The Truth is Out There

Throughout history, notable events have occured when people have found a way to challenge the status quo often by opposing (even breaking with) social customs and the law. I'm not on that level of opposition so in some respects, I am to blame for developing a sense of 'switchedoffness'. I should challenge what is not right or what conflicts with my inner beliefs. I have the power of protest because of where I live and should use it, I remind myself. I was raised in a democracy and presumably I have the freedom of speech that others don't. Privileges that make me fortunate as well as responsibilities that come with those privileges.

And yet a few days back, I sat through a very uncomfortable meeting on the matter of 'extremism'.  You know, the whole argument about anti-establishment information being drip fed into young minds by anti-state agents. Typically, Islam comes up (in truth, isn't Islamic ideology what this is all about?) though they throw in the other objectionable - right-wing Nazi-sympathy - (a late addition to the topic) as some kind of neutralising factor so that the Muslims in the audience don't feel that they are under seige.

It's true; extremists exist. And they do much damage - take a look at Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria etc. There must be a counter narrative to challenge blinkered thinking - a free education system that allows people to make up their own minds in these places - sometimes backed with counter actions (intelligence). But on this occasion I sat through this meeting, democracy, freedom and all, and I felt like the most disempowered person there is. I remained silent, unable to speak up but also torn between what I know/feel is happening to what I am being told. My problem is that continually, the freedom to speak out in protest of government policy, to voice an alternative view, is being marginilised under the weight of the media that cherry picks its commentary when reporting major world events. Remember, they filter the news for us and as most people passively consume, we don't often think about the after effects.

Why is it that the popular counter narrative to extremism (headed by the likes of Malala Yousafzai etc.) now feel like the conflict of an old establishment with its own less-than-benevolent interests against newer forms of protest against them? Why is it, that despite my clear revulsion at the tactics employed by militants (Taliban, Boko Haram* etc.), I think that there is an argument that they should be part of the dialogue for building long term peace? Why is it that I just don't trust the media, the motives of governments driven by capital interests and their third world stooges when they claim that they are fighting for 'freedom' and 'democracy'?

Damn it. I live in a democracy, but dare I speak in favour of something that runs counter to the popular narrative, then I'll be lumped with the extremists that I object. Despite the hundreds of TV channels, most converge at the same place. And despite the millions of websites, the vast majority again, spout a narrative that has been predecided. Dare anyone seek an alternative view? IPs are tracked, web-searches are indexed and profiles are built. It begins, over time, to erode one's confidence to speak up and certainly affects my confidence in state instutions. I'm reluctant now to believe in much of what I'm being told and have learned the art of silence. Extremists/counter-extremists; I don't think that we are in a safer, better world, but not for the reasons that we are told. In a way, my freedom of thought is my most precious freedom, but it is isolating and useless without the freedom to speak up.

The truth, as they say, is out there.

 Image: The Haunted Man

*Read here for an alternative on the Nigeria situation: 'Dear World, Hashtags won't #BringBackOurGirls'

The Richard Dawkins Tweet

Richard Dawkins's infamous Tweet that the entire Muslim world has had fewer Nobels (10) than Cambridge University's Trinity College (32) has invited both support and opposition. Political correctness might dictate that he should not have spoken, but as an atheist whose scientific/socially liberal viewpoints line up with popular sentiment his tweet is pointed out as one example of Western irreverence towards religion. The coin has a flip-side too; we live in a world where Islam is feared and Muslims are vilified. It is easy to target Muslims and get away with it.

Dawkins is not alone in attacking Muslims for their lack of achievements; I know many  Muslims who share the  same critical view of themselves. At the present time, Muslims do not export their cultural achievements well. We live, at best in a nostalgic past. Our human rights records, as an example, is little more to be proud of than our list of Nobel honours and more Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims in a kind of fratricidal in-war than directly at the hands of Western interventionist forces. Elsewhere, Muslims are caught up in a loop of blame, low achievement, bad governance, cultural destruction and self-pity. In summary, we're on something of a downer. Something is deeply wrong and for Muslims this requires some deep and sober appreciation.

