Letter from Morocco

Marlise Simons, from International Herald Tribune, writes about the last of Morocco's bards.

"Young people like stories from '1,001 Nights' because there is less religion...Older people like stories about the life of the prophet and his companions. They like war stories, battles between the Muslims and the Persians or between the Muslims and the Christians. People also like miracles, like Jesus Christ healing the blind."

Continue reading...

I knew I would lose friends...

Because the media has been so successful in defining what is right and wrong, it is politically-incorrect to even attempt an understanding of terrorists, or more specifically, the psychology that guides toward that evil path.

We prefer instead to turn a blind eye to injustices that are meted out on say, the Palestinians; because it is the most comfortable option. We surrender our moral compass to those who report the news. In short, we have become lazy; ambivalent to the suffering of an entire people because of false assurances that they are moral idiots.

Fortunately, the recent rash of films that deal directly with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict tries to transcend stereotypes and explore the roots of the perennial war. Little wonder that Paradise Now's recent Golden Globe win managed to ruffle some feathers.

Another troubling film is Steven Spielberg's Munich, whose central theme is the murder of 11 Israeli atheletes by Palestinian gunmen in the 1972 Olympics and the cold-blooded response that the Israeli government chose to take.

I haven't watched Munich, but Steven Spielberg is unusually frank in his opinions on those who criticize him for attempting to equate Palestinian terror with the actions of the Israeli secret service.

"The people who attack the movie based on moral equivalence are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer - that the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanise the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from.

What I believe is every act of terrorism requires a strong response, but we must also pay attention to the causes. That's why we have brains and the power to think passionately. Understanding does not require approval; understanding is not the same as inaction. Understanding is a very muscular act. If I'm endorsing understanding and being attacked for that, then I am almost flattered."

Continue reading...

Reformists make their move

The parade of kings and presidents who pepper the Middle Eastern landscape must be watching the Palestinian situation tensely. Hot on the heels of the Israeli decision to withold tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the United States' demand for aid money to be returned , came Ikhwan al-Muslimoon's (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) announcement that they will step in to help raise funds for the Hamas-led authority.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ikhwan al-Muslimoon has been banned from the very beginning of its inception in 1928, but succeeded in cultivating a reputation of being adamant opposers to tyrannical and corrupt (both financially and morally) regimes. Their message of upright living and clean governance directly exploits the resentment that most Arabs have for their governments.

Not that these goverments are totally bereft of their own 'big sticks'. Aside from the state apparatus of the police and army, the cartoon controvosy has managed to salvage some of their prestige; but it is likely that the Ikhwan's pledge of assistance to the Palestinians would have a far lasting impact on popular imagination. After all, the Palestinian cause remains an emotive one for both Arabs and Muslims.

The Ikhwan is well-liked by the grassroots for their seeming incorruptibility and reformist ideology. Most of its members are ostentatiously religious and highly-educated; and the recent influx of Ikhwan members into the Egyptian parliment only spells trouble for governments who have thus far paid lip-service to democracy.

Furthermore, Hamas is an offshoot of the Ikhwan movement in Egypt. Though its recent success in democratic elections hardly qualifies as an "Islamic revolution", it is still a warning shot across the bow of many Arab governments. Egypt and Syria in particular, host sizable Ikhwan branches.

The odds are that the Ikhwan will make use of the situation to stamp their influence in the region. Any action taken now by governments would seem reactionary and invite the comment that they had acted only because of the Ikhwan's initiative. It would still remain, essentially, a Brotherhood project, in name if not in deed.

Once again, both the United States and Israel have displayed stunning short-sightedness on the ramifications of their policies in the Middle East, which would ultimately strenghten an enemy infinitely more effective than the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat.

Hamas could be just what we needed

Bradley Burston writes an imperfect but honest piece about Hamas:

"Here's the truly scary part. What if we can trust them?"

Continue reading...

Islamic denomination selector

I found this poll quirky. It asks some very basic questions about a Muslim's beliefs, and from the answers, predicts just what type of Muslim you really are.

Islamic Denomination Selector

Give it a whirl.

Three films that break ground in the Middle East

An op-ed from Graham Fuller of the International Herald Tribune.

As wrenching and bloody events across the Middle East proceed apace, three new films suggest signs of a turning point in the entrenched black-and-white perceptions of the combatants.

