islamicate

Last Night's RNC

From the DNC, my take away message: Kerry fought in a war 30 years ago. America is a great country full of hope and promise. Because Kerry fought in the war, he values the greatness of America and will fight to keep it great.

From the RNC, my take away message: 9/11 was great. Without it you'd never know that Bush was chosen by God. And by God, we're more than happy to have another 9/11 to prove how great we are.

Overall big disappointments for me: John McCain and Bob Dole. They've become tools. Rudy Giuliani did not disappoint me, because I always knew that he supported a police state above all else. His response to 9/11 was the surprise.

Hijab in the UK

Via this Crooked Timber piece [sorry CT folks, can't find your trackback ID] I found out about this case in the UK about a Muslim girl wanting to cover in school.

I like Harry's last paragraph:

But the fact that the regulations might drive a girl into an educational situation in which her religious beliefs will not be challenged or tested seems to me a reason for bending, or revising the rules, not a consideration in their favour. The parents’ enthusiasm that their child should attend a state comprehensive school is to their credit. Telling them that they should school her religiously or at home doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

The state should not be in a situation where it is encouraging the ghetto-ization of a community. However, I think the school has made adequate provisions for students who believe that they have to cover to meet the needs of their faith, within the context of mandatory school uniforms. I think it's important to note that the salwar kameez and jilbab are ethnic dress that take on religious overtones and are not religious dress in the same way a cassock is. They are culturally conditioned expressions of faith. If the school is 80% Muslim as the article indicates, the dress code is satisfactory for the majority of Muslim students. In the US, parents would move to a different school district if the schools were not meeting their needs and desires for an educational institution. My understanding of the UK system is that secondary schools do operate independently with respect to dress code and certain aspects of the curriculum. If the issue of dress is so important, because the matter of the child's faith is so important, the parents do have a choice. The school's policy is not a nation-wide policy, and the policy reflects the expectations of the surrounding community. To frame the debate as the state denying the girl's right to practice her faith is duplicitous in my opinion, and does not actually further the debate on the integration of newly immigrated Muslims to the UK.

[tangent]Al-Muhajabah has a piece on the hijab in the Olympics, and in it she links to some of her thoughts on appropriate covering.[/tangent]

Admitting to a Permanent State of War

Today, President Bush admitted that we can never win the War on Terror(ism). So, the only conclusion I can come to is that we are in a permanent state of declared war in order to keep us afraid and pliable. God bless George Orwell.

Quick Links

A religious stereotype not true?!

Wait, you mean all Muslim men are not waiting for their 72 virgins? Some just want raisins?

Muslims give America the blues. If you trace the history of American music you know that it also eventually gives us hip-hop, in multiple ways.

For those of you haven't heard yet, some Iraqis appreciate that they can play soccer, but are also willing to fight in Fallujah. How can you face your God is a question that runs both ways. Of course, I love the fact the administration tried to spin the interview. These players' answers are pretty straight forward.

Discuss: Root causes of terrorism. (CT has closed it's comments, but feel free to continue the discussion here.)

Is destroying the Constitution, circumventing civil liberties, torturing people, and general institutional support for a "Lord of the Flies" world order really the best way to win the war on terror(ism)? BTW, will we have a war against terrorists? Because I wouldn't call this administration a bunch of terrorists, but they do cause me a lot of terror.

Yawm-e Ali

Today is the birthday of Imam Ali. Read more for a poem in honor of Murtaza.

Women in Mosques

The latest article on Asra Nomani and her struggle for the recognition that women are God's creation, not man's slave. Both Muslim Wakeup! and altmuslim are cited in the article and they have had great coverage on the issue. I've posted some of my thoughts on MWU in the comments section.

Next on the Reading List: Good Muslim, Bad Muslim

A review of the book by an Indian academic can be found here.

The book can be purchased here.

The Wahhabi Movement Hates the Prophet (PBUH)

The Wahhabis are apparently putting toilets over where the Prophet (PBUH) lived. Clearly what the Qur'an meant when it said God and the angels praise him (33:56).

In 1990, sympathizers tipped him off that the site thought to contain the foundations of the Meccan house of Muhammad and Khadija was to be paved over. He rushed to the site, even threatening to put his young son in the bulldozer's path. He used his contacts to win permission for a last-minute archaeological dig. It lasted 40 days, and he says his team of volunteers uncovered stone foundations that appeared to be those of the Prophet's abode. But in the end, the site was buried in concrete and covered in unmarked marble. A public toilet now stands nearby, according to Meccans.

Full article here.

A small point

I have the utmost respect for Juan Cole and his blog. Today, he had a post that I wanted to make a small comment on, because I don't think it gives either Sistani or Gandhi the credit each one deserves. The relevant paragraph, to be found at the end of his post, is as follows:

If Sistani does lead a popular march of the sort the press is describing, it might be the most significant act of civil disobedience by an Asian religious leader since Gandhi's salt march in British India. And it might kick off the beginning of the end of American Iraq, just as the salt march knelled the end of the British Indian empire.

I think one has to make a distinction between nationalist and anti-colonialist leaders. Gandhi started life as an anti-colonialist, but became a nationalist. Sistani is a nationalist I believe, and has clear vision of what Iraq should look like. However, the march on Najaf is not primarily a nationalist one, so much as it is to reassert his authority and to put as-Sadr in his place. As-Sadr is ostensibly an anti-colonialist - although the occupation is not colonial in nature so much as it is mercantile - and has no vision for Iraq. I think this difference between Sistani's march and Gandhi's march is important to note. However, Sistani is clearly exercising his power for multiple audiences.

Kerry on the Middle East

Via a link on Loose Democracy, I found this article by Sen. John Kerry on his vision of the relationship of the US to Israel. It is not, in my mind, a commitment to reforming the Middle East.

First, I find it problematic for Sen. Kerry to define America's interest as the same as Israel's interest. I do agree that Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia pose various threats to the US, but they are threats to the US; the challenges to Israel, European countries, Russia, etc., are different. By equating America's and Israel's interests, it makes it harder to create a separate policy identity for and in the region. Either Sen. Kerry is bushifying the issue (making it so simple, it's wrong) or he is pandering to the audience so hard he is jeopardizing US interests.

[As an aside, I think it's interesting that US policy is that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I know of no other situation where the US would call a country based on religious affiliation a democracy in the sense the sense it is normally used - equal access and participation by all its citizens. As a technical definition, it is correct. However, by the technical definition, Iran is a functioning democracy. This aside is not meant as an indictment of Israel, but as commentary on US foreign policy.]

Sen. Kerry mentions Iran, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In principle, I agree with him, but the lack of details make it difficult to comment in a substantive form.

He does make a distinction between being anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic; much of the Middle East discourse treats the two terms as synonymous, when in fact they are not, and that distinction will hopefully allow more sophistication in the debate on the Israel-Palestine issue. However, I'm not convinced that creating a separate division for dealing with anti-Semitism is a good policy. Discrimination is a nuanced subject, but is anti-Semitism/Judeophobia so different from other forms of discrimination that is has to be dealt with in a separate office? Are human rights violations committed because of race or Islamophobia less important? Does this separate office lead to an enclave mentality within the Jewish community? Is the Jewish community perceived as an isolated group as a result? thereby increasing Judeophobic crimes?

He may be dismissive of Arafat, but where does that get the US in terms of being a fair and honest broker in the peace?

While understand that this is a short piece for a particular audience, I hope Sen. Kerry delivers a more nuanced and thoughtful, dare I say sensitive, approach to questions in the Middle East.