Shi'a Pundit

Ismaili activist jailed in Riyadh

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:24:00 +0000

RIYADH: Saudi authorities have detained a leading Ismaili activist after he complained to the king over alleged rights abuses against the Shiite minority, a fellow activist said yesterday. Security police detained Ahmed Turki Al-Saab in Riyadh on Tuesday, days after he and five other Ismaili Shiites from the southern province of Najran handed to King Abdullah a 300-page report over alleged abuses by its governor, seeking to have him removed, said Mohammed Al-Askar. “They (security services) did not say why he was arrested without being charged,” he told Reuters.

Saab played a key role in issuing the report, Askar said. Najran, bordering Yemen, is a centre of the Ismailis, a Shiite sect which has long complained of victimisation by the prevailing school of Sunni Islam followed by the Saudi state. It was the scene of violent clashes in 2000, when hundreds of Ismailis clashed with police over plans to dilute their presence with Sunnis.

The Ismailis have said they had successfully petitioned King Abdullah two years ago to halt settlement of up to 10,000 Yemeni tribesmen outside Najran city. The Ismailis sent a protest letter in January to Najran governor Prince Mishaal bin Saud, complaining of marginalisation and demanding an end to plans to settle another Yemeni tribe. The report that was presented to the king, which was signed by 77 Najran citizens, carried the same grievances.

This incident just underscores in my mind the vast gulf between the King's rhetoric about reform and the facts on the ground. I wonder whether the King's authority really extends beyond the sphere of oil policy. What use a king without a strong hand?

via John.

more martyrs of Husain

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:36:00 +0000

Karbala:

A female suicide bomber attacked a group of Shiite worshippers near a mosque in Karbala on Monday, killing at least 32 people and wounding 51, officials said.

The worshippers were gathered about half a mile from the Imam Hussein shrine, one of the holiest sites for Shiites.

Karim Khazim, the city's chief health official, said the 32 killed included seven Iranians.

Ashura in Beirut

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:59:00 +0000

TIME Magazin'e Middle East blog looks at the practice of Ashura by Iraqi refugees in Lebanon - a practice that is necessarily underground:

So last month, an Iraqi Shia community center -- a Husseiniya -- in the suburbs held its own underground Ashura ceremony, in the basement late at night. The PG-rated portion of the evening -- during which scores of boys beat themselves with chains and slapped their chests pink -- ended around midnight. Once they left, a rump faction of the older men shut the doors -- like a British pub lockdown after-hours -- and waited until a few hours before dawn.

Then, after wolfing down tea and Turkish Delight, they passed out long knives, and donned tunics made from white bed sheets, all the better to show bloodstains. Cutting their scalps with straight razors, and hitting their heads to make the blood rush, they shouted "Haidar!" which means lion, and is one of the nicknames of Ali, the father of Hussein the martyr of Karbala. The Haidar ceremony continued for perhaps an hour, until the celebrants collapsed from exhaustion and emotion, many of them breaking into tears.

There are pics, which are not for the faint of heart.

It should be noted that this is an extreme form of observance - as the lockdown and secrecy indicate, it is frowned upon by the mainstream. My own community practices matam, a ritual beating of the breast to the chant of Ya Husain, with no implements of any kind. The only time blood ever appears on our white saya kurta is if our skin on our palms and fingers splits due to dehydration, but this is not deliberate (and there is usually a box of bandaids nearby.

I find the practice above to be disturbing indeed - but it's their choice of how they choose to observe. What I completely condemn without reservation, and for which there is no excuse whatsoever, is the practice of encouraging children to engage in bloody observance of any kind. What would Imam Husain AS think of a father who injures his child, even if they are so ignorant as to believe it is for spiritual reward? There is no excuse. None.

Martyrs for Imam Husain

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:21:00 +0000

Tragic news out of Iraq, as usual:

At least 25 people have been killed and dozens more injured by a suicide bomber targeting Shia pilgrims in the Iraqi town of Iskandiriya, south of Baghdad.

An official told the BBC that a bomber wearing a suicide vest had detonated his device in a crowd. At least 40 people were injured in the attack.

The town is on the way to the Shia city of Karbala, which is hosting a religious festival.

This was the second attack on the pilgrims on Sunday.

The first occurred in Baghdad, in the southern district of Doura.

Three were killed and 49 wounded when militants attacked passing pilgrims.

A roadside bomb was detonated with gunmen then opening fire.

The pilgrims were en route to Imam Husain, for the 40 days celebration (Chelum) on Tuesday, so this makes them shaheed.

Ashara 1429H

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:32:00 +0000

the Shi'a crescent awakens

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:53:00 +0000

Fears of Shi'a political power tends to animate most foreign policy strategies in the middle east. That is true of American policy, Arab policy, and Israeli policy. We often hear the phrase "the Shi'a Crescent" invoked ominously as a threat to the established order (or perhaps the established chaos). However, what can't be denied is that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has not only emboldened Shi'a politically in Iraq, but also spurred Iran to assert itself. A pair of political developments provides an example of the increasing political maturity - and confidence - of the major Shi'a powers.

