Stuff Muslims Like

At the moment quite a popular web phenomena is the satirical blog Stuff White People Like, in which Christian Lander and Myles Valentin take digs at yuppie culture (with Things Bogans Like being on the other end of the spectrum...). So that's all well and good, upper-class white folks hold much of the power on this planet, but what about the not always-so-white 20% of the world population? That's right, the MUZ-LIMZ.

So what do Muslims like? Here's a 'lil mini-list I compiled.....

1. Not being on time

There's GMT, EST but don't forget MST - Muslim Standard Time. You'd think that showing up late is the Sixth Pillar of Islam. People say that they'll show up at X time, and arrive two hours later. And it's not only guests that suffer from this chronological laxity, but the host as well. It gets to the point that a lot of the time the guest technically isn't even late at all - showing up at an Islamic conference half an hour late when the organisers take forty-five minutes to start means actually makes it possible for a latecomer to be early! Trippy, dude.

2. Asking reverts how they came to Islam

Typical scene: a mosque after Friday noon prayer. The khateeb/a board member/some important dude asks the soon-to-be-new-Muslim to come up to the front. The revert says the shahada into the microphone. Is promptly engulfed by a sea of brothers asking him how he became Muslim. Even further down the track the revert is still not safe. Any mention of one's non-originally-Muslimness will almost inevitably result in the same question over and over again - "So, how did you become Muslim?". Some wonderful, caring people will preface their question with "I know you've probably been asked this a million times before..." before shooting out the big Q - as if it makes things any different!

Indeed, everybody expects a dramatic, action-packed story filled with many trials and tribulations, and touching accounts of spiritual realisation. Typically, the revert would have previously been an alcoholic/drug addict/criminal/broken veteran/Islamophobe/devil-worshipping chainsaw-murderer (basically, the more unsavoury, the more inspiring). Personally, I prefer the reply "I'm just in it for the chicks".

3. Conspiracy theories

Lost, The X-Files, Prison Break, JFK and Roswell......everybody loves a good conspiracy theory, and Muslims are no different. Here's an example of what a typical Muslim conspiracy theory looks like:

Non-Muslim theory: 9/11 was when a bunch of guys crashed a couple of planes into the World Trade Center

Muslim conspiracy theory: 9/11 was when a group of automated Israeli cyborgs controlled by Mossad and funded by the CIA crashed a couple of planes into the World Trade Center after making sure that they were loaded full of kidnapped Muslims who everybody thinks are non-Muslim Americans because the US Government forged all the IDs on the casualty registers in order to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan to recover the lost Ancient Sceptre of Kickass a powerful artefact with the power to level continents originally owned by the Knights Templar whose descendants still exist as a secret society pulling the strings of power behind closed doors in the US Government in an unholy alliance with the Jews each one of who is actually a mutant guinea pig from outer space operating a sophisticated biological human-suit.

These theories aren't just limited to coffee-bar chatter or nights at the multiplex. Indeed, Muslims love their conspiracy theories so much that they make every effort to live them out in the daily activities. For instance, here in Melbourne many a Muzzie can be seen enthusiatically taking the tram up to the CBD for lunch rather than buy a cream cheese bagel in St Kilda......after all, we can't risk the money going to the evil guinea-pig world domination plot, can we?

4. Inserting 'Arabisms' into each and every sentence

The Muslim is obliged to be in a constant state of the rememberance of God, and this is reflected in his/her speech. He/she reacts to good fortune with "Alhamdullilah" (praise be to God), expresses amazement with "Subhanallah" (glory be to God) and bids people farewell with "Fi amanillah" (I leave you in the protection of God). However, all too often, people feel that they just have to extend this practice to also peppering their speech with random secular Arabic words and phrases - even when they aren't actually Arab themselves!  Khalas akhi, I'm all for linguistic diversity, ya'ni, it's all just a bit try-hard. Yalla!

5. Calling people "Wahabi"

Want a quick and easy way to marginalise people who disagree with you? Simple, just slap the "Wahabi" label on them! Is someone questioning your penchant for Fiddy Cent? No worries, just call them a "Wahabi"! Dude is uncomfortable with women not covering their heads in public? Oooh, they must be "Wahabi"! Somebody thinks your complete rejection of the Four Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence and the hadith collections is just a little bit iffy? "WAHABI"! "WAHABI"! "WAHABI"! (oh, the irony of the last one...)

6. "Exotic" Reverts

It's tough being an Anglo Muzzie. You were all the rage back in the day, but now the best you usually get is a "Mashallah bro!" and perhaps a quick hug. Then everybody turns and looks at the guy who just walked into the musallah. Excited whispers abound.

Ethnic Muslim 1: "Is he Indonesian?"

Ethnic Muslim 2: "Nah don't think so bro....."

EM1: "Malaysian?"

EM2: "Dunno bro..."

EM1: "C'mon, ask him!"

EM2: "No, you ask him!"

EM1: "Ah, where are you from brother?"

New Dude: "Erm....Australia..."

EM1: "Aus....Uzbekistan!?"

ND: "Nah, I'm Australian. I was born here."

EM1: "Aw, yeah bro, but y'know, where are you from?"

ND: "......"

EM1: "Like your parents...."

ND: "Y'see, me dad is....aw heck....well basically I'm Chinese...."

EM1: "AW MASHALLAH BRO! SUBHANALLAH YA RABBIL'ALAMIN!" (massive Arab cheek-kissing bear hug)

Anglo guy: "Trust me bro, it's not always smooth going." 

ND: "You don't say...."



There's my bit of cheap humour for the day!

Insert Beatles/U2 Joke Here...

Imagine there's no rebels

William Easterly

December 19, 2010

 

THE recent release of the Beatles's music on iTunes, coupled with the anniversary of John Lennon's death in New York City 30 years ago this month, has brought on a wave of Beatles nostalgia. For so many of my generation growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, Lennon was a hero, not just for his music but for his fearless activism against the Vietnam War.

Is there a celebrity activist today who matches Lennon's impact and appeal? The closest counterpart to Lennon now is U2's Bono - another transcendent musical talent championing another cause: the battle against global poverty.

But there is a fundamental difference between Lennon's activism and Bono's, and it underscores the sad evolution of celebrity activism in recent years. Lennon was a rebel. Bono is not.

Lennon's protests against the war in Vietnam so threatened the US government that he was hounded by the FBI, police and even immigration authorities. He was a moral crusader who challenged leaders whom he thought were doing wrong.

Bono, by contrast, has become a sort of celebrity policy expert, supporting specific technical solutions to global poverty. He does not challenge power but rather embraces it; he is more likely to appear in photo ops with international political leaders - or to travel through Africa with a treasury secretary - than he is to call them out in a meaningful way.

There is something inherently noble about the celebrity dissident, but there is something slightly ridiculous about the celebrity wonk.

Lennon was no Johnny-come-lately to the antiwar movement. As early as 1966, during the Beatles' American tour, he answered a reporter's question about Vietnam, much to the consternation of the band's business manager. ''We just don't like it. We don't like war,'' Lennon said simply. And when he married Yoko Ono in 1969, they used their honeymoon to stage two serio-comic ''bed-ins'' to publicise the antiwar cause.

Lennon also merged his activism and his music: In 1969, Give Peace a Chance became the anthem of the movement after half a million people sung along at a huge demonstration at the Washington Monument. That same year he sent back an award he had received a few years earlier from the Queen, in protest against British support for the Vietnam War. After moving to New York in 1971, he continued his high-profile opposition to the war, and two more songs released that year - Imagine and Happy Xmas (War Is Over) - expanded his antiwar repertoire.

