There's a rather funny/scary account of a Polish teenager who spent some time in North Carolina as a foreign exchange student. The problem was, the host family was an extreme Christian fundamentalist family. How extreme? Check out these passages:
"...every Monday my host family would gather around the kitchen table to talk about sex. My host parents hadn't had sex for the last 17 years because -- so they told me -- they were devoting their lives to God. They also wanted to know whether I drank alcohol. I admitted that I liked beer and wine. They told me I had the devil in my heart.
"My host parents treated me like a five-year-old. They gave me lollipops. They woke me every Sunday morning at 6:15 a.m., saying 'Michael, it's time to go to church.' I hated that sentence. When I didn't want to go to church one morning, because I had hardly slept, they didn't allow me to have any coffee.
"One day I was talking to my host parents about my mother, who is separated from my father. They were appalled -- my mother's heart was just as possessed by the devil as mine, they exclaimed. God wanted her to stay with her husband, they said.
"...the religious zealots finally brought up a subject which had clearly been on their minds for a long time: They wanted me to help them set up a Fundamentalist Baptist church in my home country of Poland. It was God's will, they said. They tried to slip the topic casually into conversation, but it really shocked me -- I realized that was the only reason they had welcomed me into their family. They had already started construction work in Krakow -- I was to help them with translations and with spreading their faith via the media."
The rest of the story can be read here.
November 29, 2006
November 21, 2006
What Makes a Muslim Radical?
Interesting, brief survey on the Foreign Policy website by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. The differences between "moderate" Muslims and "radical" Muslims are extremely slight. This doesn't surprise me in the respect that comments aimed at the "radical" Muslims or "Islamists" I often find to be rather offensive and, yes, I do consider myself to be "moderate." Non-Muslims should be much more tactful when talking about Islam and the Muslim world (a point lost on many Americans). The last survey question asked, What else can the West do to improve relations?, I actually agree with both answers.
Ask any foreign-policy expert how the West will know it is winning the war on terror, and the likely response will be, “When the Islamic world rejects radicalism.” But just who are Muslim radicals, and what fuels their fury? Every politician has a theory: Radicals are religious fundamentalists. They are poor. They are full of hopelessness and hate. But those theories are wrong.
Based on a new Gallup World Poll of more than 9,000 interviews in nine Muslim countries, we find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed. If the West wants to reach the extremists, and empower the moderate Muslim majority, it must first recognize who it’s up against.
Religion
Religion an important part of your daily life
Radicals: 92%
Moderates: 91%
Attended religious service in last 7 days
Radicals: 56%
Moderates: 59%*
* Difference is statistically insignificant given the +/- 3% margin of error.
Because terrorists often hijack Islamic precepts for their own ends, pundits and politicians in the West sometimes portray Islam as a religion of terrorism. They often charge that religious fervor triggers radical and violent views. But the data say otherwise: There is no significant difference in religiosity between moderates and radicals. In fact, radicals are no more likely to attend religious services regularly than are moderates.
Education
Primary school or less
Radicals: 23%
Moderates: 34%
Secondary school through university
Radicals: 44%
Moderates: 38%
Income
Low or very low income
Radicals: 22%
Moderates: 31%
Above-average or very high income
Radicals: 25%
Moderates: 21%
It’s no secret that many in the Muslim world suffer from crippling poverty and lack of education. But are radicals any poorer than their fellow Muslims? We found the opposite: There is indeed a key difference between radicals and moderates when it comes to income and education, but it is the radicals who earn more and who stay in school longer.
Where do you expect to be in the next 5 years?
Worse off
Radicals: 7%
Moderates: 7%
Better off
Radicals: 53%
Moderates: 44%
Whenever a suicide bomber completes a deadly mission, the act is often attributed to hopelessness—the inability to find a job, earn a living, or support a family. But the politically radical are not more “hopeless” than the mainstream. More radicals expressed satisfaction with their financial situation and quality of life than their moderate counterparts, and a majority of them expected to be better off in the years to come.
Most admired aspects about the West
Western technology (top response for both groups)
Radicals: 30%
Moderates: 31%
Liberty/Democracy/Freedom of Speech (second-most common response)
Radicals: 22%
Moderates: 22%
The war on terror is premised on a key question: Why do they hate us? The common answer from Washington is that Muslim radicals hate our way of life, our freedom, and our democracy. Not so. Both moderates and radicals in the Muslim world admire the West, in particular its technology, democratic system, and freedom of speech.
What can the West do to improve relations?
Respect Islam (top response for both groups)
Radicals: 39%
Moderates: 36%
What else can the West do to improve relations?
Radicals (Refrain from interfering or imposing its beliefs and policies): 17%
Moderates (Economic development/Jobs): 22%
What, then, separates a Muslim moderate from a Muslim radical? Although almost all Muslims believe the West should show more respect for Islam, radicals are more likely to feel that the West threatens and attempts to control their way of life. Moderates, on the other hand, are more eager to build ties with the West through economic development. This divergence of responses offers policymakers a key opportunity to develop strategies to prevent the moderate mainstream from sliding away, and to check the persuasive power of those who would do us harm.
Note:
Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals. The data for this poll were obtained during 2005-06 from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Approximately 1,000 in-home interviews were conducted in each country. The sampling mix of urban and rural areas is the statistical equivalent of surveying each nation’s adult population, with a statistical sampling error rate of +/- 3 percent.
John L. Esposito is professor of religion and international affairs and founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Dalia Mogahed is executive director of Muslim studies for the Gallup Organization. They are working on a forthcoming book titled, Can You Hear Me?: Listening to the Voices of a Billion Muslims, to be published by Gallup Press in September 2007.
Ask any foreign-policy expert how the West will know it is winning the war on terror, and the likely response will be, “When the Islamic world rejects radicalism.” But just who are Muslim radicals, and what fuels their fury? Every politician has a theory: Radicals are religious fundamentalists. They are poor. They are full of hopelessness and hate. But those theories are wrong.
Based on a new Gallup World Poll of more than 9,000 interviews in nine Muslim countries, we find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed. If the West wants to reach the extremists, and empower the moderate Muslim majority, it must first recognize who it’s up against.
Religion
Religion an important part of your daily life
Radicals: 92%
Moderates: 91%
Attended religious service in last 7 days
Radicals: 56%
Moderates: 59%*
* Difference is statistically insignificant given the +/- 3% margin of error.
Because terrorists often hijack Islamic precepts for their own ends, pundits and politicians in the West sometimes portray Islam as a religion of terrorism. They often charge that religious fervor triggers radical and violent views. But the data say otherwise: There is no significant difference in religiosity between moderates and radicals. In fact, radicals are no more likely to attend religious services regularly than are moderates.
Education
Primary school or less
Radicals: 23%
Moderates: 34%
Secondary school through university
Radicals: 44%
Moderates: 38%
Income
Low or very low income
Radicals: 22%
Moderates: 31%
Above-average or very high income
Radicals: 25%
Moderates: 21%
It’s no secret that many in the Muslim world suffer from crippling poverty and lack of education. But are radicals any poorer than their fellow Muslims? We found the opposite: There is indeed a key difference between radicals and moderates when it comes to income and education, but it is the radicals who earn more and who stay in school longer.
Where do you expect to be in the next 5 years?
Worse off
Radicals: 7%
Moderates: 7%
Better off
Radicals: 53%
Moderates: 44%
Whenever a suicide bomber completes a deadly mission, the act is often attributed to hopelessness—the inability to find a job, earn a living, or support a family. But the politically radical are not more “hopeless” than the mainstream. More radicals expressed satisfaction with their financial situation and quality of life than their moderate counterparts, and a majority of them expected to be better off in the years to come.
Most admired aspects about the West
Western technology (top response for both groups)
Radicals: 30%
Moderates: 31%
Liberty/Democracy/Freedom of Speech (second-most common response)
Radicals: 22%
Moderates: 22%
The war on terror is premised on a key question: Why do they hate us? The common answer from Washington is that Muslim radicals hate our way of life, our freedom, and our democracy. Not so. Both moderates and radicals in the Muslim world admire the West, in particular its technology, democratic system, and freedom of speech.
What can the West do to improve relations?
Respect Islam (top response for both groups)
Radicals: 39%
Moderates: 36%
What else can the West do to improve relations?
Radicals (Refrain from interfering or imposing its beliefs and policies): 17%
Moderates (Economic development/Jobs): 22%
What, then, separates a Muslim moderate from a Muslim radical? Although almost all Muslims believe the West should show more respect for Islam, radicals are more likely to feel that the West threatens and attempts to control their way of life. Moderates, on the other hand, are more eager to build ties with the West through economic development. This divergence of responses offers policymakers a key opportunity to develop strategies to prevent the moderate mainstream from sliding away, and to check the persuasive power of those who would do us harm.
Note:
Respondents who said 9/11 was unjustified (1 or 2 on a 5-point scale, where 1 is totally unjustified and 5 is completely justified) are classified as moderates. Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radicals. The data for this poll were obtained during 2005-06 from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Approximately 1,000 in-home interviews were conducted in each country. The sampling mix of urban and rural areas is the statistical equivalent of surveying each nation’s adult population, with a statistical sampling error rate of +/- 3 percent.
John L. Esposito is professor of religion and international affairs and founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Dalia Mogahed is executive director of Muslim studies for the Gallup Organization. They are working on a forthcoming book titled, Can You Hear Me?: Listening to the Voices of a Billion Muslims, to be published by Gallup Press in September 2007.
November 19, 2006
Wary of Arab voices, West promotes Malay views on Islam
I came across this story recently in The Halal Journal, a Malaysian magazine that focuses on various aspects of "halalness" (primarily with regard to halal food, but also on Islamic finance, environmentalism, etc.). Reuters published the story in late September, but this was the first time I came across the article.
