What of Glen Beck who likened Breivik’s victims at a political summer camp to the Hitler Youth? And what might the late Stieg Larsson have thought about this?

This week’s pod attempts to answer some of these questions with a series of reports and interviews culled from the BBC and the Big Show.

Among those featured: Nottingham University’s, Matthew Goodwin who studies fascist groups; former Norwegian diplomat Jan Egeland; Andrew Silke who advises the United Nations on terrorism and has written The Psychology of Counter-terrorism; Nick Fraser who edits the BBC’s Storyville series of international documentaries and wrote The Voice of Modern Hatred, a book about the far right in Europe.

And two more people, each with interesting back stories: Maajid Nawaz, who co-founded the UK-based think tank Quilliam which studies Islamic extremism. Nawaz himself was a self-confessed Islamic extremist: for 13 years, he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global group dedicated to uniting Muslim countries in a caliphate governed by Islamic law.

Lastly, there is Lars Gule of Oslo University College. In the wake of the Norwegian atrocity, he was interviewed by many news organizations including the BBC piece that’s in the podcast. Gule tracks right wing extremists in Scandinavia, and believes that he was in communication via web chat with Anders Breivik. The Big Show also interviewed Gule, but decided against broadcasting the interview because of concerns about Gule’s own past.

In the 1970s, Gule spent several months in a Lebanese prison after being convicted of illegal possession of weapons. The weapons were explosives. Gule was carrying them on behalf of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The intended targets were Israelis.

When asked, Gule was happy confirm these details with us; he’s not trying to hide anything. But it seemed awkward and distracting to have him analyze violent extremism in his own country when he himself had been convicted in part because of his own link to violent extremism in another country. A counter argument might be that Gule, like Maajid Nawaz, has a special insight into such activities. With that in mind, I decided to run the BBC’s interview with Gule. It’s a pity that the interview itself doesn’t make note of Gule’s past.

To round things off, we have a profile of New York-based Ghanaian rapper Blitz the Ambassador. When he moved to the US, Blitz didn’t need to learn English; it’s widely spoken in Ghana. But he says he did have to “learn the lingo of rap.” Which makes Blitz a linguistic as well as a musical ambassador.

• The World in Words Podcast on iTunes
• The World in Words Podcast via RSS
• The World in Words on Facebook
• Patrick Cox on Twitter

• BBC coverage
• Mortar Hits Somali Presidential Palace

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: The east African nation of Somalia has been in a state of near-anarchy for almost 20 years. Now, Islamist militants are exploiting the lack of an effective Somali government by attempting to seize control of the capital, Mogadishu. Insurgents of al-Shabab have been fighting forces of Somalia’s transitional government for eight days. The Washington Post’s Sudarsan Raghavan filed reports from Mogadishu this past weekend. He’s now back in Nairobi. Sudarsan, today militants were firing on Somalia’s presidential palace and they killed four Ugandan peacekeepers there in the process. You’ve also reported on how al-Shabab militiamen briefly took control of the Somali capital’s most strategic road on Saturday. So how close is al-Shabab, would you say, to gaining control of the city?

SUDARSAN RAGHAVAN:  Well, it’s still unclear. It’s really geographically close to Somalia’s hold of power. The shelling today was the latest indication that they are ratcheting up their efforts to overthrown the government, but as most people there believe, as long as you have 6,000 African Union peacekeepers, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to completely overthrow the government. But the Somali police and the military are not properly trained. They’re not paid regularly on time. They lack ammunition. They themselves have told me how weak their military is. So certainly if the African Union peacekeepers were to pull out for some reason or the other, most people in Somalia believe that the government will certainly be toppled.

WERMAN:  I mean you were on the streets of Mogadishu in the middle of a firefight between African Union peacekeepers and al-Shabab fighters. How well were the African Union soldiers dealing with these militiamen?

RAGHAVAN: Well, by the time they arrived at this intersection, they started using heavy firepower against al-Shabab. And al-Shabab returned with AK-47s. They did managed to push back the militants a little bit, but most people on the scene had little confidence that al-Shabab would keep away. In fact, just yesterday there were more skirmishes on that very main road which happened to be the main road that connects the government ministries and the presidential palace to the airport. So very important route for the capital.

WERMAN: The firefight that you found yourself caught in, Sudarsan, in Mogadishu is an extreme example of life in the capital of Somalia right now. But some people have said this is the most dangerous city on earth. Without a live firefight, give us a sense of just how hellish it is in Mogadishu these days.

