Yasser El Hadari - Lessons in Manliness

Lessons in Manliness

By Yasser El Hadari, February 22, 2011 As I sit writing this, I look back at the past days, and have come to a conclusion: the Egyptian revolution has made a better man of me. Every stage I spent, from sitting at home watching the news and discussing the revolution, to guarding my neighborhood then actually participating in the protests, have taught me real-life lessons in being a better man.

If you’ve been watching the news, I’m sure you know that the Egyptian people have rocked the Middle East in their effort for self-rule and democracy. As I sit typing this, the newly appointed Vice President issued a statement of Hosni Mubarak’s resignation and his appointment of the Armed Forces Supreme Council to take power. It is the dawn of a new era. No delays, no lies, no half-solutions. We wanted our freedom. The temple of Corruption had to be toppled. No matter who supported it, be it the Army, thugs, the West, the East or even the planet Mars, the regime that has humiliated us and stole our rights and freedoms had to go. Period. As I write this, the revolution has been on for eighteen days. During those eighteen days, my life has changed on a scale that I would have never imagined in my life. I am turning 24 in July, and in November 2010 I had just completed my dental internship, earning my license and Dental Union membership. Later on I opened an e-commerce business to make ends meet as I pursued higher studies. Who would have imagined that starting from the 25th of January, I would shift my activities to a neighborhood guard member, lumberjack and patrolman; then to an amateur online activist, protester, bodyguard and a small-scale speaker for the cause. As I sit writing this, I look back at the past days, and have come to a conclusion: they have made a better man of me. Every stage I spent, from sitting at home watching the news and discussing the revolution, to guarding my neighborhood then actually participating in the protests, have taught me real-life lessons in being a better man. I seriously have felt a change in my character and perception, and this has inspired me to write this article. Lessons from the Neighborhood Patrols I have to admit, I was involved in the revolution quite late. In the beginning I thought it didn’t affect me, that some reforms would be introduced and the protesters would go home. But Friday the 28th came, around 300 protesters were killed by live ammunition and 5000 more injured, and prisons and detention centers were mysteriously opened as the police disappeared, flooding the streets with convicts, and Cairo and other cities were ablaze in riots. To add insult to injury, the government shut down the internet. Only one word resonated in our minds: scare tactics–submit or face chaos. We were determined to prove the government wrong. Saturday afternoon we were in the streets to protect our homes, armed with whatever we had and setting up checkpoints in the streets. We stood guard daily, only letting go when local businesses started operating at night again and the police were returning to the streets. These were my first lessons in the revolution’s school of manliness. A man adapts. I never expected in my life to stand in a checkpoint, armed with a hatchet and a hunting knife, checking cars and the ID’s of the riders with a case of homemade molotov cocktails beside me. Now that I look back, I’m actually surprised at the change. But my willingness to accept this change, in my opinion, helped me evolve for the better. A man values his neighbors. The only reason the neighborhood patrols succeeded was the group effort. In my shifts, we caught nine criminals. We had it easy, since our middle class neighborhood was flanked by the Nile and surrounded by two other middle class districts near the center of Cairo. Those living in suburban areas and near prisons had it much worse: They caught tens and in some areas over a hundred criminals. We kept our homes safe, and most importantly we learned to look out for each other and each others’ homes. A man respects others. Anyone passing our checkpoints had to be checked. We knew the criminals and hired thugs had hijacked sedans, police cars, ambulances, army vehicles and forged police ID’s and stole army uniforms. There were no exceptions. However, we had to appreciate the cooperation of those we searched. We weren’t policemen, nor did we have warrants; on pen and paper we were just concerned citizens. Showing respect helped us earn respect. And it wasn’t hard: it was as simple as saying thank you. A man doesn’t think with his emotions. Like Mubarak’s speeches, anyone we caught tried to appeal to our emotions. They made up lies as to where their fake ID’s came from, acted dumb and sometimes begged on their knees not to be handed over to the military. I have to admit, sometimes I wanted to believe them, it was easier. But I had to remember the reality, and by reality meaning what he would do if he found his way into my house or my neighbor’s house. Cold hard reality: not everyone shares your good nature; it’s sad but you’ll have to accept it to do your duty. On the other hand, a man shows compassion. People of all ages stood with me, some as young as nine and others in their seventies and eighties. The old ones were mainly war veterans, but the young ones were in an environment they never experienced in their lives. They acted tough and tried to talk like thugs, but the fear in their eyes appeared at the first cracks of gunfire in the distance. Lesser men made jokes about their age to hide what they lacked in grit. The best men I knew were the ones who gave a pat on the back. A man is practical, not showy. I was armed with a hatchet and hunting knife, since I had read earlier that anything that couldn’t be used as a tool was dead weight. I used the hatchet to cut firewood to keep us warm at night and the hunting knife, well, cut things. Others were armed with butcher knives, clubs, sticks and swords. Some took it too far to look bad-ass: a man tied two butcher knives together, nunchaku style and hung them round his neck to look threatening. The man just made his neck an easy target. Another point, and I know many will not like to hear this, but a man who owns a gun who knows how to use it is a better man, period. Three men in our neighborhood had guns, and whenever we were on alert, we looked to them, since their reactions determined how the rest of us would respond. A man doesn’t talk of things he wouldn’t do. No matter how manly I portray people who took part in these patrols, no one has the right to ask others to put their lives or the lives of their loved ones in danger. It also comes to actions: If you’re not willing to use your car as a roadblock, don’t talk about others doing it instead. A man appreciates the efforts of others. Although I respected the opinions of those who genuinely feared the outcome of the revolution being negative, it was repulsive to hear lesser men belittling the efforts of others. I know of people who make fun of the protesters who were fighting for their rights. Celebrities came on national television to claim that protesters were getting paid and received free meals from Kentucky Fried Chicken to protest against Mubarak. Others had the audacity to belittle the neighborhood patrols, not admitting that our stand in the streets helped them sleep in their beds at night. The funny thing was, the people I expected the most manly stand from were the ones who belittled us. The better men I knew, even if they didn’t participate, appreciated what others were doing for them. Lessons from Taking Part in the Protests The first day I participated in protests, my Father and I took a taxi to the nearby Tahrir Square where the bulk of anti-Mubarak protests were taking place. The night before, Mubarak had made a speech promising reforms and fair elections, appealing to citizens’ emotions and staging an aggressive counter-revolution. Upon reaching Tahrir Square we noticed pro-Mubarak demonstrators approaching the area, and the weirder image of horse and camel riders approaching