'Find Heaven' by Daniyal Noorani

Poem: So I Heard they Killed Satan

So I heard they killed Satan

Yet

The crow-picked sockets of rotting cherubs

Shed no tears of joy nor pain.

So they smiteth the Devil

Still

The earth's impaled with crimson steel

Ripped from sinless carcasses.

The evil one is dead and gone

Yet

The Beast has come -

The gorger on the effluent

The coprophage of human hate

And petty caprice, belching

Over Armageddon.

Men gloat over corpses

To them, fair trade for vengeful gain

The Devil may be dead and gone

But Hell and demons still remain.

Farah Pandith at the Islamic Council of Victoria

On the evening of April the 5th, the Islamic Council of Victoria was fortunate enough to host Secretary Hillary Clinton's Special Representatives to Muslim Communities, Farah Pandith, for an intimate public talk.

It was Ms. Pandith's first visit to Australia, and the 42nd country she had visited since being appointed to her position in 2009. She began by giving the audience a brief overview of the responsibilities of her job. The Special Representative's office was basically designed to execute the Obama government's vision for engagement with Muslim communities worldwide, with a special emphasis on grassroots work and the under-30 generation. Ms. Pandith noted that even though the US government's engagement with Muslims is far from a new phenomenon, it never before has been made such a priority. She emphasised how important it is to hear young Muslims of the 'Facebook Generation' in order to connect them and share their ideas not only with other of their demographic, but senior government officials, private organisations, NGOs and other such groups. In Ms Pandith's own words, "You cannot isolate one-fourth of humanity".

During her travels, Ms Pandith noted that wherever she was, the concept of identity remained a key issue amongst young Muslims, those who grew up in the shadow of 9-11. Identity is no abstract matter, and remains important for all people. Therein we can appreciate the danger of the isolation of this demographic, in that if young Muslims feel that engagement with conventional society is pointless or unachievable, they will turn to less savoury elements in order to consolidate their own identities. Indeed, young Muslims don't want to be talked about, but rather, have a role in framing the conversation.

It was at this point that the presentation moved to a more conversational style of interaction, with Ms Pandith opening the floor to questions. An audience member asked her to define her conception of 'grassroots' action. Ms Pandith summarised it as basically "walking the street" to go into the place real people go to - neighbourhood by neighbourhood, community by community. Recalling her history of employment in the private sector, during which she often sat on community boards, she developed an awareness of the importance of community collaboration - due to the complexities within society, goals are not achieved in isolation, and it is not just government  that can act as the solution to problems.

Another gentleman made a query as the differences in the situation of Muslim communities in Europe and the US, for instance in regards to social integration. In reply to this Ms Pandith emphasised the dangers of making generalisations, as well as the need to be aware of differences not just between countries, but within countries themselves. As an example, she cited the differences between Madrid - the city with the largest mosque in Europe, and a significant convert population - and Barcelona, where mosques cannot even be built and the large Pakistani population consists largely of single males! She noted the role of the US Constitution in helping to create a relatively well-integrated American Muslim demographic, whilst Europe fails to possess comfortable levels of diversity, also touching on the many varied reasons for such ghettoisation. Despite the growing world trend for the isolation and fear of the 'other', Ms Pandith recognised the opportunities available in Europe (eg relative political stability and lack of war) as well as the challenges. She noted how the question of integration was very imporant but hard to unpack. 

Another audience member asked about the effectiveness of implementing conversations with communities in such a climate where people feel free to publicly accuse the US President as being a secret Muslim, with the intention of attacking his legitimacy. Ms Pandith replied that there will always be conspiracy theories as well as negative global events to deal with. She remembered being at the White House when rumours of the Quran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo surfaced. Despite this, she still had to continue doing her job, stating that it would be impossible to do so if she waited everyday for a  perfect news day.