First, Iraq, where Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (the dominant Shi'a political party), made overtures of reconciliation towards Sunnis:

The leader of Iraq’s most influential Shiite political party offered surprisingly conciliatory remarks on Thursday about the former insurgents and other Sunnis who have banded together into militias now working with American forces, stating that the groups had helped improve security and should be continued.
[...]
Mr. Hakim’s remarks on Thursday referred to Sunni groups, known as “awakening councils,” which emerged in 2006 in Sunni-dominated western Iraq, and last year spread to mixed Sunni-Shiite areas around Baghdad. Numbering close to 80,000, the American-backed groups are credited with driving out Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other extremist militants from many areas and helping to reduce sharply the American death toll. Many militia members used to attack American troops, before deciding to join forces with them.

While the rise of these groups has been the most promising development for the American military, the partnership has drawn deep skepticism from the Shiite-dominated central government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The Shiites fear the Americans have created an armed parallel force that one day could turn against the official Iraqi security forces, which are dominated by Shiites and Kurds. Last month, the government declared that it will eventually disband the groups, though it has said it would integrate some members into the official security forces.

While Mr. Hakim did not say whether the groups should be continued indefinitely, his speech appeared to be a softening of more cautious comments he made just last month, when he warned that the Sunni groups should operate only in the most dangerous areas and should not be seen as a replacement for government forces.

This shouldn't be as surprising as it is, because the Sunni tribes, the American forces, and the Shi'a political infrasttructure all share the same long term goal: a stable Iraq. Obviously the Sunnis and Shi'a want to be dominant politically speaking, but that requires something to actually exist before it can be squabbled over. Thus, the insurgents are a threat to everyone. Of course the Al Qaeda insurgents are only a minor part of the problem, the larger one being Shi'a militias themselves, but that's another story (alluded to in the reference to the Prime Minister's skepticism above). At the very least, these comments by al-Hakim indicate a willingness to acknowledge the common goal of a stable Iraq between Shia and Sunni alike.

The other side of the coin is Iran, who is Bogeyman #1 for the Bush Administration at present. While the warsphere bloggers see Iran as a monolithic, anti-semitic nuclear-aspiring "crazy mullah" threat, the "VSP" liberal foreign policy community has long held that Iran is actually a very rational, and deterrable, national entity. The anti-Israel rhetoric of President Ahmadijenad is alarming but easily understood as intended for a domestic audience. In fact, Ahmadijenad's star is somewhat on the wane, in no small part because of his aggressive anti-Western rhetoric, and the real power in Iran is more interested in rapprochement (eventually):

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said relations with the US could be restored in the future.

In a speech to students, he said the time was not right to restore ties, but if it were ever in Iran's interests he would endorse such a move.

The US and Iran cut their diplomatic ties after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent takeover of the US embassy by militants in Tehran.

Relations have been further strained by the row over Iran's nuclear programme.

"We have never said these relations should be suspended indefinitely," said Ayatollah Khamenei.
[...]
The Ayatollah's words are unlikely to appear conciliatory in Washington and London says the BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy.

Rather, they were probably directed at a domestic audience ahead of parliamentary elections in March.

The Ayatollah was also underlining the fact that he, and he alone, has the final word on foreign policy.

Note that these comments come at the end of the Bush Administration's tenure, which is yet more evidence for the accumulating mountain that Iran is ready and willing to be a partner rather than an adversary, and is open to diplomatic overtures - something that the present Administration has ruled flatly out (and is making much the same mistake with Syria, but that is again a different story).

What is the larger picture here? In one sense, the foreign policy of the past 7 years has indeed "shaken things up" enough that perhaps there is an opportunity for improvement in the future away from status quo. The (likely) incoming Democratic administration in 2009 is going to be predisposed towards diplomacy with Iran irrespective of which man (or woman) fills the Presidency. And a positive relationship with Iran can do much to help stabilize Iraq, allowing the political process to take further root there (a prerequisite to political reconciliation). We already see evidence of Iran's positive influence in Najaf, and the Gulf states are beginning to see Iran as a regional partner.

By 2010, things may very well look different indeed in the middle east. But no sooner than 2009.

Of course, there is still the Israel/Palestine/Syria problem as well - but Iran and the US working together might actually be a benefit in that sphere as well. For example: the US and Israel sign a nonaggression pact with Iran and supply Iran with enriched fuel for (electric power) nuclear reactors, in return for full and open monitoring of Iran's nuclear program and severing of support for Hizbollah. On the Iraq front, Iran could work to help stabilize the south and free American resources to be repositioned in Afghanistan. The benefits to all parties in this are obvious, but are predicated on the assumption that all parties involved are rational. The statements above by al-Hakim and the Ayatollah are the first steps only, but significant ones all the same.