the square. Upon going back, we were continually harassed by plainclothes policemen and supporters of Mubarak who had left their protest area at Mohandesin to disturb the anti-Mubarak protesters. When we got home, the media had launched an all-out offensive on those calling for democracy, branding them as saboteurs and traitors. The Internet was re-linked, and I found posts by people suggesting stability and going back to their ordinary lives. Since then I have alternated between joining protests and rooting for the revolution on Facebook. So started the new lessons in manliness. A man shouldn’t be afraid of confrontation. Returning from Tahrir square on Bloody Wednesday, a plainclothes policeman harassed my father and I, calling us names and shouting threats as he followed us on foot for three blocks. If I kept quiet, I think he’d have followed us to our house. He didn’t leave us alone until I personally got in his face and made a scene calling any nearby uniformed policemen to deal with him and to show us his ID. Returning home, fuming with anger, I saw my friends posting online about how they wanted things to go back to the way they were and how those fighting for their rights were making a mess and disrupting peoples’ way of life. I called them on how a week ago they wanted change and these people they were putting down were bringing them these changes. Sometimes telling the truth meant no compromises. A man respects the views of others and doesn’t take them personally. Of course there were those who wanted the revolution to stop simply because they were afraid. And their fear was genuine: there was a threat of chaos, economic collapse, and now foreign military intervention. It was easier of course to dismiss these fears as cowardly or stupid, but the harder thing to do, that in the end gained respect, was appreciating these fears, and helping them understand that freedom came at a high price, and how any short-term losses were worth it. Their disagreement wasn’t a personal attack, and one of the best speakers I knew made a point of letting listeners know that the disagreement wasn’t personal. A man is presentable under all circumstances. The protests were peaceful. This was what made the revolution powerful. The world had to see that it wasn’t a peasant uprising, class conflict or even a religious takeover: those in the revolution were educated, young, loved Egypt and had realistic expectations of a representative government and civil rights. I participated in two more protests; before deciding to participate I had a haircut. Before going down to the protests I had a shower, shave, and went down dressed as if for a business presentation. In the second protest that started with a march by doctors (which my father, an ob/gyn surgeon, joined with me), I wore my best white coat and carried myself in the most professional manner possible. I was interviewed twice by American and British journalists, and in both cases I spoke with my best English accent. I was representing millions of people calling for change. Being scruffy or speaking in slang was going to misrepresent them. A man respects the opposite sex. The protests were free of sexual harassment. Men were being searched by men and women searched by women, a lesson airport authorities in some countries can learn. When women passed by we made way for them. If people thought that the protests were a place to meet women, we told them to stay home. It wasn’t a game. The whole world was watching us, and those opposing the revolution were looking for the tiniest speck of dirt to put us down. Acting like a horny teenager was such dirt. A man respects people who are different. While Muslim protesters were attending Friday Prayers, Christians formed a human wall to protect them. On Sunday when Christian protesters performed Mass, Muslims stood watch to protect them. There was no slurring in the protests. People who attended were of different races, religions, and social backgrounds; black and white, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, we stood together. If people deep down inside had a certain hatred for others due to these differences, the protests helped them replace this hatred with understanding. In the end we were all the same. We were all Egyptian, and we all wanted freedom. A man isn’t afraid of putting his life at risk. In one of the protests I was in, an important online activist was released the night before after 12 days in detention by the secret police, and was coming to Tahrir Square for a speech and a press conference. His younger brother is my colleague, and I found myself going to pick him up from the subway station. My friends and I, for the duration of the journey to the stand, made a human shield around him to keep people from slowing him down, and more importantly, to protect him. After his speech, our human phalanx fought the crowds to take him to the press conference. Most of the people meant well, but I personally considered the possibility of a counter-revolutionary with a concealed weapon harming him to shatter the morale of the revolution. Of course I’m still surprised at taking part in this endeavor, but if I were to repeat it again, I would do it happily even if it would have ended badly. I admired the man, and he was the voice for our youth and presented us well with no personal agenda, a man worth defending. A man isn’t afraid to admit his mistakes and willingness to change. When discussing the revolution, I’ve been faced with the question of why I didn’t go down to the streets from the first day of the protests, as a way of proving me wrong or proving the point that those supporting the revolution were all talk. Of course, saying I wasn’t politically inclined and was afraid of riots was incongruous and didn’t do justice to the others of my age and similar background who were fighting for my rights. Finally when I had enough I reached for the answer inside me and told the truth: I didn’t believe in myself enough to think my voice mattered, but now that I’ve changed there’s no use talking about the past, since I can’t change it like I’m changing myself. Watching whoever was arguing with me show his respect or shut up was proof enough that an honest answer, however effacing, was worth it. To conclude this article, I am happy to welcome you to the dawn of a new era. As I type this people are still flocking to the streets, celebrating their new age of self-rule and freedom. I will be forever proud of my nationality as an Egyptian. I promise to be good to Egypt, to use my knowledge to grow her, repaint her picture in the eyes of others. I’m sorry I insulted her when I was younger, for thinking she wasn’t pretty like the others. I’m sorry I gave up on her, for wanting to leave her, and being ignorant of her history. I promise to be a better citizen to Her, a better Egyptian, a better Man. I just want to impart a final word before I end: I am not the best person ever, and I have my faults, but never forget the value of freedom and dignity. Our people were deprived of those virtues for at least 30 years, and no words can describe how aggressively those in power tried to put us down. They sent hired thugs and plainclothes police to attack and disturb us; it didn’t stop us. They got celebrities to insult the protesters and praise the regime. National television called the protesters saboteurs and they shut down foreign news channels; we ignored them all. They shut down the internet; we promised to shut THEM down. Nearby dictators promised to support the regime. We heard rumors that the US Navy sent the fifth or sixth fleet and the Israeli Defense Force was grouping at the border. It didn’t matter. We were fighting for our rights, and we were ready to face anyone who interfered. The people weren’t afraid of losing what they had, they are winning something greater. When people aren’t afraid of losing, they are free, and great men can only be free men who build great countries. Yasser El Hadari is an Egyptian whose personal experiences during the Egyptian revolution helped shape this article, which first appeared in Art of Manliness.

