the atrocities of Nazi Germany, for instance, and other crimes and suggest that perhaps the Palestinian case is far too modest or unexceptional to warrant such a designation. To this, Pappé argues that a more productive lens is to view what has occurred in relative terms: “Half of the indigenous people living in Palestine were driven out, half of their villages and towns were destroyed, and only very few among them ever managed to return.”

Pappé’s work is an essential read for those seeking to understand the history of Palestinian displacement and subjugation. The charge of ethnic cleansing is less an allegation than a description of what has already transpired by any reasonable measure. Indeed, it often feels when reading Pappé’s work that ethnic cleansing is inadequate for fully conveying what occurred in 1948, the Nakba, the Zionist ideological program, and more (on a side note, Pappé has since embraced the term “genocide” to describe Israeli actions against the Palestinians and speaks out regularly on the topic).

However, the question of genocide remains. On this, scholars who accuse Israel of genocide have frequently appealed to the definition of genocide coined by Jewish Polish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin during the Second World War, who stated that genocide “does not necessarily signify mass killings” and further elaborated on its definition thusly:

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has published a useful review on the genocide of the Palestinian people when viewed in light of this definition. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law, is cited in the review for his remarks in 2013 testifying that “the

Palestinians have been the victims of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

Some may object that such designations have been made with an eye to history and focusing as a point of reference on the Nakba, or mass displacement of Palestinians upon the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. However, such dismissals are almost impossible to square with the current statistics of killings, displacement, and the exceedingly inhumane manner in which Israel is carrying out its assault on the Palestinians. Moreover, it in fact belies the words of Israeli leaders themselves.

In recent weeks, the Defense Minister of Israel has referred to Gazans as “human animals,” an IDF officer was quoted in ynet news as stating that the goal of the military is to “obliterate civilian infrastructure,” IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari has said that the “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy,” while the former head of the Israeli National Security Council has likened Gaza to “Nazi Germany” and said that all of Gaza is being targeted, not merely Hamas militants. Yair Lapid, the leader of the Israeli opposition party, has shown little concern for the thousands killed, attributing it all to the realities of war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invoked the memory of Amalek, a reference to the Biblical Amalekites who were irredeemably evil and idolatrous, profligate and sinful, and against whom violence was commanded, not only against their adult men but against their women, children, and even livestock as well. The genocidal implications of Netanyahu’s words could not be clearer.

And the actions of Israel today are in keeping with Netanayhu’s words. Thousands killed, injured, and displaced. 1.6 million Gazans have fled their homes since October 7, more than 50% of all housing has been destroyed, the UN World Food Programme says supplies of food and water are “practically non-existent,” and the WHO estimates that the average person in Gaza currently has access to just 3 liters of water a day.

Starvation, cutting off and blocking access to essential resources to survive, reducing the vast majority of land to an uninhabitable waste, razing hospitals, schools, and mosques, repeatedly peddling genocidal language and expressly stating genocidal intent…the list could go on.

Raz Segal, an Israeli associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University, has described what is taking place in Gaza as “textbook genocide.” Gilles Devers, a veteran French lawyer and representative of the Gazan victims before the ICC, recently filed a complaint on behalf of the Palestinians in the Hague. Devers explained the complaint by saying, “It is clear for me that in the the situation of Palestine, we have all the criteria of the case about genocide.” Far from being the “exact opposite” of what is occurring, the term “genocide,” if it bears any meaning at all, applies in spades to the atrocities taking place right now against the Palestinians.

Wayward Theology

Times of tribulation have a way of revealing things about people. For many Muslims, their connection to the global umma was nominal, or perhaps dormant, until they witnessed the ruthless persecution of the people of Gaza. The events since October 7 have mobilized millions across the world, and hardly a Muslim country exists except that it has experienced severe social and political unrest on account of its local population rising up in support of the Palestinian people.

