Most people would agree that the fundamental difference between humans and animals is the ability to reason. In Islam, we learn that this is indeed the case. Animals act out of instinct as opposed to calculated analysis or a rational concern for the well being of others. What may be considered an inferior trait is quite arguable, however. After all, animals are less capable of acting out of malice or against moral law or din, as such, whereas humankind is accountable to God for each and every action committed. As it relates to the Day of Judgment, Yawm al-Din, Allah ta’ala informs us: “…whoever has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it, but whoever has done an atom’s weight of evil will see that.” (99:7)
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
17.4.10
17.12.09
Responding to the Fort Hood Tragedy by Imam Zaid Shakir
The following is Imam Shakir's response to the shooting at the US Army base at Fort Hood. To the Muslim American community, this incident was not only a tragic loss of life, it was a massive blow to all of the interfaith efforts which have tirelessly come together to present the beauty of Islam and the Muslim community. I'm always astounded how such isolated actions, committed on an individual level, can serve as the representation of entire populations. Attacks of this severity illustrate the importance of returning to classical models of teaching and learning within the Muslim community. Contrary to the neo-con-know-nothings, the acts committed by Mr. Hasan have no foundation in any Islamic teachings authenticated in the Qur'an and Sunnah (ways of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him), and are in fact, contrary to these foundations. Imam Shakir presents substantive material which debases any claims by those misguided persons, be they Muslim or otherwise, seeking to undermine the religion of Islam, knowingly or unknowingly.
1.8.07
Rumors of an Evangelical
The following is a response to a chain email that I received from a friend of mine who knew little about Islam but had enough sense to ask me about subject before contributing to the ignorance propagated online and in the media. The title of the article being circulated is Allah or Jesus. The author demonstrates the typical credentials of a first rate an Islamaphobe, i.e., ignorance of the faith in which he denounces and an astounding negligence for historic fact regarding his own faith….
8.7.07
Somalia: Unnecessary Tragedy
Not a day goes by that I am not repulsed by US military actions around the world. It’s so overwhelming that to take the time to select and zero in on one specific event becomes a bit of a slippery slope. It’s almost as if by addressing one war crime, one is guilty of neglecting another. This is in part why I have not spoke on current events for some time- the atrocities carried out by my government are simply too frequent and obscene to stay abreast of.
While the task of selection is a daunting one, with the world’s eyes half open to what’s continuing in Iraq, there is another blip that has probably attracted five minute’s worth of coverage on the six o’clock news in the United States: Somalia.
Like most places that the American government sees through its crosshairs, and whose flag-waving patriots couldn’t locate on a map if their troops occupied it for ten years, Somalia is once again the target of US aggression. The average Jack may be able to reach back far enough to the gruesome images of the bodies of the American soldiers that were drug through the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993− a display of hatred that is difficult to imagine− a hatred that mirrors the lynchings of African Americans from the not-too-distant past. Of course, in war, that fearsome detestation for the other is what soldiers are ingrained with during basic training (after all, it's a far greater challenge to get people to kill those they see as equals).
Although a brief summary of modern Somali history is fragrantly unjust, considering the immense human suffering that has over swept its population over recent decades, it remains necessary if one is going to attempt to address the current tragedies of its people, especially in regard to US and Ethiopian involvement.
The history of clashes between Somalia and Ethiopia are not unlike similar conflicts resulting from post-colonial circumstance that have occurred throughout the world. Such is the legacy in light of the post imperial powers in charge of redrawing the world map, following WWII, albeit to the detriment of those living within the new boundaries. In 1949, Ogaden, a region that now comprises roughly 25% of Ethiopia’s territory along the western boarder of Somalia and encompassing the impetus horn of Africa, became part of Ethiopia, as decided by the Allied powers of the UN- powers that, based on their history within the continent, lacked any genuine concern for the inhabitants of the land− a fact that remains unchanged to this day.
