April 19, 2008
United Arab Emirates has launched its national newspaper, The National. This is to showcase the oil sheikhdoms’ supposed progress and development. It is run by Westerners led by its Editor-in-Chief Martin Newland, formerly of London’s The Telegraph. About 200 journalists are on board, mostly from The Telegraph and other British and American newspapers and magazines, including The New Yorker.
As usual with the oil-rich Gulf Arabs, they think that by imitating the West, they are showing to the world how progressive they are. Having a newspaper with the biggest budget in the world and some of the West’s top journalists do not mean that the country has a great free press. Press freedom is certainly not guaranteed in a land where the money is kept by a small coterie of sheikhs, their relatives and their favorite Western friends.
And what kind of agenda will these Western journalists set in UAE and the Arab / Persian Gulf area?
FIRST OIL CRISIS
In 1973, in the last major Arab-Israel war, the Gulf Arabs led by Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal ibn Abd ul Aziz placed an embargo of oil shipments to the United States of America and other countries like the Philippines for their undying support for Israel.
That embargo made the world realize how powerful the Arabs were.
Unfortunately, King Faisal was assassinated by his nephew who was allegedly brainwashed by the CIA. Without King Faisal’s leadership, the Arabs easily fell to the charms of the Western world.
Oil prices skyrocketed and the era of cheap oil came to an end.
And the poor nomadic Gulf Arabs (bedouins) found themselves awashed with petro dollars beyond their wildest imagination. Of course, this was all orchestrated by what was then called The Seven Sisters – the seven major oil companies in the world then – SOCAL, GULF OIL, TEXACO, MOBIL, BP (British Petroleum), ROYAL DUTCH-SHELL, and EXXON.
FROM RAGS TO RICHES
In the first half of the 20th century, the Gulf Arabs were the poor brothers in the Muslim world. They did not even have money of their own. They were using Pakistani rupees, and even old 18th century Maria Theresa silver dollars as legal tender.
The Egyptian government was the one that used to clean and change the drapes of the Ka’aba in Mecca because the Saudi government could not afford them.
When ships leave Jeddah, young Arabs would stow away in hope of a better future. Many such stowaways found homes in Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao.
When my mother went to Mecca for the Hajj (Pilgrimage) in 1969, she said that the Saudis were selling their citizenship for FIFTY PESOS and there were hardly any takers. And of course, there was an Arab stowaway in their ship.
In 1973, the Gulf Arabs became instant millionaires. In the 1970s, I met a couple of Moros in Saudi Arabia who were so glad to discover that their Arab fathers came from very rich Saudi Arab families. I almost envied them for having poor, nomadic Arab forebears in what was now Saudi Arabia instead of my Arab forebear who was a world-traveling educated faqih (jurist) from the Sultanate of Lahej in what is now Yemen.
INVESTING IN THE WEST
Instead of investing in fellow Muslim countries, the nouveau-riche Arabs enjoyed their new-found treasures in the Western world. They poured huge sums of money in the US and Europe. They couldn’t care less about fellow Muslim nations like Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Malaysia and Indonesia.
They did not even invest in fellow Arab states like Egypt and Syria, the two countries who were fighting for the Arab cause.
PALESTINE
When Egypt’s Anwar Sadat realized that the newly rich Arabs would not even share their wealth to fellow Arabs, Sadat decided to make a separate peace with Israel. I do not fault Sadat for signing the Camp David Accords. He was thinking of the Egyptian people’s welfare first.
But because of Egypt’s peace treaty, Palestine became isolated. During the last Israel-Lebanon war, the Israeli and Western media described the Palestinian issue as if it was purely a Palestinian affair. Fighting a two-pronged war, Israel claimed to be fighting Hamas in Palestine and Hexbollah in Lebanon. It claimed to be fighting against organizations and not nations. Israel and Western media were at pains to point out that it was not an Arab-Israel war.
At first, some Gulf Arab leaders expressed support for Israel but when the Arab people saw on Al Jazeerah TV what was actually happening in Lebanon, they were incensed and the Arab leaders had no choice but to call for a stop to Israeli aggression.
IRAN – IRAQ WAR
With the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, the US prodded the Gulf Arabs to fight Iran. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein thought that with US arms and the rich Gulf Arabs’ money, he could beat Iran. The Arabs were very wrong. The Iranians proved to be a resilient and strong nation.
Like Sadat before him, Saddam Hussein complained that he was doing all the fighting but the Gulf Arabs were not giving enough money. When he went to Kuwait, a former province of Iraq, the Gulf Arabs called on Uncle Sam to protect them.
