The ZamZam Cooler

The Gift

2012-01-15T17:16:00.001-08:00

Amidst the chill and frost --

After the punishments of Time and dealing with it's cost,

Remiss from the world,

Helplessness I see and difficulty unfurled,

Resolve I must,

To seek His Trust,

And in such Trust I find,

What is indecipherable by the mind,

The gift He bestowed to me,

My beautiful Divine decree,

The novelty of gratitude arrives,

Hopefulness revives,

Overjoyed am I to seek thereof,

For you are my dear, you are my love.

Reflections on Hajj: Confrontation and Sacrifice

2011-12-25T17:11:00.000-08:00

O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.

Barefooted, I moved to reclaim a view of the crowd. Men and women, young and old, black and white, rich and poor, arab and non-arab – each clamoring against one another, stretching and fighting for position at the front line. Hundreds of people pushed forward together with fists full of stones, eager for the confrontation. But Ibrahim’s army was in complete disarray. People angrily pushed their way forward to the wall, the weak were cast aside and in-fighting in the ranks was all too apparent. Weary faces moved without purpose. Shaytan, it seemed, was in the advantage.

I was unsure of what to make of this moment. My eyes were searching through the crowd for a realization of what this was all to mean. More than anything I can confess to wanting to be satisfied in some way by my effort – to feel the stoning of my ego and own self-deceit. But the disorder of the moment, the frantic nature of the ritual and the weaknesses of my soul made it a challenge to come to grips and truly realize the inner dimension of what was happening around me. My mind was tugging at my heart, desperately trying to wake it from slumber. I wanted to rise above the Hajj of the jurist, a Hajj of rituals and prohibitions and be consciously immersed in an intimate spiritual journey to enliven my soul and respond to the call of Allah ...

***

We were waiting. I ran my fingers across my lips, disturbing harden shreds of skin and dust. The rays of the sun were punishing. We had just passed the ritual stoning of al-Kubra and were seeking confirmation that our sacrifice had taken place. But time decided to stop – neither was there word about if the sacrifice had taken place, nor did we have any idea of how long it would take. We were without water and without a sense of what was to come.

I thought to myself: the time of sacrifice had itself become a sacrifice. What a strange but honoured occurrence. It was as if the whole process was turned inside out – the exoteric (al-thaher) was substituted for the esoteric (al-batin). Rather than being thrust into a symbolic ritual, we were forced to seek its meaning. I began to search within myself and to reflect on my own Isma’il. The precious people, places and ideas that make life gratifying and enjoyable raced through my mind. I was remembering the beauty of life and the limitlessness of opportunity. And now – the moment demanded I offer it all.

In the heat and exhaustion of the Mina amidst the flow of restive pilgrims, I was beginning to slowly understand the purpose of Ibrahim’s struggle. His appetite for sacrifice was a meditation on the tension between the temporal and the eternal. What is beloved by and to man is to be exchanged for the Beloved. Never will you attain righteousness until you expend from that which you love. And whatever you expend - indeed, Allah possesses knowledge of it. It is not a blind exchange – it’s a trial not for one’s commitment to something unknown, unheard or unproven but one’s commitment to one’s own self. An exchange aimed at perfecting the soul through the elimination of all dependencies on the temporal. Of that which can be transformed, removed or perished. That which is from the outward. And now it has become clear to me not as an idea to assimilate as knowledge as I had done before Hajj but as a moral principle to uphold and practice: Man’s perfection comes not from outward but from within. Isma’il is all that is beloved to man that is perishable – this was a sacrifice to achieve an eternal love bound not by the rays of the Sun, the herbage of the earth or the confection human ingenuity. I was coming to the understanding that this eternal love was bound by nothing but my own self. To perfect the soul was to capture this eternal love that lay dormant within me, quietly escaping with each transgression of the mind and hand. Hajj was not a journey to meet or understand my Creator in a way unattainable before, for he reminds us And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you may turn, there is the Face of Allah. Coming to Mecca, donning the garb and professing the intention of the muhrim -- all of this was a journey within me to bridge the temporal world of my attachments with the Ultimate Reality.

***

Never in my life had I been bald like that before. I felt like a child again – fresh and free. I couldn’t wait to shower! It was a moment I want to relive again and again. I couldn’t resist grazing my hands over the freshly exposed skin of my head. It was as if I had grown a new body part and was examining it for the first time. It was such a wonderful experience – an unusual but apt symbol of relief and triumph after an exhausting day. The most arduous stations of the Hajj had been completed: al-Arafat, Muzdalifah, Jamaraat al-Kubra, and Halaq.

From Mina we carefully walked amidst the debris of empty plastic water bottles and discarded razor blades, passing through the commercial areas of a bustling Mecca. The Sanctuary of Allah forever but the city of trade always. Finally we reached the main road. The chorus of car horns greeted us as the traffic stammered on. As I stepped onto the bus I could feel my heart smile – I knew then that the mysteries of what had just happened were not apparent to me, but my mind had captured each moment and I would have a lifetime to decipher them to uncover their meanings. But the fatigue was wrestling with me and I was forced to submit, postponing the work for another time. As I prepared for sleep, I felt overcome by calm and serenity – it was like being in a warm, tight embrace. To rest, it felt, was to dig deeper into the embrace. Hajj was nearing it's end -- and it's beginning.

Master of Great Loss and Great Gain

2011-12-06T22:26:00.001-08:00

O Allah – save us from calamity,

Remove from our hearts enmity.

Enliven our souls with the Divine's love,

A consciousness of that which is beneath and that which is above.

Console our damaged souls,

Undeserving and without any controls.

O Allah – soften our hearts with the example of Hussain,

Bring forward a revival in our conduct to sustain,

O Allah – let this tragic day bring from within a great change,

For it is You who offer the promise of an intimate exchange!

Eyes of the heart drunken in sorrow and weak,

The scribe's wretched memory reminds of affliction and the meek,

But the Eternal History defends the sacrifices for the Call to Prayer,

A mighty repudiation of the inhabitants of the lowest layer,

O Allah – enjoin union upon our minds and hearts,

Limitless is the Tranquillity it imparts,

Permit us to remember the Master of Great Loss and Great Gain,

We sing Your praise on his return to the Blessed Domain.

'Tis the Season to be Sorrowful

2011-02-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

I wrote this in December of 2008 a few days for before the start of Muharram 1430. This is the first time I'm publishing it.

It’s that time of year again. That time when we suspend our rational senses and engage in the most visceral sort of pageantry – reducing the tradition of Husayn to rituals, performance and polemics. Historical perversions abound and sectarian rhetoric masquerades as insightful and emotive. But I’m irked by more than just the same class of agitators this time – I’m irked by the young people, especially the students, who so enthusiastically give agency to this lowly and reductive exercise that fails to inspire and discourages us from putting into practice Husayn’s message. Despite spending our days scrutinizing ideas and methods, we’re seduced by the thoughtless rendering of Husayn in emotional innuendo; immersing ourselves in an artificial culture of mourning, absent-minded about the higher purpose and transcendental nature of Husayn’s struggle.

What will go on during these next few days is nothing less than an egregious mockery of Husayn’s calling. We’ll hear different renditions of the “philosophy of mourning”, powerful addresses about the shortcomings of others, long and robust celebrations of the imperfectability of our ways and ideas, and passionate appeals to defend the tradition of theatrically embellishing Husayn’s suffering. It is as if the narrative of ‘Ashura is interwoven into a fiercely insecure dogma. Karbala and ‘Ashura become references not for tragedy – but for a mythical world, to which we retreat to escape responsibility and the fulfillment of the divine ethic of sacrifice by worshiping it. Husayn becomes an archetype not for valour or courage, but a symbol of our defeat and dispossession – and so we grieve for nothing else but our own wretched complacency.