The ignition for war between the two countries was henceforth sparked by the fact that the population of Ogaden consisted of predominantly ethnic Muslim Somalis. Following the independence of Somalia from fascist Italy in 1960, Somali militias made several incursions into Ethiopia until 1964, when the two signed a peace agreement. Like many post colonial countries, animosity was furthered by interference from the Soviet Union and the US− the later supporting Ethiopia. This tug-of-war continued until the Ogaden War of 1977-78. In typical Orwellian fashion, the US and USSR switched sides, but not before the USSR betrayed Somalia by simultaneously supporting Ethiopia− reminiscent of US support of Iran and Iraq during their bloody conflict a decade later. Following the official withdrawal in 1978, Somalia became a client state of the US in exchange for air bases until they were no longer useful with the ending of the Cold War in 1988. It should not be neglected to mention that during this time, the US propped up Siad Barre, a brutal dictator who, according to Africa Watch, was responsible for between 50-60,000 killings.
Support for Barre’s rising totalitarianism and Ethiopian interference would lead to the outbreak of civil war 1991, an event which the US had hoped would showcase its “humanitarian intervention” impulse, thereby legitimizing the inflated pentagon budget. Had the US been sincere, they would have supported the ousting of Barre rather than supporting his reign of terror in the years prior. Coupled with the trademark of American arrogance and their support for Barre, the PR campaign ended in disaster, leading ultimately to the US withdrawal.
After a decade and a half of horrific conditions brought on by the civil war, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) wrestled power out of the hands of the warlords who’ve made the country a living hell since 1991. After a bitter struggle to restore order back to Somalia, the ICU finally prevailed over Mogadishu and for the first time in nearly twenty years, stability began returning to the war ravaged region. Although after their retreat, the warlords claimed they would be able to establish a dialogue with the ICU, in reality, they intended to do nothing of the sort.
More than 500 power hungry warlords-turned-ministers are to thank for the sustained chaos that enveloped Somalia and who supported the opposition to the ICU. The motive for the chaos was, of course, financial. When the warlords are in control, all commerce must first be routed through them, which in turn line their pockets. It should be no surprise then that the so-called president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusif, is himself a warlord, nor should it be a shock to anyone that the United States government backed the alliance of warlords against the ICU, along with Ethiopia and Italy. Not that it matters much to the US, but their support for the warlords is a direct violation of the UN arms embargo, a charge which the Bush administration initially denied and later had the audacity to apply against supporters of the ICU. While it is a fact that to arm either side of the confrontation violates the embargo, not only does the US cry foul when its interests are at stake, they go further by alleging false claims about those fighting on behalf of the ICU. None of this is new to their bag of tricks, however.
Interim President Yusif has spoken out against US support for competing warlords, claiming that they ought to cooperate with the government. What he left out was the fact that most of these warlords are MPs of the government and are the same people who elected him to rule the country in 2004 during a meeting in Kenya- how’s that for legitimate? The MPs (warlords) have learned a lot from US policy by giving their militia another Orwellian title “The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.” Fighting terrorism had nothing to do with the warlords joining forces; rather, it was set up an offensive to maintain their hegemony over the region. The ICU, on the hand, was established to regain peace and security in Mogadishu, a struggle which they achieved.
By the 2nd of June 2006, thousands rallied in the streets to protest against the US support for the warlords who have ruled the streets for so many years. Three days later, the warlords retreated. Stability for Somalia was gradually settling in as warlord-operated checkpoints used to extort money from motorists came down, prices dropped in the marketplace that was no longer ruled by thugs, and robbery and kidnapping was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Then came reports of (US-trained) Ethiopian troops crossing the boarder in support of the interim government. To assure the interim administration, Sheik Sherif Ahmed, one of the leaders of the ICU stated that they were “making it clear that we are not planning to attack Baidoa, Kismayo or any other third region in the country. We want to work with whoever who wants to return peace to Somalia.” Meanwhile, the US accused the ICU of harboring foreign terrorists, a charge they denied.