Uncle Sam (care of George Herbert Bush) came to the rescue and as a result, the US now owns three-fourths of Kuwait and now has a military base in Saudi Arabia, the land of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
It must be noted that Mecca and Medina, the birthplace of Islam, do not belong to Saudi Arabia. They belong to all Muslims.
LAND OF ISLAM?
One of the titles of the King of Saudi Arabia is “The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques”. This young nation-state established by King Abdulaziz ibn Saud has amassed such wealth beyond the imagination of its founders – Sheikh Abdulaziz and the Wahhabi brotherhood. And its great wealth has provided for the livelihood of millions of people, especially non-Muslim people – the Americans, Europeans, Canadians and even Filipinos. It also now has thousands of American troops on its soil.
About a dozen years ago, after the First Gulf War, I met a Pakistani-American who was working with the American government. He told me that when he went to Saudi Arabia, at the Customs area, the inspectors opened his bag. He brought along a copy of the Qur’an and reading materials. To his surprise, the Saudi guard looked at him suspiciously and asked him to follow him (the guard) to a room nearby. In the room, there was another officer. The guard showed the officer the contents of the bag, especially the book by Iqbal. The guard, who was a Pakistani, just shook his head and let the Pakistani-American go.
The Pakistani-American was so shocked that in the land of Islam, a man with a Qur’an and a book by Muhammad Iqbal would be considered “suspicious”.
In American and English minds, Muslims who read books by Muslim political thinkers like Iqbal or Qutb fit into the profile of a terrorist.
BIN LADEN and 9/11
The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is the “official” reason for Osama Bin Laden’s fight against the U.S.
Although Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi Arab and none of the Al-Qaeda members were Iraqis or Afghanis, America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation of the attack of the World Trade Center in 9/11.
And the leaders of the Gulf Arab states now find themselves entrenched on the side of the United States of America.
While America, UK and the “Coalition of the Willing” (which included the Philippines) went on killing Muslims, the nouveau-riche Gulf Arabs provided the US with millions of dollars to aid the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
WAR ON TERROR
While America, England and a handful of allies including the Philippines wage their War on Terror in different lands, killing and torturing Muslims of whatever nationality, the nouveau-riche Gulf Arab leaders are investing massive sums of money in the US and Europe, building huge skyscrapers in their cities and even creating media organizations and national newspapers – all managed and run by non-Muslim Westerners.
Filipinos have a saying that goes something like “He who forgets where he comes from will never reach his destination.” It would do well for the Gulf Arab leaders to ponder upon this thought.
=============
Related posts:
THE LEBANON-ISRAELI WAR THROUGH THE EYES OF CNN AND BBC
November 18, 2007
Below is an article I wrote for Mr. & Ms. magazine (November 2007)
*********************************************************
In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, fasting is a special form of prayer. The Jews fast during the Day of Atonement. Fasting for them is a way to ask God’s forgiveness and blessings. On their way to Jerusalem from Babylon, the prophet Ezra ordered every Jew to fast: “Then I proclaimed a fast, there by the river of Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before God to petition from Him a safe journey for ourselves, our children and all our possessions.” (Ezra 8: 21). Some Jews fast twice a week – on Mondays and Thursdays.
The early Christian Church followed the Jewish practice but did it on Wednesdays and Fridays in honor of Christ’s arrest and crucifixion. Later, fasting was practiced during the Lenten Season. Saint Athanasius wrote: “Behold the efficacy of fasting! It cures sickness, dries the excessive humors of the body, drives out evil spirits, dispels wrongful thoughts, gives the spirit greater clarity, purifies the heart, sanctifies the body and at last leads the person to the throne of God.”
The Muslims also follow the Judeo-Christian tradition of fasting. Practically all Major Prophets fasted for forty days and nights. The Muslims are also commanded to fast but being ordinary mortals, they fast only for thirty days (from sunrise to sunset). The tenth month (Ramadhan) of the Islamic calendar is the month of Fasting. This year, the first of Ramadhan falls on the 12th of September in the Gregorian calendar.
During the month of Ramadhan (about thirty days), Muslims abstain from food, drinks, sex, gambling and all ungodly acts from dawn to dusk. Evenings are spent on eating, socializing and praying. The evening prayers are held after dinner. The faithful attempt to recite all the verses of the Qur’an within the month of Ramadhan.