It is the compulsion to superstition which obscures the triumphant nature of Husayn’s resistance and lulls us into the belief that sorrow is the most intimate channel to understanding what ‘Ashura represents. Were we to undertake a sober reviewing of Husayn’s life and struggle, we’d be forced to come to grips with a principal which we are loath to admit: the demand that authority – in whatever form, justly acquired or not – do good for the most. That is, we have a responsibility to hold authority and power to account for their misdeeds. But admitting this offers the frightening possibility of applying Husayn’s principal on our own and in doing so, might face more far-reaching consequences than simply changing the flavour of our Muharram traditions. It might daringly call into question the steering of our faith in the direction of all sorts of ideological projects, particularly political ones that bring with them promiscuous views of theology ascribing clergymen a Catholic-like, sacrosanct role as arbiters between man and God, reducing the role of the believer to an intellectually indentured servant. We might wake up to how neglectful we are of the most destitute – wondering where our contributions go, who spends them and how effective the process is. We might begin to wonder why most of our “religious knowledge” consists of recycled theological debates – often of a sectarian colour – which not only fail to address the key issues we face today, but is also stunningly ignorant of the global challenges faced by the whole of mankind. To animate Husayn’s message in letter and spirit is to kindle an uncomfortable conversation with ourselves and with those we so blindly trust.

A prince

2009-01-22T23:35:00.000-08:00

"A prince must also show himself a lover of merit, give preferment to the able, and honour those who excel in every art. Moreover he must encourage his citizens to follow their callings quietly, whether in commerce, or agriculture, or any other trade that men follow, so that this one shall not refrain from improving his possessions through fear that they may be taken from him, and that one from starting a trade for fear of taxes; but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and to whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state. Besides this, he ought, at convenient seasons of the year, to keep the people occupied with festivals and shows; and as every city is divided either into guilds or into classes, he ought to pay attention to all these groups, mingle with them from time to time, and give them an example of his humanity and munificence, always upholding, however, the majesty of his dignity, which must never be allowed to fail in anything whatever." -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Cheetahs vs. Hippos

2008-10-12T03:40:00.000-07:00

Pak Sar Zameen ...

2008-09-06T23:07:00.001-07:00

If you thought Zia Ul-Haq was a blight on Pakistan's history, I introduce you to President Asif Ali Zardari. Zardari is a world-class miscreant who does business with an old-school feudal lord flair. His mind processes this electoral victory as a restoration of his previously denied God-given right to treat the whole of Pakistan as his personal fiefdom (a right that the Sheriffs, Bhuttos and dozens of other aristocratic families in Pakistan could sympathize with). This is a man who has stolen tens millions of dollars from Pakistan's national treasury -- including the theft of a land-grant issued to the late (and super awesome) Eqbal Ahmad for the construction of an alternative university named Khaldunia in order to build another polo pitch -- and has engaged in the sort of thuggery which would make Russian mobsters proud. Beyond his material and documented corruption, the damage he has done to the integrity of the nation as a political figure is forever incalculable. To put this victory into perspective, Asif Ali Zardari being elected to the office of the President in Pakistan is like seeing an incompetent and resurrected Pablo Escobar winning office in Columbia.

But I think the most important part of Zardari's rise to power is how he has done it. His Machiavellian-like rendition of empty promises, flagrant betrayals and the exploitation of his wife's death (some might argue that 'exploitation' is charitable) will earn him the Golden Eagle Seal of approval from Uncle Sam. The US loves kleptomaniacs like Zardari -- he has a price tag, he doesn't need to go through the motions of being discredited and proven corruptible, the deep sense of mistrust towards him destroys the prospect of non-partisan cooperation with the PPP and the unwillingness on the part of Pakistanis to challenge authority so soon after experiencing another round of extreme instability will inevitable reduce whatever pressure there would be on him to accede to nationalist positions -- the sum of these realities make a President Zardari the perfect caretaker of America's promiscuous foreign policy goals.

For Zardari too, this relationship is a match made in heaven. He has no reason to trust any political figure in Pakistan for the simple reason that no one trusts him. Consider his selection for the post of PM, Yousef Raza Gilani -- a political light-weight who perfectly fills the role of servile lapdog -- over the more esteemed and veteran PPP executive, Ameen Faheem, who served as the PPP's steward during BB's "self-imposed" exile. Zardari has even moved into the PM residence! His machinations are designed to send messages to more than his political opponents -- this is a man who is extremely paranoid of everyone and will go to any length to eviscerate the prospect of losing power, inlcuding at the hands of party elites who might disagree with his criminal dealings and/or desire a proportional share of influence during times of such political prosperity for the PPP. I think its pretty clear then, when America, and by consequence, the World, offers to take a blind-eye towards corruption which promises to never end, it will be prudence that ties together Uncle Sam and President Zardari in a tight embrace.

For all those fools who celebrated the purported victory of "democracy" in Pakistan, I offer this: How true to the democratic spirit is a collegiate election which entrusts the complete and total wealth, administration, representation, and legislative authority to a single-minded criminal who has reneged on every single major promise he has issued during his bid for power? Is democracy simply the construction of a revolving door for leaders to enter and exit the halls of power at appointed times or is it not supposed to allow a reconstruction of the nature of authority and a check on power? Is not democratic rule synonymous with having a political leadership devoted to transparency and in service to the will of its constituents? The obsession with having with the edifice of a democracy is ludicrous if it drives us to "celebrate" the staging of a proper election, especially an election of an official as formidable as Mr. 10%.

Top 10 Intellectuals in the World .... are all Muslim?

2008-08-07T22:44:00.000-07:00

Prospect and Foreign Affairs Magazine held their second Top 100 Intellectuals poll in July 2008.

Unusually, the top 10 vote getters were all Muslims. But the peculiarity is now easily explainable: it turns out, most of the top 10 included a link to the poll on their personal or professional websites, effectively channeling their site traffic into votes. If only we could figure out away to be that clever in our politics ;)

Here is a list of the top 10:

1 Fethullah Gülen

2 Muhammad Yunus

3 Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

4 Orhan Pamuk

5 Aitzaz Ahsan

6 Amr Khaled

7 Abdolkarim Soroush

8 Tariq Ramadan

9 Mahmood Mamdani

10 Shirin Ebadi

Persona Non Grata -- Comments

2008-08-05T18:37:00.001-07:00

This is my response to a discussion about PNG posted on facebook.

I think we all must admit – the influence of a scholastic community as revered as the maraja’a of Shi’i Islam extends well past the mundane issues of ritual and jurisprudence, whether they define such a restrictive boundary for themselves or not. People will invariably seek to extrapolate from their edicts and suggestions explanations and guidance on a plethora of issues outside of the legal hair-splitting agenda. So, at the very least, our maraja’a ought to be conscious of, if not liable for, the requests from its follwership to muse the package of political, social and economic challenges they face (in there many diverse manifestations). And hopefully, offer commentary on its religious implications in an insightful and an un-doctrinaire manner. It is in this respect, I contend that our marja’a have generally been neglectful. One major qualification I mention (of many omitted): I understand the limits and constraints as well as the unfair expectations cast upon any religious leadership (Br. Ali Assar rightfully pointed this out). And it is for such a reason why I prefer these provinces of human life to be free from the unilateral dictates of religious authorities. But the powerful strictures imposed by the consensus of the hawzeh on anyone who dissents from its opinions or silence not only evades the problems at hand, but disproportionately places the burden back onto the hawzeh alone to provide solutions for complex and inherently inter-disciplinary problems – an endeavor which is certain to be over-taxing and unfair to place on the hawzeh to deal with alone. Debates on how diverse issues -- in finance, culture, philosophy, politics and representation, social life, science, technology, and others -- intersect with faith require more than the theologically myopic opinions currently on display. Hence, my suggestion to encourage free-thought in order to develop a shared authority on issues of importance to Shi'is.

I applaud Fadhlallah for being exceptional. He, unlike his peers, seems to lay great emphasis on daily challenges trust upon his followership and is keenly aware of both the unique environment from where they emerge and the nature of the problem, not its superficial consequences. He addresses them as he can while encouraging people to permit reason and an attention to circumstance to govern their lives (at least, this is how I receive his messages).