By August, a formal system Shari’a or Islamic Law, had been devised and implemented to govern Mogadishu. Those of us who have been moved to tears at the horrific suffering Somalis have endured for so long breathed a sigh of relief and held a glimmer of hope that life in Mogadishu might finally return to normal. Markets opened, bribery ceased, women could freely walk the streets again. Criminals were tried and sentences were employed under the eye of the public. When concerns about a Taliban-style regime being formed, ICU chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, assured them that no such intentions existed within the ICU leadership. In September, the ICU did move into to Kismayo as support for their leadership began increasing. As an indicator of the support they were earning, this move occurred without a single casualty. Moreover, by this time, they were able to bring stability to all ports in the southern region of the country. By November, khat, a highly addictive drug, commonly used stimulant, known to cause aggression and health ailments, was banned. (This is the same drug that was so often used to numb the emotions of child fighters, known for random murders throughout the country during and after the civil war.)
Also in November, murmurs of concern began to be heard within the UN Headquarters in New York. A report issued by the UN Security Council stated that the ICU had received military support Iran, Syria, and a host of others. The report also alleged that ICU fighters assisted Hezbollah against the Israelis and labeled the growing influence of the ICU as “instabile.” Instable to whom? Are we supposed to believe that the American government has the interests of the Somali people on its agenda? How can anyone who has stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest in modern times claim concern over instability? Stability is the one thing that the ICU has proven it is capable of implementing. Could it be relied on to support this new change in the country? The answer has long been understood. So what if the ICU is getting support from its allies? If it is against international law to receive support from one’s allies when in dire need and to return the favor when called upon, how exactly would the Bush administration classify its own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, how would it categorize its “Coalition of the Willing”? Further still, is lending military support to Ethiopia immune to the embargo that those providing aid for the ICU are charged with violating? At least in Somalia, the takeover brought stability and had been welcomed by the people. “For, Of and By the People,” isn’t that the idea behind Democracy? The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out− and yet the claim remains to be voiced by the administration that the US military has brought democracy to the people. Apparently, President Bush equates bombing civilians as democracy in action.
By the end of December, Ethiopian troops moved in and attacked areas under the governance of the ICU, despite calls for immediate withdrawal by the African Union. The advance was basically tantamount to ensuring a return to instability and humanitarian crisis. To avert another catastrophe, the ICU Mogadishu abandoned without a fight. Immediately, looters robbed the new market places and the people went into hiding again. Anyone paying any attention whatever to the events unfolding would have to cover their mouths to prevent from vomiting at what has unfolded since.
In January, Ethiopia, against the wishes of the AU, have vowed to remain in the country to maintain “stability.” Then, on January 10th, on my way home from school, I was listening to the radio when I learned that the US had finally carried out the unthinkable− it unleashed its bombs on yet another civilian target, killing hundreds of people who an interim government official said "may have involved very senior Islamist court leaders." May have? Like who? Sharif Ahmed, a moderate, trusted by the people? Before launching a fatal attack, should not the attackers be certain that the action being carried out will be limited to the people they're going after? By the way, who gave them this free writ of assasination? Of course the US takes its warn-out excuse to terms once again, saying it was an attack against a member of al-Qaeda. Somehow that absolves them of any wrong doing in regards to the civilian deaths, or as they’re fond of deeming it: “collateral damage.”