Arabs doin' it for themselves

Photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zarwan/4486130923/



At the present time the whole world is closely following the events in the Arab world, especially Egypt at the moment, that have transpired as a revolt of the Tunisian uprising. Browsing through English-language blogs and comments left on online news sites, one may detect a popular pattern of thought. It is quite common to find comments in support of the Mubarak government, which range from expressions of strong backing to grudging tolerance. However, what these opinions have in common is a view that ultimately, the fate of Egypt and other Arab countries caught in the political storm must either be harsh but stable rule by the existing pro-Western strongmen, or a slide into backwards/hostile/violent (insert your adjective of choice here) Islamic theocracy.

The vehemence with which such persons uphold this blindingly misleading false dichotomy is astounding. It is asserted that incumbent governments are essentially the lesser of two evils. According to this viewpoint, the choice is between the West or Islam. West good, Islam bad. According to them, governments which have already demonstrated their corruption and cruelty, but are allied to the West, may be bad but are better than prospective Islamist governments which don't even exist yet.

Well, I can tell you one thing. People can wet their pants over how we're all in danger from folks like the Muslim Brotherhood, but believe it or not there's a huge gulf between political parties which seek to increase the prominence of their traditional religion in society (and follow policies of non-violence like the MB), and gun-toting fanatics hell-bent on killing the 'infidels'. The attempt to paint each and every political and social movement with the slightest thing to do with Islam as parts of a single monolithic anti-all-things-good juggernaut is a horribly trite slander which we don't even need to bother debunking here.