The plight of the Palestinians has affected almost all of us in some way. Some have described Palestine as the umma’s bleeding heart, the locus of our collective worries and fears, a battleground for the aspirations of the umma to live with dignity, to overcome and resist colonial powers, and to reassert its voice in shared solidarity stating that we are all, in some way, in this together – even as only a few face the most direct consequences and pain. The Prophet ﷺ described the umma as a single body, saying that if a single limb aches, the entire body reacts with sleeplessness and fever. Anecdotally, countless friends have spoken to me about their troubles sleeping and remaining productive at work due to the oppression of the Palestinians. In his treatment of vicarious suffering in a 2018 editorial for the American Journal of Islam and Society, Dr. Ovamir Anjum posited the following:

What  we  need  is  true,  long-term  solidarity,  the  willingness  to  hitch  our  fates together, and the willingness to own the bleeding organs of the Umma and take that task on as part of a permanent intellectual agenda to fight and resist the tyrants. Permanent, I say, not because I expect any of these open wounds  to  be  permanent,  but  because  part  of  being  a  global  community—especially one that aspires to be the “justly balanced community raised for humankind, enjoining what is good and forbidding evil”—is to accept that some manner of wounds are part of life. This commitment is perfectly captured in the words of the beloved Apostle of God, God grant him peace and blessing, on the authority of Nu‘man b. Bashir, recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim: “The faithful in their mutual kindness, compassion, and sympathy are just like one body. When one of the limbs suffers, the whole body responds to it with sleeplessness and fever.”

In this vein, it has been a breath of fresh air to see scholars find their footing and voice. Many have courageously spoken out against Israel in spite of public smears and banal charges of “anti-Semitism.” Millions have taken to the street in countries that have outlawed demonstrations, risking injury and imprisonment to assert their voices and let the world know that they refuse to allow this moment to pass in silence.

Imam Omar Suleiman has been especially outspoken, Imam Tom Facchine has been making videos urging young people to stand up and live with courage, while imams around the world have been delivering khutbahs and lectures on Palestine, oppression, and providing pastoral guidance to the fears and worries that many have at this time. Though not an imam, Sami Hamdi’s exceptional political analysis and infectious optimism have been crucial in reorienting people’s perspectives and reminding them that all good deeds, no matter how seemingly trivial, are rewarded by Allah; therefore one should not discount any contribution one can make to the cause of Palestine. The folks at 5Pillars in the UK have been providing invaluable coverage, while others have raised their voices online, at work, and in school settings.

Of course, not all have been as eager to embrace the Palestinian cause, at least not without reservation. On October 29, a new Youtube channel with the moniker “Hasbala” posted a recent lecture by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad (henceforth: Murad) entitled “Palestine: Memories & Prospects” (on a side note, this lecture remains the sole video on the channel’s page). Though the precise date of the lecture is unclear, references in it pertain to events that have occurred in the aftermath of October 7 and the initiation of the latest siege of Gaza, indicating that the talk is of relatively recent vintage.

Though there is much laudable about the lecture (which traverses a wide range of topics), Murad begins with a stern rebuke of terrorism and those who carry it out in the name of Islam. Likening them to “left-wing terrorists,” he specifically calls out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and “all the rest,” some of whom are supported by what he refers to as the “appalling Iranians.”

Although most Muslims would certainly repudiate and condemn terrorism, what is peculiar in Murad’s disquisition is how he essentially characterizes all armed resistance with that label. He does not limit his objections to the killing of unarmed civilians, nor does he specify the killing of women and children. Instead, he says that some Palestinains have “taken their persecutors as their moral standard” – a likely allusion to the events of October 7, though nevertheless striking assertion given the indiscriminate oppression and killing the IDF routinely carries out against Palestinian civilian populations. Murad alongside a handful of other religious leaders issued a denunciation of Hamas and the events of October 7 in Jewish News, though the content of the denunciation has since been problematized by details that have since emerged concerning the events of that day, a topic Dr. Mohamed Ghilan has helpfully chronicled.

Later in the lecture, Murad juxtaposes this alleged malevolence with “true tawakkul,” describing an incident during a visit to the holy mosque of al-Aqsa where IDF soldiers raided the facility during the prayer and tossed stun grenades. Though Murad was understandably shocked by the spectacle and worried for his safety, the Palestinians were accustomed to these random acts of violence and continued in their worship undeterred. This subtle calm and ease, the willingness to persist and maintain resolve in worship was the embodiment of trusting in God and living in dignity.

