..........بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيم...........

"In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful""

____________________________________

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

"The Muslim Question"

*** Parts taken from another one of my essays on Islamophobia and the racialization of the 'muslim' in the post 9/11 world.

----------

Racism is a political tool, utilized in the post modern world by nationalist regimes, and even some of the revered Western liberal 'democracies,' for the purpose of constructing a particular social order. This social order most often is built upon a common heritage, a history of a common peoples, who share a common language and religion, and also a common economic plan; and thus excludes from it all that is foreign and alien to the root culture. Nazism, for example, strove to purify its German 'volk' through the purging of all imperfection and deficiency. This 'cancer' which was damaging the German body (Volksgemeinschaft) was attributed to the Jew. And so the Jew became an increasingly objectified "threat" to the harmony of this imagined social order. The 'Jew' was molded into an alien 'race' which was inherently destructive and could never assimilate into the general population. This is why the 'Jewish Question' in twentieth century Europe was concluded with Hitler's 'final solution.'

We can witness some eerie parallels in the process of racialization of the 'Jew' to the more current shift in racializing the 'Muslim.' Although not to the extreme of the 'Jewish Question', the 'Muslim Question' is formulated in the same racist fashion. The reasons which lead to the racialization of the 'Jew' are being re-applied to the racialization process of the 'Muslim'. 'Judeophobia' is now turning into 'Islamophobia.' However, heterophobia - the fear of the other - is not the sole factor at play in this very complex issue. Some of those contributing factors include social-engineering designs and ambitions of the modern state - that is a multi-facet design which incorporates politics, economics, science and culture.

All that I have mentioned thus far provides the framework into which 'islamophobia' is being propagated. First of all, the 'Muslim' is given an alien attribute. Islam as a unique way of life makes it impossible for the 'Muslim' to ameliorate into the Western social order, which is generally labeled as 'secular' though it is also undeniably Christian and foremost Capitalist. Like the 'Jew' the 'Muslim' is seen through an Orientalist binocular. The myth of the 'Muslim' as a 'nomad, desert dwelling Arab' has been in a way romanticized through out the western world ever since their first encounters in the medieval times. But what made the 'Jewish Question' different and what makes the emergence of what I have called the 'Muslim Question' different from the general 'heterophobia' or xenophobia, are the specific developments in modernity.

Generally, there has been a shift in the way we define 'development', which contributes significantly to the increasing fear and paranoia which the western world had been experiencing, especially the United States. The West generally has one perception of development - that is high GDP - which means one needs a sound capitalist economy in order to build and expand this perfect social order driven by the modernization of ones nation and people. Once people reject this vision of a perfect world order - like many 'Islamic' countries have, it complicates things further for the super powers, and that becomes a big problem. The US fears domination, and the recent Islamic revivalism has become perceived as a major threat. During the Cold War period, the West constantly scrutinized the Muslim world in an attempt to divert their ties with the Soviet Union, because even Communism at the time was considered a big threat. Though the Jews were often stigmatized as "the colonizers of progress" and during the era of Social Nationalism, were considered a great threat to the sovereignty of a Pure German state - hence the 'Jew', although completely enlightened, became degraded into the 'condition of a species'. Moreover, the 'Jew' was not seen as a minority but an opposing 'race'. This idea of the 'opposing race' is resurrected in the 'struggle' between the West and Islam, specifically in the theory of the 'inevitable clash of civilizations' posed by Samuel Huntington and many other neo-conservatives. His theory evokes much of the same ideas about Muslims which were previously concocted about the Jews. To say that the process of racialization of the 'Jew' and 'Muslim' are equal is taking the topic a little too far, but nonetheless, the idea of an 'opposite race' is a prominent one. "The Clash of Civilizations" theory has many flaws, but this is not an essay intended to point them out, rather to take it as an example of how the West is framing the 'Muslim' as a collective entity - the same way the 'Jew' was treated in Europe. The way that the 'Jew' then was blamed for the misfortunes of capitalism as a collective - the 'Muslim' is blamed for the tragedies of global terrorism in the same collective manner.

Inevitably, Jews became scapegoats for all faults of German society; the mare fact that a person is called a Jew is an invitation forcibly to make him over into a physical semblance of that image of death and distortion. Perhaps we cannot see this type of extremism in the broader sense of the 'Muslim Question', but if we take a look at the Bosnian Genocide, things become - in a way- much more clear.

