| Freedom Chronicles |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
A Long Request For a Special Prayer During Special Days Please Make It!
As the Day of Arafat approaches, many of us will fast and pray that we be released from
the punishment of our sins. This is a good thing. I will be doing a lot of this myself. I’ve
certainly done my share of things I’d rather forget. But this year, I will do something
different and I hope you all will do the same. I hope that we will pray for even those
things that seem beyond our condition to change and ask Allah to forgive us for
accepting terrible things as a way of life just because it is easier and perhaps we are not
experiencing them directly. Pray to Allah to help us recognize that no matter how many
goals we frame and how much analysis we give to unfair structures, they will not change
unless we take it upon ourselves to get up out of our chairs and do something about.
Whether you win or lose, whatever battle, big or small, that you dispute for the sake of
God, you will be given victory on the day it really counts. So, let us pray that Allah, in His
enormous goodness, to help us all to overcome the multitude of different forces that
diminish our opportunities to do the things that strengthen us in our pursuit to help
those who cannot help themselves. Now I am sure you’ve heard this before, but
frequent reminders seem to help me and I hope you will indulge and forgive my rather
long advice. I submit it to you humbly and with our humble supplication for help we will
all see peace, justice and reconciliation in the coming year.
As Muslims travel to Mecca to make the magnificent journey to Allah’s grace, let them
pray that the country in which they stand will become what it should be, and not what it
is. Let the symbols and history of that soil, once graced by the best of men; come to be
a reality to those who lead it and for the people that must follow their rule. Let us pray
that truth comes to power and that a well educated leadership learns to bear witness to
the truth of a man (peace be upon him) who never lied and trusted in God’s word. If
they can not do everything at once, may Allah allow them to honestly define what rape
is and how it can destroy a woman’s mind and body.
RAPED TWICE: BY MEN AND BY GOVERNMENTS
To a woman the definition of rape is quite straightforward. A sexual assault to the body
by force, an invasion into the private, personal internal space without consent, an inner
assault by one of numerous methods-constitutes a conscious and premeditated violation
of emotional, physical and indisputable honor; and is a vicious, hostile, degrading act of
violence that warrants the name of rape.
Yet by tracing man's historical concept of rape as defined it the earliest laws, we now
know with certainty that the criminal act that was viewed with horror, and the deadly
punishments the law saw fit to apply, had little to do with an actual act of sexual
violence that a woman's body might sustain. Although the law has, to an extent,
distanced its definition since its beginnings when rape meant basically and categorically
the theft of a father's daughter's virginity, a specialized crime that damaged a valuable
possession before they could reach the matrimonial market, contemporary legal
perceptions of rape are rooted still in ancient male concepts of property, clearly being
the case in Saudi Arabia and other so called “civil” societies.
Man's historic desire to maintain sole, total and complete access to woman's body, as
codified by his earliest laws of marriage, sprang from his need to be the sole physical
instrument governing impregnation, progeny and inheritance rights. As man understood
his male reality, it was perfectly lawful to capture and rape some other tribe's women,
for what better way for his own tribe to increase? But it was unlawful, he felt, for the
insult to be returned. The criminal act he viewed with horror and punished as rape was
not sexual assault per se, but an act of unlawful possession, a trespass against his
tribal right to control access to all women who belonged to him and his kin. The act man
came to interpret as criminal rape was the illegal damage of virginity outside a marriage
contract of his making. Later, when he came to see his own definition as too narrow for
the times, he broadened his criminal concept to cover the humiliation of his spouse's
chastity as well, thus expands the law's interest to include non-virgins too. Although
these legal foundations have been shrouded in the quagmire of ancient history, as the
law of rape continued to advance it never completely disassociated itself from the earlier
perception that this violation was first and primarily a violation of male rights of
possession, based on male requirements of virginity, chastity and consent to private
access as the female bargain in the marriage contract.
To our modern way of thinking, these theoretical and cultural origins are abnormal and
incomprehensible to fully grasp, or maybe we just pretend so.