The films are "Paradise Now" by the Palestinian film director Hany Abu Assad, "Syriana" by Stephen Gaghan and "Munich" by Steven Spielberg...

Continue reading...

---

Elsewhere, the Oscar nomination of "Paradise Now" has triggered some anger.

The New Anti-Semitism, cartoon division

Here's an interesting piece on the Cartoon Controvosy written by Bradley Burston, a columnist of Haaretz.

One thing that all journalists know is how to hurt people.

The good ones know how to avoid it, and do, refraining from racism, steering clear of character assassinations of private individuals.

The bad ones hurt people inadvertently, through breaches of professional ethics.

The worst, a group which can include some of the best known, do it on purpose. And of these, no one can hurt so many people all at once, as a cartoonist.

In sheer destructive potential, few elements of journalism can hold a candle to the hateful cartoon. The fact that the virulently anti-Semitic caricatures of the Nazi Der Sturmer weekly still circulate on neo-Nazi Websites more than 70 years after they were drawn, testifies to their power and longevity.

Of late, a new breed of anti-Semitic caricature has begun to circulate through Europe, an indication, perhaps, of a new breed of anti-Semitism. But the Semites, in this case, are not Jews.

Continue reading...

...Online!

Salafism, and Islamic neofundamentalism in general, share a love-hate relationship with the Internet. The contradiction is not that difficult to come by. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia puts into place the largest Internet filtering systems in the world, and on the other hand, when searching for "Islam" or "sharia", search engines often return Salafist sites among the first hits.

The references presented on these kinds of sites are an eclectic blend, but will inevitably include Ibn Taymiyya, who is one of the very few 'classical' scholars favored by Salafists.

Because these groups are careful to distinguish themselves from other Islamic movements, their "About Us" section usually provides a detailed account of their worldview and overall goals. I have found certain key phrases to be especially prevalent in their websites.

"We adopt the Aqeedah of Ahl ul-Sunnah wal Jama'ah referring to the Quran and the sunnah of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) in accordance with the understanding of the sahabah and the salaf of this ummah only, whilst rejecting all other false and erroneous sources which many have adopted." (Al-Ghurabaa)

"So the Salafees attach themselves to the Salaf, and if we know the meaning of 'Salaf' and 'Salafee' then we should bear two things in mind.

That this attachment is not to a single person or persons, as is the case with other Jamaa'ahs present in the Muslim world. This is not an attachment to a person or even tens of people, but to that which will not err, since it is impossible that the Salaf would unite upon error, as opposed to the people of later times." (Allahuakbar.net)

Two themes recur. First, these sites demand for a supposed return to the teachings of the pioneer practitioners of Islam, known as the salaf (pious predecessors). Second, there is always an emphasis on how other Muslims- a majority of them, in fact- are on the wrong path.

That is why most Salafists in Saudi Arabia don't see themselves as just another school of thought, but the only possible interpretation of Islam: the so-called "Saved" or "Victorious" group whose duty is to 're-educate' other Muslims through dawa (missionary activities).

One of the attributes of the Saved Sect mentioned by Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Jameel Zainoo, a student of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, is:

"The Saved Sect are the ones who a majority of the people hold as enemies."

This oxymoron is an important facet of Salafism's self-perception, as can be seen in a transcript (al-Watan, July 2004) of an online chat between an alleged radical (Zaman Al-Dajajila) and a member of a committee dedicated to reforming Saudi extremists (al-Sakinah).

The most interesting thing about the chat is the manner in which both sides attempt to monopolize the oxymoron, though it is unsurprising that the Sakinah representative be given the last say on the matter:

"If you see how the [Saudi] kingdom supports Islam and Muslims all over the world, and how it has influenced the Islamic movement and the Da'wa movement, you would realize that this country is in the crosshairs [of its enemies]... "

Saudi Salafism revolves around a cluster of sheikhs who rarely, if ever, travel outside the Gulf states. Their influence, however, is extended through an exhaustive torrent of religious edicts and decisive lectures; spread quickly through the Internet so that they form an integral part of the curriculum of worldwide Muslim institutions that are subsidized by Gulf money.

Saudi-based Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid is probably the most famous of these cyber-sheikhs because he operates an extensive and much-quoted fatwa-bank called Islam Q&A. Nonetheless, some Salafists don't quite trust him.