RAGHAVAN: Even without the firefight, the people of Mogadishu are under constant attack from [SOUNDS LIKE] borders. There’s artillery. On my last trip to Somalia, I visited a neighborhood that was struck by African peacekeeping artillery, so they are in a constant state of danger. And on top of that, there’s food shortages, there’s assassinations going on. Just last week there was an attack on a hotel, the Hotel Muna in which 31 people were killed. The majority were civilians. So certainly just living even in government-controlled Mogadishu is a huge risk for many ordinary Somalis.

WERMAN: What do the people you met on the streets of Mogadishu think about al-Shabab?

RAGHAVAN: I spent most of my time, in fact all my time, in government-controlled areas. It’s practically impossible to go Shabab-controlled areas. What you do see, what you do hear, is a lot of anger at the Shabab and that seems to be growing. In fact, in a couple of [INDISCERNIBLE] Mogadishu, hundreds have been arriving daily over the past eight days because they happen to be some of the safer areas. And so there’s a lot of resentment. It’s a change since it was about a year and a half ago when you can hear Somalis talk about al-Shabab as, after 20 years of civil war, they’ve brought security to areas. But you don’t hear it anymore these days. You do hear a lot of anger, a lot of resentment, a sense that the Shabab has all-out basically thrown chaos and fear in the capital.

WERMAN: The Washington Post’s Sudarsan Raghavan in Nairobi, Kenya. Thanks so much.

RAGHAVAN: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Muslim Arbitration Tribunal
• Religion coverage on The World

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  Two years ago Britain’s top religious figure provoked criticism for making positive comments about Islamic, or Sharia law.  The Archbishop of Canterbury said it might be necessary for the British legal system to incorporate certain aspects of Sharia for its Muslim citizens.  Britain allows arbitration panels to rule according to Islamic law on some issues and now there’s evidence that suggests that Sharia arbitration is growing as an alternative way to settle disputes there.  It’s still controversial, but the founders of the arbitration service say they’re starting to get business from an unexpected quarter, non-Muslims.  The World’s Laura Lynch reports.

LAURA LYNCH:  Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh is a partner in the Scottish law firm of Hamilton Burns in Glasgow.  She says she’s notice a growing number of her Muslim clients asking for a different kind of legal advice.  Advice based on Islamic Sharia law.

TASMINA AHMED SHEIKH:  And I find myself obviously as a Muslim lawyer living in this country that more frequently than not I’m asked questions, what does Sharia say about this, what does Islam say about this.  It’s much likened to seeking advice from a Priest.

LYNCH: Ahmed Sheikh didn’t have the answers, so her firm is now teamed up with a scholar who specializes in Islamic family law.  Hamilton Burns is the first law firm in Britain to offer advice in Sharia.  That’s one recognition of the growing importance of Sharia for Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims.  But the ancient Islamic system is now attracting attention from an unexpected quarter, non-Muslims.  Sheikh Faizul Siddiqi is co-founder of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which oversees Sharia hearings in Britain.  He says non-Muslims are turning to Sharia arbitration for practical reasons.

SHEIKH FAIZUL SIDDIQI:  We’re efficient, we deal with matters very quickly, we’re cheap and we’re informal.  So all of those good reasons why people look for alternative methodologies for resolving their disputes.  That’s one of the main reasons why people are turning to these tribunals.

LYNCH: The tribunals rule on issues ranging from divorce and financial disputes to domestic violence.  Siddiqi says the numbers are still small, perhaps 20 non-Muslims in Britain turned to Sharia last year.  But he says it’s growing by about 15% this year.  For him, it’s a matter of providing a service, no matter what the person’s religious beliefs.

SIDDIQI:  Whether someone’s an atheist or an agnostic, they want us and if they feel confident that they want this arbitration tribunal to exercise justice for them, then we’re very happy to do so.

LYNCH: But this development worries those who argue that any recognition of Sharia law in Britain is a mistake.  Maryam Namazie campaigns against Islamic law in Britain.  She says it’s discriminatory and regressive for women.

MARYAM NAMAZIE:  Even if everybody begins to use Sharia court, it still doesn’t make them any fairer or any more acceptable.  I think that’s them main issue at hand is that they are really unfair and so no matter how many people use them, we still need to challenge the fact that they exist and question why people need to go to these sorts of courts when they’re living in the 21st century.

LYNCH: For Namazie it’s a worrying sign that the face of Islam in Britain is changing.

NAMAZIE:  Of course it’s becoming more accepted in the same way that they burka is becoming more accepted and Islamic organizations that are actually part and parcel of the political Islamic movement are becoming more accepted.

LYNCH: But lawyer Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh is comfortable with her firm’s decision to extend Sharia legal advice and she refuses to condemn the Islamic legal system.

SHEIKH:  I’m a perfectly competent individual, competent in my profession, competent in my religion and I don’t feel that for my own experience that Sharia is discriminatory towards me in any way.