I have mixed emotions about this idea of translating the works of Malay Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc., into English. It's not that the works of the Malay Muslims shouldn't be translated; I think that the ummah would benefit if more works on Islam worldwide were translated into numerous languages, including but not limited to English. Ideas such as Islam Hadhari deserve a wider audience than just the greater Malay community here in SE Asia.
However, what worries me are the motives these foundations and governments have in doing these self-funded translations. The article claims "Arab radicalism," but that's an extremely weak argument in my book. Islam <> "Arab radicalism." Moreover, I'm also concerned about other aspects of the translations: Who chooses what is to be translated and what are the criterion for those choices? (Don't tell me there won't be an agenda in the selection of what should be translated, especially when government funding is involved.) How accurate will the translations be? Will these be MEMRI-style hachet jobs? I'm extremely, extremely leery of non-Muslims being involved in this type of work.
Western governments and institutions, eager to dilute what they see as Arab radicalism, are actively encouraging the translation of works by Malay-speaking Muslims from across Southeast Asia. Drawn to the region's history of pluralism and its recent experience with democracy, supporters say Islamic thought from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand has a lot to offer the modern world -- if only language were not a barrier. But some experts say the traditions of Islam, its heart and head rooted in the Arab Middle East, and the insular nature of the approximately 234 million Malay Muslims themselves, could blunt the effort's impact.
"There is very progressive thought in Indonesia, but it doesn't get out," said Robin Bush, of the U.S.-based Asia Foundation, which helped launch the budding translation movement. The perception is Southeast Asia is much more complex, historically and culturally" than the Arab world, said Bush, deputy head of the Asia Foundation's Indonesia office.
Funding for the effort has also come from such organizations as the Ford Foundation, with additional support from Western embassies.
"Too much of the Islamic tradition derives from the Middle East, from so many centuries ago," said Lily Zakiyah Munir, a Jakarta-based intellectual promoting Malay Muslim writings. We want to show the relevance of contemporary (religious) issues ... and promote the humanitarian side of the religion," she said.
Few Malay-Muslims write in English or Arabic and even fewer Muslims outside the region know the Malay languages. Later plans call for translations directly into Arabic. Among those produced so far are "Understanding Women in Islam: An Indonesian Perspective," by Syafiq Hasym, and "Indonesia, Islam, and Democracy," by Azyumardi Azra. Both books are said to highlight modernist elements in Southeast Asian Islam: the relatively prominent role for women in public life; and general support for democratic norms and practices.
Proponents also say Islam's history of gradual spread throughout the region, by commercial interests and cultural advance rather than battle, makes it an effective counterweight to the traditions of the tumultuous Arab world.
"Indonesia is a moderate Muslim country and these views can be very helpful in contrast to the militant voice of Arab Muslims today," said a diplomat from one Western country that helped fund the translations.
But Vali Nasr, an expert on contemporary Islam at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterrey, California, said such works were unlikely to find acceptance among Arab Muslims. "Arabs are perfectly happy to export their ideas, but they are not very good at importing," he said by telephone.
What's more, important developments in Southeast Asian Muslim societies, such as the advance of pluralistic democracy, were never seen as universal prescriptions.
"Indonesia and Malaysia have their own form of Islam that is much more integrated into the globalized world, but it was only for local consumption. They don't claim to be a spokesman for Islam, and the Arabs don't want them. It's not a linguistic problem," Nasr said.
I have mixed emotions about this idea of translating the works of Malay Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc., into English. It's not that the works of the Malay Muslims shouldn't be translated; I think that the ummah would benefit if more works on Islam worldwide were translated into numerous languages, including but not limited to English. Ideas such as Islam Hadhari deserve a wider audience than just the greater Malay community here in SE Asia.
However, what worries me are the motives these foundations and governments have in doing these self-funded translations. The article claims "Arab radicalism," but that's an extremely weak argument in my book. Islam <> "Arab radicalism." Moreover, I'm also concerned about other aspects of the translations: Who chooses what is to be translated and what are the criterion for those choices? (Don't tell me there won't be an agenda in the selection of what should be translated, especially when government funding is involved.) How accurate will the translations be? Will these be MEMRI-style hachet jobs? I'm extremely, extremely leery of non-Muslims being involved in this type of work.
Western governments and institutions, eager to dilute what they see as Arab radicalism, are actively encouraging the translation of works by Malay-speaking Muslims from across Southeast Asia. Drawn to the region's history of pluralism and its recent experience with democracy, supporters say Islamic thought from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand has a lot to offer the modern world -- if only language were not a barrier. But some experts say the traditions of Islam, its heart and head rooted in the Arab Middle East, and the insular nature of the approximately 234 million Malay Muslims themselves, could blunt the effort's impact.
"There is very progressive thought in Indonesia, but it doesn't get out," said Robin Bush, of the U.S.-based Asia Foundation, which helped launch the budding translation movement. The perception is Southeast Asia is much more complex, historically and culturally" than the Arab world, said Bush, deputy head of the Asia Foundation's Indonesia office.
Funding for the effort has also come from such organizations as the Ford Foundation, with additional support from Western embassies.
"Too much of the Islamic tradition derives from the Middle East, from so many centuries ago," said Lily Zakiyah Munir, a Jakarta-based intellectual promoting Malay Muslim writings. We want to show the relevance of contemporary (religious) issues ... and promote the humanitarian side of the religion," she said.
Few Malay-Muslims write in English or Arabic and even fewer Muslims outside the region know the Malay languages. Later plans call for translations directly into Arabic. Among those produced so far are "Understanding Women in Islam: An Indonesian Perspective," by Syafiq Hasym, and "Indonesia, Islam, and Democracy," by Azyumardi Azra. Both books are said to highlight modernist elements in Southeast Asian Islam: the relatively prominent role for women in public life; and general support for democratic norms and practices.
Proponents also say Islam's history of gradual spread throughout the region, by commercial interests and cultural advance rather than battle, makes it an effective counterweight to the traditions of the tumultuous Arab world.
"Indonesia is a moderate Muslim country and these views can be very helpful in contrast to the militant voice of Arab Muslims today," said a diplomat from one Western country that helped fund the translations.
But Vali Nasr, an expert on contemporary Islam at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterrey, California, said such works were unlikely to find acceptance among Arab Muslims. "Arabs are perfectly happy to export their ideas, but they are not very good at importing," he said by telephone.
What's more, important developments in Southeast Asian Muslim societies, such as the advance of pluralistic democracy, were never seen as universal prescriptions.
"Indonesia and Malaysia have their own form of Islam that is much more integrated into the globalized world, but it was only for local consumption. They don't claim to be a spokesman for Islam, and the Arabs don't want them. It's not a linguistic problem," Nasr said.
November 7, 2006
Muslim Veil Also Can Be Free Choice
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Arizona Republic (Phoenix) yesterday (Nov. 6), written by Sister Nicole Hadley of Mesa. It's pretty good and she makes an interesting analogy at the end: the niqab as a "flag" of liberty and freedom.
The House of Commons leader Jack Straw has been widely criticized - and commended - for proclaiming the veil worn by some Muslim women a hindrance to full assimilation into society.
As an American Muslim woman, I see this as an extremely ignorant statement. I am a Caucasian Muslim raised in America, and I am about as "American as apple pie."
In accordance with my religious beliefs, I cover my hair, but does that make me any less American? Would Straw ask me to assimilate into my own country?
Granted, Straw's comment was in reference to the veil that covers the face and not the hair, but we have to be careful when speaking about taking away people's rights. When one right is taken away, where does it stop? If covering the face is taken away for the sake of "assimilation," will covering the hair be next?
I think I speak for all Muslim women when I say that I appreciate the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair said that covering is a matter of choice for women. This should remain a choice that every woman has the right to make for herself, whether she originates from a Western, Middle Eastern or Asian country.
If the goal really is assimilation, then what better way for an immigrant to assimilate into a Western nation than to embrace its laws of freedom of religion? Many immigrants come to the West fleeing religious persecution in their own countries.
Women in the United States and the United Kingdom have the right to dress the way that best suits their identities. We should be proud of the fact that women do not have to endure religious persecution here, and hold this triumph up high for the world to see and take as its example.
By exercising their religious right to cover as they please, Muslim women in the West are brandishing their flag of liberty. This is the pride of America - freedom.
The House of Commons leader Jack Straw has been widely criticized - and commended - for proclaiming the veil worn by some Muslim women a hindrance to full assimilation into society.
As an American Muslim woman, I see this as an extremely ignorant statement. I am a Caucasian Muslim raised in America, and I am about as "American as apple pie."
In accordance with my religious beliefs, I cover my hair, but does that make me any less American? Would Straw ask me to assimilate into my own country?
Granted, Straw's comment was in reference to the veil that covers the face and not the hair, but we have to be careful when speaking about taking away people's rights. When one right is taken away, where does it stop? If covering the face is taken away for the sake of "assimilation," will covering the hair be next?
I think I speak for all Muslim women when I say that I appreciate the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair said that covering is a matter of choice for women. This should remain a choice that every woman has the right to make for herself, whether she originates from a Western, Middle Eastern or Asian country.
If the goal really is assimilation, then what better way for an immigrant to assimilate into a Western nation than to embrace its laws of freedom of religion? Many immigrants come to the West fleeing religious persecution in their own countries.
Women in the United States and the United Kingdom have the right to dress the way that best suits their identities. We should be proud of the fact that women do not have to endure religious persecution here, and hold this triumph up high for the world to see and take as its example.
By exercising their religious right to cover as they please, Muslim women in the West are brandishing their flag of liberty. This is the pride of America - freedom.
November 4, 2006
Vote!
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for…but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."
-- The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein)
(Graphics h/t to TBogg (above) and Patriotboy (below).)