Lanat upon Yazid

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:00:00 +0000

Indscribe of An Indian Muslim's Blog writes with outrage over recent comments by Dr Zakir Naik during the Aman Conference in Mumbai. In a nutshell, Naik seeks to portray the martyrdom of Imam Husain AS as nothing more than a political dispute rather than the manifestation of good vs evil, which is the concensus view of most muslims regardless of sect or ideology. Indscribe comments,

It is unthinkable to eulogize and glorify Yazid. Dozens of Muslim organisations and scholars have condemned the statement. Says Hafiz Syed Tahir Ali, 'the battle between Hazrat Imam Husain and Yazid was a fight between good and evil'.

Muslim leaders have questioned how a person like Yazid, who was responsible for the brutal killings of the grandson of Prophet and his family & companions, and the person who led the destruction at Medinah, could be held in such a high esteem by Naik.

Such thinking has nothing to do with Shia-Sunni difference as non-Muslims also take inspiration from the sacrifice of Hazrat Imam Husain. I remember once a guy was expressing similar sentiments about Yazid in a drawing room conversation and all of us were outraged(of course, everybody was a Sunni there).

It seems clear that the only reason for a provocative statement is to provoke. The idea that Shi'a are apostates, innovators, etc is an insidious poison in the muslim polity, much like anti-Semitism in the West, and on occasion it finds an outlet. Hence anything associated with Shi'a must be discredited, even Imam Husain AS and Karbala itself. This is analogous to Holocaust denial on the part of skinhead Nazis and other rightwing Western groups. There is no other explanation for a statement so at odds with the historical record, consensus, and common sense.

Eid ul-Ghadir mubarak

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:57:00 +0000

In the year 10 AH, after performing his last pilgrimage to Hajj, the Prophet SAW declared as his successor, Amirul Mumineen, Moula Ali ibn Talib AS.

The Qur'an says:

'O Apostle! Proclaim (the message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from Mankind. Verily Allah guides not the people who disbelieve. (5: 67)

Thus it was at Ghadir-e-Khum, the point on the journey from which the various pilgrims would disperse to their respective destinations as they returned home from Hajj, that Rasulullah SAW called all the pilgrims for one great assemblage. A multitude of seventy thousand gathered about the Prophet SAW, Salman (R.A.) and other Ashab Kiram were instructed to use rocks to make a pulpit, and the Prophet of Allah sat on the mimbar for nearly three hours, and in his moving eloquence, recited 100 verses from the Holy Qur'an and on 73 occasions reminded the assembled, and warned them of their deeds and hereafter.

The sermon of Rasulallah (SAW) and the events of Ghadir-e-Khum have been extensively narrated by historians, but for us Mumineen the prophetic words - 'man kunto mawlahu fa' Aliyan mawlahu' have become the foundation of our faith. It is the bedrock on which the edifice of our faith is built, as such, the day of 18th Zil Hijjah is an landmark day in our calendar - it is celebration and triumph of our Deen.

The Qur'an says,

This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your religion' (5:3)

Islam was perfected only when the rightful vasi was conferred with nass - and each year we mumineen reaffirm our allegiance (misak), a celebration of the nass conferred by Rasulullah SAW on Moulana Ali (AS). Misak is in fact a reaffirmation of our faith, our piety, our continuity, our submission to the Will of Allah and His Vali.

This celebration is epitomized in the words of Syedna Taher Saifuddin Moula (AQ):

madihokumu ya ala fatema-tal-ridha
ila suhekum li khairo hadin va sa'eki

As is our custom, I am fasting today in observance of this sacred event.

Reference: Mumineen.org Archive

Abdullah to hear Shi'a concerns

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:36:00 +0000

via John at Crossroads Arabia, comes this AFP report that the Saudi government is sending an official delegation to hear the concerns of the Shi'a community, and convey them to King Abdullah:

DUBAI: Saudi Arabia’s government-run human rights watchdog said on Tuesday that it had sent a delegation to listen to the grievances of the kingdom’s Shiite minority. “A delegation from the Human Rights Commission has gone to see Shiite leaders to study their demands and complaints and then pass them on to King Abdullah,” the commission’s head Turki al-Sudairi told Dubai satellite television. Sudairi, who has the rank of minister, acknowledged that, “Shiites often suffer from discrimination in the judicial field,” the first senior Saudi official to do so. He pointed to the recent “refusal by a judge to accept the testimony of a Shiite.” In April, King Abdullah warned Saudis against sectarian differences which he said threatened the unity and security of the kingdom. - AFP

King Abdullah should be commended - not just for his genuine concern for the minority populations, but also his recent pardon of Qatif Girl, and even his foresighted plan for middle east peace.

Yaum al-Arafat and Eid ul-Adha

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:34:00 +0000

Today, by the reckoning of the Fatimid lunar calendar, is Yaum ul Arafat, the 9th of Zil-hajj.