Another person half-jokingly asked that to go with Ms Pandith's role, shouldn't there be a Muslim Special Representative to the US? Ms Pandith responded by saying that although she couldn't speak for other countries, the US initiative was both special and unprecedented. It is in the best interests for both the US and the world at large, and since the goal, very necessarily, was to connect communities, it was chosen to use this way to do things.

A woman in the audience noted that Bill Clinton was big on cross-cultural training, and asked if Obama was the same. She was also very interested in how much effort was being put into education to address misconceptions about Islam. In reply, Ms Pandith emphasised that despite the importance of religion in her country, there is a very strict line between the church and the state, although individual persons in government are free to take part in such activities if they wish. She also noted that there is an abundance of interfaith groups and the like to take on the task of clearing religious misconceptions.

When asked about the extent of Muslim participation in US politics, Ms Pandith noted the differences in Europe and the US in regards to this issue, with the former having lots of young Muslims in politics. Although the situation in the US is changing, it is not happening very fast, although there are many Muslims already in government who are steadily going up the ranks. She stated that there are many reasons why US Muslims are not inclined to run for office. For example, the children of migrants are generally not encouraged to get into politics, as it wasn't the "cool" thing back in the home countries of their parents!

A gentleman in the audience, noting that Ms Pandith was born in Kashmir, stated that he took issue with calling the place a 'disputed territory', and cast doubt on the US's sincerity in combating the root causes of Muslim terrorism. Ms Pandith objected, saying that it was clear that the Obama administration had very forcefully spoken about aspects of global terrorism, and that the Kashmir crisis is at heart an issue to be worked out between India and Pakistan, and is not part of her remit. She also stated that accusing the US of not tackling the 'root causes' was a very general statement - the US is not hands-off at all, and all kinds of things are being done in accordance with the complexity of the factors involved.

Another audience member who was born in Afghanistan admitted to feeling a certain confusion about his identity; whether he was Afghan, Australian or a global citizen. He also wondered how he was supposed to stand as a Muslim, since be didn't perform many acts of worship like prayer, and asked if the US drew any distinctions between Muslms of different 'groups'. Ms Pandith replied that it is important not to look at Muslims as a lump, which is both insulting and untrue. Understanding diversity allows for respect and the comprehension of issues. It was not the perspective of the US government to discriminate which Muslims are more 'Muslim' than others. She recalled having many painful conversations. For instance, in Copenhagen in a room with fifty Muslim children, a sixteen year old girl raised her hand, stating that she was apparently not a Muslim, and that her imam had told her that. When asked why, she just said "Well, look at me". Ms Pandith failed to understand her point, and repeated her question twice more, but getting the same answer each time. She eventually realised that the girl's non-Muslimness was due to her wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and that even her mother had told her that she wasn't Muslim if she dressed that way (Ms Pandith also recalled an American imam who was sitting next to her at the time bursting into laughter at this point). She said that there was no such thing as the "Muslim World", and that that was an idea al-Qaeda wants everyone to believe. There is no "Muslim Community", but "communities".

As the talk finished slightly ahead of schedule, the group broke up even though the conversation continued for some time ahead. All present were grateful for the opportunity to hear from a figure doing such an important job in the world today.

*Apologies for any misquotings or misrepresentations, which are entirely my own*

What Australians Really Think......

Australia doesn't exactly have a good reputation for its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. People throughout the world look at us and wonder how a first-world country which loves so much to carry on about wonderful, enlightened and democratic it is can abuse with such fierce glee such vulnerable and disadvantaged people, whether for political gain or pure and simple schadenfreude. But beyond what one sees in the media, plenty of Australians do indeed care. And here is evidence.

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.

"Taqqiyya" Strikes Again....

Copts’ ousting fears

Manningham Leader, 23 Feb 2011

Manningham’s Coptic Christians are concerned their relatives in Egypt face further persecution following the ousting of president Hosni Mubarak.