October 23, 2006
Bush's Crusade
There's an interesting guest post over at Jesus' General that argues that President Bush's various references to religion regarding the so-called "war on terror" indicates a semi-conscious but real belief in Bush's mind that America is actually waging a war on Islam (not that that's any real surprise to most Muslims, I'm sure). An excerpt:So if terrorism isn’t a real target in this war, nor is the ideology behind those who engage in terrorism, what’s left? Apparently, Islam and Muslims are what’s left — after all, non-Muslim terrorists aren’t pursued with the same zeal and rhetoric as the administration and its Christian supporters use against Muslims. Perhaps the more extreme versions of Islam and their Muslim practitioners will always be primary focus, but Islam as a whole and Muslims in general seem to be the principle targets of the Republican Party’s self-fulfilling War on Terror.
Given how much prejudice there is in America towards Muslims, and how much support has been expressed for imposing a subordinate standard of civil rights on Muslims, this doesn’t seem like an entirely implausible option. I’m sure that there are other possibilities, but given the facts on the ground it would be difficult to successfully argue for them.
The religion of those targeted by the Bush administration is not the only issue — the religion of those pursuing their war of aggression is an important factor as well. For many Americans, religion is political and politics is religious. They recognize no valid distinction between True Patriotism and True Religion, between the best political policies for America and the only valid religion for all human beings. Because of this, religious language will necessarily creep into political discourse — preventing it would require erecting a wall between religious theology and political ideology which simply cannot exist for them.
Theological beliefs structure, inform, and determine the course of political decision-making which can be difficult for more secularly-minded people to fully comprehend (even those who are themselves religious on a personal level). Thus any discussion of the War on Terror will necessarily include references to religion and religious terminology — not simply because religion is a motivating factor, but because these people cannot think in categories and concepts that are not religious in nature. Enemies are demonic, not simply mistaken or misguided. Wars are crusades because rather than having merely political causes, they are part of God’s agenda for humanity.
When Bush speaks about the War on Terror as a “Crusade,” he may be doing so because he really is targeting Islam and because he simply can’t avoid religious terminology. It appears, then, that we are being given a glimpse into the true workings of such people’s minds and we should not dismiss such evidence as irrelevant, unimportant, or “much ado about nothing.”
October 13, 2006
Arab Heroes of the Holocaust
There was an interesting article in WaPo's "Lost History Department" Sunday regarding the Arab heroes of the Jewish Holocaust during WW2. The article starts off with a review of how some Arab countries and leaders currently deny the Holocaust, but the bulk of the article states that, while there were large numbers of Arabs who did nothing while the Germans rounded up the Jews of North Africa or, worse, collaborated with the Germans in rounding up and guarding the Jews in various labor camps, there are a number of noteworthy stories about Arabs in North Africa and Europe who helped to save some Jews from the Germans. What follows are some excerpts from the article that I think deserves greater exposure:
Neither Yad Vashem, Israel's official memorial to Holocaust victims, nor any other Holocaust memorial has ever recognized an Arab rescuer. It is time for that to change. It is also time for Arabs to recall and embrace these episodes in their history. That may not change the minds of the most radical Arab leaders or populations, but for some it could make the Holocaust a source of pride, worthy of remembrance -- rather than avoidance or denial.
The Holocaust was an Arab story, too. From the beginning of World War II, Nazi plans to persecute and eventually exterminate Jews extended throughout the area that Germany and its allies hoped to conquer. That included a great Arab expanse, from Casablanca to Tripoli and on to Cairo, home to more than half a million Jews.
Though Germany and its allies controlled this region only briefly, they made substantial headway toward their goal. From June 1940 to May 1943, the Nazis, their Vichy French collaborators and their Italian fascist allies applied in Arab lands many of the precursors to the Final Solution. These included not only laws depriving Jews of property, education, livelihood, residence and free movement, but also torture, slave labor, deportation and execution.
There were no death camps, but many thousands of Jews were consigned to more than 100 brutal labor camps, many solely for Jews. Recall Maj. Strasser's warning to Ilsa, the wife of the Czech underground leader, in the 1942 film "Casablanca": "It is possible the French authorities will find a reason to put him in the concentration camp here." Indeed, the Arab lands of Algeria and Morocco were the site of the first concentration camps ever liberated by Allied troops.
About 1 percent of Jews in North Africa (4,000 to 5,000) perished under Axis control in Arab lands, compared with more than half of European Jews. These Jews were lucky to be on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, where the fighting ended relatively early and where boats -- not just cattle cars -- would have been needed to take them to the ovens in Europe. But if U.S. and British troops had not pushed Axis forces from the African continent by May 1943, the Jews of Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and perhaps even Egypt and Palestine almost certainly would have met the same fate as those in Europe.
The Arabs in these lands were not too different from Europeans: With war waging around them, most stood by and did nothing; many participated fully and willingly in the persecution of Jews; and a brave few even helped save Jews.
...
Arabs welcomed Jews into their homes, guarded Jews' valuables so Germans could not confiscate them, shared with Jews their meager rations and warned Jewish leaders of coming SS raids. The sultan of Morocco and the bey of Tunis provided moral support and, at times, practical help to Jewish subjects. In Vichy-controlled Algiers, mosque preachers gave Friday sermons forbidding believers from serving as conservators of confiscated Jewish property. In the words of Yaacov Zrivy, from a small town near Sfax, Tunisia, "The Arabs watched over the Jews."
I found remarkable stories of rescue, too. In the rolling hills west of Tunis, 60 Jewish internees escaped from an Axis labor camp and banged on the farm door of a man named Si Ali Sakkat, who courageously hid them until liberation by the Allies. In the Tunisian coastal town of Mahdia, a dashing local notable named Khaled Abdelwahhab scooped up several families in the middle of the night and whisked them to his countryside estate to protect one of the women from the predations of a German officer bent on rape.
And there is strong evidence that the most influential Arab in Europe -- Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris -- saved as many as 100 Jews by having the mosque's administrative personnel give them certificates of Muslim identity, with which they could evade arrest and deportation. These men, and others, were true heroes.
According to the Koran: "Whoever saves one life, saves the entire world." This passage echoes the Talmud's injunction, "If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world."
Arabs need to hear these stories -- both of heroes and of villains. They especially need to hear them from their own teachers, preachers and leaders. If they do, they may respond as did that one Arab prince who visited the Holocaust museum. "What we saw today," he commented after his tour, "must help us change evil into good and hate into love and war into peace."
Neither Yad Vashem, Israel's official memorial to Holocaust victims, nor any other Holocaust memorial has ever recognized an Arab rescuer. It is time for that to change. It is also time for Arabs to recall and embrace these episodes in their history. That may not change the minds of the most radical Arab leaders or populations, but for some it could make the Holocaust a source of pride, worthy of remembrance -- rather than avoidance or denial.
The Holocaust was an Arab story, too. From the beginning of World War II, Nazi plans to persecute and eventually exterminate Jews extended throughout the area that Germany and its allies hoped to conquer. That included a great Arab expanse, from Casablanca to Tripoli and on to Cairo, home to more than half a million Jews.
Though Germany and its allies controlled this region only briefly, they made substantial headway toward their goal. From June 1940 to May 1943, the Nazis, their Vichy French collaborators and their Italian fascist allies applied in Arab lands many of the precursors to the Final Solution. These included not only laws depriving Jews of property, education, livelihood, residence and free movement, but also torture, slave labor, deportation and execution.
There were no death camps, but many thousands of Jews were consigned to more than 100 brutal labor camps, many solely for Jews. Recall Maj. Strasser's warning to Ilsa, the wife of the Czech underground leader, in the 1942 film "Casablanca": "It is possible the French authorities will find a reason to put him in the concentration camp here." Indeed, the Arab lands of Algeria and Morocco were the site of the first concentration camps ever liberated by Allied troops.
About 1 percent of Jews in North Africa (4,000 to 5,000) perished under Axis control in Arab lands, compared with more than half of European Jews. These Jews were lucky to be on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, where the fighting ended relatively early and where boats -- not just cattle cars -- would have been needed to take them to the ovens in Europe. But if U.S. and British troops had not pushed Axis forces from the African continent by May 1943, the Jews of Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and perhaps even Egypt and Palestine almost certainly would have met the same fate as those in Europe.
The Arabs in these lands were not too different from Europeans: With war waging around them, most stood by and did nothing; many participated fully and willingly in the persecution of Jews; and a brave few even helped save Jews.
...
Arabs welcomed Jews into their homes, guarded Jews' valuables so Germans could not confiscate them, shared with Jews their meager rations and warned Jewish leaders of coming SS raids. The sultan of Morocco and the bey of Tunis provided moral support and, at times, practical help to Jewish subjects. In Vichy-controlled Algiers, mosque preachers gave Friday sermons forbidding believers from serving as conservators of confiscated Jewish property. In the words of Yaacov Zrivy, from a small town near Sfax, Tunisia, "The Arabs watched over the Jews."
I found remarkable stories of rescue, too. In the rolling hills west of Tunis, 60 Jewish internees escaped from an Axis labor camp and banged on the farm door of a man named Si Ali Sakkat, who courageously hid them until liberation by the Allies. In the Tunisian coastal town of Mahdia, a dashing local notable named Khaled Abdelwahhab scooped up several families in the middle of the night and whisked them to his countryside estate to protect one of the women from the predations of a German officer bent on rape.
And there is strong evidence that the most influential Arab in Europe -- Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris -- saved as many as 100 Jews by having the mosque's administrative personnel give them certificates of Muslim identity, with which they could evade arrest and deportation. These men, and others, were true heroes.
According to the Koran: "Whoever saves one life, saves the entire world." This passage echoes the Talmud's injunction, "If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world."
Arabs need to hear these stories -- both of heroes and of villains. They especially need to hear them from their own teachers, preachers and leaders. If they do, they may respond as did that one Arab prince who visited the Holocaust museum. "What we saw today," he commented after his tour, "must help us change evil into good and hate into love and war into peace."
October 8, 2006
Great Moments in Presidential Speeches
These are hysterical (some of the speeches repeat). From Letterman. Run times: 0:39, 0:33, 0:35, and 0:36.