On final note: this discussion or anything like it cannot be interpreted to be tantamount to a disloyalty to faith. Suggestions like those merely corroborate what I was saying in the first place: an intolerance of reason. There is a tendency to wield the common “specialist argument”: our lack of expertise on a subject should prevent our discussion and exploration of such a topic. Please note, my thoughts are not intended to somehow eclipse or form an authoritative account of what ought to be. It is merely what I hope to be a positive and healthy contribution to a discussion so absent in our community.

Persona Non Grata

2008-07-31T23:01:00.000-07:00

Unable to embed, but watch this:

Sayed Fadhlallah is perhaps the most distinguished persona non grata in the Shi'i world. Despite his weighty pedigree as an accomplished scholar and Arab intellectual, his constituency is dwarfed by tens of millions in comparison to those of his contemporaries in Iran and Iraq, and as a consequence, the sum of the religious taxes he collects amounts to an infinitesimal portion of funds provided by the Shi'i faithful. Drowning out his voice and eviscerating his influence, therefore, has become a rather easy undertaking.

Its a very common occurrence to hear him denounced as being heretical in his views or unfit to act as a jurist. In fact, I was first exposed to the man based on remarks of this same spirit in the form of advice from a senior member of my community, advising me not follow his ideas or edicts, lest I be lead "astray" by them (The irony is that he was right ;). But even the briefest surface inspection of what this man espouses, as perhaps the video link above demonstrates, is quick to reveal the reason why he's a popular and important target for polemical assassination: his authority as a scholar-guide comes not from blind, unconditional intellectual surrender to all that he says, but from his encouragement to grow and nourish the follower's mind and soul. As I see it, with Fadhlallah there is no ultimatum -- you are free to, or rather you are encouraged to exercise your intellect not only to understand but to realize your faith amidst your very personal and unique circumstances without the ominous consequence of being a religious "invalid". The parameters of jurisprudence are reconcilable -- indeed sometimes subordinate -- with your autonomy as a free-thinking, curious human being.

This unusual respect for reason and rigor is, I believe, anathema to the leading clergymen of the Shi'i world. Fadhlallah effectively creates the subtle yet very real fear of a new religious paradigm which, although not independent of the clergy and perhaps unintentionally, seeks to develop an interdependent relationship between an educated and learned religious mass and an accommodating (and forcibly re-trained) clergy. The proposal of an empowered peoples under the shade of Shi'i Islam is undeniably threatening to the current regime of religious authority within the faith, who have complete impunity and practice absolutism in nearly ever respect. The fearful demands of the learned Shi'i would be much more than silent requests to help remove the social and economic iniquities he is forced to contend with, but in his state of awakening, he might daringly call into question the fairness of unfettered clerical control over religious resources and decision-making. So as Fadhlallah scraps away at the discrepancy between men and women in the traditional order and revises the criteria for political participation in a polity which is ostensibly secular (re: Dawlat al-Insan), these reforms have a greater meaning than just representing the will and needs of his constituents (in his judgment). The greater success he observes, whether he intends for it or not, enhances the prospect of slowly undoing the fabric of a "divinely sanctioned" hierarchy.

Olympic-sized Discrimination

2008-07-30T00:06:00.000-07:00

Not a day goes by without an "investigative report" on Beijing's uninhabitable air pollution or about systemic human rights abuses rampant across main-land China. Undoubtedly, the intent of this crusading discourse is neither to earnestly defend the rights of China's dispossessed proletariat nor to satisfy our newly acquired environmental tastes. Its rather a convenient pretext for unveiling yet another Orientalist finding. The stream of special broadcasts and editorials depicting an undeserving China fits consistently with the Orientalist dogma of an eternally unequal world that is so deeply ingrained and fortified in our institutions and thought.

And I don't think thats an overly dramatic claim. China, as it stands, is the world's most durable and powerful economy. It sustains the needs for the two worlds -- the developed and undeveloped -- by providing cheap goods for sale and for further production in the creation of locally produced final goods. Alongside its popular material transformation, China has gradually allowed an equally remarkable human transformation. In comparison to decades after the Maoist revolution in China, the liberty it affords is citizenry is one of the most progressive in all of the East. Its economic opportunities and strength would have retarded long ago if otherwise. Improvements in access to education, health care and information demonstrate staggering achievements when one considers from where China began and for the vastly spread billion people it must account for. Certainly, I would not deny impediments to China's social progress have developed from its own calculated conduct, and without doubt, one of the chief causes of its shortcomings is the intolerance and authoritarianism of the Communist Party. Political and intellectual challenge is still unacceptable in China. But to present this criticism as a singular reason to sustain the vilification of a nation like China -- with a peoples tenaciously working for reform -- is perhaps the best indication of the West's resilient stand in defending a supremacist understanding of itself.

I think the real issue here is quite simple and elementary. 'We' cannot take it that the Chinese are hosting 'our' games. The games were founded on 'our' traditions and values, off-limits and not understood by the eternally pedestrian-minded folk of the East. When China hosts the Olympics, it is seemingly acceptable to commandeer the Olympic spirit to impose a political project on China with a laundry list of conditions to meet for compliance with our upright moral standards. But suppose in Vancouver 2010, citizens around the world expressed their discontent with Canada's inescapable complicity in torturing civilians and active participation in a frivolous war by occupying Afghanistan, would any of their demands, however passionately produced, develop anywhere near the level of suspicion we have against China's ability to host the games or would not the pundits dismiss the discussion as crude and inappropriate. This is more than just double-standards -- we've honed an intellectual impulse that kicks in at any perceived challenge to our orthodox reign on power and progress. Our purview of the world has become impervious to equitable considerations and deeply intolerant of reforms which do not disproportionately reward us. This, I think, is the type of smog we really ought to concern ourselves with.

Unity and its Discontents

2008-05-26T02:00:00.000-07:00

The sectarian colour that pervades throughout much of the political discourse in the Arab and wider Muslim world is not the consequence of a sinister geopolitical strategy imposed by the West. It is the unintended result of a seismic shift in power induced by the West. The sectarian question has traditionally been subsumed in the extreme imbalances of power existent throughout the Middle East and most of the Muslim World. Any serious attempt at a rapprochement or a meeting of the minds between competing factions would have serious implications for ruling elites. The history of the Muslim world shows that Shi'is and Sunnis when advantaged over the other, in some circumstances, have raised the flag of sectarianism to advance and protect political interests. The Safawids sanctioned and encouraged vitriolic polemicists to openly denigrate Sunnis in order to galvanize support for the Safawid-Ottoman conflicts. They developed passion plays and rituals which pejoratively cast Companions of the Prophet celebrated by Sunnis in order to infuse their demagoguery into the hearts of lay Shi'is. The Abbasids first played on populist pro-Shi'i sentiments in order to facilitate a rise to power. Thereafter, once comfortably seated in power they reneged on ideological promises and began construction on an orthodoxy which would embrace a politically myopic perspective to censure opposition and legitimize their rule. In this effort, they went from riding the backs of Shi'is to power to criminalizing their leadership and suppressing lay followers. The point being, a culture of sectarian politics is deeply rooted in our past and to dismiss the sectarian tension of today as only a by-product of foreign interventionism is an egregious oversimplification.

So it comes as no surprise to me to witness the appearance of sectarianism in a Middle East which both in character and quality, hearkens back to the deficits in wisdom and the political anxieties of old. I would, however, identify one glaring exception. While in the past, sectarianism was largely an instrument for political gain, the imbalances of power were able to prevent severe sectarian conflict of the sort many people today suspect will erupt in the Middle East. Military challenges or political mutinies were always impossible because of the major qualitative gap in capabilities. I ought to add in fairness, in the overwhelmingly majority of the time, it was Sunni patrons who dominated over Shi'i citizens. This historical sense of subjugation and second class treatment has undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the conflict we witness today.

I wouldn't suggest that in today's times we witness a parity in political or military power, but I would strongly argue that in the Middle East of today there is at least a growing proportional balance of power between Shi'is and Sunnis. However, what is more important, is that this Shi'i "revival" disturbs the centuries old power balance which historically provided a barrier to major conflict. Therefore, if political differences between Shi'is and Sunnis are irreconcilable -- as they are now -- the possibility of a large scale, protracted sectarian conflict, whether directly or through proxies, is very real.