Lennon paid a price for his activities. We now know from subsequent Freedom of Information Act releases that the FBI monitored and harassed him. In 1971, Richard Nixon set in motion a four-year effort to deport him, which failed after the political tide in America turned against the war.
In this role, Lennon was continuing a venerable tradition: the celebrity as a crusader against the wrongs committed by those in power. In the 19th century, the celebrity activists had been not musicians but writers. Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and other authors loudly supported the abolitionist crusade against slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe went further and wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin to boost the anti-slavery cause - a sort of 19th-century equivalent of Imagine.

Mark Twain denounced American imperialism and atrocities in the 1898 Spanish-American War and the 1899-1902 Philippine-American War, publishing his savage satirical essay To the Person Sitting in Darkness in 1901.

In the imperialist claim to spread ''civilisation'', he detected ''two kinds of civilisation - one for home consumption and one for the heathen market''. Twain also saw ''two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him … then kills him to get his land''. Other Twain essays on the same issue were so politically toxic that he could not get them published during his lifetime.

Alas, today's celebrities seldom challenge power in the manner of Twain or Lennon. Bono's signature effort involves the Millennium Development Goals campaign, a United Nations-sponsored initiative to achieve eight anti-poverty goals by 2015. The campaign stresses that 189 world leaders have endorsed the targets to reduce poverty and hunger and to improve health by the deadline.

In the course of his activism, Bono had regular photo-ops and lunches with President George W. Bush, giving Bush a much-needed publicity boost on US foreign aid and on his campaigns against AIDS. For example, the singer appeared onstage with Bush at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington in 2002, as the president pledged a $5 billion increase in foreign aid. In May of that year, Bono even toured Africa with Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, fully aware that the administration was capitalising on his celebrity.

''My job is to be used. I am here to be used,'' he told The Washington Post. ''It's just, at what price? As I keep saying, I'm not a cheap date.''

While Bono calls global poverty a moral wrong, he does not identify the wrongdoers. Instead, he buys into technocratic illusions about the issue, without paying attention to who has power and who lacks it, who oppresses and who is oppressed. He runs with the crowd that believes ending poverty is a matter of technical expertise - doing things such as expanding food yields with nitrogen-fixing leguminous plants or solar-powered drip irrigation.

These are fine moves as far as they go, but why have Bono champion them? The technocratic approach puts him in the position of a wonk, not a dissident; an expert, not a crusader. (Little wonder he hasn't cranked out a musical hit related to his activism.) Can you imagine Lennon passing himself off as an authority on the intricacies of Vietnamese politics and history? His message was simpler: This war is wrong.

Bono is not the only well-intentioned celebrity wonk of our age - the impulse is ubiquitous. Angelina Jolie, for instance, is a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations (seriously), in addition to serving as a UN goodwill ambassador. Ben Affleck has become an expert on the war in Congo. George Clooney has Sudan covered, while Leonardo DiCaprio hobnobs with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders at a summit to protect tigers; both actors have written opinion essays on those subjects published in The Washington Post, further solidifying their expert bona fides.

But why should we pay attention to Bono's or Jolie's expertise on Africa, any more than we would ask them for guidance on the proper monetary policy for the Federal Reserve?

True dissidents - celebrity or not - play a vital role in democracy. But the celebrity desire to gain political power and social approval breeds intellectual conformity, precisely the opposite of what we need to achieve real changes. Politicians, intellectuals and the public can fall prey to groupthink (''We must invade Vietnam to keep the dominoes from falling!'') and need dissidents to shake them out of it.

True dissidents claim no expertise; they offer no 10-point plans to fix a problem. They are most effective when they simply assert that the status quo is morally wrong. Of course, they need to be noticed to have an impact, hence the historical role of dissidents, such as Lennon, who can use their celebrity to be heard.

We're hardly starved of potential moral challenges for our leaders today, in the age that has witnessed Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and enduring wars with unclear objectives and the clearest of casualties.

On Bono's signature issue of poverty, for instance, why not call out a few of the oppressive regimes that keep their people impoverished - as well as the leaders, in the US and elsewhere, who have supported them with economic and military aid? (Bono has acknowledged that ''tinpot dictators'' were a problem for aid efforts in the past but has not confronted today's despots and their enablers in rich nations.)

We need more high-profile dissidents to challenge mainstream power. This makes it all the sadder that Bono and many other celebrities only reinforce this power in their capacity as faux experts. Where have all the celebrity dissidents gone? It's not a complicated task. All Lennon was saying was to give peace a chance.

William Easterly is a professor of economics at New York University and co-director of NYU's Development Research Institute.

THE WASHINGTON POST

The Rev. Canon Dr. Giles Fraser on Christmas

The cringe at the heart of Christmas

Giles Fraser

December 12, 2010

Christmas can be a bad time for those of us with an allergy to all that Jesus-is-my-friend theology.

CHRISTMAS can be a bad time for those of us with an allergy to all that Jesus-is-my-friend theology. As the angels sing, the eternal mystery pulsing through all things becomes a human being. Yes, this is orthodox Christianity. But what too many Christians take from this is theological permission to get terribly chummy with the divine. As God turns into Jesus, mystery can be replaced by sentiment, eternity forced to the scale of the domestic imagination. God becomes my best buddy. It's the cringe at the heart of Christmas.

In contrast, throughout the Hebrew scriptures God is inscrutable. He is found in the burning bush or speaks out of the cloud at the top of the mountain. At best, God is only glimpsed from the corner of one's eye, if at all. The second of the 10 commandments gives specific instruction that there cannot be an image of the invisible God. It is a way of suspecting any form of God that presents itself as too clear, definite or certain. And this is not just about visual representation. Any representation - philosophical, literary or poetic - that reckons it has God sussed deserves to be distrusted, smashed even. Iconoclasm is the way theology strikes back against the hubris of believers who think the question of God is quick and easy.


Perhaps this is a fancy way of saying that all good theological conversations should begin ''I do not know''. Yet today it is strident certainty that marks most public theological discourse. Believers who are sure of themselves and of what they mean by God slug it out with unbelievers who are equally sure. In this deeply uninteresting boo-hurrah, what is completely ignored by both tribes is that subtler and more complex approach to the big questions, in which the universe is experienced as the most extraordinary mystery.

To stare into the night sky and ponder why there is something rather than nothing, to experience awe at a child's birth, to want the world to be transformed, to seek forgiveness for your own failure and stupidity, to feel the need for silence, to suppose that love has to be at the heart of things - these experiences are not the preserve of the religious. In many such things, those of faith and those of none sit alongside each other as fellow travellers.

This week sees the start of Uncertain Minds, a series of conversations on agnosticism convened jointly by The Guardian and St Paul's Cathedral in London. It is an attempt to make space for a different, more open sort of discussion, one not dominated by a binary clash of certainties. There will be some on both sides who view all this as a traitorous collaboration with an ideological enemy. But that's ridiculous. The human search for meaning and truth needs many voices.

There is much, for instance, that belief has to learn from unbelief. The whole apophatic tradition in theology regards the search for God as being driven along by a recognition of what God is not. In this way, theology proceeds through a series of denials - God cannot be this, God cannot be that - thus stripping away falsehood and driving us deeper into the nature of reality. If Christians believe that God is truth, they must not be afraid of where the search for truth leads, however seemingly uncomfortable.

The reason so many contemporary Christians find this cloud of unknowing approach so peculiar is that they have overemphasised the immanent God/man of Christmas to the exclusion of the transcendent God of the universe. In downplaying God's sheer otherness, they have become overconfident that they know what God looks like.

Evangelical Christianity, with all its emphasis on Jesus as friend, risks domesticating the divine, pulling God too much within the dimensions of the human perspective. With this sort of Jesus at hand, God becomes just too easy.