Below is an aerial view of the great tent city of Mina outside Mecca where the pilgrims live:

View Larger Map

And here is an aerial image of mount Arafat itself:

View Larger Map

Tomorrow is Eid al-Adha, arguably the more important than Eid al-Fitr after Ramadan (though Eid al Ghadir, the third Eid, has a significance all its own). Andrea Useem of ReligionWriter.com interviews Asma Mobin-Uddin about a children's book the latter wrote about Eid al-Adha, and I found this to be particularly insightful:

RW: Eid al-Adha, in religious terms, is supposed to be the biggest religious holiday of the year for Muslims. In the U.S. however, Eid al-Fitr is often a “bigger deal.” Why is this? Is it a problem that Eid al-Adha is somewhat neglected?

Mobin-Uddin: The religious practices that lead up to these two holidays have a different immediacy for Muslims in America. Eid al-Fitr follows the month of fasting in Ramadan, Eid al-Adha occurs toward the end of the Hajj pilgrimage.

For Muslims who are fasting in Ramadan, the rigors of the fast are very real and very personal. People deny themselves and work hard to observe this period of abstinence and spirituality. As a result, there is a sense of personal accomplishment after the month, and the celebration that follows feels like a reward for the commitment and self-denial they chose to engage in during Ramadan.

However, in some ways, the celebration, sacrifice and spirituality that is happening leading up to Eid al-Adha is most real for those who are actually on the Hajj pilgrimage themselves or who perhaps have loved ones there. The rest of the people may feel more of a distance between themselves and the celebration. In short, the sacrifice leading up to the holiday for many is not as personal, so the reward of the holiday may not seem as sweet or appreciated.

I am fasting today and my thoughts and prayers are with the pilgrims gathered upon the plain of Arafat today.

Eteraz and Shariati

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:43:00 +0000

Ali Eteraz wrote a massively offensive piece some time ago on Ali Shariati, the revolutionary Iranian thinker who died in 1977. Now, on the basis of some highly critical and informed feedback to the piece, he has publicly admitted to have misjudging Shariati. He has also published the critical feedback he received for all to see. That is commendable and evidence of a genuinely open and truth seeking mind rather than a closed polemicist. His retraction is fully in character with the man I know more personally than those who might have unfairly judged him on the basis of a single essay.

One major error Ali continues to make, however, is his assertion that "Ismailis are not Shi'a." I hope he clarifies this because that cannot be what he meant to say. It is not only factually incorrect but profoundly damaging and harmful to leave uncorrected.

Speaking as his friend, and not as a theological expert of any kind, the only advice I can give him as he seeks to understand the Shi'a mind is to emphasize that Western philosophical labels and schools are simply insufficient. Eteraz admits this himself,

the correspondence does give rise to the question of how far one can use Western philosophical tropes to evaluate Islamic phenomenon. This is something I am, frankly, inconsistent about, largely because it is an area I am still developing in. For example, recently at the Guardian I rejected using a Christian trope — reformation — to evaluate Islam (but then a few weeks later I used the idea of a Western “left/right” distinction to distinguish Evangelical Islamists from non-evangelical ones).

As he says, though, he is hardly alone in this. But the phrases "live like Ali, die like Husain" and "every day is Ashara, every land is Karbala" have profound meaning that cannot and never will be constrained by such meager concepts as Monism or Romanticism. The challenge is to approach them on their own terms, free of labels, or predefined categories.

It certainly is helpful reading the writing of modern intellectuals such as Shariati in understanding the breadth of Shi'a thought, but I humbly submit that the only path towards grasping the fundamentals (the substrate upon which Shariati himself also constructs his own analyses) is to start with the source. In other words, the writing of Ali Ibn Talib AS himself. There is no better resource than the Nahj ul Balagha (Peak of Eloquence), the sermons of Ali, available free online and in print. I also recommend the seminal work of the great jurist Syed Qazi Nauman, simply entitled Daim al-Islam, which may not be readily available in English translations.

Handover in Karbala

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:24:00 +0000

good news, I suppose:

US forces are to hand over control of security in the Shia province of Karbala to Iraqi troops early next week, US and Iraqi officials say.

US troops will remain in reserve positions to assist if called upon

of course it's not as simple as that:

Iraqi and US military officials have downplayed concerns over rivalries between Shia factions in the province.

"This place is about a struggle for power and influence and there are indeed inter-Shia rivalries where different groups are trying to be in charge and sometimes they revert to violence," said the US commander in the province, Maj Gen Rick Lynch.

The benchmark here is simple: damage to the shrines. I find it hard to believe that any Shi'a sect would willingly damage or put at risk the holy shrines. Of course by their nature they are targets for anyone with a vested interest in promoting sectarian violence... which includes both shi'a and sunni factions alike. On the whole, thouhg, there's not much choice here; iraqis have to take responsibility for the safety of the holy sites. So this is good news.

sigh.

Kuwait clerics deny Bohra masjid

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:30:00 +0000

KUWAIT: A controversy is ongoing over a plan by the government to grant the Bohra community in the country a plot of land to build a worship place as a senior Islamist MP yesterday called for scrapping the plan.