While most analysts would corroborate such an apocalyptic scenario, I feel slightly more optimistic. But I don't feel optimistic because I disagree with their analysis. Certainly, I would acknowledge that within parts of the Muslim world there is a consistent record of being intolerant of the intellectual diversity within Islam and that we also face an accentuated social and political lag in the wider Middle East. But, this same depiction produces the source of my optimism -- the situation we face is so dire and the impasse so seemingly impenetrable, any political solution which dares to be successful must address the core issue of the conflict, that is, the relationship between Shi'is and Sunnis and calling the two into a symbiotic relationship. I'm optimistic for the reason that there is an acknowledgment we can no longer delay the long-lost rapprochement between Shi'is and Sunnis and security concerns have made both sides realize that intra-faith solidarity is a key strategic priority.

So for once, calls for Shi'i - Sunni unity cannot be appeased by empty rhetoric and hollow slogans. Whether from the politics of Iran, confessionalism in Lebanon, or the destruction in Iraq -- everyone is able to verify the potential consequences of failure and envision the benefits of a rapprochement. This, however, poses the very unique question which is yet to be permissible for serious discussion: What would be the nature of a successful and sustainable rapprochement?

Muhammad Yunus Khan on Poverty

2007-10-08T22:02:00.000-07:00

On my way to school this morning I was listening to The Current radio program on CBC radio. The guest on the program was Peter Nobel, the great-grand nephew of Alfred Nobel the originator and developer of the Nobel prize series. Nobel was crying about the 1969 addition of a Nobel Prize in Economics by the Swedish National Bank. He said that the inclusion was a "PR coup by Economists". He summed it all up by saying that Economics has not contributed to humanity in the way that Physics or Chemistry have ...

How's that for a contribution to humanity?

The politics of social justice: religion versus human rights?

2007-10-01T20:23:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt of a discussion between Muhammad Saeed Bahmanpour, the Director of the Islamic College for Advanced Studies in London and Heiner Bielefeldt, a German Philosopher based at the University of Bremen. This passage is Bahmanpour's response to a question posed about the Islamic conception of human rights. This piece also has relevance to some of the comments that came as a response to my last post. You can read the entire discussion here.

To take up both points in one answer, I think Islamic countries have been able to adjust to the norms of democracy to some extent. So, it is possible that they could also adjust in the future to the norms of political secularism.
It is, though, very important to emphasise that such a step – if it were to occur – should emerge out of their natural development, rather than being enforced from outside by foreign influences employing boycotts and other coercive methods. To add a comparative element, many African societies seem incapable of establishing the Western model of democracy, because of their internal or tribal divisions. Forcing the pace of change would end up with systems that would benefit no one.
I have seen the Cairo document, and I disagree with many of its articles. But why should it be impossible to include many Islamic standards and ideas in our version of universal human rights – which may, in any case, overlap with those of other theologies?
Take, for example, the controversy over cutting off the hands of thieves. This practice was designed to stop robbery. If it does not in fact stop robbery, then it may be concluded that while it may once have been useful, it no longer works. This is not an article of faith.
A more difficult example might be homosexuality. This practice is very offensive to Muslims, and I cannot imagine rights for homosexuals being included in any Islamic definition of human rights. Homosexuality is punished by death in Muslim societies. But suppose that there are as many as 80,000 homosexuals in Iran. How then is society going to address the phenomenon? Perhaps its attitude will begin to shift; while homosexuality will still be regarded as a social disease, it will cease to be a legal offence.
What Western societies are currently doing in Muslim societies is to control the rate of change, rather than letting that change happen naturally. That is dangerous. If, by contrast, we allow a natural social development to take place, I believe that many of the most seemingly intractable issues between us could come to a reasonable conclusion.
A Christian can easily put Christianity aside and follow secular social rules. But a Muslim cannot say this at the moment. Instead, we have to find a way of finding a peaceful settlement between sharia and social law. And this is not possible as long as countries are prevented from having their own debates in their own time.
The debates going on in Iran at the moment seem to me very fruitful indeed, provided that we don’t politicise them, cheering from the sidelines for one side or the other. Let them take their own time and develop in their own way. Otherwise, people will retreat into their dogmatic certainties, making proper dialogue impossible.

Anaylzing Mahmoud in Columbia -- who won?

2007-09-25T20:50:00.000-07:00

Ahmadinejad's recent lecture at Columbia has sparked controversy about the university providing a public space for the "legitimization" of Iran's policy agenda and the limits of free speech.

I listened to his whole lecture and found it archaic and boring. He didn't talk about policy, the Middle East or even try to correct false perceptions about Iran and its cultural and civilizational heritage. Instead he lead this awkward and painfully tiring discussion on faith, science and inquiry. There was no central premise and he tended to oscillate widely between each theme without any meaningful cohesiveness (so as I felt). In the end, it left a lot to be desired and his presentation of the material was ostensibly unimpressive. So much for allowing Ahmandinejad to "spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

But none of that mattered and is all to be forgotten now. The real show started when he responded to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's belligerent introduction and when he began answering questions from the audience. Aside from a question on the persecution of homosexuals in Iran, he presented strong arguments while being his characteristic unapologetic-self. There was no way he could have responded to the homosexual question any better than he did. Iran's hysterically inhumane treatment of homosexuals (that is forcing them to either have a sex-change operation subsidized by the government or be imprisoned until being summarily executed) is just completely indefensible. Trying to conjure up something in front of such an elite audience would have amounted to even more public humiliation than blatantly lying as he did very wisely. Former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami too, in his address at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard last year had to pull off a very diplomatic, skillful sidestep to a similar question posed by a student.

Notwithstanding the homosexual blunder, Ahmaninejad was assertive and convincing in his presentation. His performance was definitely a great service to his own image and that of his government as feared by critics. By articulating reasoned responses and demonstrating a willingness to engage criticism (a virtue only to be practiced in enemy territory as Iranians will very rightfully contend) he left an indelible imprint on the audience that this maybe a man who, to varying degrees, has been misunderstood. I don't think he changed the hearts and minds of anyone, but he proved to be more intelligent and more successful in his opposition than many may have anticipated.

Pointing out Bollinger's brazen partisanship and insulting welcome was a clear sign of poise and savvy on Ahmadinejad's part to which he received the positive acknowledgment of the audience. From there on, he lead a series of calculated rebuttals and reprisals, trying to craft his arguments to cater to the sensibilities of the the audience (you'll notice that he never mentioned 'Israel' explicitly). The most vivid example was his response to Iran's ongoing nuclear program and condemning the employment of nuclear technology to develop WMDs. He struck a cord with the audience by dissenting against claims of uranium enrichment strictly on moral grounds. And then he masterfully debunked the myth of a sincere Western offer to support nuclear technological research and civilian energy use in Iran. He compared the offer to the decades old (and still standing) US sanctions preventing Iran from obtaining the necessary spare parts to service civilian airliners. How was Iran to expect the West to suddenly have become genuine in their support of the Iranian people in providing something so contentious as nuclear technology.

He also did a great job of spinning the terrorism question by detailing America's historical support for Saddam Hussien and the Mujahideen-i Khalq Organization (MKO), a terrorist organization that led a campaign of murder and sabotage during the early years after the Iranian revolution. But as conservatives will rightfully point out, he was silent about Iran's current alleged involvement in Iraq despite being questioned over it.

Anticipating that Ahmadinejad would behave and put forth arguments in sensible and persuasive manner is exactly what prompted the controversy in the first place. The neo-conservatives original argument about supporting his effort to "legitimize" his policies was entirely disingenuous and used to cover the fear that Ahamdinejad might act as he did. That is Ahmadinejad will appear to be a mild mannered, half-reasonable person with whom you maintain serious disagreements but don't find to be a serious threat to American security. His lecture would (maybe fatally) undermine the neo-con and ziofacist demagogic salesmanship of war and confrontation with Iran to Americans, most of whom are already agitated by the prospect of another war. That fear prompted such an ad hominem campaign against one of the most prestigious universities and, given their objectives and what actually happened, was a very reasoned choice. If Ahmadinejad's answers to the questions posed during the forum become public knowledge, I think its very reasonable to say that it would be a major deterrent in galvanizing American support for any attacks or military incursions into Iran.