LYNCH: Jewish tribunals that oversee some areas of business and family law have been operating in the same fashion in Britain for many years without attracting the same level of controversy.  But critic Namazie argues they should be abolished too in the name keeping religion out of the legal system.  For The World, I’m Laura Lynch in London.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Jeffrey Gettleman’s story in the New York Times
• World Food Program – Somalia
• BBC World Service Africa

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  Nearly two decades of fighting and humanitarian suffering has left Somalia a failed state.  More than a third of the people in the east African nation are hungry.  Now it appears that much of the food aid intended for them is being stolen.  A U.N. Security Council study reportedly concludes that corrupt contractors, Islamist militants and even local U.N. workers are taking up to half the aid meant for the needy.  Jeffrey Gettleman is east African correspondent for the New York Times.  Jeff, to start off with here, what makes food distribution in Somalia so difficult?

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN:  Truly a perfect storm of problems.  For starters there’s no government and as a result, the place has been lawless and chaotic for the last 20 years.  Then you have this new problem of kidnapping of aid workers and threats to Westerners so it’s very hard for any aid agency to monitor what’s going on in Somalia because there’s almost no foreign presence there.  There are no diplomats, there are no aid workers.  Very few journalists go in there and then on top of that you have a country that has been struck by drought after drought, crisis after crisis.  You have millions of people who have been displaced and displaced people can’t farm, they can’t fend for themselves, they can’t feed themselves so as a result you have great need and then on the other side great difficulty in meeting those needs because of the lawlessness and the chaos.

WERMAN:  So in other words, because there are no aid workers there to kind of receive this shipment of aid, the West is essentially sending all of its food aid and not knowing how it’s kind of arriving or where it goes.

GETTLEMAN:  There are local aid organizations and some of them do very heroic work.  Many local aid workers have been killed by different militant groups.  These people are considered spies by some of the militant groups just because they’re working with an American or a British or a foreign aid organization so they’re taking huge risks just to be there.

WERMAN:  Well take us through briefly, Jeff, what happens when that food arrives in Somalia.  Someone in Nairobi rubber-stamps a multi-ton shipment of food aid.  Take us through what happens before it actually gets to the people who need it, once that food aid comes to the port.

GETTLEMAN:  You know I think it’s a really interesting topic.  Once the ships land in Somalia, they have to subcontract the delivery of the aid to a whole bunch of different actors, some with ties to militant groups, some that don’t have the best business reputation but they’re the only guys in town that have the trucks, that have the manpower, that have the experience delivering aid.  Then in between you know, the port and the hungry people are a hundred different checkpoints often, landmines, you know, pirates, militant groups and there’s just a lot of challenges to actually get the aid from the port to the people who need it.

WERMAN:  In other words, the number of potential windows of fraud that that food aid has to pass through are really unknown.  We just don’t know essentially what happens to it once it gets to the port.

GETTLEMAN:  No and some of this is really a cost of doing business.  It would be impossible to hope that all the aid would get to the people who it’s intended for, without some of it being you know, siphoned off by the various actors along the way.  Some of these militant groups like the Shaba, which is a hard-line Islamic group that’s chopped off hands and stoned people to death and has lynched Al Qaeda, they demand payments at the checkpoint.  They might say, hey give me a couple packs of grain so I can sell it in the market for money or so I can use it to eat it so to get the aid through, there’s often, you know, often some of that aid disappears and this isn’t unique to Somalia.  This is true in many consoled zones that if you want to get the aid to the people who need it, you have to play ball with the authorities on the ground.

WERMAN:  The U.N. Security Council study that you reported on today will be presented publicly to the Security Council next Tuesday.  What follow up will there be?

GETTLEMAN:  I think people are going to put pressure on the U.N. Security Council to make more specific action to either open up more investigations into the WFP operations, the World Food Program operations, maybe to hire outside contractors to come in and monitor the aid convoys to make sure this food is getting to where it needs to go.  I think there’s also going to be a lot of criticism and more scrutiny on the Somalia government because it’s basically, the world feels, the Western world feels they don’t have an alternative to the transitional federal government right now and therefore they have to support these guys, no matter what.  Well, this report indicates there’s a lot of corruption going on within that government and there’s going to be some questions raised and then you have this ongoing piracy issue where it looks like some local Somali officials are helping the pirates and there’s going to be a lot more pressure on them to crack down on piracy because it’s really becoming a menace to global trade.

WERMAN: Jeffrey Gettleman, East Africa correspondent for the New York Times.  Thank you very much.