Again, one has to question how American aggression against a Muslim population will bring about stability. How long will it take before the Pentagon understands that such attacks only incite more al-Qaeda violence? It is the equivalent of an open invitation to terror. It plants the seeds of more discontent against victims who see groups like these as the only way to assert themselves. Just as the likelihood of revenge violence increases when someone murders another’s family in America, the same is true of others half a world away. Give a gun to a teenager who’s mother was killed by a lunatic and see what happens− especially when the killer goes unpunished. Case-in-point: the ten fold instances of suicide bombing since the invasion of Iraq. The same will happen again and again in any Muslim country the US assaults. It’s been well established that such responses have soared once the US has become involved in military offensives. The continued aggression against the people of Somalia will only continue worsening the situation. What the West fails to comprehend is the fact that the Somali people overwhelmingly respect Islamic Law. That’s not to say that they desire a Taliban-style dictatorship (in fact, the Taliban was about as unislamic of any such state ever to exist). It is to say that secular law is not held in nearly the same regard as Shari’a. As one Somali elder told me, “the people respect the book [the Qur’an], take it away and we see the situation that results.” Add to the fact that outside forces deemed hostile to Islam are responsible for the worst carnage in fifteen years, after a short-lived peace brought about by the leadership of the Islamic Courts Union. The only way to restore peace and stability is to allow Somalis to return to self-rule without interference from those who do not belong there to begin with. Until then, offer your prayers for the people of that tortured land that they will again live in peace.
While the task of selection is a daunting one, with the world’s eyes half open to what’s continuing in Iraq, there is another blip that has probably attracted five minute’s worth of coverage on the six o’clock news in the United States: Somalia.
Like most places that the American government sees through its crosshairs, and whose flag-waving patriots couldn’t locate on a map if their troops occupied it for ten years, Somalia is once again the target of US aggression. The average Jack may be able to reach back far enough to the gruesome images of the bodies of the American soldiers that were drug through the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993− a display of hatred that is difficult to imagine− a hatred that mirrors the lynchings of African Americans from the not-too-distant past. Of course, in war, that fearsome detestation for the other is what soldiers are ingrained with during basic training (after all, it's a far greater challenge to get people to kill those they see as equals).
Although a brief summary of modern Somali history is fragrantly unjust, considering the immense human suffering that has over swept its population over recent decades, it remains necessary if one is going to attempt to address the current tragedies of its people, especially in regard to US and Ethiopian involvement.
The history of clashes between Somalia and Ethiopia are not unlike similar conflicts resulting from post-colonial circumstance that have occurred throughout the world. Such is the legacy in light of the post imperial powers in charge of redrawing the world map, following WWII, albeit to the detriment of those living within the new boundaries. In 1949, Ogaden, a region that now comprises roughly 25% of Ethiopia’s territory along the western boarder of Somalia and encompassing the impetus horn of Africa, became part of Ethiopia, as decided by the Allied powers of the UN- powers that, based on their history within the continent, lacked any genuine concern for the inhabitants of the land− a fact that remains unchanged to this day.
The ignition for war between the two countries was henceforth sparked by the fact that the population of Ogaden consisted of predominantly ethnic Muslim Somalis. Following the independence of Somalia from fascist Italy in 1960, Somali militias made several incursions into Ethiopia until 1964, when the two signed a peace agreement. Like many post colonial countries, animosity was furthered by interference from the Soviet Union and the US− the later supporting Ethiopia. This tug-of-war continued until the Ogaden War of 1977-78. In typical Orwellian fashion, the US and USSR switched sides, but not before the USSR betrayed Somalia by simultaneously supporting Ethiopia− reminiscent of US support of Iran and Iraq during their bloody conflict a decade later. Following the official withdrawal in 1978, Somalia became a client state of the US in exchange for air bases until they were no longer useful with the ending of the Cold War in 1988. It should not be neglected to mention that during this time, the US propped up Siad Barre, a brutal dictator who, according to Africa Watch, was responsible for between 50-60,000 killings.
Support for Barre’s rising totalitarianism and Ethiopian interference would lead to the outbreak of civil war 1991, an event which the US had hoped would showcase its “humanitarian intervention” impulse, thereby legitimizing the inflated pentagon budget. Had the US been sincere, they would have supported the ousting of Barre rather than supporting his reign of terror in the years prior. Coupled with the trademark of American arrogance and their support for Barre, the PR campaign ended in disaster, leading ultimately to the US withdrawal.
