Our Forgotten Allies - Part 1: Is The Palestinian Problem An Islamic Cause?

For a large number of people, merely raising the question, whether the Israeli Palestinian conflict is a Islamic ‘religious’ issue or not, may raise eye brows. Many take it for granted that the conflict is a religious one.

Well. That has not been always been the case. And for several decades, Palestine liberation from Israeli occupation and oppression was an Arab national cause, not an Islamic cause. Actually, until recently, non-Arab Muslim countries were not at all seriously concerned about the Middle East conflict, except for a supportive vote in the UN every now and then.

Of course Islam, both as a religion and as a dominant Arab cultural backdrop, was influencing the formulation of the ‘lingo’ of the conflict. But that was in the context of Islam being the major element of Arabic cultural foundation, even for many Arab Christians.

The frequent use of Islamic terminology was therefore not out of the perception that the conflict was a religious one. And for over 40 years after the Palestinian Nakba (Arabic term for the Palestinian disaster in 1948), both Muslims and Christians were intensely involved as Arabs in all the military conflicts, resistance, negotiations, etc. Some of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) figures were Christians, and one of the most militant Palestinian groups was founded by George Habash, a Palestinian Christian.

Of course that does not mean that the early (and short-lasting) involvement of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood group in the 1948 war did not have religious reasons, but for most Arabs, that is not how the conflict was viewed.

It was an issue of millions of fellow Arabs suffering from oppression and grave injustice, their culture was being destroyed, and their own existence as people was being denied. It was about Arab land robbed without any legitimacy – just because the other side could achieve land theft and population transfer by force – never effectively opposed.

I wish the conflict remained as secular as it was in the early decades. But, for different reasons, it was more practical for both Arabs on one hand and Israelis and their supporters on the other, to turn it into a religious conflict.

That was a grave mistake and to the detriment of Arab and Palestinian position in my opinion. And, consequently, it was to the great benefit of the pro-Israel crowd.

On the Arab/Muslim side, the transformation of the Palestinian cause from secular to religious started in the early 1980’s. Secular Arab governments have proven to be total failure in solving Arab world problems and, moreover, many of them started taking initiatives to surrender emotionally and materially to the US and Israeli demands.

And while that was happening, Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan were being hailed by the West as defenders of the World against the Soviet Union evil empire. The American and Arab propaganda machinery raised the stature of the ‘Mujahideen’ and their ideology to mythical heights casting them as saints. That was, incidentally, financed by Saudis and Americans, pumping the zealous religious emotions of Arabs and Muslims all over the world.

At a different level, Arab people were impressed by the success of another religion-based national liberation movement in Iran. The Iranian people succeeded in kicking out Reza Bahlavi’s regime, a bloody and very oppressive regime. And their ability to resist the pressure of military and economic war by Iraq and the West during the protracted Iraq-Iran war did not pass unnoticed in Arab Street.

It was not difficult to put the two together: success was based on how profound the religious feelings are, and how great the will to sacrifice was.

For Israel and its creators and supporters, religion has never been out of the picture from day one. After all, it was early secular Zionists that used the myth of God’s promise to his chosen people to promote their desire for a homeland. A promise that is laughable as backward unless you base it on religious ideology. But the surroundings were ripe for the plausibility of that silly claim of the Jewish people to a Jewish state the land of Palestine.

Secular Jews got the land that they felt would protect them for more destruction by Europeans. And religious Jews got what they thought was a fulfillment of God’s promise.

For Western Christian supporters (many with a long history of anti-Jewish sentiments) some saw it as a way to resolve the ‘Jewish problem’ but for others waiting for the second coming of the messiah to establish the kingdom of heaven, it was a step closer to making the end of times happen.

More recently, the pro-Israel voices, both Jewish and Christian Zionist, have taken a more explicit and advantageous religious direction with the ‘Islamization’ of the Palestinian /Israeli conflict by Arabs and Muslims. And over the last 10-15 years, the conflict has been framed by pro-Israel voices as a clash of religions. Fighting ‘Radical Islam’ real and imagined became the new hub of the pro-Israel policies.

At present, it is almost certain that enthusiastic pro-Israel voices would be fervently and irrationally anti-Muslim and explicitly Islamophobic.

Zionist Christians and fundamental Zionists have managed to create a powerful media network that regularly defends the blind support of Israel while foaming at the mouth about the dangers of Islam and Muslims in general.

For Muslims living in the West, most of the hatred and insults they face (in person, and in media pits like Fox News Network and Wall Street Journal, as well as a variety of Islamophobic online outlets) comes from the pro-Israel crowd while they are promoting Israeli points of view.