Donvale parishioner Jimmy Morcos said there was no elation at the resignation of Mr Mubarak among the Coptic Christian community as the possibility of a “less friendly” (!?!?!?!?) government loomed.

“It’s a horrible time,” Mr Morcos said. “We all feel Copts may be further oppressed. They’ve been fried for so many years but now they might go into the fire if a more extreme government takes hold.” Mr Morcos, who has extended family in Alexandria, said security around Coptic churches in Egypt was now non-existent and his family was trying to flee.

“They, and so many other people, are trying to apply for asylum in Australia under the freedom of religion clause. There just isn’t any security there for them now.” Mr Morcos said the instability of the Egyptian pound was also a concern for his family’s continuing livelihood.

Bishop Anba Suriel said the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power in Egypt would spell disaster for the community.

“It is even more likely they will take power beause they practice something called taqqiya which is masking their true agenda and beliefs until they have a stronghold,” he said. “If they get in, life will be unbearable for Copts, so were are all here praying that enough seats go to people who will represent us.”

Honestly.....these folks of all people, feeling the need to channel the likes of Glen Beck....and presumably they also agree with Gaddafi that OBL is directing the Libyan protesters with the help of a bit of dope?


In the meantime, here are some more encouraging stories:

Images of solidarity as Christians join hands to protect Muslims as they pray during Cairo protests

Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields"

Egypt's Muslims and Christians join hands in protest

WOOOO!!!!!!

Congratulations everybody.

Photos: Rally for Egypt Melbourne CBD 4 Feb 2011

Grains of sand, all part of a beach.....

1. In front of the State Library

2. Preparing signs

3. Unity

4. Zing!

5. V makes an appearance....

6. Nazeem Hussain, representing the Islamic Council of Victoria

7. Mohamed Elmasri

8. Flag on the back

9. Listening to a live broadcast to the Melbourne rally, from one the the protest leaders in Cairo

10. Taking to the streets - man, it was pouring!

11. Salat in the rain - Federation Square

12. Salat II

13. The petition to parliament is handed over to MP Adam Bandt

That's just a small selection folks. Apologies to any speakers and other persons of note who I may have missed out on including, you're all legends!

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.

Yursil Kidwai on Modern 'Sharia' Law

(Suleiman's note: sorry for posting other people's articles yet again, but I found this one too good to leave alone! Some original stuff in the near future inshallah.)


Blasphemy and 'Sharia' Laws: Legitimizing Corruption and Cognitive Dissonance in Muslim Lands

By Yursil Kidwai
12 January 2011
The Huffington Post

After the Ottoman Empire turned to the modern Turkish republic in 1922, Western powers used a variety of means to draw new maps and lines around lands that were administered previous through a uniquely Islamic understanding of government. The most similar Western approach to the Ottoman government might be understood as 'monarchical-federalism'. The main goal of the West's previous efforts had been the dismantlement of this conglomeration of Muslim lands, so it was natural that their main priority would be to plan a future which would prevent any sort of reunification.

Muslims had suffered a loss which was akin to excommunicating the Pope from the Catholic Church. As the ruler of all that was Islamdom, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was sent into exile, earning his bread from his carpentry work for the rest of his life. Muslims were left leaderless like they hadn't been for 1400 years.

One can imagine these architects of tomorrow, in their smokey offices, deciding which new tribe they would support here, and how they would prop up this rival over there. Welfare of the people living under these new structures was a non-factor in these decisions. It only made sense, much of these plans were thought up in the early days of total world war.

Much of the Muslim masses were convinced that the end of times had come. And in a way, it had. An era of a singular coherent Islamic orthodoxy had ended. Muslims had lived in a society for over a millennia governed by a state which conducted itself according to it's own unique and complex system of checks and balances, an almost bureaucratic system of religious debate, and an overarching Sultan intervening between rival government factions.