The low ebb for Muslims sits within a much larger context (of power, control and prejudice). For a start, Dawkins could have easily substituted 'Muslims' in his Tweet for any other group or demographic. According to the Christian Monitor, other large (billion-plus) religious, gender and ethnic groups have won even fewer Nobels than the ten won by Muslims. Hindus have won four, the Chinese have won eight and Africans have won nine. Note also that women have only won 44 Nobel Prizes, compared with 791 for (mostly) white men. Frankly, Nobel Prizes are a largely Western affair - all the more grating since one of four people in the world are Muslim.

The Nobel Prizes were inaugurated in 1901 at a time when Muslims were still under the long shadow of colonial rule. Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) may have emphasised recognition of scientific and technological discoveries and inventions, but since its launch, the awarding of the prizes have never truly been a universal affair. They can't be. What do the committees who offer the Nobel Prizes measure, except a particular (socially skewed) view of scientific achievement? 

Not everyone can consume or pollute at the rate of the US and Western Europe and the number of nuclear bombs discovered, developed and used by the West outweighs the number used by the entire planet. Money talks. Muslims may not have invented nuclear weapons - but when there are other pressing matters, should Muslims put all their energies and focus into winning Nobel Prizes?

Logically speaking, if Muslims do not lead in the inventiveness that creates weapons of mass destructions that devastate the planet, then the flip-side is they don't lead in the responsibility for the overall damage. Dawkins, like many atheists and agnostics falls into a trap of targetting Islam under the impression that their scientific credentials put them above simplistic prejudice. There are agendas dressed up in 'facts' underlying deeper prejudices are masked by pseudo-rationalism.

Read more at Religion Dispatches and the Guardian.

The Marriage of Mohammed PBUH and Aisha RA

In this climate of hysteria, I've taken this article by Myriam Francois-Cerrah from the Guardian. It makes a key point on a recurring criticism non-Muslims have of Islam. The article gives an important insight:

Writing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.

This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.

They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.

Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.

The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."

Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.

Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.

What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.

To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.

A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.

Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

 Taken from the Guardian

Innocence of Muslims

Two things. First, it would appear that we still need a 'bogeyman'. To be able to define our own values, it seems easier to be able to point to the values that make us nervous. Secondly, history is written by those in power and power today is in the collective hands of the 'western' media. Whether this is print media or the various forms of digital media - internet, television and so on; those who control the media undoubtedly have the greatest influence on collective thought. In a media climate where sensation sells and profits comes before anything else; nothing is really sacred.

As we have previously seen and have often discussed on these pages, Muslims are repeatedly cast as the 'bogeyman' in the current media narrative. We are easily portrayed as irrational, volatile and confrontational or hopeless victims trapped by faith and in need of liberal intervention to uplift us. It's a simplistic media view and is formed by the majority with power. 

It therefore surprises few then, that an obscure amateur film targeting Islam with ridicule should now be the focus of considerable public attention. Protests linked to the film in Benghazi, Libya led to an attack on the US embassy and the killing of the US ambassador and similar protests have taken a grip in many other major cities in the Muslim world, and here in London too.

The reaction by Muslims itself generates debates on whether a response that is a violent reflex action, is wise. Do Muslims themselves send out the right signals and is this in accordance with the commonly agreed teachings of Islam? Muslims, of course, are diverse and the truth is there is little chance of a uniform response - even at the individual level, we do not all respond in the same manner to the challenges that face us. However, there is a vacant space between the those in power and the Muslim masses, so I guess, it matters not. The film was a deliberate jibe and the violence in protest to the film was fairly predictable especially since many Muslims are frustrated by injustices - some internal and stemming from the societies in which they live and others external - anti-Islamism coming from a media machinery that continues to reinforce stereotypes and irreligiosity. I think left alone, Muslims are more than able to find their own way.