October 6, 2006
"Conviction" as the Weakest Form of Faith
I'm sorry for the long delay in posting anything. I started a new job last week that's sucked up more time than I expected, and I've been rather tired and occasionally ill from fasting this Ramadan. However, as some of you may have seen, I've continued to visit other blogs and made the occasional comment here and there. Yesterday, I made a comment at Safia Speaks, a blog I was unfamiliar with as it doesn't appear on many, if any(?), of the blogrolls of people whom I visit. Anyway, Safia wrote about a recent "conference" in Denmark in "honor" of the one-year anniversary of the Danish cartoons that defamed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Irshad Manji and Wafa Sultan were attendees, and some of Safia's post and the comments were with regard to these two women (in addition to Danish MP Naser Khader, who was born in Syria and seems to be a bird of the feather).
In the comments, a certain "Ignoramus" (seriously, that's his/her nick) wrote, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being Muslim a matter of conviction ?" His/her thought was, "I'm a member of the People's Church of Denmark (like most everyone else) if I declare myself a Christian, who in the world has the right to say I'm not, no matter what I do or don't ? ... I can call myself a Christian and not celebrate Xmas, never go to church etc. It's an inner thing y'know. Belief in Allah and His Prophet are convictions. Salad , zakat and hajj are actions: you can do these w/out conviction. ... If he says he's a Muslim I'll take his word for it, when you say _you're_ a Muslim, I'll take _your_ word for it."
My response to his initial comment was:
No; you're wrong. Islam, as a word, means "Submission," submission to the Will of Allah (swt) as expressed through the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). To submit to the Will of Allah (swt) means to practice your faith; for example, by following the five pillars of Islam and avoiding those things in life that are haram (forbidden). To merely express the "conviction," to say "I'm a Muslim," is the least form of faith. For the likes of Irshad, Naser, et al, to claim they are Muslim (if they really do), then not to follow the precepts of Islam, merely exposes them as hypocrites (and Allah (swt) has said that they will face their own punishments in the hereafter). We know that people slip into and out of a state of Islam throughout their lives and, insha'allah, people like Irshad, Naser, et al, may realize the errors of their ways before it is too late. But to act in the matter of a hypocrite as many of these people do will not impress the Muslim community one bit. Non-Muslims love the likes of Irshad because of her hypocrisy; this is what they want Muslims to be. Muslims know better.
I think this is a problem for many non-Muslims: their knowledge of Islam and Muslim personalities is so limited that they have little to no understanding of whom many of these people are or what they stand for. You and I, the knowledgeable Muslims, know that the likes of Manji and Sultan have severely warped understandings of Islam, let alone whether they are really Muslims (something not my right to decide). But I feel it is our duty - not merely our right, but a duty - to take away their voice as representatives of Islam. Not literally, of course. I'm not saying these people should be physically assaulted in any way; however, with airtime on radio and TV as limited as it is, we Muslims need to be the ones whom the media approaches for information, not the likes of Manji, Sultan, et al, whom the West adores because they don't know any better.
----------
On a completely separate note, I also want to add that Danya has written an excellent post: Thoughts on Hijab: Post-Kharabsheh. Check it out.
In the comments, a certain "Ignoramus" (seriously, that's his/her nick) wrote, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being Muslim a matter of conviction ?" His/her thought was, "I'm a member of the People's Church of Denmark (like most everyone else) if I declare myself a Christian, who in the world has the right to say I'm not, no matter what I do or don't ? ... I can call myself a Christian and not celebrate Xmas, never go to church etc. It's an inner thing y'know. Belief in Allah and His Prophet are convictions. Salad , zakat and hajj are actions: you can do these w/out conviction. ... If he says he's a Muslim I'll take his word for it, when you say _you're_ a Muslim, I'll take _your_ word for it."
My response to his initial comment was:
No; you're wrong. Islam, as a word, means "Submission," submission to the Will of Allah (swt) as expressed through the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). To submit to the Will of Allah (swt) means to practice your faith; for example, by following the five pillars of Islam and avoiding those things in life that are haram (forbidden). To merely express the "conviction," to say "I'm a Muslim," is the least form of faith. For the likes of Irshad, Naser, et al, to claim they are Muslim (if they really do), then not to follow the precepts of Islam, merely exposes them as hypocrites (and Allah (swt) has said that they will face their own punishments in the hereafter). We know that people slip into and out of a state of Islam throughout their lives and, insha'allah, people like Irshad, Naser, et al, may realize the errors of their ways before it is too late. But to act in the matter of a hypocrite as many of these people do will not impress the Muslim community one bit. Non-Muslims love the likes of Irshad because of her hypocrisy; this is what they want Muslims to be. Muslims know better.
I think this is a problem for many non-Muslims: their knowledge of Islam and Muslim personalities is so limited that they have little to no understanding of whom many of these people are or what they stand for. You and I, the knowledgeable Muslims, know that the likes of Manji and Sultan have severely warped understandings of Islam, let alone whether they are really Muslims (something not my right to decide). But I feel it is our duty - not merely our right, but a duty - to take away their voice as representatives of Islam. Not literally, of course. I'm not saying these people should be physically assaulted in any way; however, with airtime on radio and TV as limited as it is, we Muslims need to be the ones whom the media approaches for information, not the likes of Manji, Sultan, et al, whom the West adores because they don't know any better.
----------
On a completely separate note, I also want to add that Danya has written an excellent post: Thoughts on Hijab: Post-Kharabsheh. Check it out.
September 22, 2006
Ramadhan/Singapore Slingers
Ramadhan
I know there's a bit of confusion among American Muslims as to when Ramadhan starts. Here in Singapore, because the weather is often overcast, relying upon moon sightings to determine the start and end of Islamic months is not really feasible. As a result, MUIS (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), uses the method of counting days. (I believe the other countries in this area (Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) follow the same method.) So, to let my American brothers and sisters in Islam know, we will start fasting on Sunday, the 24th. Ramadhan will be for 30 days this year and ends, insha'allah, on Monday, October 23rd. Obviously, Eid will be on Tuesday, October 24th. At this time, Singapore is 12 hours ahead of the East Coast (i.e., it's now about 3:30 p.m. here, Friday afternoon, which makes it 3:30 a.m., very early Friday morning back home), so adjust accordingly.
Singapore Slingers
Singapore has joined the Australian National Basketball League, winning their first game in the team's history by beating the Adelaide 36ers, 98 to 91. I happened to catch about the last minute of the game on TV last night.
Singapore is the first Asian city/country to join the NBL and, insha'allah, hopefully won't be the last. A couple years ago, there was an episode of a local TV show that asked why Singapore didn't have a sporting culture. I had responded to that question by writing a letter to the editor of the Straits Times, although it was never published.
Singapore does have a small sporting culture, but you'd never know it by reading the newspapers. In S'pore, there are two main English language dailies, The Straits Times and The New Paper. The former is your typical, serious paper, similar in size and tone to any major American newspaper (e.g., Phoenix's The Arizona Republic); The New Paper is more of a gossipy tabloid. Of the two, The New Paper has the larger sports section, but focuses almost exclusively on European soccer, F1, and horse racing (there's a local race track and gambling is popular here). The Straits Times' sports section is 1/3 to 1/2 the size of The New Paper's, and covers mostly European soccer. Neither paper devotes any significant effort to covering local sports. The S League (the local soccer league) gets what little ink there is for local coverage; in the past few months, the Straits Times has only made a tiny effort at covering sports at the secondary school level (something that would get tons of ink back home).
Anyway, as a person who enjoys watching, participating in, and reading about sports, Singapore is very much a backwater compared to the US or even Korea. One of the ideas that I proposed in my Letter to the Editor was the creation of a basketball league wherein there would be a team from each of the major cities in SE Asia (somewhat similar to the way SE Asian countries send a national team every other year to compete in the Tiger Cup, a regional and popular soccer tournament). Perhaps in time, insha'allah, the NBL could continue its northward expansion to include other Asian cities in the league (KL, Manila?).
So, I've got a new team to watch and cheer for, although the name...ugh. The colors are OK (red, white and gold), the logo's OK (see above), but the name...dumb.
I know there's a bit of confusion among American Muslims as to when Ramadhan starts. Here in Singapore, because the weather is often overcast, relying upon moon sightings to determine the start and end of Islamic months is not really feasible. As a result, MUIS (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), uses the method of counting days. (I believe the other countries in this area (Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) follow the same method.) So, to let my American brothers and sisters in Islam know, we will start fasting on Sunday, the 24th. Ramadhan will be for 30 days this year and ends, insha'allah, on Monday, October 23rd. Obviously, Eid will be on Tuesday, October 24th. At this time, Singapore is 12 hours ahead of the East Coast (i.e., it's now about 3:30 p.m. here, Friday afternoon, which makes it 3:30 a.m., very early Friday morning back home), so adjust accordingly.
Singapore SlingersSingapore has joined the Australian National Basketball League, winning their first game in the team's history by beating the Adelaide 36ers, 98 to 91. I happened to catch about the last minute of the game on TV last night.
Singapore is the first Asian city/country to join the NBL and, insha'allah, hopefully won't be the last. A couple years ago, there was an episode of a local TV show that asked why Singapore didn't have a sporting culture. I had responded to that question by writing a letter to the editor of the Straits Times, although it was never published.
Singapore does have a small sporting culture, but you'd never know it by reading the newspapers. In S'pore, there are two main English language dailies, The Straits Times and The New Paper. The former is your typical, serious paper, similar in size and tone to any major American newspaper (e.g., Phoenix's The Arizona Republic); The New Paper is more of a gossipy tabloid. Of the two, The New Paper has the larger sports section, but focuses almost exclusively on European soccer, F1, and horse racing (there's a local race track and gambling is popular here). The Straits Times' sports section is 1/3 to 1/2 the size of The New Paper's, and covers mostly European soccer. Neither paper devotes any significant effort to covering local sports. The S League (the local soccer league) gets what little ink there is for local coverage; in the past few months, the Straits Times has only made a tiny effort at covering sports at the secondary school level (something that would get tons of ink back home).
