(things I’m secretly thinking about the way some Muslims talk about Hillary Clinton)

If you want to hate on Hillary Clinton because of certain policy positions, that is great. Looking forward to this elevated conversation. But going “but mamaaaa! she’s a capitalist and a neoliberal imperialist” makes you sound like you should be eating chicken nuggets and ishe cweam in the babysitting area rather than being at the table.

When did we all sign the agreement that capitalism is bad? Does it just sound smart to say that?

Capitalism like every system has pros and cons. There was a free market during the time of “Islamic empires.” And Mecca. And Medina. The hopeless Muslim Brotherhood were capitalist business owners. Erdogan is a capitalist. Lupe Fiasco is a capitalist and makes money off a free market. Islam promoted a free market as well as a system that tried to level the playing field and give a hand up for those who were in poverty. Being a social justice-y Muslim that liked a Russell Brand status doesn’t mean you’re suddenly anti-capitalism. We live in a free market world. What on earth do you think a non-capitalistic candidate will look like? The reason why your local mosque reuses its Solo cups is not because it is socialist but because its money it wrapped up in a never-ending expansion product/the imam’s random Cayman Islands Masjid Fund…for dawa/they stretched the last imam’s contract when they waived him (see: Josh Smith, Detroit Pistons) and there’s still 3 years left to pay off/it doesn’t have any money lol.

The next blow at Hillary is that she supports the same old-school policies of old-school white men (plus the new-school but actually also old-school black president she served), and that she supports Israel and is hawkish. Find me the candidate that can get elected without even praising Israel on a token basis. And if you think wanting America to be engaged militarily in situations around the world (hawkishness) is bad, then you really have not been paying attention to the past 8 years under President Obama, where revisionist sideline leadership has only created a more dangerous world, with ISIS and Middle East chaos.

Intervention in Syria— something that Hillary Clinton supported— was a good thing on humanitarian and national security grounds. Curbing Iran’s terrorism and regional imperialistic aims is a good thing for the sake of Middle East stability. You can be against Sisi and Saudi Arabia’s style of government. You can love the Iranian people and also ask them to stop supporting Hezbollah and their murderous government. You can have a balanced approach to foreign policy (!). Is the alternative to just ditch foreign policy in its entirety? Every powerful nation has interests (haram!) and mobilizes its allies and resources to preserving those interests. It can be stability, it can be a healthy market, it can be oil, it can be promotion of liberal ideals, or the promotion of illiberal ideals (like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran).

Some forms of democracy promotion are good, starting with getting it right at home (you know, like with campaign finance reform). America is a superpower with historically unprecedented global reach with the ability to do good and bad things. We’ve done incredible things— built economic powerhouses, improved quality of life and health for many, and have maintained (broader) global peace since WWII; AAAAAND we’ve also supported occupation and dictators, abandoned some of our principles, allowed for unfettered profiteering and unsustainable practices that might actually kill our planet. *Of course* it’s going to be involved in arenas like the Middle East, especially since as a superpower (as Russia and China try to be), it is invested in global security, it’s own interests, and in places where it has invested so much resources and human lives.

Call it imperialism if it makes you feel good. In the short term, you work with what you have. In the long term, you work towards a higher standard– and these standards are inherent in our faith and our Constitution. I don’t really care much for the whole “political dynasty” claim because that’s what we have today. If you criticize her for being cold/closed off, then you haven’t been paying attention to how insulated President Obama is.

If she’s the best candidate (it might be a big problem that there’s like no real Democratic primary with her in the race), then I will vote for her. If she is not the best candidate, then I will vote for Bill Clinton.


A few things I like and don’t like (V. 1): on Neo-Cons, caravans, and #SeinfeldInArabia

I’m taking a leaf out of Zach Lowe (one of my favorite sports writers)’s book and starting my blog off with some things I “like” and “don’t” like from this past week. That might also be a bit of me repping my city and its favorite son, Chief Keef. There’s a lot of stuff he doesn’t like. Before we do that, let me just say this: thanks for reading. I look forward to a consistent, fruitful, and perhaps occasionally interesting tenure here for the Shamrock Sheikh blog. Stick around, and maybe we’ll learn something from one another. Or not.