The primary audience of such projects is undoubtedly young and educated Muslims. Salafism's oxymoron has the indirect effect of persuading youths that the traditional Islam that their fathers cling to is outmoded, superstitious and filled with 'corrupting' accretions.

Many children do, in fact, end up rejecting their father's Islam, not necessarily by being more faithful, but either by thinking more like a Muslim or more often than not, acting like a Muslim in accordance with a prescribed formula (dress code, beard).

In an age where materialism is at its most overt, it is understandable why youths seek a more visible faith and not theological knowledge. Olivier Roy (Globalised Islam) argues that it is a general feature of contemporary religiosity- whether in Christianity, Judaism or Islam- that truth is not ultimately linked with the acquisition of knowledge.

In any case, information spread through the Internet means that there is a blurring of lines between those who transmit and those who receive. The circulation of knowledge is horizontal, between assumed equals, and not vertical, from learned people to students. Thus, professionalism of knowledge, embodied by the traditional ijaza (authorization to teach given by a teacher to his students) is casually cast aside.

"The people who have been bestowed ijaza give us nothing but headache..." complained Abu Hamza, former head of one of the most radical mosques in London.

A brief visit to an online Islamic forum reveals just how dogmatic discussions have become. Quotations play an inordinately important role, with little reasoning or analysis. Citations are always from the primary sources of Koran or Hadith, with little recourse to learned and classical commentators (except a few like Ibn Taymiyya).

Because the Internet serves as a circulatory system of ideas that are reaffirmed by dint of repetition; the same set of references reappear again and again. One example is Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Jameel Zainoo's leaflet on Salafism being the Saved Sect, which is enthusiastically reprinted in almost all Salafist websites, and reused by Salafists who proselytize through online forums and weblogs. This considerably adds to the search ranking of the material.

The websites of students' associations are also a good vector for Salafist propaganda, especially in the West. By way of illustration, Olivier Roy mentions the website of the Muslim Students' Association (MSA) of the University of Southern California (USC), which has a page (Understanding Islam and the Muslims) borrowed right off the Department of Islamic Affairs of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington.

Indeed, the real extent of the link that MSA has with other organizations did not come to light until late 2001, when more than eighty agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided the offices of InfoCom, the Internet service provider that not only hosted the MSA website, but also that of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Islamic Association for Palestine. [1]

The Internet is an important tool for Muslims who have had to adapt to a deterritorialization of the Umma (Muslim community). For some, the virtual Umma that the World Wide Web offers is almost as important as the real one that once existed. For others, it is a starting point to a more ambitious program; which might not necessarily lead to the creation of a Caliphate, but at least to a community professing the same brand of Islam.

---

References
[1] The Two Faces of Islam, Chapter 8, Page 266. Stephen Schwartz

The mysterious flag flying over Beirut

I doubt that I am the only one to notice this, but in an AFP news article (Danish embassies torched as Muslim protests grow), there are several photographs showing a crowd of Islamists celebrating the fiery demise of the Danish embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The fourth photograph down the page is the most interesting. Anybody recognize the green flag?

Cartoon controvosy

The Danish publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad has been in the news lately, and blogs have written about the topic to death. The cartoons are almost unanimously condemned by Muslims, with the Western world being split on the issue.

The newspapers of European countries have reprinted the cartoons on the pretext of upholding freedom of speech; a cardinal trait of democracy that most journalists frankly think the Islamic world lacks. There is a kind of narcissism at play here, with Western nations trumping the cartoons as an expression of individual freedom, unbowed to the forces of "despotism" that stand on the other side of the fence.

To those other-siders- the Muslims- the cartoons are blasphemy, and it is no secret that Islamist networks and repressive Middle Eastern governments are currently engaged in a deadly tug-of-war to direct popular rage as a means of winning legitimacy.

Ironically, Western antics over the cartoons have inadvertently strengthened the hands of Islamists, who are moreover inebriated by Hamas' victory in recent Palestinian elections.

There is a tendency, regrettable as it seems, to overemphasize the role of Islam in the violent protests that have swept across the Muslim world. In Damascus, Beirut and Jakarta, rage that manifested itself in the burning down of Norwegian embassies is more a result of religiosity, which is quite simply, the condition of being religious.