Anyway, as a person who enjoys watching, participating in, and reading about sports, Singapore is very much a backwater compared to the US or even Korea. One of the ideas that I proposed in my Letter to the Editor was the creation of a basketball league wherein there would be a team from each of the major cities in SE Asia (somewhat similar to the way SE Asian countries send a national team every other year to compete in the Tiger Cup, a regional and popular soccer tournament). Perhaps in time, insha'allah, the NBL could continue its northward expansion to include other Asian cities in the league (KL, Manila?).
So, I've got a new team to watch and cheer for, although the name...ugh. The colors are OK (red, white and gold), the logo's OK (see above), but the name...dumb.
September 20, 2006
Worlds Apart
A TV program Milady and I have started to watch regularly now is Worlds Apart, a National Geographic Channel series that, ironically, doesn't play on Singapore's NG Channel but another called AXN. The series takes American families and places them in various countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I find the show interesting for several reasons. One, of course, is because the show gives a brief but interesting look at different cultures around the world. (I grew up reading NG and loved their stories about foreign cultures; it's one of the reasons why I became externally focused on life outside the U.S. instead of being so withdrawn and isolationist, like many Americans.)
Second, I find it very interesting to see how the Americans react, trying to adapt to the various cultures and (frequently) failing miserably. It's amazing to see how quickly these people undergo culture shock; for some, the breaking point is only a few days into the visit (the families stay with a host village for ten days at the most). This post is about some of my observations with regard to these reactions, especially as they relate to gender and family roles (father, mother, child).
Of the five episodes or so that I've seen so far, most of the men seem to enjoy their experiences abroad. I think this is for two reasons. One: The cultures these American men find themselves in are much more patriarchal than American culture. (You can really see how feminism has affected (afflicted?) American culture with some of the families being very egalitarian if not matriarchal. One wife warned her husband not to think that he could continue to enjoy his new-found independence when he returned to the U.S. She planned to rule the roost once more as soon as they got back home.) Two: In many of these societies, the men are required to do a fair amount of physical labor, and I think the American guys are enjoying the work, using their bodies. Many developed economies now rely heavily upon work that is sedentary in nature. I remember the first job I had that required me to sit at a desk for my entire shift: my body hated it. I had worked for a number of years prior doing jobs that required me to stand, walk around, or do heavy physical labor (e.g., delivering furniture). Now, as a lecturer, I have a job that requires both sitting (often preparing for classes on a computer) and standing, walking around a classroom during class. I think these guys are doing heavy work once more and saying, "Wow, this is fun again." (Of course, whether they would say that after years of labor would be another question.) The only guy who didn't seem to enjoy his experience was a black man from St. Louis on last night's episode. I think there were a number of things he didn't appreciate about Mongolian culture at first, although he seemed more comfortable toward the end of his stay.
Many of the women don't do as well away from home as their husbands. That's not to say that all of them have done poorly. So far that I've seen, two women seemed to have positive experiences: the wife of the St. Louis family mentioned above and another woman (from Massachusetts?) who went to Panama and looked like she absolutely loved her experience (her sister, who came to visit for the second half of the stay, was the complete opposite). However, some of the women have broken down and suffered from severe culture shock. This doesn't surprise me as it jives with my own experiences observing American and Canadian expatriate women here in Asia. Many (but certainly not all) of the expatriate women I've known haven't done well overseas, and most have gone back home within a year or so. (Many, but certainly not all, expatriate men seem to last longer overseas, frequently staying for a number of years if not getting married to a local woman, like me, and becoming a PR.) I think many of the wives (and two girlfriends) on the show are shocked not only by the patriarchal society they've found themselves in, with their designated gender roles, but that they have significant work loads of their own to do, whether it's butchering the animals that their husbands have just slaughtered, cooking the food over a fire (no doubt a first for many of these women), or wielding a machete to cut down small trees to build their own huts. For these women, the shock leads to a very sudden nervous breakdown although, to their credit, the women often recover quickly and cope well with the remainder of their stay.
The kids have been a mixed bag. According to the Worlds Apart website, they will accept families that have children between the ages of 6 through 18. Perhaps not surprisingly, the children who have adapted the best are the younger ones, the pre-teens. They're still in child learning mode and take the new cultures in stride. Chop down that tree with this machete? No problem. Climb up this tree to get some betel nuts? The boy struggles for a while, learning how to climb, but perseveres and makes it all the way to the top. The teenagers (mostly girls) think more like adults. They're not terribly interested in learning or adapting, but trying to make the time pass as quickly as possible so they can return home to their friends. I'm more optimistic for the younger kids, that they will have learned deeply-ingrained life lessons from the trip: a respect for other cultures and countries, less arrogance in a belief of American and/or Western superiority, an understanding that people around the world have different values and ways of living. The teenagers I have less hope for.
One of the most interesting aspects of the show is how the Americans react to native food. It's not just that the Americans are exposed to foods that they would almost certainly never eat back home (e.g., armadillo), but that the native peoples slaughter and butcher their own foods, sometimes using body parts in very practical ways (the Mongolians packed a sheep's stomach with a home-made cheese that, as a container, would keep the cheese fresh throughout the upcoming winter). Of course, the slaughtering and butchering has come as a shock to many of the families. (It wouldn't surprise me if many Americans - and kids in particular - have no idea where the meat they eat comes from.) One woman (the woman who came to visit her older sister's family in Panama), who ran a vegetarian restaurant back home, reacted strongly when her brother-in-law speared a wild pig that had been caught for a celebratory feast. Still, there have been some amusing moments. In Mongolia, a young black boy looked askance at the idea of eating a sheep's eyeball, but gladly ate the eyelid. "Tastes like chicken."
I've thought about how Milady and I would fare if we were on a show like Worlds Apart. I think, for the most part, that both of us would do decently in that type of situation. Granted, life in Korea and Singapore is much, much more modern and sophisticated than the places where these families are sent. Most of the living conditions on the show are very primitive. And I think food would be an issue for both of us to a degree. As Muslims, we would find some of the foods offered to be haram, not only due to the issue of pork, but also because, for every animal I've seen slaughtered on this show, the killing has been done in a non-halal manner. On the other hand, Milady is more gastronomically adventurous than I am. :) She likes her "spicy beef lungs," and I say "yuck." ("Tastes like chicken," I'm sure.) I walk by the big container of decapitated fish heads (used for "fish maw soup") at the grocery store, and I say "yuck." I see the back half of a fish (that's been chopped in two) sitting in a small bucket of water at my mother-in-law's place, and I say "yuck." But I wouldn't be surprised if Milady could slaughter (in a halal manner), prepare and eat most halal food that would be offered to her in another country without batting an eye because I think she's more down-to-earth than many of the women I see on Worlds Apart, and I love her for that.
BTW, according to the website, Milady and I wouldn't qualify for the show because we don't have any kids yet (insha'allah). However, that didn't stop me from suggesting to two of my sisters that they try to be on the show. Now that would be a hoot. ;)
Second, I find it very interesting to see how the Americans react, trying to adapt to the various cultures and (frequently) failing miserably. It's amazing to see how quickly these people undergo culture shock; for some, the breaking point is only a few days into the visit (the families stay with a host village for ten days at the most). This post is about some of my observations with regard to these reactions, especially as they relate to gender and family roles (father, mother, child).
Of the five episodes or so that I've seen so far, most of the men seem to enjoy their experiences abroad. I think this is for two reasons. One: The cultures these American men find themselves in are much more patriarchal than American culture. (You can really see how feminism has affected (afflicted?) American culture with some of the families being very egalitarian if not matriarchal. One wife warned her husband not to think that he could continue to enjoy his new-found independence when he returned to the U.S. She planned to rule the roost once more as soon as they got back home.) Two: In many of these societies, the men are required to do a fair amount of physical labor, and I think the American guys are enjoying the work, using their bodies. Many developed economies now rely heavily upon work that is sedentary in nature. I remember the first job I had that required me to sit at a desk for my entire shift: my body hated it. I had worked for a number of years prior doing jobs that required me to stand, walk around, or do heavy physical labor (e.g., delivering furniture). Now, as a lecturer, I have a job that requires both sitting (often preparing for classes on a computer) and standing, walking around a classroom during class. I think these guys are doing heavy work once more and saying, "Wow, this is fun again." (Of course, whether they would say that after years of labor would be another question.) The only guy who didn't seem to enjoy his experience was a black man from St. Louis on last night's episode. I think there were a number of things he didn't appreciate about Mongolian culture at first, although he seemed more comfortable toward the end of his stay.
Many of the women don't do as well away from home as their husbands. That's not to say that all of them have done poorly. So far that I've seen, two women seemed to have positive experiences: the wife of the St. Louis family mentioned above and another woman (from Massachusetts?) who went to Panama and looked like she absolutely loved her experience (her sister, who came to visit for the second half of the stay, was the complete opposite). However, some of the women have broken down and suffered from severe culture shock. This doesn't surprise me as it jives with my own experiences observing American and Canadian expatriate women here in Asia. Many (but certainly not all) of the expatriate women I've known haven't done well overseas, and most have gone back home within a year or so. (Many, but certainly not all, expatriate men seem to last longer overseas, frequently staying for a number of years if not getting married to a local woman, like me, and becoming a PR.) I think many of the wives (and two girlfriends) on the show are shocked not only by the patriarchal society they've found themselves in, with their designated gender roles, but that they have significant work loads of their own to do, whether it's butchering the animals that their husbands have just slaughtered, cooking the food over a fire (no doubt a first for many of these women), or wielding a machete to cut down small trees to build their own huts. For these women, the shock leads to a very sudden nervous breakdown although, to their credit, the women often recover quickly and cope well with the remainder of their stay.