Bosnia, being in Europe has also been part of much of the history which surrounded the continent, including the process of enlightenment and modernization. The Muslim population of Bosnia, directly or indirectly, had undergone a similar transformation from a religious group to a 'racial' group, much like the Jews of Europe. What we refer to today as 'Bosnians' or 'Bosniaks' are peoples who were ethnicized as 'Muslims' for centuries up until the genocide and the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. 'Muslim' in this context did not refer to ones religious affiliation alone (though that was part of it). Many of the people killed in the genocide from 1992 to 1995, were not even practicing Muslims. They only carried a 'Muslim' name, which was 'threatening' enough to the Fascist Serb perception of a 'perfect' social order in the Balkans. Many women were raped because 'Muslim' blood was considered 'impure' and therefore needed to be 'purged' of its 'filth'. Muslim women were then forced to carry their (Serb) children, and participate in much gruesome acts which were clearly forbidden in Islam. Most often then not, they were killed in the end. Bosnia is, however, only one case study of the extreme implications the term 'Muslim' brought with it in the Balkan region.

Today, the 'Muslim' identity is mostly framed around the concept of terrorism. Although we may think of terrorism as a separate phenomenon executed by some crazy fanatic groups of people who happen to be 'Muslim' - it is important to understand that this assertion is not completely correct. 'Terrorism' has largely become a response to the driving forces of modernity. So they work hand in hand. The increasing influence of globalization has brought modernism to all parts of the globe, and different groups responded to the phenomenon differently. Specific forms of 'terrorism' existed in all societies through out History, but what makes the termed 'Islamic Struggle' movements different is that they are intrinsically modern. They respond to a modern force. Many of these 'terrorist' organizations were rooted in the decolonization period, when people like Franz Fanon sought violence as a necessary weapon in combating Western European Imperialism. And while the limits of enlightenment are clearly visible in the self destructive nature of liberal capitalism, the flaws have been even more ostensible in the rise of global terrorism as a countering force to rapid modernization of the world. In a way both the 'Jew' and 'Muslim' are culprits of exposing the limits and dangers of extreme modernity and enlightenment - which is why both have been 'racialized' into an 'opposing race' which ultimately destroy the harmony of the idealized social order of the new world order system of capitalism and modernity.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

And The Saga Continues...

I just need to say one thing!

The mother who is weeping in Afghanistan/Pakistan and who wept in Iraq, hurts just as much as the mother weeping for her son or daughter at Fort Hood!

Why then is it expected from me to condemn the actions of a clearly troubled man (Nidal Hassan) for what he had done at that army base, and excuse his actions by stressing the fact that Islam does NOT preach 'terrorism' every single time such an incident occurs - in order to improve my "public standing?" Haven't we been stuck at this crossroads far too many times already? Does anyone else get tired of trying to 'apologize' for these people's actions even though they had nothing to do with them?

I feel like a total broken record at times, repeating myself over and over again, yet the issue keeps reoccurring and people never seem to learn! It's kind of a 'god' given right for certain people in America to be ignorant! No matter how much you try to explain, it is never good enough.

Let me put it this way: once you start apologizing for every Afghan/Pakistani/Iraqi/Palestinian child killed and make it your responsibility to condemn the actions of US policy makers and those army 'combatants' who happen to act out of 'order' when they flush a Qur'an down the toilet or treat human beings like beasts (in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib) THEN and only THEN can you expect me to do the same!!!

It may be easy for you to call me the 'other' and therefore lighten your heavy burdens from your shoulders, but I refuse to be weight down by the wrongs which have been committed by someone else! I refuse to be labeled the 'other'. Why is my existance worth less than yours?

Stop dragging Islam into every single political debate! Faith has nothing to do with it!

PS: how come we never learned of Mr. Jason Rodriguez - Orlando Shooter - guy's religious background? Oh, maybe because he wasn't Muslim!?!?!

Friday, November 6, 2009

"Apocalypse"

Ok I totally couldn't help but blog about it. *I am still in an overly amused mode, where I just can't stop laughing at some people's reactions - I am talking about the movie that is supposed to come out November 13, called "2012". Apparently people are highly alarmed that in two years time, the world will officially end, as supposedly predicted by numerous prophecies around the world centuries ago, in Greece, in China, and most importantly - they claim - the Mayans in Central America.