Overall, there is no discernible victor in this situation but there may be a case for freedom of speech. Its success isn't measured by any prospective policy changes in Iran or the silencing of the war drum in America but that its presence and force afforded the very real opportunity for people to judge this situation based on the merits presented therein. That is something exceptionally rare in this era of political expediency and a great boost to the health of public reasoning. And for me at least, thats more than enough to be happy with this entire situation. I was able to formulate a judgement without much inference and free of any meaningful prejudice ... save for my own :)

Robert Fisk: Fear and loathing on an American campus

2007-04-16T13:51:00.000-07:00

I have a desire to take Norm, Chuck and Al and bang their bloody heads together
On the night of 11 September 2001, Al Dershowitz of Harvard law school exploded in anger. Robert Fisk, he roared over Irish radio, was a dangerous man. I was "pro-terrorist". I was "anti-American" and that, Dershowitz announced to the people of County Mayo, "is the same as anti-Semitic".

Keep Reading

Eigenvalues = Cool

2007-04-15T15:08:00.001-07:00

A standing wave in a rope fixed at its boundaries is an example of an eigenvector, or more precisely, an eigenfunction of the transformation giving the acceleration. As time passes, the standing wave is scaled by a sinusoidal oscillation whose frequency is determined by the eigenvalue, but its overall shape is not modified.

Unlearning Intolerance

2007-04-11T12:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Muriel Walker, a professor of French language and literature at McMaster University recently organized an event on campus called "Hijab Day". In short, it was a show of solidarity with Muslim women, inviting non-Muslim women to don the Hijab for entire day to experience life in shoes of Muslim women who themselves becomes symbols of faith that is so oft-misunderstood and because of that, frequently subjected to hate and discrimination.

That is an effort we Muslims need to applaud. Dr. Walker did this entirely on her own. This wasn't something done in conjunction with any Muslim group on campus. This was her vision and was a product of her outstanding moral integrity. Unfortunately, the spirit of tolerance and diversity that Dr. Walker's exercise was promoting was attacked. On Monday morning, Professor Muriel came to her office door to see it covered with a garbage bag. Underneath it, anti-Muslim slurs and hate speech. And as though message wasn't already clear enough, the Danish cartoons of the Prophet (s) also were tapped to the door.

As Muslims we have a very important responsibility to stand up for our rights. These are the not the rights afforded to us by virtue of being Muslims or by Islam. No -- but our very basic inalienable rights based on our humanity. We cannot allow this to be passed in silence. To be noted in a book somewhere and kept from eyes and ears of the wider community. Silence in this case, amounts to an indifference towards the proliferation and nourishment of hate. Dr. Muriel stood for our cause, she organized an event whose benefit would accrue only to us--to our sisters, our mothers and our wives. We must stand with her, matching her integrity with our voice of support.

Our community leaders need to speak up against the Campus Services officials who failed to catalogue the evidence and university officials who have tried to keep this hush-hush. We need to come out in coalitions with our brethren of other faiths and culture groups to condemn these acts and allow to use these incidents as cases which strengthen our commitment to understanding and tolerance. Our frustration is shared universally, and to embrace that is to strengthen our cause and message.

There is no race, ethnicity or faith group for whom hate and discrimination is circulated with almost complete impunity save for Muslims. These are realities we are all familiar with and I'm sure we can collectively enumerate hundreds of examples of Islamophobia, its growth and strong presence in our workplaces and schools but our energy should be devoted entirely towards prevention and the elimination of this hate. And its moments like this, where we can utilize the new found attention and buzz that's been created and fill it with our voices. Our voices are the most effective now. Seminars and conferences, even public statements made at other times which may be more re-fined and more articulate neverhave the same impact. They are unable to stir up public outrage because the lights and attention are gone.

It is we who are responsible for our rights, we cannot depend on any other group of people, no matter how noble or reliable they are to defend us. We also must be clear that our anger and disappointment is simply with the existence of hate. Not with any other group of people or even any likely suspect. Our desire is not to pit ourselves against an aggressor but its educate and allow for the unlearning intolerance.

Write letters to Human Rights and Equity Services, ask for the incident report written at the scene by Campus Security Services and if a Police Report was filed by the university. We cannot and should not feel a sense of helplessness, that would amount to the worst tragedy of this entire episode. We must, and I emphasize must, voice our concerns to anyone who will listen, whether they like it or not. Amongst the many problems Muslims face -- economic uncertainty, education deficits and cultural discomfort -- the spread of overt and flagrant hate is the most pressing and more damaging. It was this type of treatment which was the norm during the 1930s for Jews all across Europe. They were routinely defiled and humiliated in open spaces with the approval of public officials. And it wasn't until we uncovered the masses of bodies at Auschwitz that the world began to regain its moral conscious. It is only upon God that we can lay our trust.

I implore all of you, if you care for this brotherhood and sisterhood which bonds us by principle, love and faith in God, you will serve it and -- you will protect it.

Love

2007-03-17T23:00:00.000-07:00

"Over forty years ago, when Lahore was still a beautiful garden city, I remember visiting the tomb of the famous Sufi saint Mian Mir in the fields outside the city, a sanctuary now surrounded by the horrid sprawl of the once beautiful Lahore. It was nighttime, and I decided to take a horsedrawn carriage called a tonga back to town. The driver appeared to be very poor and was scantily dressed. At the beginning of our trip, he greeted me with the Islamic greeting and asked me in Urdu where I was from. I answered in Persian that I was from Persia. He became excited and smiled. Then he began to recite God knows how many sublime Persian poems of 'Attar, Rumi, Hafiz, and others on Divine Love and the nostalgia of the soul for God, rendering all those poems as if he had experienced what was described in them and had composed the poems himself. That example -- riding in that carriage that night under the starry sky of the Punjabi countryside listening to an illiterate tonga driver reciting some of the most sublime mystical love poetry ever written, reciting both from memory and from the center of his heart -- shows how universal the living reality of the love for God is in the Islamic spiritual universe. This love uses the sublime language of Sufi poets, but this poetry speaks for all those Muslims, technically Sufi and non-Sufi alike, who are aware of God's Love for His creation, those whose own love for God, hidden within the very primordial substance of their souls, has begun to stir and the steed of whose souls has turned in the direction of that spiritual homeland from which they have come and to which they yearn to return."

Seyyid Hossein Nasr, An excerpt from his book The Heart of Islam

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Tariq Ramadan, Islamic Law and . . . gulp! . . . Me.

2007-03-11T15:27:00.000-07:00

"The rule of law, equal citizenship, universal suffrage, the accountability of elected
leaders before the people who elected them, and the separation of church and state." These, he says, are the most precious assets of Western democracy. "Do we have, as Muslims, a problem with these five principles? No."

Read the whole thing here. Its a piece in the Independent Newspaper from Britain.

The part I've quoted above from the article doesn't give a faithful account as to what the article is about. That's the only part where it even touches Ramadan's particular elemental questions about the West and the Muslim world, the rest of the article goes a good job of trying to honestly understand who this scholar is. It delves into his family connections and tries to dissect the confusing cloud that follows his identity where ever he goes or rather where he tries to go.

I'm a big fan of Tariq Ramadan just like most Muslims in the West are. He has a good grasp of the positives of Western life and the structural failures of Muslim societies, and doesn't shy away from the faults of Muslim engineered "Islamic" thought which often is one of the main culprits for the backwardness seen in Muslim countries. But the thing is, Ramadan isn't an apologist to the West either. He sincerely believes Muslims are in a rut. That their scholarly advances need to mature in an age of globalization, just like everyone else but colonial rule and political interference and repression from the West have exacerbated problems. He courageously argues against certain streams of conventional Muslim scholarship and literal legalists on their own turf, espousing that their rulings and understandings don't have a sound scriptural basis. A lot of which, he says, is the product of the heavy influence of medieval interpretations that came at the zenith of Islamic civilizations, and are now misused to try and solve modern problems. And of course, he is one of the first to recognize and publicly advocate that a lot of the "Islamic" practices which are under the greatest scrutiny today, actually are very much composed with that "bad" cholesterol of culture and not so much of reflective of Islamic principles.