Ultimately the unequal relationship between the Muslim world and the west hurts Muslims the most. From where we stand this is likely to continue to be a long and protracted power struggle.

May Allah keep us all safe and in faith.

Letter to Blair Inc.

We seem to thrive on fear and this is especially true of what many 'westerners' think when it comes to what the Islamic world represents. Whilst the Islamic world has certainly had a past cultural glory when it made contributions to the arts, mathematics and sciences, even with this, there's the historical record of western prejudice against Muslims (see Orientalism). So whether one's opinions originate from a historic Christian set of values or a modern liberal or politically Eurocentric set of values, there is likely to be some point of difference/conflict with a given view in Islam. Adding to that the fear mongering, as in the interview here, and the type of responses that it provokes invariably there is a lack of a balanced and thoughtful judgement when it comes to Muslim-Christian (read 'western') relations.

In this interview with The Telegraph, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair continues to peddle the same old fear with his opinions on 'militant Islam'. I am not going to deny the marginalisation and subsequent radicalisation of Muslims and nor do I excuse it. It is wrong in fact - but one needs to consider the historical relationships of the east and the west to understand why differing sides are often caught up in conflict. A deep misunderstanding and fear continues to inform the way Islam is perceived and both the west and the Muslim world need to self-reflect to consider how their own actions affect the other. I will say however, for there to be a meaningful dialogue that the major need for self reflection vis-à-vis the other should come from 'Christian' west, who must come to terms with their own historical bias and personal animosity.

This might have nothing to do with how he feels, but Tony Blair is a 'new' Catholic and without doubt, a career politician. He knows how to draw attention to the fears/thoughts of middle England and exploit them for his own purposes. I wonder, if many readers of commentators on The Telegraph interview realised that Tony Blair's sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, is in fact, a Muslim? (She spent time in Iran). Mr Blair, himself is now, a somewhat lacklustre international figure. He has, by all accounts, been a low-impact UN peace envoy to the middle east and all indications are that he has profited healthily from this 'unpaid' position. 

Just goes to show, that with a little manipulation, the old forms of hatred and bigotry surface in order to wage contemporary political battles.

Image Credits: ShaneBertou

European [Dis]Union

Admittedly, Norway is not part of the European Union, so the title of this posting may be forgiven slightly. A part of Europe it is, however, and right now, this Scandinavian country of 4.3 million dominates the news. Not a happy event, sadly, for when a mass murder occurs inspired by racial hatred and right-wing politics, we are obliged to sit up and take notice. 

Our thoughts of course, are always with the victims and their families and no doubt the laws in Norway will follow their due course. But what I feel that Europe is forced to confront, is their sleeping discontent towards it's Muslim population. Not helped, by the actions of certain Muslims, of course, what is even more disturbing is that Europe has not truly escaped the prejudices of their historic past and so it shouldn't be surprising that sympathisers of radical Hitleresque ideologies exist amongst their midst. 

Call it the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Third Reich or the  Bosnia War, historically speaking, Europe has been there before - several times in fact, with the Jews and the Muslims. It starts with fear, propaganda, hate crimes and then state institutions that pass ridiculous laws. All of these steps pave the way to graver acts against humanity. When Belgium moves to ban the veil by drawing alarmist attention to something that I've often felt is rather more individual, can they truly claim that they are doing society a favour? I mean, where is the thin line drawn between outright Islamaphobia and liberal good intent? And if that line is blurred, where is the difference between Islamaphobia and divisive/hateful right-wing intent? In fact, where is the difference between the liberal good and the fascist bad?

Multiculturalism: A Prime Minister Speaks

Nothing really changes. It seems that some people are never pleased, and others will pander to fashionable hysteria. It is the same today as it was yesterday as it was the day before and when I was growing up. Too many of us still need a fall guy; some-one to shift the blame onto; a bogeyman caricature; an enemy to help define ourselves.