A huge disproportion in thought, male-judgment versus feminine-judgment affects the
opinion of rape to this very day, confusing reasoning processes of some of the finest
legal minds. The present day rapist has no intent to capture another’s wife or securing
an inheritance or property. His is an act of short-term conquest, not a practical tactic to
acquire ownership. The economic advantage of rape is an ancient concept, although the
issue of motivation seems to involve several factors and is controversial. What is
retained is the critical male-female battle, a hit-and-run assault, a brief demonstration of
physical power, a conscious process of intimidation, a targeted, revolting physical
invasion with horrific lasting psychological effects on all of its victims which go beyond
the victim who bears the actual assault. When rape is placed where it truly belongs,
within the context of modem criminal violence and not within the limited scope of archaic
codes of understanding, the crime retains its appalling magnitude. It is, in one act, both
an assault the body and to the mind, and a "seizure" of a body through force.
Although we know these facts to be accurate and true, one might wonder how a rape
victim in Saudi Arabia is allowed to be punished along with her assailants and why would
the all the countries who claim to support democracy, stand against oppression, and
support civil rights, not, at least, call home their ambassadors, if only to show that this
display of cultural retardation and blatant disregard for the rights and respect of women
is clearly unacceptable to their political leadership and the people they represent?
It is no wonder that rape in war has never been seriously dealt with, and that at least
20,000 Bosnian Muslim women were raped by Serb forces during the Bosnian war and
for the most part, nothing happened and rarely was anyone arrested, tried or convicted
for this particular crime. But then we know, and cannot deny, morals are not about the
way things are, it is about the way things ought to be.
Rape, in the course of war, dates back to antiquity, ancient enough to have been
mentioned in the Bible. The Greek, Persian and Roman troops would routinely rape
women and boys in the conquered towns. As many as 80,000 women were raped by the
Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of carnage, in what would become known as the
Rape of Nanking Up to 200,000 women, who were forced into prostitution in Japanese
military brothels during World War II. At the end of World War II, Red Army soldiers
raped at least 2,000,000 German women and girls. During the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, women prefer to throw themselves into the river and drown, than be forced
into becoming a war tool of the Soviet soldiers.
An overhaul in of present laws and an objective approach to enforcing just laws that
violate women must go hand in hand with a fresh look at the rights of women in
countries like Saudi Arabia. The question of who interprets and who enforces the law is
an important as the contents of the law itself. Presently, female victims of sexual
violence throughout the Middle East who seek justice must rely on a series of male
authority figures whose masculine orientation, values, and suspicions place them
squarely in the ‘criminal’ camp.
Let us be convinced that the battle to achieve parity with men in the critical area of
criminal law will be the ultimate testing ground in which full equality with men has been
consistently denied.
Blaming the victims relieves the authority of its moral obligation and creates a doubt
about the character of the victim.
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for
the assault. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and
popular attitudes that certain victim behaviors (such as flirting, or wearing sexually-
provocative clothing) may encourage rape. In extreme cases, victims are said to have
"asked for it", simply by not behaving modestly. Although defense of provocation is not
accepted as mitigation for rape, there is an increasing trending that is allowing the victim
to face public inquisition prior to trial. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence
by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least
partially accepted in many countries.
In a few other countries, victim-blaming is a worldwide dilemma: women who have been
raped are often deemed to have behaved improperly. These attitudes are prevalent in
countries where there is a major social division between the freedoms and status
afforded to men and women. Although evolutionary psychologists regard blaming the
victims as an effect of evolutionary pressure on men to want to monopolize their access
to their women, feminist must not make this a cause. This is a humanitarian issue, not a
feminist one and must not be allowed to spread into gender warfare. Despite all the
feminist activism in the past 30 years, rape and violence in society has increased.
Cultural obstacles can only account for a part of the blame; Gender-based violence and
other infringement of women’s rights are major phenomena in the Middle East and North
Africa, due to the political leadership in many of the countries. Circumstances
surrounding public dialogue about human rights in general are not common. These
challenges pose an even greater challenge to those trying to create respect and
protection for women’s human rights in society and under the law. The international
community must insist on the abolishment of laws that penalizes a woman if she
chooses to prosecute her attacker. It must also advocate for a just punishment for
sexual assaults based on the damage done to the victim and viewed as a crime against
the woman, not stolen virginity and the damage done to the honor of the family.
Few governments have done much to defend the basic rights of women in the Saudi
courts. In most cases, America has refused to take on the powerful establishment that
dominates or strongly influences most Saudi government institutions, including the
judicial system. Contrary to media views, these countries do not follow the shariah law.