As well as this egregious reductionism, such attitudes also betray a deep historical amnesia, and a misuse of the term 'theocratic'. Sunni Islam - 90% of the Muslim demographic, and dominant in the Arab world - doesn't even have a religious hierachy. These people are in effect transplanting the European historical experience onto a completely different context, where the religous scholars were not rulers themselves, but frequently acted as a buffer against government oppression. The current social and political situation in the Middle East, as any academic worth his salt would tell you, is inextricably linked to the experience of colonialism by the Western powers. The environments which violent nationalist and religious groups grow out of are a direct consequence of the destruction of traditional institutions and civil society, the haphazard manipulation of borders and creation of artificial states and the imposition of secular dictatorships completely at odds with the interests of the common people - just like Mubarak's mob. 

It is precisely the status quo which feeds the resentment which leads to political violence. It provides extremist groups of both secular and religious persuasion with the demagogic ammunition for promoting a sense of hostility against foreign entities.  To unconditionally continue to support Arab dictatorships is to essentially prove that you are an imperialist power!

When we express alarm at the prospect of more 'Islamic' governments, we are merely demonstrating our intellectual hypocrisy and adherence to the classic 'Fukuyama fallacy' that 'liberal democracy' is the natural and normative end-point of human government. But by taking a world-view that developed in a very specific historical context and attributing universal relevance to it, we only express our own ideological totaliatarianism and intolerance for alternative points of view. 'Democracy' is a loaded term anyway - nobody (apart from the dictators themselves) seriously denies the desirablity of public consultation in matters of governance. However, if we use the term 'democracy' to describe the specific systems and institutions which developed in the West, we can imagine how people may very legitimately come to be opposed to it.

Western societies are extremely priviliged in that, in the modern age, they were more or less free to develop their political systems according to their own internal dynamics. The Arab world has not benefited from that luxury. So we should shut up and stop spouting the usual cliched, paternalistic tripe. The Egyptians, Tunisians and other Arab peoples are perfectly capable of deciding their own destinies, and we should let them get on with it, no matter what the end result may be.

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

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.....

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.

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!

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.

What's this? A halfway-sane article about the Afghan conflict!?

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/simplistic-moralism-sells-afghans-short-20100806-11ofx.html

Simplistic moralism sells Afghans short
PRIYAMVADA GOPAL
August 7, 2010

Cartoon tales of good and evil are distorting our picture of Afghanistan.

Reprising a legendary 1985 National Geographic cover, this week's Time magazine features another beautiful young Afghan woman, but with a gaping hole where her nose used to be before it was cut off under Taliban direction. A stark caption reads: ''What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan.''

An editorial insists the image is not shown ''either in support of the US war effort or in opposition to it'', but to counterbalance damaging WikiLeaks revelations - more than 90,000 leaked documents that, Time believes, cannot provide ''emotional truth and insight into the way life is lived in that difficult land''.

Feminists have long argued that invoking the condition of women to justify occupation is a cynical ploy, and the Time cover already stands accused of it. Interestingly, the WikiLeaks documents reveal CIA advice to use the plight of Afghan women as ''pressure points'', an emotive way to rally flagging public support for the war.

Misogynist violence is unacceptable, but we must also be concerned by the insistence that the complexities of war and occupation can be reduced to bedtime stories. Time is not alone in condensing Afghan reality into simplistic morality tales. A deplorable number of recent works habituate us into thinking about Afghanistan as what British Defence Minister Liam Fox called a ''broken 13th-century country'', defined by pathologically violent men and brutalised women.

While Afghans have been further disempowered by being reduced to objects of Western chastisement, a recent judgment against Asne Seierstad's The Bookseller of Kabul has raised the possibility of challenging distortions.

Based on her stay in the eponymous protagonist's home, Seierstad's memoir uses offensive commercial language to describe ordinary marital negotiations and refers to female characters as ''the burqa''. The tone implies that even the most anti-Taliban Afghan men are irredeemably vicious patriarchs. Predictably, some critical reaction deemed Afghanistan a ''horrible society''.

While there exists a colonial tradition of relegating the non-West to the past of the West - and some suggest leaving it to rot in hopelessness - the trendier option involves incorporating Afghans into modernity by teaching them to live in a globalised present.

In non-fiction bestsellers such as Deborah Rodriguez's Kabul Beauty School, an American woman teaches Afghan women the intricacies of hair colour, sexiness, and resisting oppression. ''To all appearances, there is no sex life in Afghanistan,'' writes Rodriguez, obsessed, as is Seierstad, with the nuptial habits of Afghans. Sex and the City 2, set in the Middle East, may have tanked as a movie, but as ideology it has displaced meaningful global feminism.