The cabinet has recently approved a request to provide the land for thousands of Bohras living and working in Kuwait to build their own worship place. The Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs then sent the request to the Municipal Council to allot the land in Ardhiya. The ministry asked for 1,600 square meters for the mosque and additional 5,000 square meters for a car parking lot.

The Municipal Council is due to discuss the ministry's request today (Tuesday) amid strong indications that the council will reject the request because none of the Bohra community living in the country is a citizen. Islamist MP Khudair Al-Enezi in a statement yesterday called on the government to scrap plans of awarding the land to Bohras.

The ostensible reason for denying the land is that Bohras are not citizens of Kuwait (which has typically nativist laws regarding immigrants and property ownership). However, the real reason is that Bohras are Shi'a and thus considered non-muslim kuffar as far as the ulema is concerned.

Ramadan blogging at City of Brass

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:07:00 +0000

Please visit City of Brass for blogging during Ramadan.

proud partisans of Ali

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:12:00 +0000

This blog has lain fallow for a long time, but here on the eve of Ramadan I felt it was the best platform for a response (of sorts) to Iraqi Konfused Kid's polemic equating the observance of Imam Husain AS's martyrdom with a passion play, devoid as he claims of any genuine theological substrate, instead nothing more than a emotional reaction. As a devout, orthodox Shi'a, I am somewhat bemused by his depiction of Ali ibn Talib AS:

Amazingly, Imam Ali, easily the most self-righterous, strongest and most courageous figure in Islam, did absolutely nothing for the death of his wife and child. and went to 'grudgingly' accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Omar, even advising the latter on certain matters, for fear over the unity of Islam!!!! This is the same Ali whose self-imposed puritanical approach to life and refusal to compromise on anything led him, knownigly, to his defeat by the more wily and persuasive Muawiya. In fact, first act on the first day of his caliphate some 30 years later was chasing Ubaidullah bin Omar, who killed a Persian without any charges after the second caliph was killed, such is his stubborn adherence to the principles, that it is seems ridiculous, even hugely insulting to his character, that he would contend with 'accepting the unity of Islam' when such grave sins were committed not only under the tent of Islam, but to his personal family and wife.

I can see why KK believes that there is some inconsistency in Ali's forebearance after the martyrdom of his wife Fatima AS at the hands of Omar, and his later rigid adherence to principle as Caliph. However, the apparent inconsistency arises from KK's incomplete understanding of who Ali AS was, and what role he was appointed by the Prophet SAW as the Gate to the city of knowledge. That is because KK - with all due respect - is a committed Sunni partisan and thus has an innate barrier to genuine understanding of Ali's motivations. For to truly plumb the depths of the jewel of mankind that was Ali AS, Konfused Kid would have to inevitably come to grips with the events at Ghadir e Khum. He would inevitably have to accept the words of the Prophet SAW, "Man kuntu Maula, fa-haza Ali-yun Maula" - words that are recorded in over 700 isnad from Sunni sources. I cannot in good conscience expect Konfused Kid to accept these things, unless it be of his own volition. To him his position, to me mine.

But what I do expect, especially of someone like Konfused Kid who speaks most highly of Ali as a rightly-guided Caliph and who believes the martyrdom of Imam Husain AS to have been unjust and a crime against Islam, is that they perform basic due diligence about Ali before accusing his Shi'a brothers in Islam of empty theology. That due diligence is simply this: read the sermons of Ali ibn Talib AS, entitled Nahjul Balagha. The entire text is available online, for free.

I don't see any value in engaging in sectarian theologic debate, especially online. I am content to leave Konfused Kid to his mission, but for anyone interested in a wider picture than the narrow one put forth by my Iraqi brother, I hope this post serves as a starting point.

sherullah il moazzam mubarak to all.

please visit City of Brass

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:32:00 +0000

I recently closed down my UNMEDIA blog as well. Now, you can find all my latest posts at City of Brass. I am continuing to discuss Islamic issues from a Shi'a perspective there. Please do visit.

interpreting intolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:58:00 +0000

Mr Ali Asghar Engineer is reknowned in progressive muslim circles for his liberal attitude towards the faith. In Bohra circles, however, he is reknowned for an implacable hatred of our orthodox rituals and beliefs. He has long pursued a vendetta against the Bohra community, mis-characterizing our religious practices borne of honest faith as those of a gullible pack of fools in thrall to charlatans. Like Daniel Pipes, his reasonable and eloquent arguments mask an autocratic condescension towards those who profess faith in Islam.

His guest editorial at Muslim WakeUp! is an excellent example of that condescension:

The Muslim world as a whole is not well equipped for understanding the Qur'anic text de novo. The vast masses of Muslims in most countries, due to rampant illiteracy, will continue to require orthodox interpretations for quite some time to come. Muslim countries still live intellectually in medieval times though physically they are now in the 21st century. It is quite a task to usher them into the 21st century in an intellectual sense. Thus the orthodox 'ulama continue to have their own relevance, perhaps for many decades to come.