The kids have been a mixed bag. According to the Worlds Apart website, they will accept families that have children between the ages of 6 through 18. Perhaps not surprisingly, the children who have adapted the best are the younger ones, the pre-teens. They're still in child learning mode and take the new cultures in stride. Chop down that tree with this machete? No problem. Climb up this tree to get some betel nuts? The boy struggles for a while, learning how to climb, but perseveres and makes it all the way to the top. The teenagers (mostly girls) think more like adults. They're not terribly interested in learning or adapting, but trying to make the time pass as quickly as possible so they can return home to their friends. I'm more optimistic for the younger kids, that they will have learned deeply-ingrained life lessons from the trip: a respect for other cultures and countries, less arrogance in a belief of American and/or Western superiority, an understanding that people around the world have different values and ways of living. The teenagers I have less hope for.
One of the most interesting aspects of the show is how the Americans react to native food. It's not just that the Americans are exposed to foods that they would almost certainly never eat back home (e.g., armadillo), but that the native peoples slaughter and butcher their own foods, sometimes using body parts in very practical ways (the Mongolians packed a sheep's stomach with a home-made cheese that, as a container, would keep the cheese fresh throughout the upcoming winter). Of course, the slaughtering and butchering has come as a shock to many of the families. (It wouldn't surprise me if many Americans - and kids in particular - have no idea where the meat they eat comes from.) One woman (the woman who came to visit her older sister's family in Panama), who ran a vegetarian restaurant back home, reacted strongly when her brother-in-law speared a wild pig that had been caught for a celebratory feast. Still, there have been some amusing moments. In Mongolia, a young black boy looked askance at the idea of eating a sheep's eyeball, but gladly ate the eyelid. "Tastes like chicken."
I've thought about how Milady and I would fare if we were on a show like Worlds Apart. I think, for the most part, that both of us would do decently in that type of situation. Granted, life in Korea and Singapore is much, much more modern and sophisticated than the places where these families are sent. Most of the living conditions on the show are very primitive. And I think food would be an issue for both of us to a degree. As Muslims, we would find some of the foods offered to be haram, not only due to the issue of pork, but also because, for every animal I've seen slaughtered on this show, the killing has been done in a non-halal manner. On the other hand, Milady is more gastronomically adventurous than I am. :) She likes her "spicy beef lungs," and I say "yuck." ("Tastes like chicken," I'm sure.) I walk by the big container of decapitated fish heads (used for "fish maw soup") at the grocery store, and I say "yuck." I see the back half of a fish (that's been chopped in two) sitting in a small bucket of water at my mother-in-law's place, and I say "yuck." But I wouldn't be surprised if Milady could slaughter (in a halal manner), prepare and eat most halal food that would be offered to her in another country without batting an eye because I think she's more down-to-earth than many of the women I see on Worlds Apart, and I love her for that.
BTW, according to the website, Milady and I wouldn't qualify for the show because we don't have any kids yet (insha'allah). However, that didn't stop me from suggesting to two of my sisters that they try to be on the show. Now that would be a hoot. ;)
September 15, 2006
Juan Cole on Pope Benedict's Erroneous Speech About Islam
I came across some excerpts from Pope Benedict's recent speech a few days ago, primarily on red blogs that were cheering the Pope's statements about Islam, neither (the Pope and the bloggers) knowing that what the Pope had said was, in fact, erroneous. I hadn't had the time to write about these errors, but I've found that Professor Cole at Informed Comment has already done so. What follows is his entire post on the matter; he has done a very good job in correcting the Pope's errors. So much for papal infallibility. ;)
Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg University, which mentioned Islam and jihad, has provoked a firestorm of controversy.
The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong, just as a matter of fact.
He notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.
His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.
In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:
' [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.'
See my comments On the Quran and peace.
The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.
The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith. He used Islam as a symbol of the coercive demand for unreasoned faith.
But he has been misled by the medieval polemic on which he depended.
In fact, the Quran also urges reasoned faith and also forbids coercion in religion. The only violence urged in the Quran is in self-defense of the Muslim community against the attempts of the pagan Meccans to wipe it out.
The pope says that in Islam, God is so transcendant that he is beyond reason and therefore cannot be expected to act reasonably. He contrasts this conception of God with that of the Gospel of John, where God is the Logos, the Reason inherent in the universe.
But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu'tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu'tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash'ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).
As for the Quran, it constantly appeals to reason in knowing God, and in refuting idolatry and paganism, and asks, "do you not reason?" "do you not understand?" (a fala ta`qilun?)
Of course, Christianity itself has a long history of imposing coerced faith on people, including on pagans in the late Roman Empire, who were forcibly converted. And then there were the episodes of the Crusades.
Another irony is that reasoned, scholastic Christianity has an important heritage drom Islam itself. In the 10th century, there was little scholasticism in Christian theology. The influence of Muslim thinkers such as Averroes and Ibn Rushd reemphasized the use of Aristotle and Plato in Christian theology. Indeed, there was a point where Christian theologians in Paris had divided into partisans of Averroes or of Ibn Rushd, and they conducted vigorous polemics with one another.
Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
The Pope was wrong on the facts. He should apologize to the Muslims and get better advisers on Christian-Muslim relations.
Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg University, which mentioned Islam and jihad, has provoked a firestorm of controversy.
The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong, just as a matter of fact.
He notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.
His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.
In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:
' [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.'
See my comments On the Quran and peace.
The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.
The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith. He used Islam as a symbol of the coercive demand for unreasoned faith.
But he has been misled by the medieval polemic on which he depended.
In fact, the Quran also urges reasoned faith and also forbids coercion in religion. The only violence urged in the Quran is in self-defense of the Muslim community against the attempts of the pagan Meccans to wipe it out.
The pope says that in Islam, God is so transcendant that he is beyond reason and therefore cannot be expected to act reasonably. He contrasts this conception of God with that of the Gospel of John, where God is the Logos, the Reason inherent in the universe.
But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu'tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu'tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash'ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).
As for the Quran, it constantly appeals to reason in knowing God, and in refuting idolatry and paganism, and asks, "do you not reason?" "do you not understand?" (a fala ta`qilun?)
Of course, Christianity itself has a long history of imposing coerced faith on people, including on pagans in the late Roman Empire, who were forcibly converted. And then there were the episodes of the Crusades.
Another irony is that reasoned, scholastic Christianity has an important heritage drom Islam itself. In the 10th century, there was little scholasticism in Christian theology. The influence of Muslim thinkers such as Averroes and Ibn Rushd reemphasized the use of Aristotle and Plato in Christian theology. Indeed, there was a point where Christian theologians in Paris had divided into partisans of Averroes or of Ibn Rushd, and they conducted vigorous polemics with one another.
Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
The Pope was wrong on the facts. He should apologize to the Muslims and get better advisers on Christian-Muslim relations.
Can You Say "Propaganda?"
I got a real big kick out of the Fox News Commercial that blowhard Bill O'Reilly promoted during his interview with Arianna Huffington. The "Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan Thank America" is such pompous propaganda that I couldn't help but laugh at it. It also makes me wonder about the intelligence of those Americans who willingly, blindly suck up such drivel (i.e., those people who watch Fox News). Speaking of which, I looked around the Fox News website, trying to find a copy of the video by itself, but it's not there. Could it be that Fox is too embarrassed (or cynical) to put their nonsense on their own website?Huffington had a great response for O'Reilly: When asked what she thought of the commercial, she said, "I want to know who is paying for it." O'Reilly, of course, said that the "Iraqi Kurdistan government" paid for the ad, with a little help (I'm sure) from their American neo-con friends.
Click on the title link to go to the Quicktime copy of the interview; also, Crooks and Liars has a WMV copy plus additional comments.
September 14, 2006
On Jihadis and Iran
Another interesting article (an op/ed piece, actually) out of WaPo today, by David Ignatius on the makeup of Jihadis and Iran (all emphases are mine):
[Marc] Sageman [a former CIA case officer stationed in Pakistan who later became a psychiatrist] argues in his book, "Understanding Terror Networks," that we are facing something closer to a cult network than an organized global adversary. Like many cults through history, the Muslim terrorists thrive by channeling and perverting the idealism of young people. As a forensic psychiatrist, he analyzed data on about 400 jihadists. He found that they weren't poor, desperate sociopaths but restless young men who found identity by joining the terrorist underground. Ninety percent came from intact families; 63 percent had gone to college; 75 percent were professionals or semi-professionals; 73 percent were married.
What transformed these young Sunni Muslim men was the fellowship of the jihad and the militant role models they found in people such as Osama bin Laden. The terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were a kind of elite finishing school --
Sageman likened it to getting into Harvard. The Sept. 11 hijackers weren't psychotic killers; none of the 19 had criminal records. In terms of their psychological profiles, says Sageman, they were as healthy as the general population.
The implication of Sageman's analysis is that the Sunni jihadism of al-Qaeda and its spinoff groups is a generational phenomenon. Unless new grievances spawn new recruits, it will gradually ebb over time. In other words, this is a fire that will gradually burn itself out unless we keep pumping in more oxygen. Nothing in Sageman's analysis implies that America should be any less aggressive in defending itself against terrorism. But he does argue that we should choose our offensive battles wisely and avoid glamorizing the jihadist network further through our rhetoric or actions.
Sageman's focus on the generational arc of violence got me thinking about my recent trip to Iran. The revolutionary intensity hasn't disappeared there, but it is certainly further down the curve than is the Sunni world. When I attended Friday prayers at Tehran University, I was struck by how old the people shouting "death to America" were. I would guess the average age was well over 40. The generation of the Iranian revolution is getting long in the tooth. The only sure way to ignite revolutionary zealotry in the younger generation would be for America to go to war with Iran -- something I dearly hope we can avoid.
... As I explained in an earlier column, Tehran is a city of crazy drivers who nearly collide at every intersection. But the police are quite strict about requiring seat belts -- something I don't often see in the Muslim world. Even fatalistic taxi drivers buckle up. ...