Acceptable Afghan-American voices such as Khaled Hosseini (The Kite Runner) and Awista Ayub (Kabul Girls Soccer Club) reiterate the notion that suburban America can ''infuse'' Afghans with freedom. Formulaic narratives are populated by tireless Western humanitarians, sex-crazed polygamous paedophiles (most Afghan men) and burqa-clad ''child-women'' who are broken in body and spirit, or have just enough doughtiness to be scripted into a triumphal Hollywood narrative. The real effects of the NATO occupation, including the worsening of many women's lives under the lethal combination of patriarchal feudalism and new corporate militarism, are rarely discussed.

The mutilated Afghan woman ultimately fills a symbolic void where there should be ideas for real change. The truth is that the US and allied regimes do not have anything substantial to offer Afghanistan beyond feeding the gargantuan war machine they have unleashed.

In the affluent West itself, modernity is now about dismantling welfare systems, increasing inequality (disenfranchising women in the process) and subsidising corporate profits.

Other ideas once associated with modernity - social justice, economic fairness and peace, all of which would enfranchise Afghan women - have been relegated to the past in the name of progress.

This bankrupt version of modernity has little to offer Afghans other than bikini waxes and Oprah-imitators.

GUARDIAN

Priyamvada Gopal teaches post-colonial studies at Cambridge University.

Stop Blaming Ignorance for Islamophobia

In the popular discourse Muslims are the regular target of diatribe. It is also just as expected to answer such prejudicial behaviour with allegations of ‘ignorance’. So if someone is a bigot, it is because they are ‘ignorant’. If someone discriminates, it is because they are ‘ignorant’. Now, nobody is denying that this is true at least some of the time, but such a way of thinking possesses a serious flaw.

If we assume that a bigoted person is so due to the state of being ignorant, it becomes implicit that this person’s attitude is an irrational aberration, in contrast to rational, non-ignorant society at large. By extension, we go on to assume that this bigotry can be remedied by the removal of ignorance. Thus, ‘educating’ that person, in removing his/her ignorance, makes that person no longer a bigot, bringing him/her in line with ‘normal’ society.

Can anyone see the problem here? Bigotry is seen as the fault of the person. It is up to that person to change, because they are guilty and we are innocent. The onus for tackling religious prejudice is put solely on the shoulders of the individual. But no individual exists in a vacuum. Such an approach effectively whitewashes the responsibility of institutional, structural and ideological factors in contributing to this prejudice.

We keep harping for individuals to ‘stop being so ignorant’ whilst the media continually employs sensationalist, reductionist and value-laden language. Whilst minority communities continue to bear the brunt of socioeconomic disadvantage. Whilst anti-terror laws practically single out Muslims as THE threat. Whilst politicians continually use Muslim-related issues as a convenient vote-buying tool. Whilst the popular subconscious still holds as axiomatic a worldview grounded in Orientalist tropes which cannot help but view Islam and the ‘East’ as inherently inferior - culturally, morally, intellectually and spiritually.

Ignorance? More often than not the most vocal and influential Islamophobes are highly educated, charismatic and intelligent, and actively seek knowledge related to Islam which they use to further their agendas. Indeed, far from being irrational, Islamophobia is a product of a highly rational system of power relations which instigates and reinforces oppression and dominance at multiple levels.

Now if I may hearken back to my university days, in the field of public health, there is a very famous analogy which lecturers are forever paraphrasing to first-year students as a means of illustrating a key principle of the discipline. Basically, students are asked to picture being beside a flowing river, and seeing a struggling person in the water. Of course, one would jump in and rescue him/her. But then another unfortunate person comes floating into view. And so you rescue that person as well. But yet more and more people come floating by, crying for help. You want to rescue them too – but have you ever considered – just who the heck is upstream pushing all those people into the river?

It is precisely these ‘upstream’ factors which we need to deal with if we are to achieve any real progress in tackling Islamophobia.

Hijacked art, sidetracked peace

From link http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/3857

There is a central tragedy to these endless cartoon scandals, such as the one involving the Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, who penned the comic sparking an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." No one is looking for a resolution.


By G. Willow Wilson, July 19, 2010


Seattle, Washington
When Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris was put on an Al Qaeda hit list for her "Draw Muhammad Day" project, my inbox started filling up.