I think that the subtext here is clear - the orthodox interpretation is associated with the illiterate masses who cannot think for themselves, and those who are true heirs to the spirit of intellectual inquiry within Islam are the enlightened "secular fundamentalists" such as himself.

Secular-fundamentalist muslims often decry the intolerance towards their interpretations by orthodox muslims. Intellectual maturity demands that they offer the same tolerance in return. As difficult as it may be to understand, some muslims embrace orthodox interpretations on an intellectual, as opposed to ignorant, basis.

UPDATE: a commentator replies to my post with a challenge:

But could you illustrate just one example of how you have personally embraced and reconciled an orthodox interprtation on an intellectual basis.
It certainly is easy to proclaim that your personal route to orthodoxy was intellect. But can you substantiate this process through at least one concrete example where a progressive interpretation is in stark contrast to its orthodox counterpart. And then show how you have intellectually embraced the latter.

hmm, where have I seen this before? And how would this erstwhile paragon of tolerant secular interpretation react if a Taliban Wahabi were to demand the same of him? The only real response to such arrogance and condescension is in Qur'an 109:6 - "Unto you your religion, and unto me mine."

please tell me this didn't happen

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:00:00 +0000

I don't want to believe this. But I have to. Because the man and woman described here are my friends, Hujefa and Insiyah, of the Bohra community in Dallas.

08:42 PM CDT on Thursday, September 2, 2004
By STEVE BLOW / The Dallas Morning News

In case you missed it, this happened at the Cowboys game Monday night.

During a break in the game, Texas Stadium cameras showed various fans and the stadium announcer urged the crowd to select a "fan of the game" by cheers and applause.

The camera first showed three men in military uniform. Naturally, the crowd cheered loudly. Some people stood and clapped. It was a nice tribute to our troops.

Next, a woman with a sign of some sort was shown – to scattered applause.

And then, incredibly, the stadium cameras were trained on a man and woman in Middle Eastern attire of some sort – turban and head scarf, along with Cowboys garb, too. And the crowd began to boo and hiss.

Our letter writer was rightly mortified.

Then, to make matters worse, the whole process was repeated – big cheers for the soldiers, polite applause for the sign-toting woman, boos and hisses for the Middle Eastern couple.

And I want to say: Please tell me that didn't really happen.

Even by the low standards of a football crowd, that is just numskull behavior.

First, how did anyone in the Cowboys organization think it would be fun to match some U.S. troops against an innocent Middle Eastern couple in a crowd popularity contest?
[...]
Are there really so many simpletons who think our enemy is anyone in a headscarf?

If so, our war on terror is doing more harm than good.

So far I haven't found much to like about either campaign in this presidential race. But a real low has been Vice President Dick Cheney's mocking of John Kerry for saying he would wage a more "sensitive" war on terrorism.

Sure, it makes for some easy tough-guy posturing. But as it turns out, Mr. Cheney's boss – the president – has used the very same word in talking about fighting terrorism effectively.

And both the president and Mr. Kerry are right.

It may not be as much fun as booing and hissing, but we're going to need lots of sensitivity to win this war on terrorism.

In the good old days of past wars, it probably made sense to demonize a whole race or nation as our enemy.

When I was growing up in the years after World War II, we spent a lot of time "playing war." And that meant fighting "Krauts" and "Japs."

But we don't have the luxury of such mindless, broad-brush hate this time around.

This war on terrorism is really more about ideas and attitudes than bombs and bullets. It's a war to win hearts and minds, as is often said. And in a way, we're all combatants in that war.

Once, supporting the war effort back home just meant rolling bandages or rationing sugar.

If only it were that easy now. Fighting this war on the home front means digging deep and learning about world affairs and our own foreign policy. It means stretching to understand cultures very different from our own. And it requires real sophistication in understanding who are enemies are and who they aren't.

I'm afraid that in a few thoughtless minutes Monday night, we lost a skirmish in our war on terrorism.

And lots of people proved themselves unfit for combat.

I'm at a loss for words, not just because it happenned to my friend, one of the best friends I have. It's because it happened. Please, someone tell me it didn't. But it did.

Massive assault on Najaf?

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:56:00 +0000

what the heck is going on -

US warplanes pound Iraq's holy city
From correspondents in Najaf
September 6, 2004

US warplanes spearheaded a massive two-pronged assault to crush a Shiite Muslim uprising in Iraq's city of Najaf.

Jets screeched overhead as massive explosions and tank and machine-gun fire boomed through the city and smoke engulfed its historic centre, home to the Imam Ali shrine, revered by Shiites all over the world.

Thousands of US forces, backed by Iraqi police and national guard, mounted a pincer movement to trap Moqtada Sadr's fighters in the heart of the city, before going on to raid the militia leader's empty home.

Iraqi and US troops sealed approaches to the mausoleum, as hundreds of terrified residents, urged on by attacking forces and the city's mosques, fled through the dusty streets.