Most Middle Eastern legal systems are based on cultural diffusion, not God's will.
Culture is often a solid rock that the people, who in their attachment, only break
themselves against it.
Men, throughout the world, are a politically protected class, commonly given higher
status than women. The root of the problem is the failure to honor human rights and
correctly confront the perpetrators of crime fairly and without distinction to gender, class
and the race of the victims.
A court of just laws ought not to determine whether this victim invited the attack. It is
unheard of with any other crime of violence. When someone is robbed in a low income
area, the fact that the victim was wearing an expensive coat is not a defense that can
be used on behalf of the defendant. Under the modern rules of law, victims of robbery
and assault are not required to prove that they fought back, consented, or that the act
was accomplished with sufficient force, or sufficient threat of force to defeat their will,
because the law assumes that it is highly improbable that a person willingly gives away
all his money to a stranger except for a charitable reason, and the law assumes that no
person would consent to a brutal beating and the infliction of physical harm and bodily
pain. But victims of sexual assault often have to prove these evidentiary requirements
that they did not consent, that their will was overcome by devastating fear.
The conflict surrounding the case in Saudi Arabia only helps to illustrate some of the
reasons for the reservations that women have for not reporting crimes against their
persons- a perception strongly endorsed by the Saudi government: If Saudi women,
who are almost fully excluded from the legal protection of the law vehemently rebel
against their status, how much harder it will be for other similar governments to
suppress the human rights of their women? And will women elsewhere act in a similar
fashion if it is being made clear to them that legal deprivation can be overcome when
persistence outweighs fear and retaliation? This may be the only way that a society may
be taught to modify a decadent tradition. Only then will they be forced to deal with the
other failings that encompass inhumanity: domestic violence, societal tolerance of honor
killings, and low levels of education for girls and women.
All societies have their human failing and try to cover their dark oppressive history with
the appearance of good intentions. America is not exempt. Abraham Lincoln is
recognized for being the “father” of equal rights, he was not. We all have ghost in our
social closets, we recognize them only when we open the door and let them out. Bigotry
and unfairness resides in societies where we cease to identify others on equal terms, a
natural inclination when selfishness is part of a human’s nature. Social contract theorists
contend that it is the selfish part of man’s nature, which makes it impossible for him to
harm another man- with two exceptions: (1) mental illness, at least temporarily, or (2) a
psychic conditioning that dehumanizes the human victim.
Abraham Lincoln once said that it was the duty of black people to leave America. “You
and I are of different races.” he said to one James McPherson, and continued, “We have
between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.
Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is of great
disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living
among us, while ours suffer from your presence.”
Lincoln was not soliciting the opinions of McPherson or any other in attendance. Racism
was not to be a topic for debate as to whether it is founded on reality and justice. He
was plainly, he said, presenting a truth: white people didn’t want black people in
America and therefore black people would have to go.
“There is,” Lincoln said, “unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for
you free colored people to remain with us.” He proposed a settlement in Central America
and asked his guests to help him locate black settlers “capable of thinking as white
men.”
Abraham Lincoln was one of the most distinguished presidents but let us not ascribe to
him virtues he did not possess. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, not
because he was a fighter for the independence of black people and equal rights for all,
but because it was to his political advantage to do so. His did so, moreover, only after
the several years of resistance by the true emancipators of black people.
This president represented the masses who claim to love America, but clearly could not
stand all Americans. Things, however, changed. It was through brave efforts of freedom
fighters and those who spoke out against indignity.
Even in these times and in all our democratic audacity, our American intelligence
agencies are still destroying evidence and information regarding the torture,
mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at
Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq and other places. Other countries look at us and may justly
ask, "How many times do you get to lie before you are a liar?”
You see in the end the truth sets us free and so does the help of a God who has
enjoined truth on all of His creation. Let us seek this truth in these spiritual days that
seem to be visiting most all of us around the earth and let us pray to increase our own
personal potential to make it better world.
I speak for MAS-Freedom in wishing you peace, harmony and a path of spiritual
transcendence. I speak for myself when I say thank you for all that I have learned about
commitment, human kindness, and what can be achieve if we work together. Just like
with the seasons, so can life the universe renew itself. For many faiths, this is a time to
rekindle what is good and break down the walls that now divide truth from falsehood.