What am I up to at this moment? It’s Thursday night and it’s that time when you’re starting to recover from a front-loaded work week. Midterms just went by and Spring Break starts tomorrow evening. I bade farewell to my younger brother, Mahdi, who is leaving tonight on his high school senior year trip to perform ‘umrah (mini-pilgrimage) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It’s an odd feeling because this would be the first time in memory that I’m in the position of watching him leave. In the past it’s always been me leaving to Washington, D.C. for internships or to Champaign, IL. where my college campus is. This is the sort of experience that throws off one’s internal train of thought, because it’s entirely new. The more we grow, the more we approach the future, the more we begin to face the unknown. Maybe I sound like an old man (and that’s sort of what I’ve always been), but I know that Mahdi traveling alone, graduating high school, going to college, and so on are all wedges that make this fortress called the “present” feel like its collapsing, bit by bit. And that’s not a bad thing at all. It just means we’re growing up and hopefully moving onwards to bigger and better things. And when we get the chance to spend time together and do the things he and I always used to do together– be it going to pancake houses, playing basketball, or figuring out “what we’re going to do” or “what movie we’re going to watch” for 3 hours– those are the times that will mean the world to both of us. Safe travels Mahdi!


So here are some observations I made  this week. I DON’T LIKE: why the hell do we keep throwing the term “neo-con” around so easily? I’m referring to this piece by Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek, titled “How Cold War-Hungry Neo-Cons Stage Managed RT Anchor Liz Wahl’s Resignation.” It’s a fascinating read if your worldview on global affairs is on par with that of a college freshman who watched too many Alex Jones and Illuminati/9-11 Truther videos on YouTube.

By all means, give it a read. As the authors continue to tout in subsequent Twitter wars, they seemingly have a thorough collection of sources to back up their assertion that former Russia Today anchor Liz Wahl’s resignation from the network is all a part of a neo-conservative conspiracy to reignite the Cold War. This article launched a series of rebuttals on Twitter and elsewhere between the authors and several of the journalists and pundits brought under scrutiny by Blumenthal and Khalek. Look it all up on Twitter– follow Buzzfeed’s Rosie Gray or the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake to see the debate. Or, for your sanity– don’t follow the debate. This one tweet sums up how some people just never get tired of reliving their middle school days:

My favorite response came from David Weigel from Slate.com, who said that the authors were making much more of Wahl’s resignation than there actual was. This wouldn’t be the first time Blumenthal tried to be our journalist-and-savior. Just a few months ago, Blumenthal tried to smear Mouaz Moustafa, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group I once worked for, which advocates for Syrian human rights as well as a more engaged U.S. Syria policy. Max’s hypothesis revolved around a series of meetings and speaking engagements that Mouaz participated in at various D.C. think tanks and organizations. And because many of these influential think tanks are backed by neo-cons and pro-Israel donors, and because Mouaz helped facilitate Senator John McCain’s visit to liberated northern Syria, Max posited that Mouaz was in the pocket of these lobbies and was an agent of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.

Or something like that…. Max did everything but talk to Mouaz himself– a man who was born a Palestinian refugee and who as accessible as people in D.C. get. It’s funny: God forbid anyone tries to do something, I don’t know… pragmatic, relevant, and useful with their time in Washington to boost support for increased humanitarian aid to Syrian children and bring about a political solution to the now-regionalized Syrian civil war by providing a level playing field and forcing Assad to the negotiation table (remember: it was the threat of force that bolstered our diplomatic “breakthrough” in getting Assad to surrender his chemical weapons). I’m not saying that Blumenthal is off the mark here with the Wahl story. I don’t have access to his “sources” and puzzle pieces. But Max has a history of below the belt moves against people like Mouaz (whose foot alone quite frankly has done more for human rights than Max ever has/will). So there. It makes it hard for me to take writers like him seriously.

Honestly, what I’m learning is that there is a “scotomization”, where people see what they want to see. Look at universal healthcare, for example. Some people see a much-needed reform. Others see big government. Obviously, SOMEBODY has their head up their asses. I guess democracy allows us to sort of not have to inform people of their predicament.