Now, of course no one is theologically obliged to like or defend Hamas. However, it is unclear whether Murad regards any Palestinian armed action – or the armed action of any non-state actor – as legitimate. Do Palestinians have the right to self-defense? If so, what should that look like? Though the Shaykh is free to suggest that armed resistance, even if theologically defensible in the abstract, may well be counterproductive in the present conditions, his suggestion would be mere speculation, distant from the actual realities on the ground and operating with limited information. His conflation between the current forms of resistance in the face of Israeli onslaughts and terrorism, cobbling all “jihadi” groups together under an undifferentiated category, and absence of any meaningful alternatives leaves much to be desired. Given what has transpired in the region over the past few decades, there is little reason to believe that Palestinians – Hamas included – would seek out conflict arbitrarily where none exists and ignore cooperation or peace where it could well be brokered. It is also unclear why, for all of Murad’s Realpolitik in the lecture on possibilities for reconciliation, political advocacy, and activism, he seems to lack any clear sense of reality with respect to Palestinian choice beyond enduring oppression and dispossession without a response.

And it is not only the Palestinians here whose options seem to be limited by Murad’s reading. In previous lectures, he has argued that lobbying, demonstrating, or organizing a Muslim “bloc vote” are all a waste of time for those living in the West. Instead, he asserts that we should focus on building strong local communities and that, accordingly, our first responsibilities begin at home and then broaden out over time.

In a separate lecture delivered years ago that has recently circulated online, Murad suggested that the plight of the Gazans today is in some way connected to (or, put slightly differently, suffering the downstream consequences of) the Great Arab Revolt of the early twentieth century, in which some Arab factions pledged loyalty to the British and fought alongside them against the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

Others have likewise intervened with their own criticisms of the Palestinians. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf recently conducted an interview lamenting violence and war as symbolizing an “absence of holiness.” In the same interview he floated a possible compromise to allow the construction of a synagogue on the Temple Mount alongside Masjid al-Aqsa (and thus on the greater mosque compound), a comment which drew a swift rebuke from Shaykh Asrar Rashid. Yusuf has previously faulted the Palestinians for resorting to violence instead of embracing their dispossession and coming to the world with a cry of helplessness, while also endorsing UAE normalization of ties with Israel. An X handle by the name “Anwar@Move to Muscat” has responded to a statement issued by Yusuf and Zaytuna College, describing the idea that “justice can only be pursued in times of peace” as an “inversion of sacred law.”

More recently, Yusuf’s teacher, Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, received the prestigious “Human Dignity” award from the Zionist American Jewish Committee (AJC). Shaykh Bin Bayyah is the current President of the Abu Dhabi Forum for Peace and routinely interfaces with UAE leaders while hosting programs advancing the theo-political agenda of the Emirati state. In recent days he has commemorated “Eid al-Ittihad,” the annual UAE Independence Day, alongside the country’s leadership.

The discourse of figures such as Murad, Yusuf, and Bin Bayyah has understandably shocked and disheartened many. The rush to criticize an oppressed Muslim community undergoing mass dispossession and genocide has been unfortunate. In a vacuum, some criticisms may well have merit insofar as they are worthy of greater deliberation and discussion. When taken as a part of these figures’ larger corpus, however, there is a distinct differential that emerges in how judgments are arrived at: exacting expectations are routinely applied on oppressed believers, while few to none appear in reference to the rich and powerful – particularly those in positions of political authority. In this light, their moral deliberations have come to resemble a long-standing pseudo-Salafi deference to authority wherein the Sultan is unimpeachable while the laity are expected to adhere to the tradition with absolute perfection, particularly when it comes to not disrupting the expectations of political and social elites.

The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said that those before us were destroyed for carrying out punishments on the weak while excusing the strong. In the ministry of certain Western traditionalists and pseudo-Salafis, we see harsh rebukes of Muslim actors working on the ground, while such judgments are withheld when speaking about political authority. In fact, one often finds in their ministry sympathy for otherwise morally objectionable policies and rhetoric, such as criticism to (often specifically Muslim) immigration and unassimilated immigrant life in the West, while encouraging cooperation and “softer” approaches for leaders spearheading the spread of vice in the Muslim world.