GETTLEMAN: Glad to help.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Minhaj ul-Quran website
• Religion stories on The World
• Science Forum: how our unconscious brain controls political decisions

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  On 9/11 Americans were confronted with a powerful weapon, people willing to face certain death while committing acts of terrorism.  In the years since, suicide bombers have been used frequently by Islamic extremists across the world.  But whether suicide bombers are allowed by Islam is the subject of heated debate.  Today in London a leading Islamic scholar issued a fatwa, or religious edict against suicide bombings and terrorism.  Jane Little is The World’s religion editor.  Jane, what exactly does today’s fatwa say?

JANE LITTLE:  Well Dr. Mohammad Tajil al Kadri says in a 600 page document that terrorism and suicide bombing can absolutely never be justified.  He says that’s the difference between his fatwa and others that we’ve heard since 9/11 when we heard condemnations of certain suicide bombing missions.  He said quite often there are equivocations that Israel is an exception, that various scholars do not absolutely condemn terrorism, but he says this is the most comprehensive look at suicide bombing and he says it can never be justified.  Let’s hear from him.

MOHAMMAD TAJIL AL KADRI:  This fatwa or ruling which I have passed contains an absolute condemnation of terrorism.  Without any excuses, without any pretexts, without any exceptions, these kind of killings and terroristic activities they lead the terrorists to hell fire.

WERMAN: Jane Little, remind us what a fatwa is and how obliged is the Muslim world to obey a fatwa?

LITTLE: When we think of fatwas we often think of death warrants issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, the late Ayatollah against Salman Rushdi for instance, when he told Muslims to go out and kill the writer.  But that’s not actually a fatwa, it’s simply a religious edict or ruling issued by a scholar in some standing.  They are always on very specific theological issues.  They can be on anything from how to prepare for prayers to suicide bombing.

WERMAN: And again, how obliged is the Muslim world to follow a fatwa or is it just kind of a position paper by cleric?

LITTLE: Well there is, as you know, no Pope figure within Islam.  There is no ecclesiastical hierarchy and so for every fatwa basically there is always a counter-fatwa out there saying the opposite.  But there are some scholars who are see to have great authority and some not.  Dr. Tajil al Kadri is seen to have great authority by many followers in Pakistan from the Sufi tradition and by an increasing number of people in Britain and other parts of the world.  But then, there are those in more hard line schools of thought, he comes out of a Sufi tradition.  There are more hard liners who will dismiss his authority completely and there is one website calling him and idolater today.

WERMAN: So I guess my final question is with a fatwa like this against terrorism and suicide bombers, are we safer in the West?

LITTLE: Well that’s a very good question.  I think it’s a big symbolic gesture.  It’s using the right language.  Of course a fatwa is not going to change things overnight.  It’s not going to reach the hard liners who are already in training camps in Pakistan and elsewhere.  But what Dr. Kadri and his followers hope is that it will stir debate and that the so-called swing voters, the young Muslims who could be drawn either way, will have pause for thought and be influenced in a positive way by this document.

WERMAN: The World’s religion editor, Jane Little, always good to speak with you Jane.  Thank you.

LITTLE: You too Marco.  Thank you.

WERMAN: You can learn about the psychology of suicide bombers on The World’s science podcast.  This week we have an interview with science journalist Shankar Vendamtam author of the book, The Hidden Brain.  He talks about the workings of the unconscious and how group psychology can create suicide terrorists.  Listen to the interview and chat with Vendamtam online at the world dot org slash science.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Download MP3
The former president of Pakistan was America’s ally in fighting Muslim extremism. Many in Washington said he did too little. Many Pakistanis said he bowed to western pressure. Now, as Pakistani troops battle militants along the Afghan border, he talks with Marco Werman about the delicate balance of leading Pakistan. (Photo: Catherine Murphy)

Web extra: Marco asked Musharraf about his stay in the US:
Download MP3

• Musharraf profile
• Musharraf’s facebook page

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, is in the middle of a major military offensive against the Taliban. The Pakistani army is trying to take control of the militant stronghold of South Waziristan along the Afghan border. Army officials say 16 soldiers have died so far while more than 100 militants have been killed. Pakistan’s former president, General Pervez Musharraf is visiting the US right now and came to our studio. I asked him if the offensive in South Waziristan is the solution to Pakistan’s problems with the Taliban.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: It’s not the solution but it’s one part of the solution. I’ve always said that solution lies in a triple directional strategy – military, political, and socio-economic. So the military part is being executed well after having dealt with Swat and [INDISCERNIBLE] they’ve now gone to South Waziristan. So I think it’s good – the using of concentrated force in a peace [INDISCERNIBLE] objective.

WERMAN: And do you think the operation Swat was effective?

MUSHARRAF: Yes I think it was successful.

WERMAN: But recently there were 40 killed in a suicide attack and so it raises the issue, it’s one thing to take a region; it’s another thing to hold it.