Framing the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a conflict between Islam and a ‘Judeo-Christian’ culture (whatever that means) has been very convenient for Israel and its advocate, and in my opinion has been extremely detrimental to Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians. But Muslims themselves take a lot of the blame for not resisting redefining the conflict in religious terms.

For Muslims, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be ‘re-redefined’. It is about seeking justice for Palestinians, a legitimate Islamic cause. It is not a conflict about defending Islam, because it is not.

Making it a war to defend Islam made us lose a very important and critical ally, but that will be the topic of another posting. In the mean while, your thoughts and opinions about this topic are appreciated.

Khaled

Stairway to Heaven: Modern art with a message or just Israel bashing?

I am not a follower of the world of art, but I came across this article in Haaretz Israeli newspaper.

Spain sculpture offensive to Jews, Israel says

I am sure non-Jews may also find it offensive for different reasons, but it all depends what you think he is saying. As for me, I found that sculpture on display in Madrid's contemporary art show ARCO 2010 interesting, so I did some looking around online.

I was actually amused and entertained by some of the other work of the Spanish artist, Eugenio Merino. He definitely has a message (see some photos below) and he does not seem to play favoritism.
He is bashing political right and left, terrorists and politicians, big corporations and the individual's pop culture attitudes, sports, and even the dalai lama.

If you search Merino's name you realize that, outside Israeli concerns, the bigger controversy is not about his Stairway to Heaven (see photo on the right) and what Israel thinks of him, but about his parody sculpture 'of the richest artist alive', Damien Hirst who recently sold a piece of art called 'For the Love of God' for 110 million dollars. The precious piece is a sculpture of skull laced with diamonds.

The parody sculpture is called '4 the love of Go(l)d' where he portrays the rich British artist committing suicide to raise the value of his own artwork.

By the way, I am not claiming I am well versed with the work of these artists. And until yesterday, I never even heard of either of them. But some of Merino's work is eye-catching, and seems to have a very strong social commentary element. I thought some of you may find it interesting.

Khaled
Other links:
'Suicide' sculpture of Damien Hirst causes controversy in Spain | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
Eugenio Merino - artist website
Provocative, funny, confusing: Eugenio Merino - the artist to watch - Swide Magazine

African skinny kid & Diet Coke

African Bart

Monologo


Terrorist


Apple

Liberté, égalité, fraternité: Fake, fake, and.... fake?!

Human societies are nothing if not... 'human'.

Part of being human is, unfortunately, being pretentious and dishonest, as well as posturing and self righteousness. There are no exception to that rule whether you are talking about Afghanistan, Egypt, The United States or, in this case, France.

The arrogance of French culture pops up every now and then giving the impression that the French have 'invented' freedom, equality and brotherhood of Man. That does not mean that a lot of minority have not found home and homeland in France over the years. But the 'convulsions' that erupt occasionally from the dominant ethnic group under the pretense of preserving the purity of the 'French value of secularism' still reveals they are just like everybody else in the planet: flawed humans.

I totally supported their effort to ban Niqab (face-hiding head-cover worn by some very conservative Muslim women, and is a social tradition regardless of religiosity in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan).

I supported the ban simply because Niqab is a dysfunctional social habit. That is not the case for the usual headscarf worn my a large number of Muslim women. And regardless of whether it is worn out of religious belief or simply as a social habit (which is a very common situation even in many non-Muslim rural societies), it is not a dysfunctional tradition unless it is enforced by coercion on women.

Some French, at least a vocal faction, have a different attitude towards a woman wearing a headscarf, especially if the style suggests she is a Muslim: they consider it backward, threatening, and above all anti-secular, whatever on earth that means.

I do not judge a woman as morally superior just because she wears a headscarf or a man because they wear a beard. But I do not hold it against them either.
That is the whole point of freedom of choice. And that is the point of judging the deed not the appearance.

A recent report on the British Gaurdian Online (see link at the end of the post) talked about how a leftist radical anti-capitalist politician, Olivier Besancenot, has caused an uproar in France and has drawn vocal opposition even from leftist/liberal groups for his 'fielding of a headscarf wearing 21 year old Muslim woman' as an election campaign running partner. The report mentioned few things about that young woman, Ilham Moussaid (see photo). And from what they list, she should not be any threat to French society and its value. After all, she is independent, politically active, supports abortion, supports leftist causes, and actually at a young age of 21 years, is the NPA anti-capitalist party treasurer.