Since I'm one of the only practicing Muslims in the American comics industry, people assumed I had some kind of profound insight into the reasons these cartoon incidents keep flaring up. But the only explanation I have is too simple to satisfy anyone: they happen because hate sells. It sells in the West, where anti-Muslim hate groups feed on incidents of Muslim rage; it sells in the Muslim world, where extremists are only too happy to use examples of Western intolerance to win over new recruits. This is the reality we live in: any satirized depiction of the Prophet Muhammad feeds into a global propaganda war, whether the artist intends it or not. There is no longer any such thing as artistic immunity in the battle of images, and to think otherwise is fatally naive.

Molly Norris thought otherwise. But as soon as she realized what she'd gotten herself into, it was too late: by taking the offending images off her website and issuing a bewildered apology, she enraged the Islamophobes who were ready to hail her as a martyr to their cause. In the opposing camp, Al Qaeda spokesman Anwar Al Awlaki was unwilling to give up such a plum opportunity to rally support for his jihad. A tepid explanation was not what either party wanted. Extremists of all stripes need blood and conflict in order to survive. Molly Norris has no true supporters: in order to be of any use to either the Islamophobes or the jihadis, she must be a blasphemer whose life is in jeopardy. As a peacemaker she loses her utility.

This is the central tragedy of these endless cartoon scandals. No one is looking for a resolution. Drawing insulting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad has become a favorite pastime of hipster racists, whose bulbous-nosed bushy-bearded 'satire' resembles the anti-Semitic cartoons of the Third Reich. Thanks in no small part to the vigorous, often violent outcry from hardliners in the Muslim world, these artists are elevated to a kind of freedom-of-speech sainthood whether their work has any real merit or not. Death threats are issued, lives pointlessly imperiled, careers of pundits - never themselves in any danger - made overnight. Noted American Muslim leader Imam Zaid Shakir put it best: this isn't the clash of civilizations. It's the clash of the uncivilized.

Molly Norris never drew a picture of the Prophet Muhammad as a wild-eyed Semitic bogeyman. She drew a cartoon teacup, the sort of thing you might find in a children's picture book. Her intent was to inject a little innocent humor into an increasingly absurd conflict. What she didn't realize is that there is no room left for innocence or humor in what has become a cynical exercise in mutual provocation. In honor of Draw Muhammad Day, her legion of unasked-for followers posted cartoons that were more and more grotesque and hate-filled. The result was a threat against Norris's life from an al Qaeda spokesman - and fellow American - who does a better job of caricaturing himself than a cartoonist ever could. She disavowed her own comparatively innocuous cartoons, took down her website, and went into hiding. But the battle begun in her name rages on.

What Norris failed to understand is that by creating events like "Draw Muhammad Day", artists hurl rhetorical stones that go straight through their enemies and hit Muslims like me. Al Qaeda isn't hurt by Draw Muhammad Day. Its entire PR campaign is built on incidents like these. Without the Molly Norrises and Jyllands Postens of the world, Al Qaeda would have to get a lot more creative with its recruitment strategies. Artists who caricature the Prophet inevitably claim, as Norris has done, that they never meant to hurt ordinary Muslims, but ordinary Muslims are the only ones who are hurt. As a Muslim in the comics industry I spend more time than is good for my mental health defending the art and the religion I love from each other. Events like the fallout from Draw Muhammad Day make me think I'm wasting my time - the hate runs too deep on both sides. My conscience won't let me support the criminalizing of art, but neither will it let me support a parade of cartoons depicting lurid, racist stereotypes of Arab men and passing them off as satire of a holy figure.

Molly Norris claims she never meant for this event to become a hate-fest. As silly as that sounds - anyone who's spent more than half an hour on the internet could have told her how this would turn out - I believe her. If provocation was her objective, she could be basking in the light of notoriety as we speak. Instead she's being vilified not only by extremists like Al Awlaki, but by her own former supporters. She's learned the hard way that this conflict was never about her art or her ideas. As her fans turn their backs, looking for someone with a better stomach for scandal, it's clear that no one was ever really interested in what she had to say.


G. Willow Wilson is the author of The Butterfly Mosque, a memoir about her conversion to Islam and life in the Middle East; as well as the award-winning comic books AIR and CAIRO. This article was previously published in the Newsweek/Washington Post blog On Faith.

HT in Oz: Foolishness on both sides

As I write this, Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) has just held a conference here in Australia. Now for those of you not in the know, HT is an Islamist organization founded in 1953 with the goal of establishing a global caliphate. The theme of the conference was “The Struggle for Islam in the West”, keeping in with the group’s dualistic world view.

Predictably, the newspapers became ablaze. The site of the conference itself saw a picket by the Australian Protectionist Party, a xenophobic anti-immigration group. Wherever one turns, headlines scream of assaults on democracy (which HT has called for Muslims to reject) and ‘western culture/values’ in general.