MUSHARRAF: Well even if you hold it that doesn’t mean that you can guarantee that no suicide attack will take place. I know that the law enforcement agency, the army’s opening a [INDISCERNIBLE] there. It will be there. So it will be held. But that doesn’t mean that no bullet will be fired by any terrorist. Because if a person is there to carry out a suicide attack it’s really very difficult to avoid it.

WERMAN: There’s been a slow steady drumbeat of Afghan officials along with NATO accusing Pakistan of not doing enough to stem the movement of militants sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban across the border into Afghanistan. Why has this offensive in South Waziristan taken so long and why didn’t you engage in an equally forceful offensive in the same area?

MUSHARRAF: It was I who moved the two divisions in North and South Waziristan back and I think immediately up to [INDISCERNIBLE]. Who has been catching all these al-Qaeda people? Who did that? It was in my time. Hundreds of them have been caught. So how do you say that we hadn’t operated? They are there since long and they have been operating there.

WERMAN: So why, again, why the need for another offensive? Why this upsurge in violence?

MUSHARRAF: Yeah it’s because all these eight years there has been an upsurge of Taliban activity. A Taliban who were finished after 9/11. They had an upsurge in Afghanistan. [PH] Mula Omar and all his [INDISCERNIBLE] are reestablished in Afghanistan in the same region from where they dominated or they controlled 90 percent of Afghanistan. So after 2004 – 05 there was an upsurge. We saw the downward trend in al-Qaeda because of Pakistan’s actions and an upward trend, swing, in the Taliban support. And therefore now the situation is al-Qaeda is down. Who did this? Obviously Pakistan forces operating in Pakistan, in [INDISCERNIBLE] and mountains. But the Taliban upsurge has come about in Afghanistan and that has a great impact in Pakistan because there are now Pakistani Taliban in South and North Waziristan much stronger links with across the border and they are acting. So this is now a different ballgame all together.

WERMAN: Now as a former military leader – I mean you were a military leader who came to power in a coup. You stepped down as head of the army in 2007. You recognized at the time the merit of a civilian government in Pakistan. Now in Afghanistan yesterday a runoff election was announced to take place on November 7^th. What is at stake for Pakistan with this vote in Afghanistan?

MUSHARRAF: Well I don’t think it directly affects Pakistan.

WERMAN: You don’t?

MUSHARRAF: It does affect Afghanistan.

WERMAN: But what affects Afghanistan, affects Pakistan ultimately.

MUSHARRAF: Well yes indirectly, indirectly. I think one would require if we are to win in Afghanistan we have to have a credible, legitimate government in Afghanistan. And that is not the case. But Pakistan’s interest is in a legitimate, acceptable government to all the ethnic minorities of Afghanistan for the sake of Afghanistan because if we can have better peace in Afghanistan it will be of advantage to Pakistan certainly.

WERMAN: You’ve been quite critical of President Hamid Karzai. What happens, in your opinion, to the region if he is president again? If he wins this runoff election.

MUSHARRAF: Well I think I’ve been critical, yes, because of certain observations that I had in his criticizing Pakistan, in his supporting elements who are instrumental in carrying out terrorism in Baltistan. So there are certain things that I disagree with him. These were my observations and my accusations against him. So I used to criticize him on that. The other thing is that he used to throw the entire blame on Pakistan – that whatever is happening in Afghanistan is because of Pakistan. And I think the world must understand that this is absolutely the opposite. Whatever is happening in Pakistan is because of Afghanistan. The same [INDISCERNIBLE], the same Taliban, resurgence of that force in Afghanistan.

WERMAN: But in fact it’s very hard to say where these militants are coming from. They could be coming form Pakistan as well as Afghansitan. So both countries are in fact … .

MUSHARRAF: No they are coming … . No actually there’s no doubt at all. Absolutely. I have no doubt at all. Taliban under [INDISCERNIBLE] control 90% of Afghanistan. There is support to them in Pakistan. There are safe havens in Pakistan. And there are Taliban elements of Pakistan also. But if anyone thinks that they are all coming from Pakistan this is what the misperception that exists in Untied States and this misperception is fanned by people like President Karzai unfortunately. And this is misleading the world.

WERMAN: Pervez Musharraf, former president of Pakistan. Thank you very much for your time.

MUSHARRAF: Thank you.

WERMAN: Hear more about Pervez Musharraf’s current US visit and about his plans for a return to Pakistan at our website. You’ll also find a link to the former Pakistani leader’s newly launched Facebook page. It’s all at The World dot org.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• The niqab in Islam

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: In Egypt, there’s a debate underway over whether Muslim women should cover their faces. Now one of the country’s highest religious authorities has weighed in. Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi is head of Cairo’s Al Azhar University. He recently called on a young girl to remove her niqab, which covers the face. And he suggested that he would ban female university students from wearing it. But as Aya Batrawy reports from Cairo, many women in Egypt disagree with him.