"Leave the city. Help coalition forces and do not fire at them," one announcement instructed in Arabic. "We are here to liberate the city."

wasn't the Sadr issue defused due to intervention by Sistani? If so, it will need to be re-defused after this.

Google News reveals that only international outlets are carrying the story. At present, domestic media hasn't caught up.

Al Jazeera to launch English-language channel

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:26:00 +0000

intriguing news:

The Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera, denounced and bombed by the US and banned by the Iraqi government, has begun recruiting staff for a channel in English that will show news and documentaries.

"The brief is emphatically not to do an English translation of the Arabic channel," said Nigel Parsons, the project manager. "It will have international appeal and fill a lot of gaps in existing output."

The original Arabic news channel, established in 1996 and funded by the emir of Qatar, not only bucked the trend towards frivolity and light entertainment but broke many taboos, interviewing Israeli politicians and allowing debate of a kind rarely seen on Arab television.
[...]
The English channel's target audience is worldwide - "not just Muslims who don't speak Arabic", Mr Parsons said. "I think we might have a ready audience there, but it is not going to be an anti-western or anti-American channel. Absolutely not."

The aim will be to fill a gap in the market vacated by other channels.

"If you take CNN, in the [United] States, they have been dragged to the right by Fox. Internationally, they definitely had a bad war in the Gulf. They have lost some credibility on the international stage.

"Where the BBC would come into the equation is that there has been a definite retreat ... on the news channels. Levels of coverage of the developing world are 40% of what they were when Michael Buerk first did the Ethiopian famine."

Surely Al-J can never silence its critics with regard to bias. Given that scrupulously fair news organizations like NPR get hammered by left and right alike, and that Fox news is passionately defended as a bastion of objectivity by its fans, I think that arguing about bias is a fools' errand.

What is more important is that al-J provides an authentically independent voice - free of control from either the Arab regimes or the Bush Administration, both of whom hate al-J for essentially the same reason. The ideal of free speech is served well by a media that is accountable to none and that is aggressive about airing all points of view.

Keep in mind that in addition to airing bin Laden's rants, they also provided more hours of convention coverage (both DNC and RNC) than all the domestic channels combined. The audiences of Al-Jazeera are getting both sides indeed - and I think that our side, not bin Laden's, fares better in the comparison.

Al-Jazeera will be an element in the eventual reclamation of true political liberty in the Middle East. The authentic, hard-fought, springs-from-within kind.

Note that the channel has been systematically targeted for silencing here in the US, from DNS attacks on its website to being banned from the NYSE (one, two, three). The trend continued at the Democratic convention, where al-J was forbidden to show its logo on its skybox (unlike other media outlets). The RNC, however, had no problem. Kudos to the RNC, and shame on the Democrats.

liberty is hard

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:14:00 +0000

This post at UNMEDIA both summarizes the Tariq Ramadan visa affair and also makes abroader case for its implications on the Bush Administration's view of the muslim world. It's a length essay which ultimately makes a case for John Kerry rather than Bush, from a Muslim-American perspective rather than an artificial "good of the Ummah" one.

MWU interviews Tariq Ramadan

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:46:00 +0000

MWU's Ahmed Nassef scores an exclusive interview with Tariq Ramadan. To get a taste for his moderation, here's one Q and A about the French ban on headscarves:

MWU!: Explain the differences in how the hijab controversy is viewed in Europe as opposed to the US. In France, it seems that most liberal and progressive non-Muslims very much support the law and see it as a protection of secularism.

Tariq Ramadan: Actually, this is an especially French phenomenon, because of the country's very specific history. When you look at the 1905 Reference Law, you find that there is no problem for Muslims to live as Muslims in France. We say that France should just implement this law and enforce it strictly and equally. But this new law is a step backward. In 1989, the State Council said there is nothing in the scarf which is against secularism. We have to be careful about those using secularism as an ideology, confusing secularism with no religion at all. The atmosphere in France is very passionate, as if we are touching the sense of French identity. Becaue there are more than 5 million Muslims in France, their presence raises questions about the future identity of the country. But if you go to other European countries, the scarf is less of an obsession.

I should point out that my position on the headscarf ban is more conservative than Ramadan's, in that I think it's a trampling of free expression. But my position is informed by my American identity, and my belief in the Bil of Rights (notable the First Amendment), which does not strictly exist in Europe. As Ramadan points out, Europe (and esepcially France) have a different concept of identity. Ramadan's work generally addresses Muslims in the West but his focus is on Europe, whereas my focus is on America. I respect his position therefore and concede that the headscarf ban may be acceptable to European muslims on the basis of French identity, but I'd be against it if it happenned here.