What a circus. HT claims to act in the best interest of Muslims, but their methodology raises more questions than answers. For a start, how exactly do they plan to get ‘back’ former Muslim territories like Spain, as they desire? What will the non-Muslim inhabitants make of it? And how about the Shi’a? How will they be a part of the caliphate?

And they believe in a War on Islam – nobody is denying that Muslims so often bear the brunt of persecution in today’s world, but this self-indulgent luxuriation in paranoid “WAHHH the whole world is against us” conspiracy theories is simply obscene. It achieves absolutely nothing except perpetuate a hopeless victim mentality and further entrench the Huntingtonian concept of a “Clash of Civilizations” which has already been the source of so much pain and suffering in the world. People are complaining of being treated as a faceless, monolithic entity, but are all too happy to return the favour. Ya Allah, do they think that the Prophet s.a.w was sent to further divide humanity? Such an approach is good for nothing but the creation of fitna.

The opposing side is definitely not free from blame either. They go on pontificating about their sacred “democracy” and proclaim secular fatwas against those who offer even the slightest hint of criticism. So they say that democracy should be defended from Islam? If by “democracy”, one means the ability of the common people to have their voices heard by government, then this is absolutely compatible with Islam. In fact, one could even argue that throughout history, Islamic societies have done a much better job of this than their Occidental counterparts. But if by “democracy”, one means the specific institutions developed in Western contexts, it is nothing more than ideologically-motivated hubris to suggest that a particular system of governance is superior, has been superior, and will always be superior regardless of time, place and circumstance.

Both parties suffer from a bad case of cart-before-the-horse syndrome. If you want to change society for the better, purify your heart first! If this is not done, then even the most “perfect” external structure will be nothing but an empty shell. Why are people so obsessed with their ambitions in the dunya? This world is meant to be used for the benefit of the akhirah, not the other way around. You want to "save" Islam? Oh brother, sister, Islam is not a thing which is for "saving", and certainly not by the dabblings of politicians - don't you even have enough iman to realize that God's victory is assured already? He is the Greatest, the best of planners. Just follow the shari'ah and the tariqah, and everything else will come natually.

I am reminded of a sohba I attended last week when the sheikhs talked about how Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi (q) used the example of a flute to illustrate the relationship between the external and internal realities of things. Now, there is the flute as a piece of wood, and the flute as a thing which, by the interaction of its physical, external form with an inner quality, allows for the creation of music as the air flows through it. If we apply this analogy here, I daresay we are caught between two sets of musicless flutes which incidentally deny the validity of all other wind instruments.

What's in a Name Part XVIVXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI

I found out in the newspaper the other day that 41 people were killed and 175 injured in a bombing at a Sufi shrine in Lahore (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/bombers-target-heart-of-liberal-islam-in-pakistan/story-e6frg6so-1225887291875). My heart filled with rage – but not because of the actual incident itself. Astaghfirullah, something else was the initial cause of my anger.

That article was the front-pager and plastered all over the top in big bold letters was the title ‘Bombers target heart of liberal Islam', in a move that ‘appeared designed to inflame sectarian tensions’. The article goes on to state ‘Lahore is a sort of mecca for Sufism, the liberal, mystical arm of Islam that rejects the concept of jihad and promotes spiritual development through music and prayer’, finishing with a mention of an earlier attack on two Ahmadi mosques.

This piece is a near-perfect example of the hackneyed, reductionist and misleading use of language that newspaper editors and journalists seem so fond of, especially when writing about topics related (or not – religious profiling of delinquent youths, anyone?) to Islam. Complex phenomenon are reduced to easily-digestible categories that pit good versus evil, ‘liberal’ versus ‘conservative’ in a Manichean struggle, for the entertainment of the plebiscite.

As one who is highly empathetic to Sufism, I take it I am a ‘liberal’ then. So what the heck does that mean? That I listen to popular western music (I don’t)? Go to nightclubs (nope)? Wear revealing clothing (I don’t even wear shorts in the Australian summer)? Am I really the same as, for example, the westernized descendents of upper-class Iranian exiles who may do all of the above? On the other hand, I can tell you for a fact that I feel uncomfortable being at the same table with someone with a glass of bubbly. I also pray five times a day, which usually would have marked me as a backward zealot except that according to this article my that is something I do a a means to lovey-dovey spiritual enlightenment (presumably other Muslims don’t pray?).