This robust system was replaced with a scattering of dictators and 'princes' with little experience in running their personal families, much less nations. New states popped up without the authority or the coherency of any legal tradition. Scrambling, they incorporated various pieces of the French Republic and other western governing systems and brought them into their various dictatorships and new monarchies. This was sufficient 'progress' for the West.

Yet, Muslim masses would hardly accept the authority of a piece of paper, without some reference to God. Much like the idea that "one nation, under God" conveys, Muslims hold a strong belief that a completely godless state is no state worth living in. God ran strong through these lands, and anyone wielding authority which openly ran in contrary to a village elders faith would soon be dealing with countless rebellions.

However, villagers were hardly people learned in the religious development of the Muslim empire and the nuances of delicate legal cases and precedent. And when it came to the religion, what was to replace the Sultanate was a confusing mesh of secular and religious opinions, ranging from the most extreme to the most liberal. The removal of any social entity which could qualify people to make religious opinions left the direction of Islam in chaos. The rise of the printing press and mass media ensured the confusion would easily penetrate into the ordinary Muslim's homes. Due to this amorphous state of Islamic authority, any reference to religion within the modern states law had to be vague and transient at best.
We can see this impetus to include an undefined religious authority occurring within our nation-building even today. Iraq's new constitution states in Article 2:

"First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

Yet at the same time, it dictates:

"B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established."

Can one democratically contradict the 'established provisions of Islam'? What are these 'established provisions', and whose 'established provisions' are they? No one knows the answer to these questions, yet.

Going back to historical trends, we've seen numerous states establish 'Sharia' Laws within their normal legislative process. These laws, which have had a lasting imprint on the mind of Western observers, often pronounce strict and severe punishments: cutting of hands, lashings, stonings. It is interesting to note that the laws which the states chose to announce and implement are those with the most severe punishments against the populace.

These dictator-states and pseudo-democracies seemed to desire blurring the lines between their own tyrannous rule and God's most severe justice. It seemed they wanted to distract people: "Don't forget, we're Muslims. Yeah, we do horrible things. But don't blame us, some of these horrible things are from God."

Islamic laws which reward charity, promote honesty, promote tolerance have been forgotten in these states, while a handful of 'Shariah' punishments were mixed in with brand-new torturous and oppressive policies and procedures.

Interestingly enough, these selected 'Sharia' punishments were frowned upon under the centuries of Ottoman rule and by its end had become completely unpracticed. In Ottoman lands where Sharia was the be-all, end-all official state law, these laws were unenforced as a matter of practice. This was not through denouncing or revising Islamic Law, but by putting into practice the complete and holistic set of checks and balances built into Islamic Sharia.

This meant, for example, that while the punishment of adultery was technically announced as 'stoning', one also needed an absurd four witnesses of the most upright character to see actual sexual penetration to even entertain the possibility of this maximum punishment. On top of that unlikely scenario, if one of those witnesses ever spoke a white lie to anyone, their character would be insufficient to hold up in the courts and the case was to be discarded. When these impossible-to-meet criteria are considered, it becomes clear that these punishments were intended to be demonstrations of the severity of the act in the eyes of the Lord (and hence society), and deterrents in all practical senses.

This is not unlike the death penalty in New Hampshire, where no one has been executed since 1939, and there is no death chamber to be found in the state. Such laws remain 'in the books' as deterrents, yet through various legal or social methods they can become unenforced as a matter of practice.

However, modern 'Islamic' states have revitalized these punishments without the wisdom of their historical application. The purpose of this has been to announce their regressive and incomplete application of Sharia. The powers-that-be ultimately hope that this process would bring legitimacy and a distraction from the corruption and cognitive dissonance which permeates through their governments.
'Blasphemy laws' today in Pakistan are the latest example of supposed 'Sharia laws' hitting the newswire.

How do we reconcile such laws with the story of Mary Fisher, a Christian Quaker, who came to preach 'blasphemy' to the king of all of Muslim lands in 1658? After being given the opportunity to directly preach her Christian message to the Muslim Sultan, Mehmet IV, Fisher was received with friendship, care and consideration and offered safe passage through Muslim lands.