Yes, of course, one can read the incarnation very differently. I would argue that the idea of God as a baby is one of the most disruptive theological suggestions ever made. After all, isn't God supposed to be omnipotent? Here, Jesus is a supreme form of denial - a denial of God as power. And this powerlessness can be as much intellectual as anything else. To be a Christian is not to have the answers. Sometimes it's just about living the questions.

GUARDIAN

Giles Fraser is canon chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral.

Sheikh Hisham Kabbani @ The Melbourne Theosophical Society

On 2 December, the Melbourne Theosophical Society hosted a public talk by Sheikh Hisham Kabbani of the Naqshbandi Haqqani tariqa, which was part of his second visit to Australia (the first being in 2009). The Sheikh also brought his family along.

The MC's introduction (young members of the Sheikh's family in the foreground!)

Getting the microphone ready

Expounding a point (Ali Elsayed at immediate left)

The audience included his Australian-based murideen, members of the society, and various interested individuals. Sheikh Kabbani made a humorous entrance as he grabbed a handful of sweets from a bowl near the MC's podium and threw it into the crowd, in a move too fast for my camera finger to capture. Preceding his talk, Ali Elsayed performed several qasidas in his rich voice, assisted by a trio of backup drummers.

After the performance, Sheikh Kabbani began his talk in earnest, dealing with the subjects of the importance of having a spiritual guide, and how to cultivate one's spirituality in a hostile modern environment. Notable memories included his account of talking to a psychologist one day who advocated the daily counting of one's own good deeds. Sheikh Kabbani agreed somewhat with this concept, but emphasised the concept of counting one's bad deeds, as self-reflection biased in favour of the former often just serves to feed one's ego. He also exhorted the audience to practise regular meditation, using the analogy of the mind as a computer - uploading too much results in a crash which must be balanced by downloading (he possibly meant to use the words 'upload' and 'download' the other way around, but hey....), which is the use of meditation. Often when he mentioned the Prophet's name (s.a.w.), he would stand up from his seat in respect, also taking the audience with him!

I had the opportunity to ask him a question at the end. I wanted to know his opinion about I felt the use of the term 'Sufism' in lieu of 'tassawuf' contributed to the popular perception of  'Sufism' as a fringe sect of Islam, rather than its most central and profound science. The Sheikh mentioned in his reply  how 'Sufism' was essentially a western term. He said that tassawuf didn't have a name in the earliest history of Islam, but was a concrete reality, citing as an example the Ahl al-Suffa (People of the Bench/Platform), a group of poor Muslims who spent their days in constant worship, who for this purpose the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) actually allocated a corner of his mosque to.  He illustrated his point in a pithy statement, which essentially was that tassawuf used to be 'a reality without a name', but these days is 'a name without a reality'. He further stated the role of certain Muslim reform movement/s of the modern era (whose oil money and political and media influence far outstripped their actual status as a heterodox minority) in potraying tassawuf as a deviant practice. However, he also mentioned how these reformers are having difficulty getting out of the mess they created, citing as an example how a certain Wahabist newsletter/paper actually tried to assert that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab practised tassawuf himself!

After answering my query the Sheikh finally took his leave, although not without having a woman or two from the audience apparently coming up to him to take bayat (Suleiman's note 12/12/10: my bad, apparently it wa just babies getting blessed)! Although I would have relished the opportunity to pick the Sheikh's brain further, the event was a valuable privilege which I was glad to take part in.

Flock Ewe, Sheep-Killing Baa-stard!

Hello possums.

Not too long ago was the festival of Eid ul-Adha, the Islamic festival when Muslims commemorate Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for God (see here for an in-depth explanation of the event). It is a tradition for eligible individuals to offer a sacrifice (a sheep, goat, camel, or cow) on the days of the celebration. This sacrifice is known as udhiya or qurban/qurbani, and the meat is shared out amongst the community, especially the poor and needy. It's best for one to undertake the slaughter oneself, however it is considered permissible for people to arrange for someone else to perform the slaughter on one's behalf, which doesn't have to be in the same country as the person who ordered the sacrifice. Such a practice is especially common amongst Muslims living in the urban areas of western countries, where it is highly impractical to offer a sacrifice the traditional way.

I ordered my own qurbani through the non-profit organisation Mahboba's Promise, an Australian NGO founded by Mahboba Rawi, an Afghan refugee. A short while ago, after Eid, I received an email from MP with a link to an online photo album with pics from the organisation's Eid slaughter in Kabul. As I scanned through the images, I came across photos of the freshly prepared meat laid out on a cloth on the ground, with signs bearing the names of the corresponding qurbani donors marking each pile of cuts. And lo and behold, I saw the pile of meat with a sign bearing my name!

Meat, glorious meat (sorry folks, my name is not included in this shot!).



Conflicting emotions surged through my heart. The pride of, well, seeing one's own name put to something. The shame of realising that one is feeling this pride. However, I came to recognise a feeling which transcended all others, though I couldn't really name it.

You see, I came to realise something about our interactions with each other and the world, in this plane of existence. We all intellectually know that all actions have their respective effects. Throw a pebble, and make ripples. However, this knowledge is often precisely that - knowledge. We know it, but we act like we don't, and live like we don't - because even though we know it, it is just not real to us. We live in our foggy little bubbles, going about our everyday affairs, and who could blame us - if we don't experience something, can we really be expected to have a strong feeling about it?

So as I gazed upon my name on that nice little heap of mutton, Afghanistan became real to me. Those kids and slaughtermen in the photos, making dua together became real to me. Because of the power of a photo, my knowledge became real. I now knew, with full confidence that I just helped, no matter how ever so slightly, to make things better for a few people, for at least a short while. I realised that one could indeed create a tangible change and make a difference no matter where in the world one may be, as long as one puts one's mind to it. For a few moments at least, I truly got a sense of the brotherhood of man - we indeed are all in this together. No matter how seemingly insignificantly, my life cannot help but be touched by yours, and yours cannot help but be touched by mine.

I guess you could say that the overarching emotion I felt was hope. From the realised knowledge that I received in those few moments, I knew that anything is possible in regards to man. I received renewed hope in mankind's collective destiny, and have hope that we can work together to realise it.

Will I be able to sustain such realisations? For how long will I be able to live my life in the light of such realities before I sink again into forgefulness and the everyday humdrum? I don't know....but hope is alway there!

Big up yo'self Mahboba and co.!

Sakineh M. Ashtiani: Light at the end of the tunnel at last?

Global opinion is with her, but will it prove to be enough?

I received the following email from Avaaz.org. Inshallah justice shall prevail, and this case will set a beneficial precedent for human rights in Iran, a beautiful country which can always be ever more so. 

Dear friends,

Our global outcry worked and Sakineh is still alive! The next step is to fund international experts to strengthen Sakineh's legal defense and work with officials in Iran to resolve this shameful situation. Let's build on our 900,000-strong outcry and fund the next steps to win her freedom once and for all. Click below to help:

Sakineh is still alive! We stopped her stoning sentence, postponed an attempt to hang her quietly, and let the Iranian government know that the world is watching and outraged. Now is the time to save Sakineh for good.

Over 900,000 of us sent messages and made calls to key government officials after learning of her imminent execution. But now we're at an impasse and have to give Iran a way out of this dilemma. The next step towards freeing Sakineh is to fund international experts to strengthen her legal defense and work with officials in Iran to resolve this shameful situation. If thousands of us donate we can hire an elite team of advocates, keep campaigning to free Sakineh and work on behalf of others facing brutal injustice. Click on the link below to support Sakineh:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/whats_next_for_sakineh_1/?vl

Iran has tried everything to keep Sakineh in jail. They accused her of adultery and sentenced her to stoning despite the fact that the alleged adultery took place after her husband’s death. They sentenced her to death for the murder of her husband even though she had already been acquitted, and another man convicted and sentenced for the murder. They even arrested her son and lawyer and forced the rest of the legal team into exile. After massive international pressure, Iranian officials must be desperate for a face-saving way out of this mess..