Oh yes, and I reject jihad! Damn the fact that ‘jihad’ is the term used to mean anything a Muslim might undertake to ‘struggle’ for the perfection of his/other people’s Islam, and can range from refusing to have that extra cookie in the jar, to smiling whenever one greets another person, to defending Jerusalem from the forces of Richard the Lionheart! Damn the fact that so many of the greatest heroes and defenders of the Muslim peoples and upholders of chivalry and honour have been Sufis. Presumably Imam Shamil and Abd al-Qadir al Jazairi spent their days drinking tea and whining about what they could do to better integrate into Imperial society with those nice Russians and Frenchmen (a sausage-sizzle, perhaps?)!

And Sufism is implied to be a sect – but ‘Sufi’ itself is just a term used by westerners to categorise the expression of the science of the purification of the heart. It is a practice and a discipline. Sufism exists across the entire spectrum of Islam. Saying Sufism is a sect is like saying peanut butter is a type of bread. The Ahmadis, with their radically different beliefs, are indeed a sect – they themselves are named after their founder who believed he was the Messiah. Please do not compare us to them.

Criticism of such use of language may seem to be nit-picking, but such writings have a very real and very serious effect in the real world. If one controls language, one controls the way people think, and the media wields huge power and responsibility. I strongly do not appreciate the implication that in order to be seen as more acceptable to western society, I have to be a lesser Muslim, and that those who indiscriminately murder are somehow judged as being ‘more’ Muslim. I do not appreciate the caricature of Islamic spiritual practices and the implication that the only acceptable Muslim is one who unquestioningly devours current western trends and fashions. The pigeonholing of Muslims into ‘liberal/moderate’ and ‘conservative/radical’, in denying any complexity to us, effectively denies our humanity, reinforces the world-view of the terrorists, insults the victims of the bomb attack under the façade of mourning and shackles any real attempts to achieve meaningful international relations and inter-religious understanding

What's in a name?

Author’s note: sincere apologies for the long absence, at the moment I am undergoing a bit of hullabaloo in my personal life. Hopefully things will even out in a month or two, but until then please enjoy this belated update.
Within the mass media there exists a popular taxonomy within which to classify members of the Islamic religion. Basically, one is either

1. Liberal/Secular/Reformist
2. Moderate

Or

3. Conservative/fundamentalist

Although such a classification may be politically convenient and easy for the masses to digest, it reflects reality poorly and generates more questions than answers. For instance, if a Muslim man refuses to shake the hands of women but constantly misses his prayers, where does that leave him? Being people, Muslims possess the complexity which goes hand in hand with the possession of humanity. Such reductionism, consciously or not, thus also serves to lessen the humanity of the subject.

We should also keep in mind that these terms have developed in a Western social context. The word ‘fundamentalism’ only came into being in the early 20th century when certain American Protestants took issue with what they perceived to be the abandonment of tradition by their cooreligionists. They thus decribed themselves as ‘fundamentalists’, in order to imply that they alone had any real grasp of the fundamentals of Chirstanity. However, this term became pejorative after the Stokes Trial of 1925, when the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools was legally challenged. So what is an Islamic fundamentalist then? In the West we usually use this term to describe members of such organizations like al-Qaeda and Hamas. But as may be figured out from previous posts of mine, these organizations are far from traditional. Presumably, this rules them out from being conservative as well – the Taliban may not believe in women’s education, but this makes them repressive rather than conservative.

Let us consider liberal/secular Muslims. Popular discourse would regard them as the polar opposite of the individuals which we discussed in the last paragraph. But rather, they are two sides of the same coin. Both liberals and so-called ‘fundamentalists’ are at best indifferent and at worst disdainful of traditional scholarship and practices. They share a revolutionary mentality, oppose ‘superstition’ and are obsessed with modern sciences and technologies and political institutions which they deem as useful for achieving their goals. They differ in form but are essentially the same in content.

In popular terminology, we are also led to believe in the existence of ‘moderate’ Muslims, who, if not the desirable standard, are at least the second best thing to having liberal Muslims. This term is problematic as it implies the inherent inferiority of the Islamic religion, and that to be an acceptable member of society one has to water down one’s religion – “Oh, don’t worry, he’s just a moderate Muslim!” “Islam eh? Oh, I suppose it’s alright in moderation!”. Actually, the use of the entire liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum itself reinforces this insinuation.

Recent news reports about the attempted bombing of an airliner by a Nigerian man, in profiling him made special effort to mention his, quoting one newspaper “increasingly religious beliefs”. The newspaper itself was no tabloid, being a historically respected publication which prided itself on the quality of its journalism. However, such thoughtless use of emotion-baiting language like this which establishes a causal link between a Muslim’s orthodoxy and extremist practices, is detrimental to media objectivity. It additionally has harmful real-world implications in that Islam itself is framed as the culprit, contributing to poor policy which punishes the innocent and ignores the fundamental causes of terrorism. Language frames how we see the world. We must make and effort to make sure it is reflective of what is actually going on in the world.