The following account relates the exchange between them:

... he (Sultan Mehmet IV) told her to speak the word of the Lord without fear, since they had "good hearts" to hear it; strictly enjoined her moreover, to say neither more nor less than the word she had from the Lord, since they were willing to hear it, be it what it might. With great gravity the whole assembly gave heed to her earnest ministry, and when she became silent the Sultan asked if there were nothing more she would like to say? When she inquired whether he had understood her, he answered, "yea, every word, and it is truth!" He then expressed his desire that she should remain in his dominions, and when she declined this proposal, offered her a guard to escort her to Constantinople, as he would be greatly grieved if any harm should befall her in his empire. But she courteously refused this offer, trusting in the Lord alone. May we not hope that one who had, for the moment, ignored the great national contest between the Crescent and the Cross, and -- far beyond this -- laid aside the prejudices of the exacting faith of his fathers in his readiness to hear "the word of the Lord" albeit from the lips of a woman ..
(ref: Friends' Intelligencer Vol XXXIII (1877). Philadelphia: John Comly)

Before the dissolution of the Ottoman khalifate, apostasy and other blasphemy laws were rarely spoken of and last practiced back when Americans were still accusing each other (and killing) as witches in Salem in 1692. Blasphemy laws resulting in capital punishments were openly stopped through new edicts and perspectives in 1839, specifically by a decree known as the Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber.

Far from imposing and executing various religious communities, Muslims lived with, and even ruled over, numerous rival Christian communities. Muslims were forced to decide disputes between these Christian sects. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a prime example of Muslim arbitration and administration in negotiating a peaceful and progressive approach between Christians of various denominations. Up until this day, a Muslim family holds the honor of opening the door to allow the various Christian denominations to enter and worship. The arrangement of responsibilities between the Christian sects was decided with Muslim governance.

It seems more than coincidental that these 'Sharia' incidents occur in states that are run by atheistic/communist dictators (i.e. Saddam Hussein) or ridiculously corrupt 'Islamo-democratic' governments.

In Pakistan's case, the International Crisis Group provided a report last year stating:

Decades of mismanagement, political manipulation and corruption have rendered Pakistan's civil service incapable of providing effective governance and basic public services. In public perceptions, the country's 2.4 million civil servants are widely seen as unresponsive and corrupt, and bureaucratic procedures cumbersome and exploitative. Bureaucratic dysfunction and low capacity undermine governance, providing opportunities to the military to subvert the democratic transition and to extremists to destabilise the state.

Ridiculous distractions such as modern 'Islamic' states opinions on blasphemy, adultery, and theft allow Islamophobes to target their favorite religion, while allowing corruption and real problems to go under the radar. These laws today serve a purpose that they never had in what was the most authentic Islamic state (now only a memory): a means to prove a governments religiosity in a midst of lies, deceit, money and total corruption which make up most of its actual administration.

It seems clear that, after looking at the historical examples cited, obtuse punishments and announcements of one's religiosity (especially by a government), are a sign of a troubled spiritual state.

It is high time for Muslims to accept that what is making Muslim states un-Islamic isn't a possible repeal of blasphemy laws. It is the distance from the spirit of charity, honesty and sincerity which is a fundamental aspect of any true believer in the Day of Judgment, regardless of creed. Today's Muslim leaders could learn a lot from the open exchange between Sultan Mehmet IV and Mary Fisher, and the Sharia as he understood and practiced it. One needs only consider what would happen to Mary Fisher if she approached most of today's Muslim politicians and religious leaders.

Non-Muslims, on the other hand, need to quit associating these puppet governments and their lip-service to 'Sharia law' as the defacto Islam which they wish to judge Muslims with. After all, they helped create these pseudo Islamic monstrosities.

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

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