Key to this ministry has been a willingness to stretch the bounds of theology or to interpret sacred texts in ways that are often less plausible. In some cases, the theological arguments used to justify certain conclusions have been wanting. For instance, Yusuf’s citing of al-Ma’idah, verse 64, in the aforementioned interview and subsequent Zaytuna College statement as a categorical repudiation of war and encouragement of peacemaking when in fact it is – somewhat ironically, I suppose – an admonishment of the Jews, is one such example. The verse itself is self-evident concerning this context, the full text of which reads:

وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ يَدُ ٱللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ ۚ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُوا۟ بِمَا قَالُوا۟ ۘ بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَآءُ ۚ وَلَيَزِيدَنَّ كَثِيرًۭا مِّنْهُم مَّآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ طُغْيَـٰنًۭا وَكُفْرًۭا ۚ وَأَلْقَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ ٱلْعَدَٰوَةَ وَٱلْبَغْضَآءَ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ ۚ كُلَّمَآ أَوْقَدُوا۟ نَارًۭا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَسَادًۭا ۚ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُفْسِدِينَ

And the Jews said, “Allah’s hand is shackled.” Shackled are their hands, and they were cursed for what they said! Rather, both His hands are outstretched; He spends as He wills. And most surely, what was sent down to you from your Lord will increase many of them in exceeding all limits and in denial. And We cast between them enmity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Whenever they kindle a fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. And they rush about in the land spreading corruption, and Allah does not love corrupters.

Al-Tabari glosses many opinions on the statement “whenever they kindle a fire of war, Allah extinguishes it.” Of them is that God sows dissension between the ranks of the Jews when they form plots against God, His Messenger and the believers. Others relate the statement to the subsequent wording in the verse of spreading corruption – they intend to kindle the fire of war against God in their disobedience. Others relate the wars here to Jewish efforts before the coming of the Prophet ﷺ to fight previous prophets and believers. Al-Razi refers to their foiled plots, while al-Qurtubi ties the verse back to Jewish corruption and losses under the Romans, Magians, and others.

Alongside this, there is often a downplaying of war, conquest, and taking up arms as forming a normative part of the Islamic tradition. In the Quran, Allah praises those who fight in His cause, promising them everlasting bliss in the afterlife. The Prophet ﷺ was known for his martial valor, and during battles the Companions would often seek protection by his side as he fought courageously out front. The Prophet ﷺ taught the believers to not “desire to meet the enemy, but rather ask Allah for safety.” However, if war is necessary, then it is incumbent to “be patient and know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.” The point here isn’t that war and violence is always laudable – indeed, in a great many cases, most in fact, it is undesirable and normatively something to be avoided at great expense. Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly situations where it is licit and necessary, and revelation praises those who valiantly fight in such situations within divinely prescribed parameters.

Shaykh Murad’s criticisms of the Palestinians resisting expulsion and his attribution of their condition to the Arab betrayal of the Ottomans is likewise an argument that presses up against the bounds of normative theology. Though it is possible that Allah has imposed a generational punishment on the people of the region for ancestral wrongs, there is hardly a precedent for viewing poor, weak Muslims undergoing mass slaughter and suggesting that their oppression is perhaps a punishment from Allah. These types of suggestions are entirely absent from the Quran and example of the Prophet ﷺ. Why not mention the examples of the Companions who were persecuted? Or the weak and dispossessed in the Quran who received Allah’s aid and assistance? Who were comforted in this life or found great success and felicity in the next?

The theological assertions by some can indeed feel like a sort of chicanery at times. Take, for instance, the pseudo-Salafi arguments being leveled against Palestinian activism, where certain scholars who ascribe themselves to Salafism become political critics when any social or cultural action is encouraged to assist the broader Palestinian cause: boycotting has no explicit support in the Quran and Hadith so it becomes a reprehensible bid‘ah, while protesting imitates the disbelievers and is regarded as evil. Meanwhile, it is allegedly part of the ‘aqida (i.e., creed) of the Muslim to obey his rulers whether he likes it or not.