But for the 'puritanistic' secularists, the limited scarf she wears is a threat to secularism that is too grave to ignore. And just because Marx and Trotsky did not see positive value in religion, people with strong sense of social justice and who care for the poor and weak out of their religious convictions, are not accepted as comrade worriers for social justice causes.

A "leading feminist group announced it would file an official complaint against the NPA's list of candidates in the Vaucluse département to protest against what it called an "anti-secular, anti-feminist and anti-republican" stunt".

Those who want to defend feminist and social justice causes need to shed their religion - all aspects of it. Social justice as a result of a religious sense is 'no good'.

This is similar to rejecting the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' as a moral argument just because it had religious root.

I am sure if the scarf was worn as a a part of an African attire - not an uncommon combination- it would have been seen as a manifestation of the great motto of France "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" in the land that thinks it invented freedom for all.

But, worn by a Muslim woman? Oh, no. That is a threat Western civilization.

It is not uncommon to see xenophobia, racism and pure hatred manifest itself under glorious slogans. It was American, Samuel Johnson, who said in 1779 that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

And for decades, patriotism and other moral values including religion have commonly been refuge not only of scoundrels, but also of those moral cowards who would rather use a respectable facade for their hatred, racism, xenophobia, greed for power and domination, (and more recently hate for Islam and Muslims). That occurs not only in the US, but in the West, the East and everywhere.

That is no less despicable that a cowardly soldiers holding human shields in front of them while shooting at or searching for the enemy.

I am sure many French would not feels the same way that the 'militant secularists' feels- at least I hope most would not. But it is usually the unhappy loud militant bunch that make the headlines in France like everywhere else. Another reminder how human societies are just that: human.

And that applies to the French too.

Khaled

The guardian full article can be found here:

• Election candidate in headscarf causes uproar in France

And this is an article from France with more nuanced insight of the politics behind the choice.

• France24 - Far-left party reveals ‘veiled’ female candidate

And the opinion of Olivier Besancenot himself, in his own words can be found her

• Olivier Besancenot, "What I Actually Said to Le Figaro regarding the Headscarf"

Abandoning our community, at least mentally

My criticism for many Muslims and how they perceived Islam is not new. And moreover, it will not stop for as long as I see a chance to change something or someone.

I consider that my responsibility and my religious duty. There is no point in being part of a community if one does not regularly critically appraise the state of health and future trajectory of that community. And if things are not to your liking, do something about it.

This is not just an activist's stance. It is actually the creed of Muslim as succinctly verbalized in the Quran. God describes the nation or community ( Arabic, أُمَّةٍ) that he blesses with the Prophet Muhammad, and the Revelation of the Quran, as

'the best of communities: enjoining what is right and proscribing what is known to be wrong and believing in God' (3:110).

(كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ)

Looking at the order in which this verse is structured yields a profound insight into the significance of the qualities listed: the activist stance came before describing the community as 'believing in God'. Prophet Muhammad pbuh has also stressed that numerous time. especially in one of the most recited quotations of the prophet:

"If you see a wrong-doing change it with your hand.
If you cannot, then with your tongue.
If you cannot, then wish in your heart that it would change, but that is the weakest exercise of faith."

Interestingly, most Muslims in Muslim majority countries as well as in local American Muslim communities, are totally passive when it comes to running their mosques. You can hardly talk to anyone in any mosque-going community that is remotely happy with the state of affairs in their mosque. Social private events for Muslims end up frequently being a rant about how much change is needed at mosques, and how ineffective community leadership is.

And regardless of whether those claims are legitimate of not, the most likely scenario is that the rant stops their. Most of these 'ranting' people attend Friday prayers because God told them to so so. One would imagine that obedience to God should also expand to include other commandments such as the one mentioned above endorsing activism and in verses 7:157, 9:71, 9:112 as well as in explicit commandment form in verse 3:103.

Why would not then they speak up in the mosques against all the flaws and faults they find with how the community is run. Why would not they send letters to those in charge, demand to speak in public gatherings and start their own websites, blogs and public campaigns against what they think is wrong?

The several but few incidents when such public criticism was made strongly enough, it resulted in positive change. The more outspoken the opposition to wrong policies is, the better the outcome - hence the praise from God to communities that adopts that as a common practice.

Yet again, many of us Muslims, would rather whine in private, fail to constructively criticize in public, and are content with just going to the Friday prayer.