Europe's uneasy relationship with the Islamic world is rooted in history and David Cameron speaks with rather common voice:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. So when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.

Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism.

At the furthest end includes those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of shariah.

Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world-view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.

If we are to defeat this threat, he says, its time to turn the page on on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we as governments and societies have got to confront it in all its forms.

David Cameron's speech follows on the heals of Angela Merkel's "Multiculturalism Has Failed" speech in October of last year. So the man at the top of the ladder in British politics, the Queen's representative and the first man of Britain, also knocks "multiculturalism". Frankly, I don't think that Britain in anyway leads on the matter and the failure of multiculturalism must have much to do with Germany and Britain both having allowed downward signalling ghettos to exist - enclaves within their systems where migrants and their kin are forced into the outer edges of mainstream society. Add to that relative poverty and low opportunity and failure stares you right back.

Many, many societies, have people of different racial types, religious views, languages, shades and opinions and whilst no place is perfect, "multiculturalism" is probably not even a word in those places. People just soldier on with their work, their daily routines and get on with providing safety and security for their families. Multiculturalism exists in a day-in, day-out basis. It just is.

Has multiculturalism in Europe failed? Well since Europe is still riding on a past nostalgia, I'm not surprised at these kinds of speeches. It's a "blame" game, nothing else. I don't eulogise most politicians in the slightest, so fortunately I can dismiss Cameron's attempt at courting popular prejudice. For most politicians, even national leaders, I find believing that they can possibly speak without agenda, something of a challenge. But just so that Cameron is reminded - he is no Barack Obama. Barack "Hussein" Obama. You know, the African-American President with a Muslim family. But then again, Britain is no America - where immigrants, Muslims included, are the key components of the contemporary American melting pot.

Cameron and Merkel ...? Hang on to yesteryear. Stay in your little pasts.

To Be a Muslim

Pa Bismillah,

I extend my welcome to all Muslim and non-Muslim, old and new. Salaam and Marhaba.

There is the way it is - and the way it is supposed to be. These are very different things.

To be a contemporary Muslim is to know that we live in an imperfect world and that there are many pulls and distractions. Muslims must navigate their faith through the issues that test us daily. That is the way it is.

And of course there is the matter of image. Muslims don't get it easy in the press. Sometimes, Muslims are drawn towards apology and it can be exhausting attempting to apologise for every error made by every Muslim that is reported. Personally speaking, I sometimes feel that I am right out of apology.

I recognise the disappointing reality of inequality - that Muslims make up a good proportion of the world's poorest people who live in the grip of disinformation and confusion. This is not the way it is supposed to be but the way that it is. The modern media feeds on this and the bad press feeds bad policy, the unnecessary wars and continual confusion within.  

Sitting in the Gulf, I see examples of how it could be but also how it should not be. Local Arabs, living off the oil boom, are anything but poor. The state apparatus is supportive of the basic needs - the way it could/should be. In Islam, our system of zakat and charity should mean a distribution of wealth and food to the poor and a natural trickle down effect. And yet amongst Muslims globally, we still have serious abject poverty, despite our systems to protect the most vulnerable - like, I say, the way it is supposed to be versus the way that it is. 

The good thing is that despite the bad press, Islam remains strong in the hearts of many Muslims and that Islam continues to draw people to the faith. I think therefore that the way it is supposed to be, is a good place to start. Lauren Booth's decision to become a Muslim is significant because of the profile of her famous brother-in-law, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is often perceived across the Muslim world as an antagonistic crusader who knowingly brought misery to Muslims. Lauren Booth's story of simpler, less dramatic approach, is a timely reminder that Islamic civilisation at its political and cultural height offered its subjects, Muslim or not, a genuine peaceful path. The way that it is supposed to be. 

And, Allah, of course, knows best.