After a decade and a half of horrific conditions brought on by the civil war, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) wrestled power out of the hands of the warlords who’ve made the country a living hell since 1991. After a bitter struggle to restore order back to Somalia, the ICU finally prevailed over Mogadishu and for the first time in nearly twenty years, stability began returning to the war ravaged region. Although after their retreat, the warlords claimed they would be able to establish a dialogue with the ICU, in reality, they intended to do nothing of the sort.
More than 500 power hungry warlords-turned-ministers are to thank for the sustained chaos that enveloped Somalia and who supported the opposition to the ICU. The motive for the chaos was, of course, financial. When the warlords are in control, all commerce must first be routed through them, which in turn line their pockets. It should be no surprise then that the so-called president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusif, is himself a warlord, nor should it be a shock to anyone that the United States government backed the alliance of warlords against the ICU, along with Ethiopia and Italy. Not that it matters much to the US, but their support for the warlords is a direct violation of the UN arms embargo, a charge which the Bush administration initially denied and later had the audacity to apply against supporters of the ICU. While it is a fact that to arm either side of the confrontation violates the embargo, not only does the US cry foul when its interests are at stake, they go further by alleging false claims about those fighting on behalf of the ICU. None of this is new to their bag of tricks, however.
Interim President Yusif has spoken out against US support for competing warlords, claiming that they ought to cooperate with the government. What he left out was the fact that most of these warlords are MPs of the government and are the same people who elected him to rule the country in 2004 during a meeting in Kenya- how’s that for legitimate? The MPs (warlords) have learned a lot from US policy by giving their militia another Orwellian title “The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.” Fighting terrorism had nothing to do with the warlords joining forces; rather, it was set up an offensive to maintain their hegemony over the region. The ICU, on the hand, was established to regain peace and security in Mogadishu, a struggle which they achieved.
By the 2nd of June 2006, thousands rallied in the streets to protest against the US support for the warlords who have ruled the streets for so many years. Three days later, the warlords retreated. Stability for Somalia was gradually settling in as warlord-operated checkpoints used to extort money from motorists came down, prices dropped in the marketplace that was no longer ruled by thugs, and robbery and kidnapping was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Then came reports of (US-trained) Ethiopian troops crossing the boarder in support of the interim government. To assure the interim administration, Sheik Sherif Ahmed, one of the leaders of the ICU stated that they were “making it clear that we are not planning to attack Baidoa, Kismayo or any other third region in the country. We want to work with whoever who wants to return peace to Somalia.” Meanwhile, the US accused the ICU of harboring foreign terrorists, a charge they denied.
By August, a formal system Shari’a or Islamic Law, had been devised and implemented to govern Mogadishu. Those of us who have been moved to tears at the horrific suffering Somalis have endured for so long breathed a sigh of relief and held a glimmer of hope that life in Mogadishu might finally return to normal. Markets opened, bribery ceased, women could freely walk the streets again. Criminals were tried and sentences were employed under the eye of the public. When concerns about a Taliban-style regime being formed, ICU chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, assured them that no such intentions existed within the ICU leadership. In September, the ICU did move into to Kismayo as support for their leadership began increasing. As an indicator of the support they were earning, this move occurred without a single casualty. Moreover, by this time, they were able to bring stability to all ports in the southern region of the country. By November, khat, a highly addictive drug, commonly used stimulant, known to cause aggression and health ailments, was banned. (This is the same drug that was so often used to numb the emotions of child fighters, known for random murders throughout the country during and after the civil war.)