[SOUND OF A YOUNG GIRL STUDYING THE KORAN]

AYA BATRAWY: Young women studying the Koran at Al Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s premier seat of learning. Here, they study in all-female classrooms. Most are dressed modestly and wear the hijab, or headscarf. But there are also hundreds studying here who choose to wear the niqab – a full length covering from head to toe, often black, with only a small opening for the eyes. Zizi even has her eyes obscured by a black cloth and wears black gloves. She started wearing the niqab just nine months ago and says she doesn’t care if Sheikh Tantawi himself asked her to remove it, she wouldn’t.

[SOUND OF ZIZI'S VOICE]

BATRAWY: [IN ARABIC] I respect him greatly, she says, but there is something greater and that is God.

Such defiance is rare, but debate over the niqab has touched a raw nerve in Egypt, where some see its increasing popularity as part of an Islamist threat to the state. Others regard wearing it as a religious duty. So when Sheikh Tantawi recently told a middle school student to remove her face veil, he sparked an outcry. According to local news reports, the sheikh told the girl that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and is only a custom. And he was reported to have said that he would issue a fatwa, or religious edict, against wearing it in his university. In a later effort to clarify his remarks, the sheikh appeared on a popular news program hosted by a woman who does not cover her hair.

[SOUND OF THE TALK SHOW HOST AND TANTAWI SPEAKING]

BATRAWY: He said that 99 percent of scholars agree that the niqab is not mandatory, so he is not going to follow the one percent that disagrees. And he explained why he said he urged a limited ban on the niqab.

[SOUND OF THE TALK SHOW HOST AND TANTAWI SPEAKING]

MOHAMMED TANTAWI: [In Arabic] The higher council of Al Azhar banned the niqab in a class of all females led by a female teacher because who is she hiding her face from? Does she want to say that she is right and everyone else is wrong? If that girl wants when the class is over to put on the niqab, she is free to do so.

BATRAWY: But the ban at Al Azhar has yet to take effect and the controversy continues. Al Azhar and its head have been accused of carrying out political orders. The government has also banned the niqab from the dormitories of state universities – shutting out dozens of students who refused to un-veil. Dr. Akram Shaar, an independent member of parliament who belongs to the politically banned Muslim brotherhood, says such moves are aimed at keeping Islamists out of universities – and are an attack on civil liberties.

DR. AKRAM SHAAR: [IN ARABIC] Do we ban scantily dressed women from university dorms? No. We do not agree with banning scantily dressed women nor do we agree with banning women wearing the niqab because this is a personal decision based on free will.

BATRAWY: This is merely the latest twist in a long-running back and forth over the face veil in Egypt. Until the beginning of the 20th century, upper-class women wore a sheer, silky veil over the face as a sign of their status and wealth. Later the veil was seen as a mark of oppression – removing it was an act of women’s liberation. Now many women are claiming it as a religious and civil right. Asmaa is studying at Al Azhar. All her niqab reveals are her large brown eyes.

[SOUND OF ASMAA, SPEAKING IN ARABIC]

BATRAWY: It’s not right to force a girl to do something she doesn’t want to do, she says, we will not allow anyone to step on our rights and the freedom to choose. Dozens of others currently barred from the dorms of Cairo University and elsewhere agree – even at the cost of an education. For The World, this is Aya Batrawy, Cairo.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Israelis got a glimpse of Gilad Shalit today.  He’s the Israeli soldier who was captured near the Gaza border in 2006.  Today, Hamas delivered a video of Shalit in exchange for the release of 19 Palestinian prisoners — all women.  Hamas called the exchange a “victory for the resistance.”  In the video, Shalit urges Israel to make a deal for his release.  Linda Gradstein has more from Jerusalem.

LINDA GRADSTEIN: In the more than three years since Palestinian militants captured him in a cross-border raid, Gilad Shalit has become a household name in Israel. Cars sport blue and white bumper stickers saying “Gilad is still alive” and all schools have devoted lessons to learning about the captured solider. A children’s book he wrote and illustrated when he was 11 has become a best seller.   Shalit’s family has set up a protest tent next to the prime minister’s home. Stuart Shoffman is a senior fellow at the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

STUART SHOFFMAN: Gilad Shalit has come to symbolize every Israeli parent’s nightmare.  You send your kid to the army, and you expect the state to take care of him and to do their utmost to make sure that harm does not come to him, even as you know that going to the army is not like going to summer camp.