There is no pejorative connotation in the sociological use of this term. However, in Islamist discourse, there is an element of exaggerated or affected piety and religious zeal, as is evident in the stark difference in responses between Muslim groups in Malaysia and their co-religionists elsewhere.

Muslim rage toward what is perceived to be religious vilification is a useful example of how Muslims respond to secularism, which at its core, openly calls for a separation of church and state.

Islam thus shares with Christianity and Judaism many similarities, but it must be noted that secularization is manifested differently in Western Europe and the United States. In both cases, the role of religion in public life has nothing to do with the legal status of the church. In the United States, where separation between church and state is enshrined in the Constitution, the expression of religiosity is nonetheless mandatory. Everywhere in Europe, though, church attendance is at an all-time low.

In the United States, the Christian Right in either openly hostile to Islam as a religion, in the name of the Bible, or sides with Muslims in the defense of religion in the public sphere (for example, prayers at school) and conservative values. [1]

Europeans, on the other hand, want Muslims to be more secular-minded, but do not challenge Islam as a true religion. They are at the vanguard of an unshamedly secularizing program of erasing all corporeal trappings of religion, such as the headscarf, from public life.

This difference in how Western socieities regard religiosity explains why the news channels in Europe, unlike their counterparts in the United States, have been so enthusiastic in reprinting the cartoons, even with the knowledge that it would offend Muslims. French Interior Minister, Nikolas Sarkosy summed up the European attitude best by stating that he preferred "an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship."

---

[1] Globalised Islam, Olivier Roy.

How will replacing gas with grass affect the Middle East?

In his State of the Union speech, George Bush unveiled plans to wean America off Middle Eastern oil. To do this, he says that scientists need to develop viable alternative fuels. Mundane things as grass or wood could be made to cough up ethanol, which would drive the next generation of motors.

Behind this aspiration is the increasing awareness that American foreign policy is skewed toward upholding its economic interests in other parts of the world. Leon Hader- author of Sandstorm- has been agitating for a serious debate on the future involvement of the United States in the Middle East in particular.

He proposes a strategy of "constructive disengagement" from the region, a policy of benign neglect as a way of promoting the interests of the United States as well as those of the people of the Middle East.

Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr- author of The Heart of Islam- supports this contention. He argues that what the failed states of the Middle East need is not more aid, but the same courtesy that was given by default to America's founding fathers- which is the chance to develop their own democratic institutions, unhindered by the economic and political interests of outsiders.

Constructive disengagement means that regimes like Saudi Arabia, which claims a special friendship with successive American presidents by virtue of its flooding the American market with cheap oil, can no longer dodge its responsibilities to human rights and its part in global terrorism.

George Bush's shift on fuel-policy is entirely consistent with the notion that the special friendship has become, quite frankly, a liability. It is also consistent with what he promised in 2003.

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold."

It is thus no coincidence that Saudi Arabia has been exploring other markets to sell its oil. Just last week, King Abdullah touched down in India and China- both bloating industrial giants- to cement deals which provide "...a reliable, stable and increased volume of crude oil supplies."

These are strategic partnerships to curtail whatever monetary loss might result from an America that President Bush seems sincere in reinventing.

Saudi Arabia understands quite acutely that while America and other developed nations might move away from dependance on oil, and thus, Arab goodwill; industrializing countries like Africa, India and China still require oil that is pegged at competitive prices to sustain their rapid growths.

Of the three regions, it is China that is firming up to be a critical partner. As a permanent member of the United Nations' Security Council, it initially put up stiff resistance to the decision to refer Iran to the Security Council, presumably because it had signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement with Iran in 2004.

China fears that the referral might open the door to an American invasion of Iran. A Tehran that is administered by America might seek to nullify billions of dollars worth of oil lease contracts, as had been done in Iraq.

It is therefore not surprising that China's last-minute capitulation on Iran's referral comes days after signing a lucrative deal with Saudi Arabia. With the world's largest producer of oil in its pocket, China doesn't need Iran.

What is also hard to ignore is the confluence of interests between Saudi Arabia and America on Iran's intransigence. Saudi Arabia has shown itself to be extremely averse to letting Shia Iran (whom some in the kingdom refer to as "rejectors of religion") come by nuclear capability.

President Bush's intention of breaking America's addiction over "black gold" might seem like a good idea, but as long as this is kept a strictly American enterprise, the Middle East might never free itself from its tyrants.