And now, for the first time, there is dissent within Iran from Conservative forces about the treatment of Sakineh and the way her case has been handled by the Iranian government. Some are calling for her acquittal of all charges.

A team of diplomatic and legal experts could build on this dissent and work within Iran to secure Sakineh's release. Our call, 900,000 voices strong, in combination with pressure from inside Iran for Sakineh's release is the best chance we have to save Sakineh. Now is the moment to give whatever we can to end her brutal persecution:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/whats_next_for_sakineh_1/?vl

In the campaign against the death penalty worldwide, Sakineh's survival is an important beacon of hope. We have shown unprecedented support for her through an explosive petition, strategic ads in Iranian-allied countries and a flood of messages to world leaders generating an international outcry. Join us in this next step towards freeing Sakineh, ending stoning, and eliminating the death penalty across the globe.

With hope and determination,

Emma, Alice, Stephanie, Ricken, David, Ben, Graziela, Iain and the rest of the Avaaz team.

Tehran regime starts to split over Ashtiani death by stoning verdicthttp://www.polijam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37191:tehran-regime-starts-to-split-over-ashtiani-death-by-stoning-verdict&catid=54:world&Itemid=53

Brazil President Elect speaks against Iran stoninghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305762.html

Sarkozy threatens to suspend dialogue if Sakineh was executed.http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/11/03/01003-20101103ARTFIG00419-sakineh-sarkozy-aurait-directement-menace-l-iran.php

Canada condemns possible execution:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-calls-planned-execution-of-iranian-woman-completely-out-of-line/article1783290/

UK calls for halt of executionhttp://ukiniran.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=23139672

US demands no execution:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXcWTNyR_NntWQMCKG3d9XxYBISw?docId=CNG.8a2d12eae1177874ba5a4a061cec5e53.231

Letter of thanks: Stop Stoning Internationalhttp://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/4242

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani: A life in the Balance (Amnesty International)http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/089/2010/en/589bd56b-49ac-4028-8dc6-abd903ac9bac/mde130892010en.pdf

Costume Capers

A Hui man - totally Chinese, and totally Muslim.

G'day mates and matesses!

With Eid ul-Adha just around the corner, people everywhere turn their thoughts to what to wear for the celebrations. Indeed, at the masjid the other day I couldn't help but try on a very nice shalwar kameez that I noticed was for sale. I was ultimately put off by the hefty price tag, but it got me thinking about the topic of modern muzzie fashion......

Now, Australia is basically a nation of immigrants, each ethnic group bringing its own culture and clothing. From the aforementioned shalwar kameez to thawbs, jalabiyas, kufis and turbans, Muslims from different countries proudly display the ornaments of their unique identity.

But what about those Muslims from a non-Islamic culture? This invariably means those who are reverts/converts, or born Muslims whose parents come from a background with little or no historical Islamic tradition. For instance, one may be a Scotsman who has accepted Islam in his twenties, or somebody raised as a Muslim whose Bronx-born mother and father entered the deen back in the days of Malcolm X.

The sartorial habits of these people can be said to fall into three general categories:

1. Absolutely no change from what they would 'typically' wear as a non-Muslim.

2. What they would 'typically' wear as a non-Muslim, with the rejection of certain items (eg shorts and miniskirts) and/or the addition of certain accessories, such as a skullcap for men or a hijab for women.

3. Adoption of the dress of a 'traditionally' Islamic culture.

It's funny to consider the things that one would 'typically' wear. For instance, in this country a Pakistani (or any suitably 'brown-looking') guy would attract no attention in a t-shirt and jeans, and if he were to wear a shalwar kameez as ordinary street attire people might go 'hmm' but basically accept it as normal. But if an East Asian guy dons a Chinese hanfu or Mao jacket, or a Japanese hakama, people think that he's performing for some cultural festival!

Not that there's no good reason for this. The SK is still a commonly worn everyday item back in Pakistan (and to a certain extent so is the Mao jacket in China, but hey, that's just how people's minds work), but the hanfu and hakama have all but died out for everything but formal events. This is symptomatic of the homogenizing effect of globalization, as traditional aesthetics are sidelined - the Mao jacket itself was only adopted in the early 20th century!

For 'New World Muslims' we have the potential to fall into either one of two extremes. The use of 'Western' clothing by people from a non-western background (eg Chinese reverts), even if 'Muslimized' via a hijab or skullcap can arguably be said to merely further reinforce the cultural hegemony of the globalizing West, as difference is slowly but inexorably eliminated.

On the other hand, I personally find it quite tragic how so many reverts enthusiastically ape 'traditional' Muslim fashion to the point of cariacature. From massive, pointy-headed turbans to abayas and burkhas, they leave people wondering what they find so incredibly deficient about their own cultures. Rather than a genuine expression of diversity, this merely comes across as another form of assimilation.

Thus, it can be said that the issue is how to retain uniqueness and originality without alienating the non-Muslim mainstream or resorting to cultural appropriation. 'New World Muslims' can try to convince themselves all they like about how they are just trying to follow the sunnah, but as long as they keep walking around the place like characters from A Thousand and One Nights, Islam will forever be regarded as something foreign and strange, a religion of the 'other', never to be integrated into western society. Such people uphold a crystallized and artificial view of what a real Muslim 'should' look like, when the fundamental sunnah in regards to clothing is simply modesty.

'New World Muslims' are in a unique position to act as trailblazers for both fashion and the normalization of Islam in western (or eastern, or northern, or southern.....) societies. They have the potential to serve as a bulwark against the homogenizing effect of globalization whilst opening their arms to modernity.

Now, I still wear a shirt, suit jacket and trousers to work, but hopefully one day every Muslim in Australia, Britain, France, Japan or Korea will be able to wear an outfit that says "I am of the country that I live in, I am of the culture that I belong to and I am of the religion that I practice" - all at the same time.

Eid mubarak in advance!

Funny, 'cos it's true

I saw this graffiti at Flinders St station the other day. Haha, bless.

And to my international readers wondering what mX is, well, maybe ignorance is bliss in this case. Stay innocent.....

A lesson in Muslim-canine relations

Hehehe!

Vids - Chinese Muslim Kung Fu

A wonderful and commonly overlooked cultural heritage! You can read a basic overview here. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy these videos:

A bunch of blokes strut their stuff



This guy has good stance work



A very tough old man!

Forum: Race and Identity in the Muslim Community

Left to right: Azhar Usman, Preacher Moss, Eugenia Flynn

On the 19th this month it was my pleasure to attend this little forum at the University of Melbourne. As the event's Facebook page put it, the matter for discussion was '....the politics of inclusion and exclusion taking place within many Muslim communities - communities which themselves are constantly subject to racism and daily pressures to 'integrate' and assimilate by wider society.'
The panelists consisted of Eugenia Flynn, a Muslim woman of Aboriginal and Chinese heritage with a CV longer than Hannibal Lecter's rap sheet, and Preacher Moss and Azhar Usman, founders of US comedy group Allah Made Me Funny.