GRADSTEIN: Shalit was 19 when he was captured. Israeli officials say they believe he was slightly wounded at the time.   He’s now 23.  The video, which is about two minutes and 40 seconds long, shows Shalit, speaking to the camera and holding up a copy of a Gaza newspaper dated September 14th.  In the video, Shalit, wearing dark green combat fatigues, looked thin but seemed relaxed.  He seemed to smile ironically as he said his captors were treating him, quote, “excellently.”  He also said he dreamed of the day when he will be able to come home.  Shalit’s cousin, Jonathan Shalit, said the family was thrilled to get the video.

JONATHAN SHALIT:  Clearly everyone’s delighted.  And the real hope now is to have him released because there is no reason to keep him kidnapped — he’s important enough to change the destination of the conflict in the Middle East, he’s a young innocent soldier doing his job. So, we’re delighted he’s alive and I’m hoping he’ll be released sooner rather than later.

GRADSTEIN: Menachem Fisch, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, says Shalit has come to symbolize the value Israel places on every soldier.

MENACHEM FISCH: Solidarity, not leaving your wounded men on the field.  “Pidyon Shvuyim”  – the principle of redeeming one’s own captives, and so on.

GRADSTEIN: In exchange for the video, Israel released 19 Palestinian female prisoners. Most of them were convicted of attempted   attacks on Israelis, and all were due to be released within the next two years.  Another 50 Palestinian women, along with some 7,000 men, remain in Israeli jails.  Still, Hamas characterized today’s deal as a victory. Hamas is demanding the release of some 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit’s freedom. Israeli President Shimon Peres cautioned that while today’s video-prisoner exchange is a good sign, Shalit’s freedom is not imminent.

PRESIDENT SHIMON PERES: It is an important step, but only a single step.  The road for his liberation is still a long one, and a complicated one.

GRADSTEIN: Hamas is insisting on the release of dozens of prisoners who were convicted of attacks. The negotiations have sparked a debate within Israel over whether the price is too high.  Stuart Shoffman says that most Israelis believe the trade is worth it.

SHOFFMAN: The assumption that a soldier makes that all measures will be taken if he is taken prisoner.  That assumption is critical, because without it, the soldier will be unwilling to take risks, unwilling to volunteer, so it’s terribly, terribly complicated.

GRADSTEIN: Egyptian and German mediators say they will meet soon with representatives of both Israel and Hamas to continue the negotiations. For the World, I’m Linda Gradstein in Jerusalem

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Profile: Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan

Somalia has experienced almost constant conflict since the collapse of its central government in 1991, and Mogadishu is ground zero for the failed state in East Africa. Writer Robert Draper visited the country for National Geographic Magazine. Katy Clark talked with Draper about his experience in Somalia.

Pictures from Mogadishu (courtesy of National Geographic):

Near the ruins of Somalia's old parliament, an unemployed traffic officer directs traffic for tips from drivers grateful for a sign of normalcy. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

Katy Clark asked Robert Draper about the above picture:
Download MP3

Ruins overlook streets where fighting tore the Somalia capital, Mogadishu, apart in the early 1990s, leaving the city, and the nation, in chaos. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

Concealed in the courtyard of his home, a street vendor who has joined the Islamist militia called al Shabaab shows off his gun. The group has fought the newly formed transitional government with bullets, grenade attacks, and roadside bombs, and now controls most of southern Somalia. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

A speeding pickup filled with Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces narrowly misses women cleaning a capital street. With turmoil all around them, residents barely remember what life under a stable government is like. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

On the shore children still play, and fishermen drop anchor nearby, but the hulks of derelict hotels stand vacant. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

Many of the roughly 750,000 people who remain in Mogadishu are the poorest of the poor, like the mother and baby sheltering under a bullet-ridden truck at a feeding center. Jobless, often homeless, faced with soaring food prices, they survive on humanitarian relief. ©2009 Pascal Maitre / National Geographic

View more pictures for this story at nationalgeographic.com

Anchor Katy Clark speaks with Robert Draper, author of an article on Somalia that appears in the September issue of the National Geographic Magazine. Draper travelled to Somalia to document the violence and chaos that have plagued the country for nearly two decades.

Pictures from Mogadishu for this story at nationalgeographic.com

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK:  I’m Katy Clark and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  It’s hard to imagine that things could get worse in Somalia.  The country has been engulfed by violence for almost two decades.  It’s had no working government since 1991.  Now, according to the United Nations, Somalia is looking at its biggest humanitarian crisis.  The U.N. estimates that more than half the country’s population needs food aid or other assistance.  U.N. officials also say that the number of Somalian refugees has risen by more than 40 percent since January.  Meanwhile, a weak transitional government is battling militant groups like Al-Shabaab for control of the country.  Robert Draper traveled throughout Somalia for an article that appears in the September issue of National Geographic.  In the capitol Mogadishu, Draper met an 18-year old fisherman named Mohammad.