OBJECTIVES OF FASTING
According to Traditions: "Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said: ‘Whoever establishes prayers during the nights of Ramadan faithfully out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah’s rewards (not for showing off), all his past sins will be forgiven.’" (Hadith : Sahih Bukhari 1.36) This and other sayings from the Hadeeth (Traditions) emphasize that Muslims should fast and pray not because they are forced to, or would like to gain other people’s recognition or any other reason (such as a way to reduce weight) but because they truly desire God’s mercy and blessings.
Fasting has many objectives. One is that for a certain period of the year, all Muslims would feel the same hunger — be they rich or poor, young or old. For a rich man used to having a full breakfast and a 4 to 6-course lunch, fasting would be an ordeal. It is also a very trying time for smokers and womanizers.
But the main purpose of fasting is remembrance — of God. God says in the Qur’an: "Fadhkuruni adhkurukum" (Remember Me and I will remember you).
In Muslim-dominated societies like the Arab countries, Pakistan and Indonesia, Ramadhan brings all the citizens closer together. The Ramadhan good cheer is upon everyone. Even the office hours are changed. In Saudi Arabia, the working hours for some offices during Ramadhan are from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM with no lunch break.
And for the rich people, it is the time to share their wealth and give away their precious dollars or riyals.
TIME FOR GIVING MONEY
Once, when I was in Saudi Arabia, an Arab friend complained that after finishing the Ramadhan evening prayers, the fellow next to him handed him a suitcase full of money. The man requested him to give away the money as he was pressed for time and had to leave immediately. My friend was forced to stay in the mosque and give away the money to everyone who asked.
There was also a time during Ramadhan when my mother and her cousin went to the Masjid al-Haram, the Grand Mosque in Mecca. While waiting for the start of the evening prayers, a woman sat beside my aunt (she is not actually an aunt; i.e. sister of either of my parents, but it is usual in Moro society to call elder female relatives aunt or “babu”) and told her to vacate her place because the woman’s mistress, a princess, was going to sit there. Naturally, my mother and her cousin were incensed. My “aunt” told the woman that she would not budge because she was a princess, too. The woman was indignant but was forced to look for another place for her princess mistress.
After the prayers, the Arabian princess took out a big bag and started distributing money to the people around her. And the princess’s assistant came to my aunt — not to give her money but to ask for her prayer-carpet. She said it would be an honor to have a souvenir from a Mindanao princess.
THANKSGIVING
For Muslim minorities, Ramadhan reminds them of their distinct identity. This feeling binds them even closer. Children, even those who don’t fast, usually love to eat with the adults as there is always an air of Thanksgiving every "break-fast" time. As a child, I remember Ramadhan as the time of eating dates, a very sweet fruit of the date-palm (phoenix dactylifera).
In the Western concept of time-keeping, the day in the solar calendar begins a minute after midnight or 00:01 hrs. In the Islamic lunar calendar, the "day" begins at sundown. This is most evident during Ramadhan when the community "wakes up" after sunset, the time for breaking the fast.
Before breaking the fast, Muslims usually say a simple prayer that goes: “Oh Allah, I kept the fasting for Thy sake, and I break it with the food Thou hast provided.” Some families eat their dinner at sunset, while others prefer to take light meals first. Tables usually are filled with coffee, tea, bread, cheese, butter, pastries, fruits and the traditional Ramadhan fruit, the dates. It is customary for Muslims, especially the Arabs, to break the fast with dates and water. After the light meal comes the sunset prayer (Maghreb). Those who only had snacks earlier will then have their full dinner. After dinner, it will be time to go to the mosque for the long Ramadhan evening prayers.
In Muslim countries, the time to go for shopping is at about 10 pm, after the Ramadhan prayers. The cities and towns are usually teeming with people, all enjoying the good cheer after a day-long fast and evening prayers.
THE NIGHT OF POWER
According to the Qur’an, the Angel Gabriel first came to the Prophet Muhammad during the month of Ramadhan. This night is called the Night of Power (Layla-t-ul-Qadr). It is said that prayers offered during this night are equivalent to a thousand or more prayers. But nobody knows the exact date of this Night of Power. According to Islamic scholars, it is most probably during the last 10 days of Ramadhan.
After one month of fasting, the Muslims the world over celebrate the ‘Id al-Fitr, the Feast after the Fast or Thanksgiving Day after the fasting month of Ramadhan. This year, the ‘Id al-Fitr was on Oct. 12.
The ‘Id al-Fitr or "Hari Raya Puasa" as it is called in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Mindanao, is one of only two celebrations sanctioned by the Qur’an. (The other is the ‘Id-al-Ad-ha, or the Feast of the Hajj.) On this day, it is obligatory for all Muslims to go to the mosque for the Festival (’Id) prayers, preferably in one’s best clothes. It is also obligatory to give charity. It is customary for Muslims to open their houses to everyone, including strangers, for brunch, lunch, merienda cena or dinner. And the adults usually give the children money, which makes this occasion the favorite holiday of Muslim children.