Mr Moss gave a valuable insight into bing a black Muslim in America, and Mr. Usman powerfully closed the discussion with a discourse on the unreality of race on the metaphysical level, the universality of the Nur Muhammad (Light of Muhammad - a complex concept, speak to a knowledgable person!), and how the Ummah in fact includes all of creation. However, Ms Flynn was the first speaker, and for me, the most edifying (no offence to Misters Moss and Usman!), largely due to her reflections on Indigenous Australians, Islam and Australian society itself. Stating that the essence of the whole discussion can said to be to learn how to "Practice Islam with a mind that has ben decolonised", Ms Flynn refreshingly encouraged us to look at some hard truths. This post will thus focus on her presentation.

From a Catholic background, Ms Flynn accepted Islam some nine years ago, thought she made an effort to emphasise that this was a genuine spiritual awakening and not done as a rejection of a "religion of oppressors" - you'll see how this ties in with her following arguments.

As a convert/revert, she noticed how born Muslims would frequently treat new adopters of the religion as something of a badge of honour. Conversions to Islam were seen as a method of proving the superiority of the religion and the moral high ground of Muslims. Citing the long history of contact between Muslims (eg Macassan fishermen) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Islam was often seen as the religion of Indigenous Australians, to which they were converting in droves, regardless of the hyperbole of the statement and the fact that plenty of Indigenous peoples identiy as Muslim more through heritage than anything else - so far we cannot really say what Indigenous conversions to Islam indicate about Islam, Australia or other things in general.

Ms Flynn criticised how this perception of a sort of "exclusive bond" and sense of shared "non-whiteness" effectively implied a sense of ownership over Indigenous Australians, this arrogant attitude also serving to deny the legitimacy of others in regards to relations with Indigenous people. non-Indigenous Muslims are unconsciously drawn into bigotry as they feel that they have the right to take up Indigenous speaking space.

Indeed, Ms Flynn observed that many Muslims from migrant backgrounds ironically share the same mentality as white Christian missionaries. They view themselves as bringing freedom to the natives, bringing a superior belief system and way of life to wipe out primitive and superstitious beliefs and practices. These kinds of Muslims possess an implicit desire to colonise, and it is assumed that being Muslim necessarily involves giving up one's "Indigenousness". She cited an example of when, during a pro-Palestinian rally, a non-Muslim politician who was addressing the crowd began to draw parallels between the suffering of Palestinians and the suffering of Indigenous Australians - the previously enthusiatic applause died down almost immediately.

Ms Flynn further mentioned reading a thread about racism in a popular Australian Muslim online forum. A user stated in the thread how he/she was sick of Lebanese making fun of Indigenous people. Another user replied, writing that Indigenous Australians do nothing to counter stereotypes, and so deserve it anyway. All this when you'd think that Muslims would be such experts on racism! She then powerfully quoted an extract from an article by Irfan Yusuf (who I had the unexpected pleasure of meeting afterwards), which essentially stated that Muslim leaders should not expect empathy when they show none to those who have experienced prejudice a lot worse and for far longer.

She made a point on the privilege migrant-background Muslims possess over Indigenous people, a privilege that many Muslims are unaware of themselves.  In this regard, Muslim privilege is essentially the same as white privilege. They may see themselves as discriminated against, but every day non-Indigenous Muslims are enjoying along with the white majority the fruits of the legacy of colonialism. Ms Flynn called for us to challange prevailing perceptions and popular myths, and acknowledge Indigenous disadvantage. Muslims are enthusiatic about da'wah (inviting people to Islam), and view it as the height of adab (etiquette). But did this adab extend to the invitation to share in the land of the original Australians? Unfortunately, we lack the ultimate proper etiquette - the real invitation must be to consider the proper adab of living in Australia itself.

My great thanks to the organisers and panelists, and my sincere apologies in case I misquoted anybody. Prejudice is both overt and covert and we should not remain complicit in contributing to existing oppression - reality is unpalatable at times, but continuous self-reflection is a must if we want to move beyond problems and unto solutions. May we be constantly in a state of muhasaba, amin.

Suleiman, the Lentil-Munching Pinko Socialist

Salam, my sweet little beefcheeses.

For this post I thought I'd might introduce to you one of Melbourne's little gems: Lentil As Anything.

Lentil As Anything, or Lentil for short, is an organic vegetarian restaurant, located in the quaint surrounds of the Abbotsford Convent. Founded in 2000, it has since then branched out to possess restaurants in St Kilda and Footscray, as well as operating the canteen at nearby Collingwood College. Breakfast, lunch and dinner are all served.

Now, there's something special about Lentil. You see, it doesn't have any set prices for the food......

......you choose what to pay yourself!!! All payment is anonymously deposited by the customer in one of the 'honesty boxes' available in the restaurants. This 'Robin Hood theory' operates on the assumption that the customers who do pay well will make up for the stingy ones.

But Lentil isn't about the creation of a tightwad's paradise, it's a lot deeper than that. You see, Lentil is ultimately all about the community. This 'pay-as-you-feel' system allows all people, regardless of their financial situation or socioeconomic status, to enjoy the basic right of access to nourishment in a safe and friendly environment, without having to sacrifice their dignity asking for a handout and the like.

Relying heavily on volunteers, Lentil is notable for providing support and training for refugees, migrants, youth and other people facing social disadvantage. Services provided include access to a Immigration Consultant, English tutoring and long-term emergency accomodation. The restaurants also act as a platform for those seeking entry into the hospitality industry. Keeping in with the themes of community and coexistence, exhibitions of art, and performances of music etc from both local and foreign cultures are regularly held.

That's the true beauty of Lentil. Thought the grub is good, it's ultimately all about bringing people together, and giving them a go. It hasn't always been a smooth ride. Even now, the Abbotsford restaurant is currently experiencing troubles with maintaining their lease of the premises. But being such a valuable aspect of the local community, and indeed, Melbourne in general, here's hoping it will endure for a long time to come. If you would like to express your support for the Abbotsford folks, you can leave a message at http://www.savelentil.com/ or the corresponding facebook group or check out the official website or its Facebook presence.

The Abbotsford restaurant even provides markers to scribble messages on the walls, and I shall close with one particular message I found - make of it what you will!

Peace out, y'all!
  

The first and last post I will ever make on the burqa......

Your complete guide to bad burqa puns

Posted by Noorain Khan on July 20, 2010

Every time news about another hijab/niqab/burqa ban hits the press, editors rejoice: this is their chance to coin THE ultimate veil pun. Problem is, there's simply no such thing as a good veil pun.

Plays on words that seemed clever in 1996 (or rather, in colonial discourse from 1959) have become even more trite and cringeworthy after years of headline-grabbing headscarf-ban debates and "encounters" with women in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the sub-par puns don't stop, and some would make even Carrie Bradshaw roll her eyes (we acknowledge our own lame contributions to this canon). As someone who wore the "veil" for twelve years, I've endured their unpunny ubiquity in all their various forms and it gets less and less amusing. But it doesn't take years of wearing the hijab to see just how bad and pervasive "the bad veil pun" really is.

Unveiling the Truth! Unveiling the Myths!
A simple Google search reveals that the "unveiling the truth" is perhaps the most popular veil pun. In today's world of Muslim-female-otherness, we demand the truth about the mysterious, mythical creatures of the East… When it comes to discussions about Islam, war, and Muslim women, we don't just find the truth, folks, we unveil it!

"Unveiling the truth behind Shariah" [Toronto Sun]
"Unveiling the Truth" [Daily Times (Pakistan)]
"Unveiling the Truth" [10/19/06, New York Sun]
"Unveiling the truth about burqa bans" [Orange County Register]
"Muslim Women Uncover Myths about Hijab" [CNN.com]
"Help to unveil Muslim myths" [Illawarra Mercury (Australia)]

Unveiling Other Stuff!
And it turns out, you can (and very well should) unveil all sorts of Islam-related things.