During the age of empire, the Mayan civilization had created a sophisticated and highly 'accurate' calendar which could predict solar eclipses hundreds of years ahead of their occurrence. Furthermore, it provided other forms of prophetic knowledge of the Spanish inquisition, the arrival of the conquistadores - BUT, for what ever reason, this spectacular calendar mysteriously ends on December 21, 2012. This would be the exact day on which our planet's history would shift forever in a very momentous way. Various disasters are supposed to hit Earth, as on that date, scientists have also predicted an extremely rare alignment of the earth and sun with the center of our galaxy (the milky way) placing the earth extremely close to this worm hole or black hole which apparently exists just outside our own galaxy in the universe. This alignment is then going to cause a major shift in the earth's axis (as we are pulled by the infinite gravitational force of the black hole) and the north and south poles are going to be turned upside down, generating havoc and major disruptions and disasters across the world.

This, along with believed ancient 'prophecies', (which are always extremely vague) predict something terrible in the year 2012.

Now, this is nothing new, for mankind has been fascinated with apocalyptic imagery for thousands of years, and the 'end' has been announced several times even so twice in the past decade. First, Christian theology had it that something was to happen at the turn of the century and the new millennium (year 2000). But we survived - evidently. Then again people scrambled to find the 'end' and decided that 06/06/06 was a good shot to bet on - yet even that 'omen' passed us by and here we are, alive and well in 2009 (well most of us are at least). So now the bet is on to 12/21/2012. This one somehow more convincing to some people out there…

You know what else is very interesting? The fact that after each revelation of this coming apocalypse, hollywood comes up with a movie. 'woohoo' right - more money for them! But what is extremely SAD is that people actually believe it! Hollywood is making people freak out, terrorizing them into believing that the world is going to fall into disaster and that everyone will die! How cheerful?!? I mean THAT is true terrorism - terror of the psyche! People are committing suicide each time something like this is even mentioned, fearing that they may become part of this 'inevitable' doom, that they will suffer a terrible end, and frankly so in just two years time.

But then, of course, you have some Christians (who are just as amusing) trying to console themselves (but still sensing that terror) that 'God' could never do that to 'His' 'children'. Which is kind of ironic. Doesn't the same Bible predict an ultimate END, but then the same Christians are afraid to die and deny the ability of God to simply END our existence at any time? *hmmm* I am a little bit confused. I mean why are people even discussing the end of the world in 2012, as if it were a total FACT? For goodness sake, it's just a movie and a bloody "theory". Just because a movie presents a particular statement, why are people getting so anxious? But then, people watching X-Files also believe we have aliens and that they are going to take over the world lol… *sigh*

Forgive my un-necessary rant; I just kind of had to get it out my system.
Perhaps this is the exact reason why Muslims leave that BIG decision to God. It is only He who knows of the Hour, though we all know it will inevitably come. Creating these false prophecies will only arouse panic and chaos - so why don't people just turn their valuable time to doing more productive things .... ummm I don't know like .... instead of spending their money on these stupid movies, go and feed a hungry child somewhere in the world, or simply smile - for even that - in these times is a great act of charity!!!

Monday, November 2, 2009

"Hamas: Inherently 'Fanatic' or Practically 'Democratic'?"

***From an essay I wrote about the arguable 'democratization' of Hamas - or at least an argument against Hamas as a 'terrorist', 'Al Qaeda-sympathetic', 'extremist' organization.

---------

Ever since the global 'war on terror' was officially declared in the aftermath of the tragic event of September 11, 2001, there has been a flawed tendency to oversimplify some of the very complex issues facing both the 'Islamic' and 'Western' worlds today. This, and certain other events, eclipsed the reality of a very diverse web of radical 'islamist' organizations, painting them all with the very same brush, and ultimately labeling them all as intrinsically 'fundamentalist,' 'anti-democratic,' and 'violent' terrorist organizations. The Bush administration, along with other neoconservatives, began to paint a very ugly picture of these groups, and thus collectively placing them all into one single category - one which certainly does not exemplify most of these 'islamist' groups or their political agendas. One of such groups, which has been unjustly correlated to the most extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, is the "Harakat al Mokawama al Islamiya," which translates to "Islamic Resistance Movement" or more formerly known as Hamas. These types of misguiding and overly generalized assumptions about Hamas have clearly shaped and molded the foreign policy and general views on the Israel/Palestine conflict in the 'West', and ultimately on the so called 'war on terror.'

The word 'terrorism' like the word 'genocide,' for example, is extremely ambiguous and highly subjective. The politics behind naming and labeling certain groups 'terrorist,' has largely been reflective of the one who is doing the naming, as opposed to the one who is being named. Hence, the US labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization reveals the lack of communication and understanding between the two and not necessarily what Hamas as an entity is truly like.