What I take from Ramadan is that our thought need be dynamic. It must be fluid enough to be in harmony with completely new scientific discoveries and to adjust to accommodate new techniques to deal with the new social ills that communities will face a hundred years from now. This is not to say that we must accordingly adjust our thought to perfectly model these parameters, no--but it will do so simply by virtue of being dynamic. Islam inherently has this quality, it just needs to be allowed to re-surface. Unfortunately, the current disconnect comes from at least in part, the understanding of Islamic law, which Ramadan in many of his works refers too. So from here on out I'm going to leave myself to the sharks and give my 2 cents (not adjusted for biased inflation) about Islamic law. If I'm thinking out loud too loud, don't hesitate to tell me ;).

Anyways, I've observed that Islamic law is described by a few banner terms, two of the most prominent being fiqh (فقه) and shari'ah (شريعة). The latter term is meant to describe, literally, the pathway. It refers to an immutable, eternal way to God. A code of ethics and life which is prescribed by God for the complete social, political and spiritual perfection of the Muslim world, if not for mankind. The former term, fiqh is often used interchangeably with the latter, shar'iah. That is, at least where I see the beginning of the problem.

Fiqh is not immutable. It is not the pristine, unchanging reality of shari'ah, but rather, fiqh is our best approximation to shari'ah and because of that, the methods of approximation will always differ and be changing. They will improve, be refined and updated to deal with new challenges that society will gradually come to face. Its not a contradiction that shar'iah is unchanging and that fiqh isn't. Shari'ah represents to us that eternal truth or haqq (حق), and is something defined and ordered by God, while fiqh is something designed and arranged by us, in order to reach that perfection. Maybe its the process of improving and amending fiqh that is spiritual, that is to be religiously observant or cognizant of God's law. If Shari'ah is a constant reality, then when we search for the only constant reality that exists in human society or human endeavor the only equivalent that we will be able to find is that of change. In this discussion we can be ease because we do not pollute the purity of truth with our own shortcomings nor do we create a rigid arena of religion in which we are bound by the time and space in which thoughts are developed.

Do I mean that we should burn all the legal codexes of Islamic scholars, past and present? Should we open the gates of ijtihad to every single Ahmad, Ali and Mahmoud? No. Lets begin to listen to the Tariq Ramadans of the world. The sincere people who have done the research and who want nothing more than for the Muslim world to be empowered and free once again. Scholarship is a big part of our religion. But scholarship has quality controls, its always engaged in debate and a technical battle of the best ideas but willingly (and happily) reconciles itself against the great moral and ethical message of the Qur'an and Sunnah. And it has a very important responsibility to lead and educate the people in order to strengthen their belief and to show them the path of righteousness and piety. That effort in itself must consider the element of time and circumstance. Contextual approaches need to considered more than ever and acontextual properties need to undergo a rigorous re-examination.

Muslims are amongst the few faithful communities that have in them an inherent integrity when it comes to discussing and practicing their faith. We walk into the halls of power and academia confident that Islam is in complete harmony with rationalism and science. We are not constrained by being inherently sinful, unable to right our own wrongs unless we blindly accept a certain mystical premise. For us, God isn't an obstacle in our way to greatness and prosperity but the great encouragement and the ethos of motivation. This is the spirit of Islam. We need to find it (as it relates to understanding our laws and customs). A great scholar once told me that when the light coming from a lamp is dim, when you go investigate why that is so, you will find on the surface of the bulb (the source of light) some dust. It is not the problem of the light itself that it is dim, its simply a matter of removing the dust for that light to illuminate naturally. We too need to realize that maybe, just maybe, that there might be a thin, or even a thick layer of dust on our legal understanding of Islam.

Global Citizenship Conference

2007-03-05T05:15:00.000-08:00

This weekend McMaster hosted its second annual global citizenship conference beginning Friday evening. I actually found out about it on the Thursday from a friend who I bumped into on campus who told me that Ignatieff was going to deliver a talk on campus. Iggy was giving the key-note to open the conference. I am huge Ignatieff fan and he is the official reason why my political blood is red again. Thats not to say I cling myself to his each and every word or policy suggestion--no not at all, but Ignatieff is an intellectual who has a wealth of experience in global culture and a really authentic understanding of foreign policy. Hes a real frameworks person and although its pretty clear that has hurt him thus far in politics, few have his skill set and even fewer have the ability to make decisions like does or have the type of political poise that he has. I'm definitely going to devote more blogs entries about Iggy later on. But back to his talk and the conference.

So he spoke really well, defining the spirit of global citizenship and how we are forced to reconcile that with those local affinities that are much more natural to us as history tells us. He expressed some concern about how those affinities to race, nationality, culture and religion often undermine global citizenship, fermenting fanaticism and are prone to always overlook the common good. That's true but definitely a weak statement when left without any qualifiers which Ignatieff didn't offer. So after his talk he had a book signing which I thought was a perfect time to pick up his famed Massey lectures, "The Lesser Evil," an added chance jab that thought he left unprotected in his talk, i.e. the localized affinities undermining global citizenship. When I came up to him, I told him that I don't believe global citizenship is such a revolutionary idea that goes against our conscious associative practices, sure we've never been this connected before but human thought always shares in it many of the same truths. Don't we often conclude that we're much more alike than originally thought? So global citizenship, if defined properly really should harmoniously transcend those local affinities. He kind of liked what I said but was way too tired to care all that much about it. To lighten the mood I told him how much I enjoyed watching the leadership race and how upset I was when I saw that he lost; adding finally that it was nice to see an intellectual finally make it in to parliament which his wife found kind of funny.

That was part one of the conference for me. Part two involved my actual participation which kind of was loosely defined a week ago, was on the brink of falling apart by Friday and then revived last minute. I was a panelist on a discussion entitled, "The anti-war movement and the Muslim world" at which I was to discuss Islamophobia on behalf of MMPJ. I was paired up with three veteran anti-war, peace activists leaders from the Hamilton-Burlington Area. My job was to be the "Muslim Voice". I'm going to post up my notes for my talk, neatly tuned to fit as a nice post so I don't have to unnecessarily make this post uber-long like I'm way too much in the habit of doing.

But the general feel of the discussion was good. Most of the attendees were Muslims at this particular discussion, about 40 to 50 people showed up. That's pretty good considering that there were other workshops, panel discussions and lectures going on simultaneously. After the discussion, a few people really liked my talk and came up to chat with me. I met a guy who had held a workshop a few hours earlier on his tour of West Africa with Engineers without Borders discussing (I think) a bunch of issues relating to sustainability, water purification etc etc. We had an interesting chat about the Muslim world and how he had lived with a Muslim family in Malawi for about a year. African culture sits really well with Islam, he told me. The absence of a real hierarchic clergy and first amongst equals kind of mentality really eases tensions with other faiths, as he observed at least in the few countries he visited. He brought up some really interesting issues about how there are quite of few young, western, unseasoned kids in Africa fresh out of school influencing and making policy decisions in rural communities that have a major impact on the development effort--a lot of it not so much for the better. He also told me about the typical Muslim treatment he got when entering the United States to deliver a talk at some schools in the Bay Area since his passports has been blackened by entry visas into states where Muslims are either a majority or a sizable minority. Just goes to show you how far certain policies reach. But a really delightful person. We chatted for more than two hours after noticing we share the same interests in development and welfare economics. Good times.

And you know what? That's the best part of it all. Conferences or events like this are a real exercise in being a part of that market place of ideas. Its really refreshing to be amidst people who want to explore different thoughts and problems, sharing research and academic interests, posing different questions and trying to destroy the confidence of past premises in order to build newer, logically sound constructs. That spirit of criticism is never sweeter and never more appropriate than at such venues. I'm really glad to have been apart of it and hope to do so again.

Homie G(eet Singh)

2007-02-08T01:15:00.000-08:00

Last year, I was walking through the student centre with a close friend of mine when he asked me, "Why do religious Sikhs dress like gangsters?"