"Burqa bans unveil a debate" [Sunshine Coast Daily (Australia)]
"Dutch unveil the toughest face in Europe with a ban on the burka" [Sunday Times]
"Sarkozy unveils 'burka ban' plan" [5/20/10, Brockville Recorder and Times (Canada)]
"Nile unveils bill to ban people hiding their faces" [Sydney Morning Herald]
"France is unveiling a new policy on Muslim attire: No veils for you!" (article lede) [New York Daily News]
"Unveiling Muslim way of life" [7/27/09, The Advertiser (Australia)]
"Women Unveil Why They Marry Faith With Dress" [The Age (Australia)]
"Platform 'unveiled'; McGuinty says Muslim women can vote wearing their burkas" [The Toronto Sun]
"The Swiss Minaret Ban: Anxieties, Unveiled" [LA Times]

Veiled Threats!
Of course, how can we forget the "veiled threat?" Uh oh! Watch out! Islam and Muslims are big, bad and ugly, and they're coming to getcha! These are most common in "integration" and "social cohesion debates" and further serve to remind you that Islamistan is taking over, stat.

"Veiled Threat" [Daily Dish]
"Veiled Threat" [Sunday Times]
"Veiled Threat: Niqab New Flashpoint in Tolerance Debate" [National Post]
"Veiled Threat?" [Daily Star]
"Veiled Threats" [New York Times]
"Veiled Threats: Row Over Islamic Dress Opens Bitter Divisions in France" [Guardian]
"Thinly veiled threat" [New Statesman]
"Focus: A Veiled Threat" [Sunday Times]
"No Veiled Threat- France Mulls Fines for Wearing Burka in Public" [New York Daily News]
"The Veiled Threat in Europe" [Khaleej Times]
"France's Veil Threat" [Los Angeles Times]
"Veiled fears: France's push to keep women s faces uncovered" [Globe and Mail]
"Racism Veiled as Liberation" [Guardian]

Behind the Veil!
The seemingly more empathetic and well-intentioned approach is the "behind the veil" pun. Connecting with the veiler by breaking through the veil's metaphorical "barrier," while not outright rejecting the veil, seems to bring to light the more positive stories. Still, it doesn't stop you from wanting to shout back, "my freaking hair (and maybe some of my face), boo!"

"Behind the Veil; Exploring Love, Sex and Freedom Among Muslim Women" [Hartford Courant]
"Behind the Veil: A Muslim Woman's Perspective" [Targeted News Service]
"Behind the Veil: Inside Iran" [Dateline NBC]
"Behind the Veil: An Intimate Journey into the Lives of Kandahar's Women" [Globe and Mail]
"Behind the veil: Why Islam's most visible symbol is spreading" [The Christian Science Monitor]
"Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality" [Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)]
"Inside Afghanistan: Behind the veil" [BBC News]
"Muslim Women: Behind the Veil" [Observer UK]
"Here's the Truth Behind the Veil" [Times of India]
"The Many Faces Behind the Veil" [The Independent]
"Pursuing Happiness Behind the Veil" [Los Angeles Times]
"Criminalising Women Behind the Veil" [BBC News]
"Life Behind The Veil" [Nepali Times]
"Voices from Behind the Veil" [Christian Science Monitor]
"From behind the hijab: women reveal their dream world" [Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)]
"What's hiding behind France's proposed burqa ban?" [Christian Science Monitor]
"Behind Burqa, Student Gets An Education in Bigotry" [Hartford Courant]
"French Niqab Ban: Beneath the Veil" [Guardian]
"Beneath the Veil" [Boston Globe]

The Special Award for Repetitive Use
This one goes to the New York Times.

"Veiled Arguments" [New York Times]
"Behind the Veil" [The New York Times]
"Tearing Away the Veil" [The New York Times]
"Under a Scarf, a Turkish Lawyer Fighting to Wear it" [The New York Times]
"Behind the Burqa" [The New York Times]
"Under the Cover of Islam" [The New York Times]
"Behind the Veil; A Muslim Woman Speaks Out" [The New York Times]
"Srinagar Journal; Behind the Veil, a Muslim Feminist" [The New York Times]
"Under the Veil" [The New York Times]

But don't forget shrouding! Veils shroud, too!
"Controversy shrouds Muslim women's head coverings" [USA Today]

More than just being annoying, these veil puns pointedly remind us of the public's obsession, discomfort, and fascination with Muslim women and their sexuality. Even when headlining an article about a Muslim-majority country or about Islam more generally, and not about Muslim women, the veil puns draw us back to what we should be thinking about-women who seem to exist in a sexual realm outside of the existing norms of Western society. The less-sexy reality is that Muslim women are neither defined by the veil, nor is it the most important community issue or need for Muslim women.

Moreover, these puns perpetuate that the idea that Islam (metaphorically) or Muslim women (literally), are things that ought to be unveiled. Of course this implies that the truth about Islam is somehow hidden or that Muslim women shouldn't wear veils. (Notice how often others unveil Muslim-y things, it's not painted as an autonomous act.)

There's no changing the fact that the language and popular discourses on Muslim women and Islamic modest dress make these puns write themselves. So if news outlets are committed to their puns, perhaps they can at least be a bit more creative.

With that I leave you with a refreshing veil-related story, devoid of the big bad veil pun. Editors, take note!

Noorain Khan is an intern at Jezebel.com where this article was originally published.

A Night Out + My Thoughts on 'Da'wah'

Dr Abdullah Periyardhasan struts his stuff

The other day I had the opportunity to attend a talk by Dr Periyadhasan, these days also better known as Dr. Abdullah, well-known Indian psychologist, politician, former film star and visiting professor at the University of California - oh yes, and celebrity Muslim convert. The talk, themed "Atheism to Islam", outlined his journey from Hinduism to atheism to flirtations with Buddhism and Christianity, and finally to the deen of Muhammad s.a.w. (btw, I wonder what the reaction would have been if this was an atheist event titled "Islam to Atheism"?)

After accidently walking into the sister's section, I was directed to the bloke's entrance where I perused the tables the hosting organization had loaded with various books - the usual stuff on how to achieve domestic harmony, treatises on the afterlife, "comparative religion" etc. as well as the obligatory material from petrodollar-rich Saudi publishing houses. After a little squiz, we were ushered into the lecture room where I observed that the vast majority of the audience were very obviously Muslim. After a brother recited an extract from Surah an-Nisa, the talk began in earnest.

Speaking in accented but articulate English, Dr. Abdullah proceeded to tell us of his spiritual journey. From his disillusionment with the expense and cruelty of Hindu rituals, then atheist anthropocentricism, Buddhist hedonism and hypocrisy before his final satisfaction in Islam, he (perhaps needless to say) had the audience largely on his side, even cracking a few well-received jokes now and then. I got the impression that he was basically a pretty good bloke.

After a break (and a $2 slice of pizza in my case), we reconvened in the theatre where a dude showed us a trailer of his organization's new historical presentation - "Crusades II - Mongol Scourge" complete with sinister music and a burning pile of decapitated heads (in the trailer, not real life!), after which a bunch of cute little poppets came up to sing "The Heart of a Muslim"  by Zain Bhikha. Unfortunately, I couldn't stay for the scheduled Q&A session with Dr. Abdullah.

When he was finishing his talk, Dr. Abdullah stated that he wasn't interested in converting non-Muslims. However, the whole experience got me thinking about the current status of da'wah in this society of ours.

Islam doesn't nearly have much of a proselytizing tradition as western Christianity, although it does see activities of outreach and invitation, which can be directed at both existing Muslims (e.g to strengthen their knowledge and faith) and non-Muslims.