What we need to do is place these groups within their specific given socio-political and historical contexts. In order to really understand Hamas thoroughly, we need to understand how and where it originated, and according to their own ideologies and terms, what are they striving for and whether or not they are upholding their own principles in practice. Instead of tackling this topic with a pre-notion of Hamas as a demonic, fanatical, violent terrorist organization, it is necessary to approach it with a more understanding and empathetic view point. We do not necessarily have to agree with its terms and actions, but we do need to build mutual understanding of what this organization is really all about.

Hamas emerged in the broader context of an illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, and this is critical to keep in mind while one studies its Charter, or even observes its political policies and actions since its founding. The conception of the organization began in 1970's with its main founder Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hasan Yassin, as an attempt to go far beyond the weak and failing Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that amounted to the first uprising or 'intifada' in 1987. Yassin, as many other founders of various 'islmaist' organizations across the world, was heavily influenced by the revolutionary ideas of "Al Ikhwan Al Muslimeen" or the 'Muslim Brotherhood,' which in turn was greatly influenced by a man named Sayyid Qutb. (See an earlier post on Qutb's philosophy HERE)
---

In an interview Shaikh Yassin exclaimed: "Hamas is a movement of resistance and, as we pointed out in our Charter, it is like a coalition, not solely attached to the Muslim Brotherhood, but can embrace all Palestinian resistance organizations and their supporters and friends." (Zaki 2007) After his assassination, however, Dr. Abdul Aziz Al Rantisi replaced his leadership and explained that Hamas was a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement and issued its first statement on 14 December 1987. Keeping in mind that Hamas was crystallized in the aftermath of the first intifada, it is clear that its political agenda was polluted with radicalism and islamist revivalism. Thus, dismissing Hamas simply as a 'terrorist' organization is ignorant of the fact that it was created only to resist a more oppressive and brutal occupation of its territories. Stationed in the heartland of Gaza, one of the most densely populated and most impoverished areas in the world, it is very apparent why Hamas has evolved into a militant organization, which does rely on violence as a means of legitimate resistance against Israel and its allies.

Over the years, however, Hamas has evolved and changed, and is arguably moving away from its initial convent ideology. Yet, critics have absolutely loved to cite it in reference of the organization's current thoughts and aims. The most popular reference cited to the text in numerous cases is their unwillingness to recognize Israel. "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." (Hamas Charter) This quote has been used to justify the claims that Hamas is a violent islamist organization which seeks 'jihad' against their neighbor Israel. In any event, Hamas' transformation and its strategic decision to begin participating in municipal and legislative elections was a major factor in the changing circumstances of the Palestinian political arena. It started gaining more popular support as it grappled to solve the degrading economic and socio-political hardships in Gaza.

A close scrutiny of Hamas' roots and its record since its establishment…reveals that contrary to this [dehumanizing] description, it is essentially a social movement. As such, Hamas has directed its energies and resources primarily toward providing services to the community especially responding to its immediate hardships and concerns. Hamas is not a prisoner of its own dogmas. It does not veil itself behind absolute truths, nor does it uphold its activities and decisions to the officially held religious doctrines. In reality it is much more open to reinterpretation and reconsideration of the "Islamic" rhetoric of governance, and some scholars would argue that Hamas is even on the road to becoming much more accepting of 'democracy.'
---

This changing and shifting ideology is quite clearly exemplified in their sweeping and very successful 2006 elections. Outraged at the newly democratically elected Hamas, the United States was keen to label it as a terrorist organization in a desperate attempt to further suppress the resistance movement, and create a dangerous rift between the two Palestinian factions - Fatah being the second political group controlling the West Bank. The tensions have still not ceased and continue to unfold as the unfortunate condition of Gaza is worsening and Hamas as a political authority is being faced with many challenges and seems to be failing.

What many Western nations fail to understand, however, is that Hamas is extremely different from groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or the Tablighi Jamaat. One underlining difference is its openness to democratic rule and governance, which I have mentioned briefly above. A second critical difference is that Hamas is a highly nationalistic movement, one which is championing the rights of the Palestinian people, as opposed to a global defender of Muslims like Al Qaeda would claim itself to be. As defined in the Hamas Charter, he [Sheikh Yassin] stressed they had no interest in abandoning their battle with Israel to fight abroad and get tied up with Arab, Islamic or even international conflicts. Interestingly, that is the exact opposite of the more "extremist", "fundamentalist" agenda. Al Qaeda's main goal is precisely to get involved in any and all conflicts involving the 'liberation' of Muslim people and thus creating a religiously inspired state, where as Hamas only seeks a Palestinian state.