ROBERT DRAPER: When I came to Mogadishu, Katy, I was interested in finding some kids who were like Mohammad, who considering that there had been 18 years essentially without a government, had no idea of what a government is supposed to do, had no idea what law and order are supposed to be and feel like.  And I met Mohammad while wandering through this abandoned lighthouse in the Hammer Wayne district of old Mogadishu.  And as you mentioned, he was an 18 year old fisherman, basically the only member of his family who is working because his father was incapacitated by a mortar blast and he feeds his family.  When he doesn’t catch fish they don’t eat.  And though fishing itself is not a dangerous pass time, taking the fish to market is.  The Bakaara market where he often sells fish was repeatedly shelled when we were there and Mohammad talked to us about wandering through the area and seeing bodies strewn all over the street and having nightmares as a result.  He stopped going to school because his closest friend was killed and a lot of his other classmates joined Al-Shabaab and Al-Shabaab tried to recruit Mohammad.  They offered him a lot of money, at least by Somali standards, something like $100 per month.  And that would be a huge bounty for his family and his family earnestly debated the pros and cons of whether or not he should join.  And ultimately their decision to say to Mohammad, “Don’t join, stay as a fisherman,” was not based on morality, was not based on an antipathy towards Al-Shabaab and what they were doing, but instead on the concern that Mohammad might be imprisoned by the government or killed as a result of being a militant Muslim.  And then they would have no one to feed their family at all.

KATY CLARK:  Where does Al-Shabaab get that $100 to offer to a young man like Mohammad?

ROBERT DRAPER: Through all sorts of illegal trading, through drugs, through the selling of Contract [ph], through — presumably through other extremist Muslim organizations, perhaps through al Qaeda, we’re not sure.  But what we also heard is that they give you a hundred up front and then promise you that they will give you a hundred every month.  But then after a while say to you if you are a young soldier for Al Shabaab that if you’re fighting for a holy cause, you should not want money, you should not expect the money.  And so after a while the money stops being given.

KATY CLARK:  The United Nations reporting this week that one in five children in Somalia is acutely malnourished.   And you talk about Mohammad, no schooling.  I wonder what that means for the future of the country if you have this whole generation that is struggling with hunger and lack of education and no idea what a civil society is like.

ROBERT DRAPER: Well that’s right.  I mean you have instead children who like Mohammad, don’t know what a law is, literally don’t know what it is, have no sense of what a government is supposed to do since the government in Somalia does not provide basic services of water or electricity.  That’s always provided by clans.  But instead a generation that knows what an amplified explosive device sounds like versus a mortar blast.  Then you have kind of a culture that’s rigged for self destruction, on top of the basic health calamity that you described.  I searched for anything that would look like a solution while I was there.  What I heard over and over was that a missed opportunity came in 2006 when the Islamic courts, an Islamic group took over from Ethiopia.  They were largely moderate Islamists but the Bush administration believed that because one of its leaders had made sympathetic comments about al Qaeda that they were essentially an offshoot of al Qaeda and therefore refused to recognize them, refused to negotiate with them.  Then the Islamic courts ultimately fell prey to their own militia group, which was Al-Shabaab.  Had we maybe been more tolerant, more willing to engage with the moderate aspects of the Islamic courts, then maybe things would not be so bad as they are now.

KATY CLARK:  We hear from time to time concerns that al Qaeda will be moving into the lawless situation there, moving into the area that’s the lawless situation of Somalia.  Did you come across any evidence of that?

ROBERT DRAPER: I did not, no.  And that’s an ongoing concern but, you know, Katy, I think the tragedy to all of this is during the time of the Cold War, the argument has been made that many African nations were kind of used as pawns on this chess board that the USSR and the Western powers such as the U.S. were playing on.  And certainly Somalia was one of them.  Then after the end of the Cold War, African nations were largely ignored by the U.S. and other countries.  There were some humanitarian efforts but the level of engagement definitely decreased.  Nowadays, in the wake of September 11th, the tendency from our government has been to view African nations strictly through the prism of whether or not they are with us or against us, as the phrase goes, in the War on Terror.  And that has certainly been the prism through which Somalia has largely been seen.  And so while it’s a salient question to ask, and would be certainly a nightmare scenario if a caliphate were to emerge in the horn of Africa, it is, I think, a grossly incomplete way of viewing the tragedy that is Somalia.  And there are obviously ways that we can help this nation beyond simply seeing whether or not they are sympathetic to terrorist organizations.

KATY CLARK:  Robert Draper’s article on Somalia and Somali land is in the September issue of National Geographic now on news stands.  Thank you.

ROBERT DRAPER: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.