I am not saying it is easy to face your community with criticism. And there is public and peer pressure to avoid doing that under the fake interest in community unity, and for fear of 'causing Fitna' - that is Arabic for major communal confusion that can lead to societal break down and war - a threat that shuts people up very quickly.

Most of them do not realize that democracy, self criticism, and critical appraisal of the performance of leadership is NOT fitna. It is what God wants. And the more they ignore the need to do that, the farther they are from being good Muslims.

The prophet's companions did not hold their tongues when he did something they thought was not in the practical interest of the community. After the Prophet's death, they continued to live by the same principles that God and his Prophet taught them. And the stories fill our memory with public objection and criticism by early Muslims against things that the Prophet did in his capacity as a civil and military leader. Similar stories also exist during the rein of the early civil successors to the Prophet.

Objections and protests were not counted as Fitna those day. Why, in God's name, do we count it as Fitna today in tiny places like our cities or our mosques?

In fact, that passive existence in a community is abandonment of the community in an intellectual way, especially at times when we know that things are not working very well. It is more damaging to the community than physical and financial abandonment which put more pressure on the faulty community to wake up and smarten up.

Silence when the ship is sinking is as bad as drilling the hole in the ship yourself.

Khaled.

Do not worship that man's god

The clown of a clergy that goes by the name of Pat Robertson has uttered a lot of nonsense before. Idiocy comes naturally to him, and stupidity seems to be his hall mark. I have commented several time on some of that senile nonsense before (check these).

Yet, millions that falsely think they are really Christians follow the idiot and his nonsensical ramblings. Ramblings that if not about gay, it is about Presbyterians, Muslims, or poor black New Orleans Hurricane victims or whatever he wishes to hallucinate about.

He added another huge dirty feather to his hat made of piles of dirt that he uttered over the years.

With tens of thousands (if not over a hundred thousand) feared dead in Haiti earthquake, the little man, who has with no soul, found nothing today to say about the disaster other than to spew that it is a result of a 200-year-old pact Haiti made with the devil!

"And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal,'" Robertson said. "And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

"But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor."

Whatever that man believes in is not God. It is a vengeful idol that that seems thirsty for the blood of those that Pat the idiot personally hates, and the blood of their children and their children's children all the way for over 2 centuries.

Who would want to worship a god like that!

Whatever he believes in, is no different from the mythological gods (lowercase g) that Romans and ancient Greeks have invented for theatrical and story telling purposes - gods that fought over women, got drunk and messed up humans' life just for fun or to spite each other. These 'gods' had nothing divine or respectable about them.

Yet, what Pat the idiot believes in seems to me a lot worse that those mythical gods. It is just the personal idol of that senile idiot and his stupid followers - all millions of them.

And what a shame that a super idiot becomes a super-clergy for some; with hundreds of millions of dollars under his control, and millions of votes at his disposal.

No matter what you think Jesus is, peace be upon him, he would be ashamed that a monster like Pat Robertson, claims to belong to him.

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. ( John 4:16)

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matthew 22:37-39)

Khaled

Please support Muslim campaign for Relief effort in Haiti

Islamic Relief USA: Haiti Emergency Compaign

To CAIR and the ACLU: Do not fight banning the Niqab and Burka

One of the best things that ever happened to American Muslims was, and still is, the birth of the Council On American Islamic Relations (CAIR). To say the least, it empowered American Muslims and brought their civil rights to the forefront in many Muslim communities. It is still a strong pillar of Muslim civil rights in the US (and Canada).

The American civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is also one of the most, if not the most, respected organizations in the US in my opinion. In my eyes, it comes even before the the supreme court in significance.

And the collaboration between these two organizations have done a lot of good for both American Muslims and Americans in general ranging from civil rights defense to education of the public and all the way protecting the majority from committing what, in retrospect, would have be shameful knee jerk oppression of minorities in times of social and political upheaval.

Yet, I totally disagree with CAIR on its stance on the recent decision by the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences to ban people from covering their faces on its three campuses. That ban extends to include that could include ski masks and scarfs drawn over the face as well as facial veils (Niqab and Burka). The new policy, according to the school, is out of concern for public safety but is not related to any particular case of terrorism or otherwise.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, disagrees with the Pharmacy school policy and he is making the argument that "People should have the right to practice their faith as they see fit, not as others see fit". The local ACLU staff attorney, Sarah Wunsch, said the policy was "puzzling and possibly illegal."
Mr Hooper also makes the arguments that since the school made an exemption for medical reasons, it should consider making an exception for religious reasons.

Needless to say, I am not in agreement with either of them.