Foreign policy is similar. I don’t look for a world where the United States dominates the international arena and acts as the global police (cliche, I know). I’m sure Max is on the same page as me on that matter. But it’s funny that people like Max and most “progressives” have such a U.S.-centric view that same world. To them, anything that the U.S. does– development, diplomacy, etc– is imperialism. If they see Haim Saban or John McCain or CFR or Kagan or any other name that doesn’t suit their one-dimensional worldview, they cry “neo-con” and attempt to smear them and everything they support by putting them in that camp. If Russia supports and covers up mass-slaughter in Syria, they’ll just say “oh but look with the U.S. did here, here, and here! The hypocrisy!” Jeez. Can’t someone, I don’t know, call out and criticize both U.S. (as is my right as a loyal citizen) AND Russia transgressions and work to support reasonable policy suggestions and solutions for BOTH? Can we try that? Maybe it’s too hard for some people to see all the way from those ivory towers, high horses, and computer screens. But grow a pair and get to work– and you’ll find that there are people willing to work with you and that there’s a process— an imperfect one– to finding progress. One damn centimeter at a time.

The viewership of course is the perfect flock of sheep. I guarantee that 99% of them haven’t seen what Beltway life and culture and operations look like and what it takes to get anything done in that town. You don’t have to agree with 100% of someone else’s views to find mutual interest in working with one another, even for a very short period of time. And you don’t have to sell out your people or principles to do so. For some people, dirt and the axes they have to grind are far more important than human lives, human dignity, and having a world where people can be privileged enough to be keyboard commandos and tear people who try to do good work, like Mouaz, down and throw them into the neo-con pile.

The most ironic part of all this is that for people like Khalek and Blumenthal who judge people like Mouaz and the broader Syrian American community (and many actual Syrians in Syria, HELLO) for supporting U.S. intervention, they ignore that the Arabs who have been fighting for dignity and social justice for a while– namely the Palestinian community– as well as the established Arab names in academia, organizations (like Arab American Institute, ADC, etc), and the blogosphere, for the most part left the Syrians hanging! It would have been great to have THEIR fraternity and support in a small town like D.C. I’m sure that, since they’ve been there for a while now, that they have the resources and connections to help us land a few meetings here and there or something. (What have they been doing there for the past 10 years, anyways? A topic for further exploration should be “do Arab Americans have their s**t together? Are they as a collective body even relevant?”) Sure, a big chunk of that community (Asad Abu Khalil, Ali Abunimah, etc.) started criticizing the Assad regime when the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Syria started becoming besieged, but most of them will probably never tell you that they want Assad to step down (if they even mention Syria at all in the first place. Scroll through their Twitter accounts and you’ll see the only time suffering Syria brought up is when U.S. military action is in question), or that they renounce support for Hezbollah or Iran which have played integral roles in Assad’s killing machine. Because it’s all about the muqawama, the fantasy of resistance. The resistance was in power for more than 40 years, guys. They still weren’t able to get the Golan Heights back. To hell with your resistance, if it means you throw 100,000+ Syrians under the bus to burn. And to hell to any notion that these people do what they do for social justice and global progress. It’s about ego, ideology, and sometimes the groupies (the crude way I’ll describe the college students who flock to them or “get off” whenever they say something clever about U.S. hypocrisy). I’ll be the first to call out hypocrisy when my country is involved because it’s my country. And that’s the difference. I’m empowered. I’m not going to continue to play victim and appeal to the stubborn ideological crowds. I’m more interested in real work.

As the Arabic saying goes, “the caravan keeps moving, while the dogs keep barking.”

Some people have actual ideas, facts, history, and policy suggestions to discuss. Here’s something I DO LIKE:

I wish we could keep the conversation at this level. We agree, disagree, debate, and watch as history unfolds. Someone will be totally wrong, and we can let them know “I told you so” on Twitter when it’s all said and done. That’s what it’s all about, guys. We should not be about creating an echo chamber where no one takes us seriously. Seriously. Let’s keep the conversation where it matters, and not keep digging for what’s probably not even there (not to say that Blumenthal and Khalek are 100% wrong about Wahl, of course. I didn’t see Wahl denouncing the Kremlin’s covering up of Putin’s support for Assad. But you get my point.)


One more thing that I DO LIKE: My #SeinfeldInArabia tweets. Come on fellas. I was on a roll this week. It might not have been conducive to a successful midterm exam week, but hey, perhaps a future in comedy/writing is a solid Plan B:

Even Marc Lynch liked them:

Sarah was on the verge of tears:

We’ve all been there, guys.