NATIONAL HOLIDAY
Muslims the world over greet each other “Ramadhan Kareem” during the month and "’Id Mubarak" during the ‘Id celebrations. In Arab countries, the ‘Id is a 3- or 4-day holiday, while in other Muslim countries, ‘Id celebrations extend to two or more weeks. To improve ethnic relations in the country, Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo declared ‘Id al-Fitr a national holiday.
October 11, 2007
May Allah shower his blessings on the Muslims of the world, especially on the oppressed minorities!
October 2, 2007
( Happy Blessed Ramadhan! )
—————————————-
The main purpose of fasting is remembrance — of God. God says in the Qur’an: "Fadhkuruni adhkurukum" (Remember Me and I will remember you).
===============================
July 13, 2007
A CNN documentary titled Pakistan: Threat from Within hosted by CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson was aired six times on July 7 and July 8, 2007. The documentary hoped to prove that Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf is actually double dealing; i.e., he tries to appease both the terrorists and America and play them off against each other. Thus, instead of being an ally of America in its War on Terror, Pakistan may actually be a threat from within.
Is the CNN documentary paving the way for America’s eventual abandonment of its Number One Muslim ally; namely General Musharraf? Or was the documentary done in order to force the hand of Musharraf; i.e., to fight the militant “Islamists” more aggressively?
QUESTIONABLE TIMING
The timing of the documentary is uncanny. The documentary was shown on July 7 and 8, right in the middle of the standoff between the Pakistani government of Musharraf and the Red Mosque militants. And to top it all, the documentary featured the Red Mosque leader himself, Abdul Rasheed Ghazi.
Pres. Musharraf is under political fire. The modernist and moderate Pakistanis are up in arms because of the suspension of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. And with the Red Mosque standoff, the militant jihadists had thrown a direct challenge to Musharraf’s leadership.
CONTEXTUALIZING
The CNN documentary is not a newly made documentary. It is a hodgepodge of Nic Robertson’s reports on Pakistan and Afghanistan made previously. One segment was aired at CNN on September 12, 2006 as part of the CNN Newsroom reports while another was aired on September 27, 2006 as part of Anderson Cooper: 360 Degrees program. The Tanweer Shazad segment seems to have come from the YOUR WORLD TODAY program aired on July 14, 2005 while the nuclear weapons segment came from CNN NEWSROOM aired on October 11, 2006. (The transcripts of these shows are available at the CNN website).
The individual reports were not anti-Musharraf. For example, Robertson’s Sept. 12 report was an attack on the madrassas [1] (Islamic schools). Robertson was careful to say, “And Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf tried to crack down on the madrassas, but many defied him.”
The Sept. 27 report was about the difficulty of capturing Osama bin Laden while the Oct. 11 segment was aimed at the Korean nuclear program.
The July 7 documentary is a classic example of contextualizing. By providing the proper background or context, the otherwise neutral or pro-Musharraf reports was turned into an anti-Musharraf coverage. By “cutting and pasting” from past reportage, the documentary created a totally different scenario about the beleaguered Pakistani President.
MUSHARRAF THE GOOD GUY
After 9/11, President Musharraf became the darling of America and American media. He was portrayed as America’s foremost non-Western ally in its War against Terror. The media hype has been so great that Indians in America signed a petition to CNN protesting its pro-Pakistan bias. In the petition, “the concerned U.S. citizens/ residents of Indian origin” listed several arguments for CNN’s pro-Pakistan / anti-India bias.
The Indian-Americans reject CNN’s portrayal of “Musharaff as a Statesman” because, according to them,
“This military General who is the self appointed ‘Chief Executive of Pakistan’ came to power by overthrowing an elected government… Yet, CNN continues to pay obeisance to him and gives him more ‘face time’ than his counterpart, Mr. Vajpayee of India…”
With the Nic Robertson’s documentary, the Indians can now heave a sigh of relief. Musharraf has finally been portrayed as a “bad guy”
.
MUSHARRAF, THE BAD GUY
After 9/11, Musharraf was in an unenviable position. Being America’s Good Guy also meant becoming the Bad Guy for most Pakistanis and the rest of the Muslim world.