As a practicing Muslim that identify strongly with my religion, and as a believer in personal freedoms and civil rights protection for Muslims as well as everyone else, I do not see the arguments made by Mr. Hooper or the ACLU attorney as valid.

Let me nbe clear: the issue here is not about covering the hair, but rather about covering the face. In human cosieties, the face is a central piece in the process of human interaction. I do not miss much if I do not see a womans's hair. But not seeing the face I deal with in public is disruptive to the flow of communication in any society. Only less than a handful of societies enshrine facial veil as a publicly enforced policy: Suadi Arabia and Afghanistan - and possibly some areas in Pakistan that are natural extension of Afghanistan and its culture.

Those societies can hardly be called anything but dysfunctional. They should not be a standard to measure ANYTHING.

In the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, facial veils are not mandates, although it is more popular in some locations than others outo fo cultural and social norms mostly.

Of particular interest is the ongoing Niqab battle in Egypt. Recently, the most senior cleric in Al-Azhar Islamic University has rejected Niqab as a religious requirement, and mandated not weraing it in the Al-Azhar Islamic education institutions and schools. A recent court ruling supported him in that endeavor against some opposing groups.

When I was in Medical school, the dean, whom I was not fond of for several reasons, banned Niqab on the premises of Cairo Medical School. I and most of my colleague - men and women - did not feel that was in appropriate.

We were not leftist liberal activists and actually most of us would be considered 'religious' by local standard here. We were reasonable medical students and future doctors who realized that the face is an important tool for us in understanding patients and communicating with them. And equally important is the doctor's face as an important tool in establishing the rapport with patient that has great impact on the conduction of effective medical encounters and establishing effective treatment plans.

I would not accept medical care for my self or my children from a physican or a health care provider whose face I cannot see.

I would not be able to take care of a patient properly if I do not see their face. I cannot legally examine a child in the presence of an individual that is not their legal guardian. Guess what: I cannot identify the guarduan until I see their face.

Until we all walk around with RF microchips planted in our bodies, the face will remain the only way to identify people we deal with. But even beyond the identification process, a faceless person is not someone any of us would effectively, or comfortably, communicate with in person.

Will you, no mater how religious you are, accept the authority of a police person - stopping you on the street and requesting you documents - whose face you cannot see?

Would you really think it is OK to hand your credit card to a person wearing a ski mask at the gas station or convenience store?

would you allow a plumper to enter your house, or a car mechanic to take apart your transmission under the condition that they shall remain faceless? Would you just take their word that they are truly the ones whose face is on the photo ID?

Would you allow your 12 year-old daughter or son to go to slumber party or a camp where every one is wearing a Niqab or mask and you have no clue who or what they are? Or would you rahter hand them over in on school day-trip to a faceless woman who may or may not have been the teacher?

Will you ever leave your 2 year old child in daycare in the custody of some human whom you do not know or can even identify in case of a mishap?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, something is wrong with you.

If you answer no to all these questions, then you are normal.

And, if that is the way normal people think, why would you think it is OK to have a colleague student that you do not even know if they are legitimate woman student or not a student or not even a woman? And why would you think it is OK to get pharmacy services from a faceless person who has full access to your health records, personal and financial information?

Wearing Niqab is a personal choice if you do not impose a faulty way of communication on others who have to deal with you in a professional capacity.

If you own your store, or private school, you can wear whatever you want. If your customers are OK with that, that is there choice too. But when you are taking your professional exams, have your picture taken for driver's license, work for someone else, or even shop in someone else's store, then it IS NOT YOUR CHOICE!!

I will not go into a religious argument about the Niqab and other forms of facial veils and whether it is mandated or not. Books and websites abound with discussion on that. But the majority of Muslims should not condone a minority opinion just because it looks more conservative or more 'religious'. We need to distinguish legitimate religious obligations, and the freedom and right to practice them, from hyper-conservative attitudes that we do not have to adopt as representing us and our religion.

As for the argument of making a 'religious exemption' similar to the 'medical exemption' in that Pharmacy school policy that Mr Hooper referred to, I take exception to that.

Equating a serious medical condition that you have no choice to have or not to have (such as in cases where aggressive skin cancers can result from even minor ultraviolet exposure if your skin is expose) with a personal choice to practice an extreme form of religious practice inconsistent with the conduction of every day's affairs in your society, is not an argument I would want CAIR to spend time making or defending.

We, Muslims and civil rights defenders alike, have bigger issues to worry about. And in some cases it may be better to make a judgment call and NOT get involved defending stance that may not even be religiously sound.

Khaled