Khalilah Sabra
MAS-Freedom, NC
901 Jones Franklin
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
919 345-8105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwhBT3JnOjg
As the Day of Arafat approaches, many of us will fast and pray that we be released from
the punishment of our sins. This is a good thing. I will be doing a lot of this myself. I’ve
certainly done my share of things I’d rather forget. But this year, I will do something
different and I hope you all will do the same. I hope that we will pray for even those
things that seem beyond our condition to change and ask Allah to forgive us for
accepting terrible things as a way of life just because it is easier and perhaps we are not
experiencing them directly. Pray to Allah to help us recognize that no matter how many
goals we frame and how much analysis we give to unfair structures, they will not change
unless we take it upon ourselves to get up out of our chairs and do something about.
Whether you win or lose, whatever battle, big or small, that you dispute for the sake of
God, you will be given victory on the day it really counts. So, let us pray that Allah, in His
enormous goodness, to help us all to overcome the multitude of different forces that
diminish our opportunities to do the things that strengthen us in our pursuit to help
those who cannot help themselves. Now I am sure you’ve heard this before, but
frequent reminders seem to help me and I hope you will indulge and forgive my rather
long advice. I submit it to you humbly and with our humble supplication for help we will
all see peace, justice and reconciliation in the coming year.
As Muslims travel to Mecca to make the magnificent journey to Allah’s grace, let them
pray that the country in which they stand will become what it should be, and not what it
is. Let the symbols and history of that soil, once graced by the best of men; come to be
a reality to those who lead it and for the people that must follow their rule. Let us pray
that truth comes to power and that a well educated leadership learns to bear witness to
the truth of a man (peace be upon him) who never lied and trusted in God’s word. If
they can not do everything at once, may Allah allow them to honestly define what rape
is and how it can destroy a woman’s mind and body.
RAPED TWICE: BY MEN AND BY GOVERNMENTS
To a woman the definition of rape is quite straightforward. A sexual assault to the body
by force, an invasion into the private, personal internal space without consent, an inner
assault by one of numerous methods-constitutes a conscious and premeditated violation
of emotional, physical and indisputable honor; and is a vicious, hostile, degrading act of
violence that warrants the name of rape.
Yet by tracing man's historical concept of rape as defined it the earliest laws, we now
know with certainty that the criminal act that was viewed with horror, and the deadly
punishments the law saw fit to apply, had little to do with an actual act of sexual
violence that a woman's body might sustain. Although the law has, to an extent,
distanced its definition since its beginnings when rape meant basically and categorically
the theft of a father's daughter's virginity, a specialized crime that damaged a valuable
possession before they could reach the matrimonial market, contemporary legal
perceptions of rape are rooted still in ancient male concepts of property, clearly being
the case in Saudi Arabia and other so called “civil” societies.
Man's historic desire to maintain sole, total and complete access to woman's body, as
codified by his earliest laws of marriage, sprang from his need to be the sole physical
instrument governing impregnation, progeny and inheritance rights. As man understood
his male reality, it was perfectly lawful to capture and rape some other tribe's women,
for what better way for his own tribe to increase? But it was unlawful, he felt, for the
insult to be returned. The criminal act he viewed with horror and punished as rape was
not sexual assault per se, but an act of unlawful possession, a trespass against his
tribal right to control access to all women who belonged to him and his kin. The act man
came to interpret as criminal rape was the illegal damage of virginity outside a marriage
contract of his making. Later, when he came to see his own definition as too narrow for
the times, he broadened his criminal concept to cover the humiliation of his spouse's
chastity as well, thus expands the law's interest to include non-virgins too. Although
these legal foundations have been shrouded in the quagmire of ancient history, as the
law of rape continued to advance it never completely disassociated itself from the earlier
perception that this violation was first and primarily a violation of male rights of
possession, based on male requirements of virginity, chastity and consent to private
access as the female bargain in the marriage contract.
To our modern way of thinking, these theoretical and cultural origins are abnormal and
incomprehensible to fully grasp, or maybe we just pretend so.