As diverse as Hamas is from Al Qaeda, it is just as diverse from within the Hamas leadership as well. It would be wrong to assume that Hamas is one flawless unit, which thinks alike and acts alike. Some scholars argue that because Hamas is a grassroots social movement, it has not provided the organization with lengthy, theorizing textual analysis of limitations; therefore it is not entirely representative of the complexities within the movement itself. There are some factions within which advocate for a democratization of the government as a means to further their political objectives, while others are clinging on to the Islamization of the Palestinian state and continue calling for jihad.

Within this context, it is clear that Hamas is much more complex than what the West has painted it to be. Instead of being a 'terrorist' organization, it can be argued that it had adopted some aspects of democratic rule - while those aspects may reflect the unique historical and socio-political culture of the region, and not necessarily conform to the Western model of 'democracy' - there are factions rigorously fighting and pushing for this type of agenda. Moreover, there is a general error of categorizing all islamist movements into one uniform group and tagging them collectively as 'terrorists.' In order to understand the underlying facts about these groups like Hamas, it is important to consider every aspect, every angle, and every context before we conclude and make a baseless assumption which can be potentially dangerous in the long run. Hamas is there to stay, and if there is ever to be peace in Palestine, they need to be allowed in the negotiation table, and considered as a legitimate political organization.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Defining a 'Terrorist'


----
My new favorite definition of the term "Terrorist":
Terrorist [ˈtɛr-ər-ɪst]: "the person with the smaller bomb."
----

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Who Is Your Hero?

When ever people look for inspirations and role models, some one to look up to and actually admire - today - many will name movie stars, pop singers, artists, famous faces like presidents and business tycoons; BUT so few of us will take the time to learn the history of REAL heroes, like one of my favorites Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi or even Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and Aisha Bint Abu-Bakar.

I know as Muslims we want to say, "My Hero is the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)". I would hope that Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is our primary inspiration, as it is our obligation to follow his sunnah as practicing Muslims - but stopping here - will make us ignorant of the many more Heroes and Heroines we have had through out Islamic History. I think we are just as much obliged to take a note of them, admire them and learn from them, as we are of learning the seerah of the prophet peace be upon him.

I know I have some radical points of view - that is I am not very mainstream - but someone has to say something right - so why not?

Our youth is often discouraged from taking any action, to stand up for what they believe in and promote change. If we don't stand up, who will? Imagine History without people like Salahuddin? History without our prophet peace be upon him? One person needs to stand up for others to follow - isn't it? If Muhammad salAllahu aleyhi wa salam didn't believe we wouldn't be Muslims today! Well - it was by the will of Allah the Most Merciful that we are, but just imagine - what if?

But yes, after the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), my favorite historical figure is Salahuddin. I think he embodied everything one would admire about a leader. Above all he followed the principal of 'justice' and 'adl' is something I deem very important and a big part of what Islam is all about. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is another one of my favorites for he stood up for the sunnah of the prophet during the critical and unjust reign of the Caliph Al-Ma'mun. (One of the reasons why Ibn Hanbal turned out so extremely conservative was because of this history of the Abbasid caliphate and the corrupt court culture which flourished at the time in the years 700 and on in Baghdad)

So I challenge everyone to name at least 10 prominent Islamic historical figures - see how many you come up with. How many of the Sahabah or khalifah can you think of?

Now think of at least 10 celebrities? How many can you come up with?

Do you get the point?

As the Muslim youth, I think it is our responsibility to bring Islam back to the forefront. Stop being lazy couch potatoes, and start doing something that could truly make a difference in the world. Nothing is going to happen if we continue to sit there … and stare at the black box we call the 'TV' all day long - all life long. Look at what our predecessors did - don't we want to be among those in the cool shade on the day of reckoning?

-----

Here is a little outdated, but still relevant and great documentary on the life of Salahuddin and the First Crusades. It's called "Holy Warriors" - I highly recommend it!

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

What would you like to read more of on this Blog?

Please leave your feedback. What do you enjoy about this blog? What would you change about it? Which topics would you want addressed?Is there anything particular you like very much about this blog?
---
Any suggestions on how I can improve - let me know!
All feedback is appreciated - Jazakum Allah Khair
---
I do apologize for the lack of updates lately, but I have been extremely busy with other things, so I hope to touch upon some recurring popular themes on "forced marriages", "honor killings" and "the role of dhimmis" as per a reader's request very soon.
Thank You!