I've noticed several patterns in contemporary da'wah practices. The first is the "comparative" approach. This involves pointing out (real or perceived) fallacies and weaknesses in other beliefs, and setting them up against a superior equivalent of your own belief system. "Oh lol, Hindus worship cows! Weez has a real God!" "Them atheists got no morality!" etc etc. etc. (without meaning to state that Dr. Abdullah actually said any of this)  However, this has very real disadvantages. At best, such an approach, when self-directed, only contributes to the development of pride in one's heart and at worst, contributes to parochialism and fanaticism. When directed at others, it simply serves to offend and further distance them from the da'i (performer of dawah).
'
Then there is the "apologetic" approach. This employs the use of rational arguments to defend one's religion, and to demonstrate that it is not irrational, or contradicts current trends, or science or human nature. For example, we can argue how Islam does not contradict 'democracy' or women's rights', or how the Quran mentions scientific facts. In my opinion, regardless of the validity of the arguments, this approach is merely passive and anaemic. It just serves to implicitly affirm the superiority of the dominant paradigm and its centrality in determining norms. Islam only becomes as valuable as its success in being an appendage to current fashions, rather than as a viable alternative in its own right. Thus we have things like "Islamic Feminism", "Islamic Socialism" and so on. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will fail to be persuaded by such a presentation. If I'm an atheist, why don't I ignore "Islamic Feminism" and go with plain old "Feminism" instead?

And then we have the "Fire and Brimstone" approach. When I was university, during one "O-Week" our Islamic Society set up a stall which included such delightful material as some brochures expounding all the terrible punishments in hell dealers in interest money wll face......says it all, really.

Dr Abdullah's presentation itself was good insofar as it was an account of his own experiences in life. However, much of the packaging of the event only served to further perpetuate such counterproductive da'wah. Elements which could have been beneficial to Muslims too often just felt like exercises in self-congratulation, and elements which could have benefited non-Muslims felt rather more like plain-old turn-offs.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Islam is a treasure chest of gems - we should just show these gems! What's the point of having leaflets on the comparative merits of Islam and Christianity, or hackneyed brochures on how Islam does not condone terrorism when we have things like Rumi's Masnavi and Farid ud-Din Attar's Conference of the Birds, or the works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Al-Ghazali? Why pontificate on how Islam promotes respect of people when we could simply make a habit of smiling at the bus driver, or try out at a soup kitchen? Certainly more effective at giving a good impression than threats of damnation!

We have such a rich tradition, a living tradition and we should plumb it. For a people who value their own religion so much, it is ironic that we so often look to the likes of Evangelical Christianity to inspire our activities.

Wa Allahu a'lam

Pew Research Center: Religious Knowledge in the US

Assalamu aleikum/G'day/Gutentag/Konnichiwa/你好,

Not to long ago the Pew Research Center conducted a survey in which 3,412 Americans were asked to answer 32 questions on religion. The survey found that:

" On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education."

Predictably, the blogosphere was soon filled with significant amounts of self-congratulatory chatter. For instance, in response to an entry on the Guardian website about this topic (which contained a link to a 15-question sample survey), reader comments such as the following could be found:

"well of course the atheists know their stuff - we're the ones who have actually applied some thought and enquiry to the concept!"

 and

"Atheists do better in this quiz because we are better educated and better informed. We are interested in other people's points of view and take the trouble to learn about them before making decisions. As an atheist, I got 14\15."

Now, one of the fundamental concepts in academia is the acknowledgement of the difference between the hard data itself, and the interpretation of the data. It is very natural to infer from the results of the survey that the survey itself is a manifestation of a truth that atheists and agnostics benefit from inherent superiority in the field of intellect. However, such a conclusion fails to take into account the fact that the basic finding of this 32-question survey of 3,412 Americans was exactly that - that of a group of 3,412 Americans asked 32 questions, atheists and agnostics on average got the most number of questions right out of the 32 questions asked.

It is worth asking ourselves:

1. What exactly was the nature of these questions? Is this significant?
2. Of what significance is the number of questions asked?
3. Of what significance is the sample size?
4. How was it that the atheists/agnostics got the most questions right on average? What is the meaning of such a result?
5. It is stated that "Data from the survey indicate that educational attainment – how much schooling an individual has completed – is the single best predictor of religious knowledge." So, what is the relationship between lack of religion and educational attainment? Is there a relationship? And what kind of relationship is it anyway?
6. What reflection is such a high score of an individual's intelligence and wisdom?

So, do people like the writers of the above two comments have it in the bag? Or are they merely victims of the likes of confirmation bias and illusory correlation? After all, can't one also suggest that the study only goes to show the atheistic tendency for gathering of superficial trivia at the expense of any real sort of understanding?

Blind men, here is your elephant!

Intoxicating Salawat!

I found this absolutely wonderful recording on the website of a tassawuf group. It is the first entry on the page: "Salawat Damascus, recorded on site"

Enjoy!

The Donkey's Jihad on 'Sufism'

Greetings, my two-legged friends,

Long time readers (yes, plural!) would remember that one of the categories for labelling my posts was 'Sufism'. However,as of late I have deleted this as a category as replaced it with the term 'Tasawwuf'.

Though I was always aware of the superior appropriateness of this latter term, I was content to use 'Sufism', as it more or less served its taxonomical purpose, or so I thought, plus the fact that it is a much more familiar word with non-Muslims.

But this recent change is not just the outcome of pedantry. The words we choose to use have very real effects in life outside of the printed page or internet. I have noted as much in previous posts. Rather, my motivation comes from the realisation of the harms such careless use of language may produce.

The prevailing image of tasawwuf in the West is of whirling dervishes and fire-walking fakirs. Of the (often atrociously watered-down) poetry of Rumi (qaddasah Allahu sirrah, may God sanctify his mystery) and songs about love and wine. Tassawuf is seen as a kind of 'Islam-lite', a benign heresy, amusing distraction for spiritually-starved Westerners and happy-clappy solution to everything that is wrong with 'Muhammadanism'.

This is in complete ignorance of its central role in Islamic spiritual life. Tasawwuf is not some motely collection of eccentric practices. Rather, it is the internal dimension of worship itself.

It can be said that Islam consists of three parts, each with its corresponding science. The first, most basic element is Islam itself, used in its sense as a verb, meaning the act of submission to the Will of God. The science of Islam is fiqh, or religious jurisprudence. The second element is iman, or faith, a confidence in belief which comes as a logical outcome to the act of submission. Its corresponding science is aqidah or creed. The final element is ihsan, the perfection of worship. There is a hadith in the collection of Sahih Muslim which states this beautifully:

As we sat one day with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), a man in pure white clothing and jet black hair came to us, without a trace of travelling upon him, though none of us knew him.

He sat down before the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bracing his knees against his, resting his hands on his legs, and said: "Muhammad, tell me about Islam." The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and to perform the prayer, give zakat, fast in Ramadan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House if you can find a way."

He said: "You have spoken the truth," and we were surprised that he should ask and then confirm the answer. Then he said:
"Tell me about true faith (iman)," and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: "It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His inspired Books, His messengers, the Last Day, and in destiny, its good and evil."

"You have spoken the truth," he said, "Now tell me about the perfection of faith (ihsan)," and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: "It is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you see Him not, He nevertheless sees you."

~ Sahih Muslim, 1.37, hadith 8

(Incidentally, this man in pure white clothing was actually the angel Gabriel alayhissalam). And what is this corresponding science to ihsan? Yep, you guessed it, tasawwuf.  How tasawwuf is performed can vary greatly, from endeavouring to improve one's concentration during prayer to performance of the famous sema ritual. Regardless, no one can deny its status as the heart of the religion. This heart cannot exist without its body, and the body cannot exist without the heart.