A huge disproportion in thought, male-judgment versus feminine-judgment affects the
opinion of rape to this very day, confusing reasoning processes of some of the finest
legal minds. The present day rapist has no intent to capture another’s wife or securing
an inheritance or property. His is an act of short-term conquest, not a practical tactic to
acquire ownership. The economic advantage of rape is an ancient concept, although the
issue of motivation seems to involve several factors and is controversial. What is
retained is the critical male-female battle, a hit-and-run assault, a brief demonstration of
physical power, a conscious process of intimidation, a targeted, revolting physical
invasion with horrific lasting psychological effects on all of its victims which go beyond
the victim who bears the actual assault. When rape is placed where it truly belongs,
within the context of modem criminal violence and not within the limited scope of archaic
codes of understanding, the crime retains its appalling magnitude. It is, in one act, both
an assault the body and to the mind, and a "seizure" of a body through force.
Although we know these facts to be accurate and true, one might wonder how a rape
victim in Saudi Arabia is allowed to be punished along with her assailants and why would
the all the countries who claim to support democracy, stand against oppression, and
support civil rights, not, at least, call home their ambassadors, if only to show that this
display of cultural retardation and blatant disregard for the rights and respect of women
is clearly unacceptable to their political leadership and the people they represent?
It is no wonder that rape in war has never been seriously dealt with, and that at least
20,000 Bosnian Muslim women were raped by Serb forces during the Bosnian war and
for the most part, nothing happened and rarely was anyone arrested, tried or convicted
for this particular crime. But then we know, and cannot deny, morals are not about the
way things are, it is about the way things ought to be.
Rape, in the course of war, dates back to antiquity, ancient enough to have been
mentioned in the Bible. The Greek, Persian and Roman troops would routinely rape
women and boys in the conquered towns. As many as 80,000 women were raped by the
Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of carnage, in what would become known as the
Rape of Nanking Up to 200,000 women, who were forced into prostitution in Japanese
military brothels during World War II. At the end of World War II, Red Army soldiers
raped at least 2,000,000 German women and girls. During the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, women prefer to throw themselves into the river and drown, than be forced
into becoming a war tool of the Soviet soldiers.
An overhaul in of present laws and an objective approach to enforcing just laws that
violate women must go hand in hand with a fresh look at the rights of women in
countries like Saudi Arabia. The question of who interprets and who enforces the law is
an important as the contents of the law itself. Presently, female victims of sexual
violence throughout the Middle East who seek justice must rely on a series of male
authority figures whose masculine orientation, values, and suspicions place them
squarely in the ‘criminal’ camp.
Let us be convinced that the battle to achieve parity with men in the critical area of
criminal law will be the ultimate testing ground in which full equality with men has been
consistently denied.
Blaming the victims relieves the authority of its moral obligation and creates a doubt
about the character of the victim.
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for
the assault. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and
popular attitudes that certain victim behaviors (such as flirting, or wearing sexually-
provocative clothing) may encourage rape. In extreme cases, victims are said to have
"asked for it", simply by not behaving modestly. Although defense of provocation is not
accepted as mitigation for rape, there is an increasing trending that is allowing the victim
to face public inquisition prior to trial. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence
by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least
partially accepted in many countries.
In a few other countries, victim-blaming is a worldwide dilemma: women who have been
raped are often deemed to have behaved improperly. These attitudes are prevalent in
countries where there is a major social division between the freedoms and status
afforded to men and women. Although evolutionary psychologists regard blaming the
victims as an effect of evolutionary pressure on men to want to monopolize their access
to their women, feminist must not make this a cause. This is a humanitarian issue, not a
feminist one and must not be allowed to spread into gender warfare. Despite all the
feminist activism in the past 30 years, rape and violence in society has increased.
Cultural obstacles can only account for a part of the blame; Gender-based violence and
other infringement of women’s rights are major phenomena in the Middle East and North
Africa, due to the political leadership in many of the countries. Circumstances
surrounding public dialogue about human rights in general are not common. These
challenges pose an even greater challenge to those trying to create respect and
protection for women’s human rights in society and under the law. The international
community must insist on the abolishment of laws that penalizes a woman if she
chooses to prosecute her attacker. It must also advocate for a just punishment for
sexual assaults based on the damage done to the victim and viewed as a crime against
the woman, not stolen virginity and the damage done to the honor of the family.
Few governments have done much to defend the basic rights of women in the Saudi
courts. In most cases, America has refused to take on the powerful establishment that
dominates or strongly influences most Saudi government institutions, including the
judicial system. Contrary to media views, these countries do not follow the shariah law.
Most Middle Eastern legal systems are based on cultural diffusion, not God's will.