I found that pretty funny and added the qualifier that because they wore the turban didn't preclude the fact that they might not be fully observant of their faith. Some that as Muslims, is very familiar to us.

Every time after that whenever I would see a group of Sikhs dressed like an entourage for a rap star, I'd smirk to myself. But the reality is that this is a wide spread common feature of almost all immigrant children, going well beyond just the Sikh community. There is a general attraction to black or Afro-American urban culture across the board. But from my general survey of schools and campuses, shopping centres, the many Popeye's food chains I've visited and the population of Mississauga, South Asians are the most gangsta of the bunch.

The more and more I walked around campus, the more I noticed it. At first, I found it pretty funny but then I began to really think about it. What's the source of this attraction to a culture that is ultra urban, completely commericalized and whose projected values are in complete conflict with all the values of almost all thought, religious or otherwise, that comes from the East. What is that makes our kids go and listen to 50 cent and not heavy metal or to become a crazed Maple Leaf fans? Can he or she not make inroads with those crowds if its all about social acceptance? You'll notice on campus, amongst the clusters of students, groups of friends sitting and enjoying one anothers company whose dress would suggest that they would probably look more at home on a street corner than in a lecture hall. But when you really look closely, none of those kids have any affinity to the Afro-American culture or any talents that might make them able to contribute to the culture in any way and the fun part--all of them might be Muslims or Hindus, or a mix of Muslims and Hindus. They all could even be from the city sharing the same native language and customs. Social acceptance doesn't explain that sustained preference, there must be more to it that makes young people find it agreeable. I can remember in highschool, most of the FOB kids always like Tupac Shukur. They wore shirts with his portrait on the front and their ears were swallowed in massive head phones blaring his songs. These guys could barely speak english and they were memorizing his lyrics that were replete with expletives which they couldn't even pronounce properly and carried out discussions promoting gang violence and promiscuity.

Maybe its that Afro-American popular culture is more accepting to immigrants than anything else. Or that we both share a sense of victimization from a very white Western authority that has historically treated our cultures and civilizations as collateral damage. That would be kind of paradoxical were it be true. When we come to these countries, we always buy into the stereotypes labelled onto other people. I'm sure some brown people believe in those same stereotypes about black people that frightened white people do, so the likelihood of collaboration to unite and fight the power(!) would obscured by shared sense of suspicion against one another.

The one thing I've noticed however, there hasn't been a general transfer or change of values (thanks to traditional parenting). Urban, gangster-wannabism has just therefore become the means through which our young people interact with other young people or use as front when they have to. That takes the pizazz out of the story if its true and doubly so if its just that other trendy groupings are less accepting. But I don't care it was fun to think about and all in all, I think its still a really interesting social question that would make a neat topic for a paper or a case-study.

Robert Fisk: Please spare me the word 'terrorist'

2007-02-02T20:46:00.000-08:00

Nice piece by the master.

Lebanon is a good place to find out what tosh the 'terror' merchants talk

So it was back to terror, terror, terror this week. The "terrorist" Hizbollah was trying to destroy the "democratically elected government" of Fouad Siniora in Lebanon. The "terrorist" Hamas government cannot rule Palestine. Iranian "terrorists" in Iraq are going to be gunned down by US troops.

My favourite line of the week came from the "security source" - just how one becomes a "security source" remains a mystery to me -- who announced: "Terrorists are always looking for new ways to strike terror... There is no end of the possibilities where terrorists can try to cause terror to the public." Well, you could have fooled me . . .

Keep Reading

The Tragedy of Us

2007-01-26T17:38:00.001-08:00

Just before Husayn departed from the pilgrims at Mina, he ended a long oration with a supplication to Allah:

O God! You know that everything we did was not prompted by rivalry for political power, nor for a search for wealth and abundance; rather it was done to demonstrate to men the shining principles and values of Your religion, to reform the affairs of Your land, to protect and secure the indisputable rights of Your oppressed servants, and to act in accordance with the duties You have established and the norms, laws, and ordinances You have decreed.

Karbala was not a scene of brinkmanship. The tales of 'Ashoora aren't meant to induce tears. The true spirit of Husayniyah has nothing to do with grief or mourning, but it has everything to do success and revitalization. People tell me that the spirit of Husayn has been kept alive because of the rites and rituals that emphasize sorrow and the traditions that describe the literal sufferings of Husayn and his family. I don't deny that there maybe some truth to that, but the remembrance of Husayn, its methodology and its purpose needs to evolve and re-define itself in the terms of each time. Because, at least for now--the pleasantries and cosiness of our mosques have replaced the thirsty sands of Karbala and our excessive lamentations have spoiled our taste for real sacrifice.

We have forgotten that Husayn is not befitting of any miracle. Nor was he deserving of the support of the angels and neither were his words and deeds revealed. No he didn't need any of that. Husayn is and was as real as we are. And that's why this is so special. We've allowed our emotional creativity to get carried away to the level were we have begun measuring Husayn's heroics by our standards of ignorance. We've used our words in place of his and compared his wounds to our untimely inconveniences. If the skies wept tears of blood and the ground shook from sorrow, they did so not because of Husayn but because of us. Because we are the followers of Husayn. We are those who claim to honour his message yet stand with cosmetic courage, moral indifference and lay response. We have begun to betray the spirit of 'Ashoora out of comfort and convenience. Truly, woe unto us.

The true tragedy of Karbala is our inability to take inspiration from it. We've canonized history according to our tastes and preferences and left the pillars of Husayn's message buried in the books of tradition, history and philosophy. Let us begin a new movement. A new struggle to uncover the timeless nature of Imam Husayn's message. Lamenting is not equal to action. Husayn acted. He remembered the sufferings of his family and persevered on. He stood alone on the fields of Karbala after all of his companions and family members laid slain and called out for anyone else, whoever they maybe to help. We must answer that call-- not simply listen to it, remembering the beauty of its voice. Husayn's struggle is never ending, it has a place beyond the realms of time and space. Its a struggle that belongs to all people who face challenges to their freedoms and rights, it belongs to all those who fight for the establishment of the rule of law and equality--Husayn's call is a universal call that transcends every imaginable barrier between peoples and calls on them to fight for the implementation of complete social justice. Let us not forget, Yazid is corruption, Yazid is poverty, Yazid is inequality, Yazid is illegal occupation, Yazid is discrimination, Yazid is misinformation and Yazid is disunity.

The events of 'Ashoora do not lead to a crisis of belief and are not the seeds of controversy, so we shouldn't shun them. To leave Husayn to the dungeons of history is to neglect the words Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn. The sacrifices of Karbala need to be remembered, but in a manner that befits its true spirit. And we need to tandem that remembrance with action. An action that is based on knowledge and wisdom. I sincerely hope that we can return to the battlefield, armed with morality, piety, courage and grace and be able to fight for the causes that Husayn fought for and answer the final call of Husayn.

The Beloved Tyrant

2006-12-30T02:54:00.000-08:00

Mr. Iraq, aka Saddam Hussein was executed in front of a global audience on December 30th. International coverage made for that global viewing with Saddam's last moments viewable to everyone almost everywhere.

Saddam Hussain was a brutal dictator. The former President of Iraq's rule featured the staple characteristics of a classical dictatorship: nepotism, sectarian prejudice and championing of causes that would strengthen his power base and those who would likely inherit it. He killed indiscriminately without trial, he exalted people to power who were completely unfit to govern and were entirely unable to relate to different ethnicities and cultural groupings they lead. Saddam managed to kick off his rule with a bang by waging war with the "Persians", fresh off of their revolution to appease his American friends who trained and supported Saddam's series of assassinations that lead to his family's rule and eventually his. After that, he committed himself to suppressing political, religious and cultural voices that questioned or advanced a life for Iraqis different from what he visioned and was not hesitant to silence those voices through assassination and violence.

Saddam, however had a flavour for flare and ideology as well. Among a choir of Arab Nationalists, Saddam's voice quickly became one of the loudest. He pursued many causes in the name of Arabism and supporting the Arabs--providing petroleum at cost to Jordan and parts of Syria and his generous charities to families in occupied territories just to name a couple of the more prominently known causes.