Also in November, murmurs of concern began to be heard within the UN Headquarters in New York. A report issued by the UN Security Council stated that the ICU had received military support Iran, Syria, and a host of others. The report also alleged that ICU fighters assisted Hezbollah against the Israelis and labeled the growing influence of the ICU as “instabile.” Instable to whom? Are we supposed to believe that the American government has the interests of the Somali people on its agenda? How can anyone who has stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest in modern times claim concern over instability? Stability is the one thing that the ICU has proven it is capable of implementing. Could it be relied on to support this new change in the country? The answer has long been understood. So what if the ICU is getting support from its allies? If it is against international law to receive support from one’s allies when in dire need and to return the favor when called upon, how exactly would the Bush administration classify its own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, how would it categorize its “Coalition of the Willing”? Further still, is lending military support to Ethiopia immune to the embargo that those providing aid for the ICU are charged with violating? At least in Somalia, the takeover brought stability and had been welcomed by the people. “For, Of and By the People,” isn’t that the idea behind Democracy? The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out− and yet the claim remains to be voiced by the administration that the US military has brought democracy to the people. Apparently, President Bush equates bombing civilians as democracy in action.
By the end of December, Ethiopian troops moved in and attacked areas under the governance of the ICU, despite calls for immediate withdrawal by the African Union. The advance was basically tantamount to ensuring a return to instability and humanitarian crisis. To avert another catastrophe, the ICU Mogadishu abandoned without a fight. Immediately, looters robbed the new market places and the people went into hiding again. Anyone paying any attention whatever to the events unfolding would have to cover their mouths to prevent from vomiting at what has unfolded since.
In January, Ethiopia, against the wishes of the AU, have vowed to remain in the country to maintain “stability.” Then, on January 10th, on my way home from school, I was listening to the radio when I learned that the US had finally carried out the unthinkable− it unleashed its bombs on yet another civilian target, killing hundreds of people who an interim government official said "may have involved very senior Islamist court leaders." May have? Like who? Sharif Ahmed, a moderate, trusted by the people? Before launching a fatal attack, should not the attackers be certain that the action being carried out will be limited to the people they're going after? By the way, who gave them this free writ of assasination? Of course the US takes its warn-out excuse to terms once again, saying it was an attack against a member of al-Qaeda. Somehow that absolves them of any wrong doing in regards to the civilian deaths, or as they’re fond of deeming it: “collateral damage.”
Again, one has to question how American aggression against a Muslim population will bring about stability. How long will it take before the Pentagon understands that such attacks only incite more al-Qaeda violence? It is the equivalent of an open invitation to terror. It plants the seeds of more discontent against victims who see groups like these as the only way to assert themselves. Just as the likelihood of revenge violence increases when someone murders another’s family in America, the same is true of others half a world away. Give a gun to a teenager who’s mother was killed by a lunatic and see what happens− especially when the killer goes unpunished. Case-in-point: the ten fold instances of suicide bombing since the invasion of Iraq. The same will happen again and again in any Muslim country the US assaults. It’s been well established that such responses have soared once the US has become involved in military offensives. The continued aggression against the people of Somalia will only continue worsening the situation. What the West fails to comprehend is the fact that the Somali people overwhelmingly respect Islamic Law. That’s not to say that they desire a Taliban-style dictatorship (in fact, the Taliban was about as unislamic of any such state ever to exist). It is to say that secular law is not held in nearly the same regard as Shari’a. As one Somali elder told me, “the people respect the book [the Qur’an], take it away and we see the situation that results.” Add to the fact that outside forces deemed hostile to Islam are responsible for the worst carnage in fifteen years, after a short-lived peace brought about by the leadership of the Islamic Courts Union. The only way to restore peace and stability is to allow Somalis to return to self-rule without interference from those who do not belong there to begin with. Until then, offer your prayers for the people of that tortured land that they will again live in peace.
9.6.07
Islam and Democracy in Turkey
Ahead of Turkey’s upcoming presidential election, originally scheduled in May, there was a lot of clamoring regarding the Justice and Development Party candidate Abdullah Gul, an experienced politician and foreign minister. Unlike most senior officials, Mr. Gull’s wife Hayrunisa Gul wears the Islamic headscarf and if elected, would have been the country’s first First Lady to do so. This set off a scorching controversy among Turkey’s faithful secularists. They claimed Mr. Gul was a stealth islamist with a radical agenda which threatened to impose draconian rule on their institutions. His record as a politician up to then disputed their claims. He actually pushed for entrance into the EU, despite bigoted opposition of those afraid of letting a predominately Muslim country in. The sickening part of this debate is that it placed significant pressure on Ms. Gull and took away from what should have been at the heart of the election question, viz., who is has the best qualifications for the job? Instead, people wanted to focus on what clothes the candidate’s spouse would wear to the inauguration.