The use of the word 'Sufism' suggests the externalization of tasawwuf into a seperate sect of its own. The heart is ripped out of the body and zombiefied into a kind of fringe-cult which exists in contradiction to Islam. It is held that a 'Sufi' cannot possibly be an orthodox Muslim, and that an orthodox Muslim cannot possibly be a 'Sufi'.

And what is the result of this? Muslims are killing each other over supposed deviancy, and centuries-old spiritual heritage is being erased in the name of purifying the religion. Neoconservative think-tanks advocate the cooption of 'Sufism' to use in a divide-and-conquer strategy to serve the interests of their political masters. And some Muslims play straight into their hands by setting up 'Sufi' organizations defined in opposition to the mainstream, claiming to represent the 'real Islam' as if everybody else's 'Islam' is fake and labelling everybody who disagrees with them as 'Wahabi'.

Screw all this, man.

Sufism is dead, long live tasawwuf.

Recommended reading:

The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islamic Sciences

Hitler has something to say about Eid!

HAHAHAHA I nearly wet myself watching this!

The West, Iran and the Death Penalty

Memo to the Western world: humanity starts at home

Guy Rundle
September 12, 2010

We need to remember that Iran does not have a monopoly on barbarism.

IN AN isolated prison cell, a woman sits, waiting to be executed. The method is one laid down by tradition. Reports say it can be excruciatingly painful and terrifying. There are doubts as to whether she received a fair trial, and most people regard the system under which she was convicted as hopelessly compromised. She is unlikely to receive mercy because the person who could grant it believes deeply that such punishments are ordained by God. Barred from sustained contact with the outside world, she waits, and waits.

Many readers might assume that I'm describing the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian facing death by stoning for alleged crimes associated with adultery. In fact, the woman in question is Teresa Lewis, now in a Virginia prison in the United States and scheduled to die by lethal injection on September 23.

Ashtiani's plight is horrific, but Lewis's fate should give anyone of conscience pause to consider the contradictions and hypocrisies of much human rights campaigning these days.

Lewis's case would be easy to pass by. In 2003 she was convicted of conspiring with two men to murder her husband and stepson, for a share of $250,000 insurance and sexual favours from her and her 16-year-old daughter. Though she pleaded guilty and gave information that helped police arrest the killers, she was sentenced to death, while the men got life sentences.

Still, it's a brutal crime, compared to alleged adultery - except that Ashtiani was sentenced for the same crime: conspiracy to kill her husband. Nevertheless, this was based on undisclosed ''information supplied to the judges''. Lewis had a fair trial, right? Well, not exactly. As well as excluding evidence that Lewis had a mind-altering addiction to prescription painkillers, her IQ was found to be about 70, Virginia's borderline for intellectual disability. Several years after the verdict, one of the killers, Matthew Shellenberger, confessed the murders were his idea and that he spotted Lewis as someone who could be easily manipulated - but the letter in which he confessed this was excluded from appeals evidence.

The typical scenario of a low-life criminal duo? No. Lewis had no violent criminal record. The addiction developed from over-prescription. Shellenberger, a high-IQ sociopathic career criminal, picked her up in a supermarket. The judge, giving her death and the men life, called her the ''head of the serpent'' in the conspiracy, something of a clue to the uneven sentencing.

Like Ashtiani, Lewis is caught in a judicial system that uses death for political purposes - in the US, the re-election of state prosecutors amid a culture of fear. But why does Ashtiani's case engage our horror, while Lewis's simply makes us recoil from the grotesqueries of American law and order? The answer, I suggest, is that both are horrific - but Ashtiani's case is in a pre-modern alien way, while Lewis's is an impeccably modern and familiar process of barbarity.

Ashtiani was railroaded by a secretive court that may well have added the conspiracy charge to muddy the issue globally. But Lewis was flung into a system where money buys acquittal and a rigid appeals process gives the illusion of fairness while frustrating any attempt to consider execution as the singular, momentous act it is. Compared to the unthinkable process of stoning, lethal injection seems smooth and humane. But like stoning, it's a culturally determined idea of killing by ''right''. As Jeff Sparrow documents in his recent book Killing, it's the latest in a long line of American can-do, from Edison's electric chair onwards.

The chair wasn't ''humane'' and neither is lethal injection. We now know that, in many cases, the cocktail of drugs employed first paralyses the victim before subjecting them to excruciating, but silent, pain.

Whether lethal injection is better than stoning is a moot point, but it's certainly easier on the witnesses. And that goes to the heart of the twinned fates of Ashtiani and Lewis. For it's the very way in which the campaign to save Ashtiani has been constructed in terms of ''Enlightenment'' and ''modernity'' that ensures Lewis's fate can be written off as a freak occurrence - rather than seen as an expression of ''modernity'' in its most chillingly anti-human mode. It's the bandwagon for Ashtiani, with Bernard Henri-Levy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others climbing on, to protest against barbarity; it's the tumbril for Lewis, to demonstrate what backward societies should aspire to. Such small hypocrisies guarantee greater ones: an obsession in the West with the culture of ''honour'' killings, while the no less culturally determined slaughter of women by their partners is a paragraph on the crime page. Outrage at Taliban brutality, compared to the ''clean'' deaths visited by Western bombs.

Those who set these news priorities couldn't give a damn about Iranian women. Those who do need to ensure saving the life of Ashtiani does not legitimate the death of Teresa Lewis, and thousands of others.

Guy Rundle is the author of Down to the Crossroads: On the US 2008 Campaign Trail.

Eid mubarak!

Ahhh, Ramadan has passed here in Melbourne, and the celebration of Eid ul-Fitr begins tomorrow morning. Congratulations to all for their efforts!

These last couple of days I visited the masjid in which I took my shahada, and reconnected with a few old acquaintainces. Planning to go there for Eid prayers as well, apparently they'll be selling halwa puri for breakfast!

Ok, maybe it won't look exactly like the picture. But still, I've never had it before (closest thing I ever ate was chole bhatura) so I'm really looking forward to giving it a go! Will also be travelling to a muraqaba session in the evening inshallah....

Have a good one, dua's for all!

The Month's Greetings + A Public Service Announcement

RAMADAN KAREEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

Ah, the blessed month has come, such a sweet time of friendship and caring, reflection, purification and contemplation, as everyone else looks on and wonders why those weird masochistic Muslims are so happy about starving themselves.......

Anyway, I just thought I would benefit mine readers with a little tip. If you are a Muslim, and, like me, live in a country as a minority, you would be aware of the relative difficulty of obtaining permissible food. When one eats out one would often have to head off to some prespecified Indian joint or kebab place, which tends to get rather tiresome in terms of variety. There ain't exactly many halal Mexican or Italian restaurants around, if you get my drift.

Which brings us to the wonder of Japanese food. Ahhhhh, so apparently one can finally eat well with a clear conscience! Dearest Nihon, with your clean and fresh flavors, and abundance of seafood and vegetables, surely a dream for any Muslim (or for that matter, Jew). Not like damn Chinese cuisine with seemingly always finds a way to get infiltrated with some form of animal product even when you order vegetarian.........

Who could possibly resist  a nice wholesome, refreshing bowl of soba noodles?

Or some delectable sushi?

So innocent eh? But the dark truth is:

MIRIN.

Aiiiieeee!!! Mirin, that sweet rice wine used to often in Japanese cuisine! Whether in sushi rice or the sauce of agedashi tofu, it is surprisingly common for alcohol to be used in the preparation of Japanese food.

So be warned, my brothers and sisters. We should always abtain from the haram, but this is especially important when breaking one's fast in this holy month. Always check with the staff that no grog has been used in the preparation of your Oriental iftar! Things are not always as they seem.........

That's my little bit of sanctimony for today. May your fasting be accepted!

Sayonara........