Now and today, as inquiries begin about the nature of Saddam's execution and the disgraceful manner in which it was managed and as voices begin to call out of Saddam's martyrdom, there some notes that we should remember.

Saddam doesn't represent anyone. His affiliation is to no one in Iraq. I like to say that Saddam represents almost everything wrong with Muslim society today, our inability to work together to establish those social contracts needed for communities to live in harmony gives the space for instability and hence, plays out in the form of coups and authorianism. Today, no one should stand by Saddam Hussain as a voice of reason and as a proof of truth. And those who do, only have done so or are doing so out of convenience. We should not deflate his crimes, nor should we project him as a welcomed choice for Iraqis. For those of us in the Muslim community who are furiated with Saddam's demise and now his death, we must be consistent with our values regarding the crisis in Iraq, and that includes the viewing of Saddam Hussain and what he did as President of Iraq.

Likewise, just as we shouldn't call Saddam to triumph neither should we call to triumph his death or his demise. All persons, tyrants and saints alike need to be treated with dignity and justice, simply for the stability a society and to provide credibility to the institutions that govern. What happened to Saddam looks more like redemption than it does justice. I once heard a remark from a Colombian cabinet minister who served in office during the years of gang violence and cocaine trade, in which Colombia was at the mercy of these super-power gangsters and in the chaos much like Iraq is witnessing today, he said, and I paraphrase: Nations, developing nations, can suffer through natural disasters like famine and earthquakes and survive and even be prosperous thereafter, irrespective of how impoverish the nation may have been. However, any nation, no matter how powerful or how impoverish cannot survive through injustice. Injustice is how nations die.

The end of Saddam needs to be a renewal, it shouldn't be characterize by redemption and vengeance nor should it stimulate those same emotions. The crimes that Saddam perpetrated should be understood but not enshrined into the psyche of Iraqis, they are important only in the process of renewal. The executioners, probably themselves victims in someway of Saddam's brutality, should have behaved in a way that reflected the sense of justice and integrity that was so absent during Saddam's reign; and the government of Iraq now, more than ever, needs to convey that to the Iraqi public and the world.

Nonetheless, Iraqis and the observing Muslim societies need to understand the crisis in Iraq in a much more objective way, not only qualifying acts as just or unjust but to look ahead and suggest a truly practical and pragmatic Iraq. One that admits that everyone, and each group is not uniform, one that looks to the future and not the past and most importantly defines Iraq as it naturally is, not in the manner that Saddam did nor in the manner of sectarianism. Iraq will be different, but the sooner everyone comes to accept that and work towards it, the faster Iraq will be Iraq.

No Short Cuts to Unity

2006-11-30T19:54:00.000-08:00

Recently, the very popular and greatly influential Egyptian scholar, Yousef al Qaradhawi spoke briefly about his experience with Shi'ites. He also detailed some of his views on points relating to Shi'ite ideology and the manner in which Shi'a and Sunni groups can come closer together.

The noble Shaykh commands great influence; he regularly appears on al Jazeera broadcasts and even holds a syndicated question and answer program on the Qatari based outlet. Amongst Sunnis, Arab and non-Arab, he is held in high esteem and his followers appreciate his down-to-Earth approach through his television broadcasts and more importantly, through the Cairo-based site islamonline.net he helped found and is a regular contributor to.

However, Shaykh Qaradhawi's statements that I've linked above have surprised me. Raw, juvenile, and easily refutable-- his criticisms and anecdotes of Shi'a and their beliefs should never be spoken by someone of his intellectual caliber. These are the colloquial arguments of unschooled Sunnis who have only read and heard of Shi'as from the fiery preachers and writers whose agenda is to advance political or territorial disputes in sectarian guise. Polemical discussions should be discouraged at all levels, and the sensitivity of such discussions or implicit references should be recognized by the educated and learned on both sides, Shi'a and Sunni.

I have always dreamed that Muslim scholarship would return to its progressive pasts. I thought that maybe the sectarian tensions and political disenfranchisement of Muslims would be the perfect vehicle to motivate and accelerate that development. Muslim authorities would have and have had a stage of massive influence and sway, but Shaykh Qaradhawi's remarks have frustrated my dream and showed that its still too soon.

The Shaykh's solutions and suggestions to bring the two schools of thought closer together don't really represent anything significant at all. Aside from the strange baseless questions he posed to the Iranians (and why did he not quote their response, I imagine they said something), the suggestion that Shi'as should not preach their doctrine outside of purely Shi'a countries and Sunnis likewise in their countries hints at the real problem. Shaykh Qaradhawi is interpreting the two schools as rivals. Like two kids who don't get along and the only solution is to stay away from one another. Bandage solutions like this would deepen the wounds between Muslims because it would promote more ideological isolation on both sides, the misinformation and lack of mutual respect would further.

The general problem is that Sunni scholars don't understand Shi'as, never have and don't want to. They rely on bogus books and scholars, refuted and not of any authority in Shi'a scholarship, to convince a Sunni mass that this is just a misguided force of Iranians angry with Arabs for destroying their empire or that these were Jews who wanted to corrupt Islam from within. Simply, Sunni scholars have resorted to smear tactics to keep followers away from engaging in meaningful dialogue with the Shi'a and the study of their doctrine. Scholars like ar Razi and Ghazzali, magnificent in exegesis and ethical exposition, act like school kids in their descriptions of Shi'as, never properly engaging the subject matter.

I have a personal admiration for Sunnis in their protection of the Oneness of God and even to Sunni scholars for their emphasis and refinement of ritual, but simply put, Muslim unity will not be attained unless they are willing to accept Shi'as as brothers and not as rivals, which will only come if they agree to dialogue with Shi'as, and stop interpreting differences as challenges and in polemical terms. Shi'as are aggressive in polemics, I am quite aware of that, but not to the level imagined by the Sunni world. Sunni assumptions and fears of a Shi'a renaissance that would dedicate itself to a polemical campaign to convert Sunnis and spread Shi'ism is baseless and itself represents the immense disconnect between communities.

The Shi'a world in contrast, has made the necessary compromises and is very ready for a greater level of Muslim unity. Shi'as pray with, give zakat to and are obliged to protect Sunnis by the scales of Islamic jurisprudence. It is the Shi'a who have concentrated on the clear and present enemy of the Muslims--the hegemonic and former colonialists of the Muslims World, who ironically have aided the most to the current Shi'a-Sunni feud in their miscalculated surgery of the Middle East geographically and through misguided politically maneuvering of minorities and majorities. Hezbollah, Iran -- are the most well organized forces and likely the only voices of resistance who bear legitimate authority and again, form the crux of the parties who call for Muslim unity.

The list of Muslim countries that are quick to placate Western authority is overwhelmingly Sunni. I do not mean to characterize all Sunnis as supporters of their government's policies and their rulers-- No, rather I am proud of the loud dissatisfaction Sunnis have displayed and are continuing to display with their governments. However it is the passive and cautious approach of Sunni religious authority that slows everything down. I am sure that most of them might not approve of sectarian attacks, defensive or otherwise but their general level of silence isn't effective at stopping them either or promoting Muslim unity.

I should add that I don't mean to say that Shi'as are perfect as I know many of you will quickly point out. But at the level of religious authorities, the Shi'as scholars although probably at times overzealous and harmfully aggressive on a myriad of issues that affect Muslim unity; generally have been more progressive in promoting unity and have clearly made it more of a priority.

There is a lot to be said and I have rambled further than I wanted. Concluding I should point out that Shaykh Qaradhawi is more of a positive on Sunni-Shi'a relations than a negative. His lack of silence and at least desire to engage the issue at hand is commendable. However his views and comments aren't helpful and represent the irresponsible scholarship on the part of religious authorities that is the biggest impediment on Muslim unity.

Muslims will never be one monolith group. Theologically, historically-- on so many fronts we will never agree, its more likely that the end of time will come and go before we sort each other out. But we at least owe it to Islam, this great faith, to understand one another. And more importantly, to understand that there are no short cuts to unity.