Now I submit to you: A nation that is wearing seat belts is probably not a mortal enemy of the United States.
... unless we make big mistakes, we should not find ourselves condemned to a permanent war, much less a clash of civilizations.
[Marc] Sageman [a former CIA case officer stationed in Pakistan who later became a psychiatrist] argues in his book, "Understanding Terror Networks," that we are facing something closer to a cult network than an organized global adversary. Like many cults through history, the Muslim terrorists thrive by channeling and perverting the idealism of young people. As a forensic psychiatrist, he analyzed data on about 400 jihadists. He found that they weren't poor, desperate sociopaths but restless young men who found identity by joining the terrorist underground. Ninety percent came from intact families; 63 percent had gone to college; 75 percent were professionals or semi-professionals; 73 percent were married.
What transformed these young Sunni Muslim men was the fellowship of the jihad and the militant role models they found in people such as Osama bin Laden. The terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were a kind of elite finishing school --
Sageman likened it to getting into Harvard. The Sept. 11 hijackers weren't psychotic killers; none of the 19 had criminal records. In terms of their psychological profiles, says Sageman, they were as healthy as the general population.
The implication of Sageman's analysis is that the Sunni jihadism of al-Qaeda and its spinoff groups is a generational phenomenon. Unless new grievances spawn new recruits, it will gradually ebb over time. In other words, this is a fire that will gradually burn itself out unless we keep pumping in more oxygen. Nothing in Sageman's analysis implies that America should be any less aggressive in defending itself against terrorism. But he does argue that we should choose our offensive battles wisely and avoid glamorizing the jihadist network further through our rhetoric or actions.
Sageman's focus on the generational arc of violence got me thinking about my recent trip to Iran. The revolutionary intensity hasn't disappeared there, but it is certainly further down the curve than is the Sunni world. When I attended Friday prayers at Tehran University, I was struck by how old the people shouting "death to America" were. I would guess the average age was well over 40. The generation of the Iranian revolution is getting long in the tooth. The only sure way to ignite revolutionary zealotry in the younger generation would be for America to go to war with Iran -- something I dearly hope we can avoid.
... As I explained in an earlier column, Tehran is a city of crazy drivers who nearly collide at every intersection. But the police are quite strict about requiring seat belts -- something I don't often see in the Muslim world. Even fatalistic taxi drivers buckle up. ...
Now I submit to you: A nation that is wearing seat belts is probably not a mortal enemy of the United States.
... unless we make big mistakes, we should not find ourselves condemned to a permanent war, much less a clash of civilizations.
Assalamu 'alaikum, Teach!
From the teacher every boy wishes was his to the teacher every Muslim student prays won't be theirs. From the Washington Post:
A substitute teacher was charged with disorderly conduct Monday after she allegedly lashed out at a group of Gaithersburg high school students for using words in Arabic while practicing a commemorative speech to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Montgomery County police say Carol J. McVey, 49, began screaming at the group of Gaithersburg High School students and one of their teachers for saying "assalamu alaikum" -- a greeting that means "peace be with you" -- while they rehearsed the speech in a classroom. The students were working on a speech that they intended to deliver at a memorial service at Kingsview Middle School that day.
Police said McVey, of Olney, began yelling at the students and their teacher. "Islam doesn't mean peace, it means killing everyone for peace," she told them, according to a charging document.
The students and one of their teachers left the classroom in fear after the outburst, police said, and McVey followed them down the hall, where her alleged tirade intensified. "Because of you our families died in New York!" she allegedly yelled, threatening to go to the principal's office to ask that Kulsum Malik, the teacher who was with the students, be told to leave, the charging document said. Police spokeswoman Lucille Baur said she didn't know whether Malik or any of the students working on the speech are Muslim.
When McVey reached the office of Assistant Principal Laurie Bricker and began yelling again, Bricker asked her to leave. As the administrator was telling McVey to go, McVey began to argue that it was Malik who should be asked to leave, police said. As an officer assigned to the high school began escorting McVey out, she allegedly resisted, saying she wanted to get Malik's information in order "to report her," according to the charging document.
On her way out, McVey "yelled at a Hispanic teacher about the inappropriateness of speaking to students in languages other than English," police said.
McVey was also charged with resisting arrest, disrupting school activities and trespassing, which are all misdemeanors. She was released on her own recognizance.
My, my, what are they teaching the children in schools today? I think McVey (hmmm, a relative?) needs a little counselling on Islam before she's allowed back in a classroom.
A substitute teacher was charged with disorderly conduct Monday after she allegedly lashed out at a group of Gaithersburg high school students for using words in Arabic while practicing a commemorative speech to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Montgomery County police say Carol J. McVey, 49, began screaming at the group of Gaithersburg High School students and one of their teachers for saying "assalamu alaikum" -- a greeting that means "peace be with you" -- while they rehearsed the speech in a classroom. The students were working on a speech that they intended to deliver at a memorial service at Kingsview Middle School that day.
Police said McVey, of Olney, began yelling at the students and their teacher. "Islam doesn't mean peace, it means killing everyone for peace," she told them, according to a charging document.
The students and one of their teachers left the classroom in fear after the outburst, police said, and McVey followed them down the hall, where her alleged tirade intensified. "Because of you our families died in New York!" she allegedly yelled, threatening to go to the principal's office to ask that Kulsum Malik, the teacher who was with the students, be told to leave, the charging document said. Police spokeswoman Lucille Baur said she didn't know whether Malik or any of the students working on the speech are Muslim.
When McVey reached the office of Assistant Principal Laurie Bricker and began yelling again, Bricker asked her to leave. As the administrator was telling McVey to go, McVey began to argue that it was Malik who should be asked to leave, police said. As an officer assigned to the high school began escorting McVey out, she allegedly resisted, saying she wanted to get Malik's information in order "to report her," according to the charging document.
On her way out, McVey "yelled at a Hispanic teacher about the inappropriateness of speaking to students in languages other than English," police said.
McVey was also charged with resisting arrest, disrupting school activities and trespassing, which are all misdemeanors. She was released on her own recognizance.
My, my, what are they teaching the children in schools today? I think McVey (hmmm, a relative?) needs a little counselling on Islam before she's allowed back in a classroom.
Update: NBC Interviews Debra LaFave
America's favorite sex offender, Debra LaFave, is back in the news, this time after being interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer. A portion of the interview was broadcast on Today, and the full interview was scheduled to be shown on Dateline. Some of the interview transcript (from Dateline's story, "Matt Lauer Sits Down with Debra Lafave"):
Why she garnered so much attention
LaFave: I don't know.
Lauer: I'll say it. Do you think it's because you're pretty?
LaFave: I think so. And sex sells.
How the affair began
LaFave: I think he just became very flirtatious and you gotta remember that at that period in my time or in my life, I didn't feel like an adult. I was crashing fast.
Lauer: I would imagine there are parents watching right now Debbie and they're saying, “Wait a minute. She just said that he became very flirtatious.” You know, a) is she blaming him for how this started? So the answer to that is?
LaFave: No.
Lauer: And b) She was the older one ... She was the teacher. She was the role model.
LaFave: I did. I crossed the line that never should've been crossed.
Her lack of consciousness during this time
Lauer: Did you and this student have open conversations about the fact that you two might be getting into very dangerous territory?
LaFave: You know, there was very little conversation, to be honest with you. You know, looking back, he was 14, you know what is there really to say to a 23-year-old ...
Lauer: ... At any point during sex with this student or after sex with this student did you say, “In the eyes of the law, I just committed rape”?
LaFave: No. I never said that.
How she thinks this may impact her victim's life
LaFave: I think he's gonna have a hard time trusting women one day. I'm sure he has to be living with the guilt of quote, unquote ratting me out.
Being bipolar
LaFave: I don't want to blur the lines between doing something as heinous as what I did, and being bipolar. But, yes, symptoms of bipolar [disorder] definitely contributed to my mind frame.
What she wants people to know about herLaFave: That I committed a sex offense but I'm not a sex offender, even though I'm labeled as that. I made a really, really, really bad choice.
Lauer: You don't see yourself as a predator?
LaFave: It's hard. It is so hard because I lived 23 years of my life, you know, knowing who I was. I was a kindhearted person who loved children, who would never, you know, do anything to break the law. I was a good person. And then now everything has just changed. So it's just really hard for me to accept that.
Other quotations from the interview:
LaFave: He wanted it and, yeah, I gave it to him.
Lauer: Weren't you scared to death he would tell someone?
LaFave: Obviously not, because I did it again.
Lauer: And again.
LaFave: And again.
"She said that when she was 13 years old and in eighth grade, she was raped by someone she knew. Lafave said that [an] early, abusive relationship with an older boy forever shaped her view of sex. 'I kind of developed this idea that it was my role, in order to make a man, guy, boy happy, I had to do my part, which was pleasing him in that way,' she said."
(Personal comment: Yes, Debra, this is one of your roles as a woman; women should try to sexually satisfy (make them happy "in that way"), just as men should try to sexually satisfy women. But this satisfaction needs to be done among married couples only. You should have been trying to satisfy your newlywed husband, Owen.)
"I'm not trying to give excuses," she said. "All I'm being is truthful. I'm going to be the first person to say, 'Yes, it's my fault,' and I'm dealing with that."
Here is a short clip (run time: 1:44) from Lauer's interview:
Lafave is serving three years of house arrest and seven years of probation after pleading guilty to having sex with the boy in a classroom and her home in June 2004.
Additional Sources:
NBC News Exclusive: Lafave Interview
Lafave Tells NBC She 'Didn't Feel Like Adult'
Previous Posts on Debra LaFave:
Update: LaFave Charges Dropped
Desperate American Women?
September 12, 2006
MC Riz: Post 9-11 Blues
Hat tip to Muslim Apple for this video. I'm not into hip-hop that much, but this was amusing. Run time: 3:43.