Why is it that when discussing religiosity and secularism in the Islamic World, the debate is divided between headscarves and bikinis; between nightclubs and madrasas? Why is it that people are condemned as archaic extremists because they don't feel comfortable running around the beach in the equivalent of undergarments? Are the values of drunkenness and promiscuity found in the nightclub scene somehow superior to the moral teachings learned in the mosque? What about those who remain true to their faith- which explicitly prohibits alcohol and lewd behavior- and yet are active participants in everyday society, i.e., working, attending university, dining out, exercising their voting rights, etc, etc? Are they to be harangued for not contributing to the STD epidemic or being on the delivering end of drunk driving accidents and the like? There is no reason why a woman CHOOSING to wear a head scarf cannot also be educated, politically engaged, and professional.
Furthermore, the electability of Mr. Gul ought to have focused on his record rather than his wife’s attire. But I suppose to be part of the boys club of elites in Turkey- or any country attempting westernization- one's wife has to wear a low-cut blouse and skirt, toasting champagne. The irony of this situation is that by the state impeding a woman’s right to chose what she wears somehow is on par with democratic principles whereas letting her CHOOSE for herself exhibits “islamofascism”, to quote George W. Bush. Actually, this is in line with the Bush administrations commitment to so-called, “democracy” as when Turkey was lambasted by Paul Wolfoitz and Colin Powell for its refusal to allow access to its airstrips as a launching pad to invade Iraq in 03, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among its population. It’s all a bit Orwellian, isn’t it?
Why is it that when discussing religiosity and secularism in the Islamic World, the debate is divided between headscarves and bikinis; between nightclubs and madrasas? Why is it that people are condemned as archaic extremists because they don't feel comfortable running around the beach in the equivalent of undergarments? Are the values of drunkenness and promiscuity found in the nightclub scene somehow superior to the moral teachings learned in the mosque? What about those who remain true to their faith- which explicitly prohibits alcohol and lewd behavior- and yet are active participants in everyday society, i.e., working, attending university, dining out, exercising their voting rights, etc, etc? Are they to be harangued for not contributing to the STD epidemic or being on the delivering end of drunk driving accidents and the like? There is no reason why a woman CHOOSING to wear a head scarf cannot also be educated, politically engaged, and professional.
Furthermore, the electability of Mr. Gul ought to have focused on his record rather than his wife’s attire. But I suppose to be part of the boys club of elites in Turkey- or any country attempting westernization- one's wife has to wear a low-cut blouse and skirt, toasting champagne. The irony of this situation is that by the state impeding a woman’s right to chose what she wears somehow is on par with democratic principles whereas letting her CHOOSE for herself exhibits “islamofascism”, to quote George W. Bush. Actually, this is in line with the Bush administrations commitment to so-called, “democracy” as when Turkey was lambasted by Paul Wolfoitz and Colin Powell for its refusal to allow access to its airstrips as a launching pad to invade Iraq in 03, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among its population. It’s all a bit Orwellian, isn’t it?
6.2.06
Balancing Free Speech & Islamic Ethics: An Opinion
The current uproar raging across the Middle East in response to numerous animated drawings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is nearly as shocking as the pictures themselves. Islamic tradition prohibits any illustrations or statues from depicting prophets of God, be they positive or negative. In fact, as far as the three monotheistic, prophetic religions are concerned, such depictions are unique to Christianity and its Roman influence. Jesus, himself, peace be upon him, would have never condoned his image being constructed, especially seeing as it has been used to promote white supremacy, though his skin is described as resembling burnt brass and his hair is likened to wool in the Book of Revelations (1:14-15). While in University, I befriended an Orthodox Jewish woman from Israel who was greatly disturbed at the sight of so many Jesus statues dominating the campus landscape. Be that as it may, the right to free speech allows it, as does freedom of religion, thanks be to God.