Culture is often a solid rock that the people, who in their attachment, only break
themselves against it.
Men, throughout the world, are a politically protected class, commonly given higher
status than women. The root of the problem is the failure to honor human rights and
correctly confront the perpetrators of crime fairly and without distinction to gender, class
and the race of the victims.
A court of just laws ought not to determine whether this victim invited the attack. It is
unheard of with any other crime of violence. When someone is robbed in a low income
area, the fact that the victim was wearing an expensive coat is not a defense that can
be used on behalf of the defendant. Under the modern rules of law, victims of robbery
and assault are not required to prove that they fought back, consented, or that the act
was accomplished with sufficient force, or sufficient threat of force to defeat their will,
because the law assumes that it is highly improbable that a person willingly gives away
all his money to a stranger except for a charitable reason, and the law assumes that no
person would consent to a brutal beating and the infliction of physical harm and bodily
pain. But victims of sexual assault often have to prove these evidentiary requirements
that they did not consent, that their will was overcome by devastating fear.
The conflict surrounding the case in Saudi Arabia only helps to illustrate some of the
reasons for the reservations that women have for not reporting crimes against their
persons- a perception strongly endorsed by the Saudi government: If Saudi women,
who are almost fully excluded from the legal protection of the law vehemently rebel
against their status, how much harder it will be for other similar governments to
suppress the human rights of their women? And will women elsewhere act in a similar
fashion if it is being made clear to them that legal deprivation can be overcome when
persistence outweighs fear and retaliation? This may be the only way that a society may
be taught to modify a decadent tradition. Only then will they be forced to deal with the
other failings that encompass inhumanity: domestic violence, societal tolerance of honor
killings, and low levels of education for girls and women.
All societies have their human failing and try to cover their dark oppressive history with
the appearance of good intentions. America is not exempt. Abraham Lincoln is
recognized for being the “father” of equal rights, he was not. We all have ghost in our
social closets, we recognize them only when we open the door and let them out. Bigotry
and unfairness resides in societies where we cease to identify others on equal terms, a
natural inclination when selfishness is part of a human’s nature. Social contract theorists
contend that it is the selfish part of man’s nature, which makes it impossible for him to
harm another man- with two exceptions: (1) mental illness, at least temporarily, or (2) a
psychic conditioning that dehumanizes the human victim.
Abraham Lincoln once said that it was the duty of black people to leave America. “You
and I are of different races.” he said to one James McPherson, and continued, “We have
between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.
Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is of great
disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living
among us, while ours suffer from your presence.”
Lincoln was not soliciting the opinions of McPherson or any other in attendance. Racism
was not to be a topic for debate as to whether it is founded on reality and justice. He
was plainly, he said, presenting a truth: white people didn’t want black people in
America and therefore black people would have to go.
“There is,” Lincoln said, “unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for
you free colored people to remain with us.” He proposed a settlement in Central America
and asked his guests to help him locate black settlers “capable of thinking as white
men.”
Abraham Lincoln was one of the most distinguished presidents but let us not ascribe to
him virtues he did not possess. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, not
because he was a fighter for the independence of black people and equal rights for all,
but because it was to his political advantage to do so. His did so, moreover, only after
the several years of resistance by the true emancipators of black people.
This president represented the masses who claim to love America, but clearly could not
stand all Americans. Things, however, changed. It was through brave efforts of freedom
fighters and those who spoke out against indignity.
Even in these times and in all our democratic audacity, our American intelligence
agencies are still destroying evidence and information regarding the torture,
mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at
Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq and other places. Other countries look at us and may justly
ask, "How many times do you get to lie before you are a liar?”
You see in the end the truth sets us free and so does the help of a God who has
enjoined truth on all of His creation. Let us seek this truth in these spiritual days that
seem to be visiting most all of us around the earth and let us pray to increase our own
personal potential to make it better world.
I speak for MAS-Freedom in wishing you peace, harmony and a path of spiritual
transcendence. I speak for myself when I say thank you for all that I have learned about
commitment, human kindness, and what can be achieve if we work together. Just like
with the seasons, so can life the universe renew itself. For many faiths, this is a time to
rekindle what is good and break down the walls that now divide truth from falsehood.
Khalilah Sabra
MAS-Freedom, NC
901 Jones Franklin
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
919 345-8105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwhBT3JnOjg