Tariq Ramadan: Us and Them

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:07:00 +0000

My last post on Tariq Ramadan's denial was one of only a handful in the blogsphere, but I think it's an important barometer of how off-the-rails our policies are at present. I often rail against the "vs." in the phrase "Us vs. Them" when it comes to domestic politics. But the broader (and quintessentially pragmatic) principle, of seeking alliances based on commonalities rather than strife based on (often artifically exaggerated) differences, applies to much more than election-year unity. Here's an interview with Tariq Ramadan where he goes into some detail on how "Us vs. Them" has harmed muslim integration in the West, by creating a false identity wich ultimately does more harm than good (hat tip: CMatt) :

You wrote in "To Be a European Muslim" that Muslims need to get past the us vs. them worldview, the old concept of Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world, opposed to the non-Muslim world (the Dar al-Harb, the House of War), and propose the new concept of a House of Testimony, a Space of Witness, available to Muslims anywhere.

That is exactly what I was saying about the way we are reading the text. Some Muslims are saying, "We are more Muslim when we are against the West or the Western values" -- as if our parameter to assess our behavior is our distance from or opposition to the West. They are promoting this kind of binary vision of the world that comes from a very long time back in the Muslim psyche. We have to get rid of this kind of understanding and evaluate if an act or a situation is Islamic or not, on the scale of the Islamic ethics and values per se, not against any other civilization

Our values are not based on "otherness." Our values are universal. We have to come to the understanding that it's not "us against them," it's us on the scale of our own values. This defines the place I live in. That is to say, my role in this world is to understand that I am a witness to the Islamic message before mankind. We need an intellectual revolution within the Muslim world. We are Muslims according to our spirituality and these universal values, and not against the West, not against the Jews, not against the Christians, not against secular people. The way I'm trying to re-read our texts is based on the awareness that this message is universal: that is why, for instance, the definition of our Muslim identity could by no means be a closed one against the others. This definition will help, God willing, in the way we deal with others.

The concept of Dar al-Islam is a hindrance today within the Muslim world. Even when we speak of Dar al-'ahd the House of Treaty, which stipulates that Muslims living as a minority among unbelievers should live peacefully but without truly joining these societies , it means peaceful coexistence but it also promotes this kind of binary vision, "us and them." It does not allow us to feel that we are part of the Western societies, that we are sharing with others our values and belonging.

This is perfectly in tune with what I've argued earlier - that when muslims argue that something is "good for the Ummah" they are abusing religion in the name of politics. The correct approach is not to validate that mindset (as Laura does in a piece that explicitly "justifies" voting as halal), but rather to denounce it outrght. Tariq Ramadan has the courage to do so, but that courage, and it's essential place in how we as Americans formulate our own response to the Islamofascist meme, goes not only unrewarded but punished. That's tragedy.

UPDATE: Paul Donnelly, writing in the conservative National Review, also lauds Ramadan for his courage. The article dates from 2002, however. Funny that the conservative establishment was in some ways clearer-eyed about Islam just after 9-11 than it is today.

Also, see Scott Martens's blog, A Fistful of Euros, for a detailed post and vigorous discussion in comments.

Tariq Ramadan denied visa

noreply@blogger.com (Aziz) — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:04:00 +0000

Tariq Ramadan is a controversial figure - that much we can agree on. Invited as a lecturer at the University of Notre Dame, his visa was suddenly revoked by the request of the US Dept of Homeland Security. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a lineage which most zealous Muslim-phobes equate to support of terror. However, Ramadan's life work is to espouse a basis of Muslim identity firmly rooted in Western ideals, and has written a book called "To Be a European Muslim" detailing that philosophy.

It is likely that the enmity towards Ramadan, despite his explicitly moderate message of tolerance and inclusion of muslims within the political and cultural mainstream, stems from his unwavering critiques of Israel's human rights abuses towards the Palestinians:

"What I'm saying as a Muslim is that when I criticize a policy, for example the Saudi policy or the Egyptian policy, I am not Islamophobic," he said.

"And when I am criticizing the policy of the state of Israel, of [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, I'm not an anti-Semite. It's just a political criticism."

That's not unfamiliar territory to me. His (Israeli-hyper-partisan) detractors such as Robert Spencer insist that Ramadan is a closet anti-Semite, though Ramadan has explicitly denounced anti-Semitism as an alien import to the Muslim mindset, urging Muslims to take heed of the moral tragedy of the Holocaust.

It's a tragic irony that the muslims most critical in bringing about cultural change in the Middle East and elsewhere, the potential saving bulwark against the rising tide of extremism, are lumped in with those they denounce. The reason is their refusal to denounce being muslim itself. Apparently, the only "acceptable" muslim is one who rejects the Qur'an as a divine text, Muhammad SAW as a prophet of God, and adopts a secular-fundamentalist approach to their "faith". Some are comfortable with this, others are not - count me among the latter. Tariq Ramadan is a hero to me and others like me who will always be a muslim and yet will not cede our right to be counted among the Men of the West.

UPDATE: via Brian Ulrich, I just discovered the blog Chapati Mystery, which also addresses the Tariq Ramadan issue in a nice post with useful links to more info on him via Muslim WakeUp! and Abu Aardvark.