Now, in the interest of fairness, it is important to remember that all of these scholars do empathize with the Palestinians. They often speak of the Palestinian plight with a felt pain. They offer prayers for them that are deeply moving. Some have visited the Occupied Territories and have witnessed firsthand the conditions on the ground. They are not naive, nor would it be fair to write them all off as corrupted.

Nevertheless, their religious ministry – one that has variously cast blame on the Palestinians and Palestinian resistance actors, denounces activism seeking to uplift the rotten political status quo in different states as “islamist,” and propounds an Islam that is exclusively pacifist – has too often soft-peddled oppression while engaging in victim blaming, demonstrating partiality and favoritism towards certain Muslim polities (KSA, UAE, etc.), carefully operating within the NATO/Anglo-Western Overton window for acceptable and dignified conduct while holding deep suspicion regarding others, and lacking in the basic empathy and moral concern that is being felt by believers around the world when we see our brothers and sisters suffering and being aggressed upon in broad daylight. Whether done by Salafi or Sufi, modernist or traditionalist, it is wrong. We ask Allah to guide them and us to that which is better and to make us among those who stand for the oppressed in a manner that is pleasing to Him. Ameen.

---

Notes:

• Mehdi Hasan’s MSNBC show has been canceled. The official reasoning is poor ratings, though some have understandably accused the network of canceling the show on account of Hasan’s criticisms of Israel. Reports last month came out stating that Hasan and two other anchors were unofficially suspended from Israel coverage due to their Muslim faith. Hasan for his part has said little. He still maintains a position with MSNBC and will contribute going forward as an on-air political analyst.

  Though I have appreciated Hasan’s willingness to be adversarial and challenge guests, over the past few years he has increasingly become a spokesperson for the Democratic party. His interviews have vacillated between questioning guests to repeatedly interrupting them and grandstanding when they reasonably responded to his inquiries. His show being canceled is probably politically motivated, but I don’t see it as a major loss by any stretch.

• A few months ago a new social media brand emerged seemingly out of the blue named “Middle Nation.” The platform has been one where a white convert named Shahed Bolsen speaks to a screen and offers seemingly extemporaneous (though clearly scripted) opinions on current events. Bolsen’s history is checkered, with a reported case of murder in the UAE that he somehow escaped charges from. His educational background is limited, as it is reported that he dropped out of college. His online history is virtually nonexistent, and one finds little to no public activism, writing, or political analysis of note prior to the platform’s public spread a few months ago.

  Is it possible that a man in his 50s with no history of public activism suddenly becomes a public figure, with well-funded and well-edited videos, translations, and platforms organically? Perhaps. But color me skeptical. Bolsen is an unknown entity. It is unclear where he lives. Few to no one knows him personally. The few who have met him report unsavory details. His sources of funding are complete mysteries, and there are reasons to believe he is a useful idiot for agendas larger than him. In short: don’t get played.

• Back in 2020 I spoke on the Karima Foundation podcast about the prospects of a Biden presidency. I mentioned that there were opportunities, but that I had fears. Specifically, I said that the likely outcome of a Biden presidency was a retrenchment of neoliberal economics, a revival of center-right militarism and neoconservative interventionism, and a far-left social program designed to placate the progressive base. Although I take no joy in pointing this out, it seems that prediction has come true, and if anything, it was understated.

• Sami Hamdi’s recent podcast appearances have been incredible to follow. For those who haven’t listened/watched, do yourself a favor and watch them. Here’s a great discussion between him and Tom Facchine. 

• The House Ways and Means Committee recently held a hearing on “the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing.” The committee chairman said that "Islamic Relief Worldwide has been credibly accused of harboring ties to Hamas." Others called out CAIR, though the brunt of criticism was reserved for American Muslims for Palestine. During the hearing, the committee members spoke in unison against these orgs and committed to cracking down on antisemitism, which in this context, is thinly-veiled code for antizionism. We ask Allah to protect these orgs, the people within them, and reward them for their good. Ameen.

Allah Knows Best.