One basic note to consider while attempting to make sense of the Muslim backlash against the European countries where the cartoons were published is the notion of freedom, so often taken for granted by those of living in the west. These places have no concept of freedom of speech nor press. When confronted with such material, people who lack the freedom of information are easily roused (certainly, the level of desensitization to vile acts, seen in the west, is nothing to be proud of, however). Although the Editor-in-Chief of Jyllands-Posten, the first to publish the cartoons, has long since apologized, his doing so falls significantly short of criminal charges and UN sanctions called for by the riotous crowds responsible for torching embassies and killing innocent bystanders- heinous actions, forbidden by Islamic teaching. What these people fail to understand is that the concept of free speech is simply that: free. There is no law, either Danish or under the UN that prohibits free speech, nor should there be. Unlike many examples conjured up post 911, this case does, indeed, illustrate a clash of civilizations.
As a westerner, and a Muslim, I might add, who includes personal freedom among the highest of principles, it is my belief that free speech must never be impeded. Yes, illustrations of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, suggesting that he was a terrorist, are repulsive; yes, it is irresponsible for any newspaper to publish anti-Islamic depictions of this nature considering the current climate of discrimination directed against Muslims, yet, to react with violence in the name of defending Islam is equally offensive to the point of becoming antithetical. It begs the question: would Muhammad himself be more outraged by the defamation of his character portrayed in a newspaper, or images of Muslims committing senseless acts of violence in his honor?
Building on this scenario is the desperate need for self-evaluation within the international Muslim community. Should we not be more outraged by the lack of equality that exists within so-called Islamic states or the corruption which maintains the status quo leadership in places like Saudi Arabia and Sudan? Should we not be more ashamed that the fifth pillar of our faith, Zakat, or charity, has fallen, resulting in the severe poverty ravaging our sisters and brothers throughout Asia and Africa, for is it not a fact that the majority of charitable funding originates from those who can hardly feed their own families? Is it not more repulsive to see Muslims carrying out atrocities in Bali or a tribal council in Pakistan sentencing Mukhtar Mai, a Muslim sister, to gang rape for violations of classism committed by her brother and then furthering the insult by acquitting the men who violated her in a state court? Would it not make more sense to march against the embassies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps no other occurrence so easily demonstrates the urgent need for reform within the Islamic community than the ones we've seen in the news this week. Those imams who have called for calm and put themselves in harm's way should be commended. The fact, however, that people are forbidden many personal freedoms in the Muslim world illustrates what can happen when the open exchange of ideas is prohibited albeit by many of these same imams. Several of those who have involved themselves in the violent protests have been forbidden to even view the drawings in question. On man in Jordan was actually arrested for re-publishing them; he didn't condone them, he only wanted people to see what they were so outraged against. As Muslims, we are instructed by the Qur'an to treat all of God's Prophets with the same degree of honor (2:285), yet I don't recall Muslims voicing outrage when other prophets have been degraded. When the Brooklyn Art Museum exhibited offensive caricatures of Jesus and his mother, the Holy Virgin Mary, may peace be with them, Muslims should have been equally as disgusted.
The point is, we as an Ummah have much more serious problems plaguing us. I support protesting against inflammatory depictions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, but not by indulging in violence. Boycott goods produced in Norway and Denmark, as one sister who was interviewed by the BBC is doing; call for the end of anti-Muslim bigotry and march in front of embassies- but above all fight for personal freedoms and democratic reform within our own communities. Fight for an end to poverty and inequity. Fight against those carrying out atrocities under the banner of Islam. In short, let's get our house in order before we allow it to collapse above us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)