Everybody do the Post 9-11 Dance
Look scared, shake your arse
While the bombs go blast
Everybody shake your
Post 9-11 thong
So the dossier was wrong
Jack some oil
Drop a bomb
Sing a song
Sing along
Bush and Blair in a tree
K-I-L-L-I-N-G
Shave your beard if you're brown
And you'd best salute the crown
Or they'll do you like Brazilians
And shoot your arse down
Everybody do the Post 9-11 Dance
Look scared, shake your arse
While the bombs go blast
Everybody shake your
Post 9-11 thong
So the dossier was wrong
Jack some oil
Drop a bomb
Sing a song
Sing along
Bush and Blair in a tree
K-I-L-L-I-N-G
Shave your beard if you're brown
And you'd best salute the crown
Or they'll do you like Brazilians
And shoot your arse down
September 11, 2006
Recent Comments
I know I'm not "Comments Central" like some of the other blogs I visit. (Yo, people: Write some comments! Whaddyathink? I live in a vacuum or somethin'?) However, if you rely upon the script on the sidebar to see if there have been any recent comments here, I'm sorry to say that it hasn't been working very well for some reason or another. So I thought I'd put up this little post to let you all know what posts I've gotten recent comments at.
Two have come in at Regarding Gay Muslims and Irshad Manji. I also got a nice comment to my old post, Hijabis of the World, Unite! (written back in February). However, the most interesting comment came in for another February post, Join the Army! Become an Imperial Stormtrooper! I had wanted to write back a suggestion for Charlie here, but Milady nixed it. ;)
To be continued, insha'allah...
Two have come in at Regarding Gay Muslims and Irshad Manji. I also got a nice comment to my old post, Hijabis of the World, Unite! (written back in February). However, the most interesting comment came in for another February post, Join the Army! Become an Imperial Stormtrooper! I had wanted to write back a suggestion for Charlie here, but Milady nixed it. ;)
To be continued, insha'allah...
September 9, 2006
Regarding Sunnis and Shias, the Caliphate, Shariah, and the Separation of "Mosque and State"
"I've heard the Sunni and Shia division described as analogous to Protestant and Catholic; except that Sunni and Shia may even pray at the same mosque, because it doesn't make a day-to-day different, it just makes a difference in governance. Would you say that's a fair comparison?"
Roughly. To be honest, I've never been in a Shia masjid, and much of what I know is based on hearsay. I've heard that there are several differences between how they pray and how we Sunnis pray, but that the differences are relatively minor. Even so, there are some minor differences in how Sunnis pray (those who follow the Maliki school of thought have their arms hang at their sides while standing during salat; the rest of us cross our arms, right over left, when we stand). These differences don't invalidate one's prayer. Of course, Sunnis and Shias pray together at al-Masjid al-Haram, the Sacred Mosque located in Makkah, at al-Masjid an-Nabawi, the Mosque of the Prophet (pbuh) in Medina, and at other masjids worldwide.
"I think I understand what you're saying about proseletyzing. I am wondering how that plays into the idea we often hear about that (some) (which?) Muslims want to restore the caliphate, want a large Islamic state, want everything under sharia law, etc. It seems to me there's a difference between wanting to spread the religion, and wanting to spread religious rule. You've addressed the former; can you address the latter?"
Yes, there are some people who want to restore the Caliphate, although I think this is mostly a pipe dream at this time. (I've written about this topic on my own blog; see Bush Administration Misuses the Word "Caliphate".) Shariah is a much broader topic and would require a diary or three to explain. Some year maybe, insha'allah. ;) The thing to understand is that Shariah is a very large and comprehensive corpus of law. It covers many topics. What most Westerners worry about are the Hudud laws and their punishments for criminal behavior; however, these people haven't learned to differentiate between "Shariah" and "Hudud," the latter being a small subset of the former.
Some modern "secular" governments have incorporated parts of Shariah into their legal systems; e.g., Singapore. Here, Shariah is applied for Singaporean Muslims with regard to domestic issues (such as marriage, divorce, domestic disputes, burial, etc.). Also, Shariah with regard to Islamic finance is quickly being incorporated as Singapore embraces Islamic banking. So "Shariah" is not quite the bogeyman that many Westerners worry about.
"Related, but distinct: I've heard it said that Islam does not recognize a separation of church and state. Can you comment?"
That is essentially correct. Muslims don't really look at Islam as a religion per se; it's not just a part of our life to put away most of the time and bring out every now and then when we feel the need to be spiritual. Islam, for us, is a way of life, and many acts that we do in the course of our daily lives are a form of worship. As such, because government and politics play large parts of our lives, we don't believe that you can fully separate "church" from state. However, since the Prophet (pbuh) migrated to Medina, there has been a concern among Muslims that people of other religions need to be treated as fairly as possible and that they would not be judged necessarily under Shariah.
This is another huge topic and would require a dairy or three to cover with any justice.
Roughly. To be honest, I've never been in a Shia masjid, and much of what I know is based on hearsay. I've heard that there are several differences between how they pray and how we Sunnis pray, but that the differences are relatively minor. Even so, there are some minor differences in how Sunnis pray (those who follow the Maliki school of thought have their arms hang at their sides while standing during salat; the rest of us cross our arms, right over left, when we stand). These differences don't invalidate one's prayer. Of course, Sunnis and Shias pray together at al-Masjid al-Haram, the Sacred Mosque located in Makkah, at al-Masjid an-Nabawi, the Mosque of the Prophet (pbuh) in Medina, and at other masjids worldwide.
"I think I understand what you're saying about proseletyzing. I am wondering how that plays into the idea we often hear about that (some) (which?) Muslims want to restore the caliphate, want a large Islamic state, want everything under sharia law, etc. It seems to me there's a difference between wanting to spread the religion, and wanting to spread religious rule. You've addressed the former; can you address the latter?"
Yes, there are some people who want to restore the Caliphate, although I think this is mostly a pipe dream at this time. (I've written about this topic on my own blog; see Bush Administration Misuses the Word "Caliphate".) Shariah is a much broader topic and would require a diary or three to explain. Some year maybe, insha'allah. ;) The thing to understand is that Shariah is a very large and comprehensive corpus of law. It covers many topics. What most Westerners worry about are the Hudud laws and their punishments for criminal behavior; however, these people haven't learned to differentiate between "Shariah" and "Hudud," the latter being a small subset of the former.
Some modern "secular" governments have incorporated parts of Shariah into their legal systems; e.g., Singapore. Here, Shariah is applied for Singaporean Muslims with regard to domestic issues (such as marriage, divorce, domestic disputes, burial, etc.). Also, Shariah with regard to Islamic finance is quickly being incorporated as Singapore embraces Islamic banking. So "Shariah" is not quite the bogeyman that many Westerners worry about.
"Related, but distinct: I've heard it said that Islam does not recognize a separation of church and state. Can you comment?"
That is essentially correct. Muslims don't really look at Islam as a religion per se; it's not just a part of our life to put away most of the time and bring out every now and then when we feel the need to be spiritual. Islam, for us, is a way of life, and many acts that we do in the course of our daily lives are a form of worship. As such, because government and politics play large parts of our lives, we don't believe that you can fully separate "church" from state. However, since the Prophet (pbuh) migrated to Medina, there has been a concern among Muslims that people of other religions need to be treated as fairly as possible and that they would not be judged necessarily under Shariah.
This is another huge topic and would require a dairy or three to cover with any justice.
Regarding "Reversions"
"As one of the people on here who's part of a 'minority faith' (buddhism) as far as numbers in this community; One thing I've found is that I end up being very careful with my language to avoid even accidently implying my religions 'supremacy'."
With my use of the word "reversion" (instead of "conversion"), I certainly didn't mean to imply any type of religious superiority. Please forgive me if I've offended in any way.
"I'm sure that 'reverting to Islam', instead of 'converting to Islam' in the context of Islamic Theology has subtleties that I'm missing, and after thinking it through I don't mind that you said it that way."
You're correct in that there is a theological undertone to the use of the word "reversion." In the Qur'an there are several passages that state that mankind was brought forth long before we were born where there was a dialogue of sorts between ourselves and Allah (swt). In one particular passage, it is said that mankind swore an oath confirming that Allah (swt) is the one God:
"When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): 'Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?'- They said: 'Yea! We do testify!' (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: 'Of this we were never mindful': Or lest ye should say: 'Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?'" (7:172-3)
In this regard, Muslims believe that through this oath we all became Muslims prior to birth. It is after birth where we may lose our innate sense of the oneness of Allah (swt) (such as through the teachings of our parents, teachers and others). In that sense, those people who come back to Islam (such as myself) are not "converts," but "reverts."
Another explanation, by Muhammad Asad:
"According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being 'bear witness about himself' before God."
With my use of the word "reversion" (instead of "conversion"), I certainly didn't mean to imply any type of religious superiority. Please forgive me if I've offended in any way.
"I'm sure that 'reverting to Islam', instead of 'converting to Islam' in the context of Islamic Theology has subtleties that I'm missing, and after thinking it through I don't mind that you said it that way."
You're correct in that there is a theological undertone to the use of the word "reversion." In the Qur'an there are several passages that state that mankind was brought forth long before we were born where there was a dialogue of sorts between ourselves and Allah (swt). In one particular passage, it is said that mankind swore an oath confirming that Allah (swt) is the one God:
"When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): 'Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?'- They said: 'Yea! We do testify!' (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: 'Of this we were never mindful': Or lest ye should say: 'Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?'" (7:172-3)
In this regard, Muslims believe that through this oath we all became Muslims prior to birth. It is after birth where we may lose our innate sense of the oneness of Allah (swt) (such as through the teachings of our parents, teachers and others). In that sense, those people who come back to Islam (such as myself) are not "converts," but "reverts."
Another explanation, by Muhammad Asad:
"According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being 'bear witness about himself' before God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)