It was an open secret in the 1980s that America was arming the Afghani rebels and funding recruitment of rebels through madrassas in Pakistan. According to the introductory essay to the CIA and State Department microfiche collection Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 published in 1990:
“Literally days after the Soviet invasion, Carter was on the telephone with (Pakistani President, General) Zia (ul-Haq) offering him hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid in exchange for cooperation in helping the rebels…
The Reagan Administration was able to gain Pakistan’s confidence by offering a huge, six-year economic and military aid package which elevated Pakistan to the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid…
Traditionally, the Agency purchased foreign, usually Soviet-styled, weaponry in order to "plausibly deny" U.S. involvement if the need arose. Throughout the Afghan war, the CIA purchased Soviet-designed weapons from Egypt, China and elsewhere and transported them to Pakistan…
Congress ultimately provided nearly $3 billion in covert aid for the mujahidin, more than all other CIA covert operations in the 1980s combined. By 1987, the United States was providing the rebels with nearly $700 million in military assistance a year, more than what Pakistan itself was receiving from Washington.” (Available on the web:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/essay.html)
America was the absentee father and provider while Pakistan was the mother and nourisher to the Taliban and the mujahideen (which included Osama Bin Laden). Taliban is Arabic for students. The Taliban were the students trained in Pakistan by the CIA and Pakistani government to fight as mujahideen against the Soviets. As Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 showed, President George W. Bush hosted a Taliban official delegation to the US just weeks before the 9/11 event indicating the close ties between the Taliban and the American government. Then all of a sudden, Bush decided that Bin Laden was the Enemy and Taliban were his accomplices.
Musharraf was forced to give up his babies (the Taliban), whom Pakistan helped form and mold into leaders of their land (Afghanistan) yet surrogate sons to their Mother Pakistan. At first, Musharraf tried to negotiate good terms for them like being part of the new Afghani government.
WRONG PREMISE
The documentary seems to be working from a wrong premise; i.e., that Pakistan is or was a firm believer in America’s War on Terror. Pakistan or its President-General was at best a reluctant ally and not a believer in Bush’s War on Terror at all. President General Musharraf simply followed the footsteps of President General Zia ul-Haq. The Taliban were sacrificed for political expediency.
And the US government knows that Musharraf is doing a balancing act. That is why, like the Carter and Reagan administrations, Bush showered Pakistan with money and military aid. The above-mentioned Indian-American CNN petition says that “Musharraf received one billion dollars of US taxpayer money.”
REACTION FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE
The CNN documentary naturally raised the ire of many Pakistanis. One angry Pakistani engineer blogger raises 4 issues. First, he wonders why Robertson blames Pakistan and Pakistani madrassas for the actions of 23-year old Tanweer Shahzad, who was born and bred in Britain, and supposedly committed a terrorist act there. The blogger says that Robertson should blame British education and current British situation for the actions of a British citizen and not the few months that he spent in a Pakistani madrassa.
Second, he is appalled by Robertson’s insinuations that the Qur’an is the only thing taught in madrassas and that “the Holy Quran is responsible for the fundamentalist thinking of students.”
Third, as to the allegation that the Pakistan army is training the Taliban, he asks, “who financed Taliban and Osama during 80’s and 90’s?”
Finally, he wonders what Kashmir has to do with America’s War on Terror. He then asks, “Doesn’t he (Robertson) sound like an extremist?
Another blogger, a Pakistani-American was furious and called the documentary “a complete factual mistake”. He vented his ire on Robertson, who he said had done several false reports before which he described in his blog post.
The blogger was so incensed by the fact that the people arrayed against Musharraf; namely, Pakistani journalist Amir Mir, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul and Red Mosque imam Abdul Rashid Ghazi were / are the very people who are fighting Musharraf and America’s War on Terror.
Gen. Hamid Gul, he says, “ is one of the strongest supporters of the Taliban that ever existed, with the Asia Times dubbing him the ‘Godfather of the Taliban’, and providing comprehensive understanding of where his support lies.”
As for the Red mosque leader, the blogger says, “ it is blatantly obvious that he is a terrorist, bragging about his meetings with Osama bin Laden and his ridicule of the Musharraf government.”
Like the engineer blogger, he questions Robertson’s depiction of Tanweer Shahzad. He wrote: “Be clear here: British born, British raised, British educated, turned extremist in Britain, but because of a 3 month trip to Pakistan; Pakistan is the hub of terrorism in the world.”
VALID CRITICISMS
The bloggers’ concerns appear to be valid on its face. For example, about the madrassas, here is the transcript:
NIC ROBERTSON (voice over): It’s late, 10:00 at night. We’re uncertain about what we’re witnessing. Are these devoted and peace-loving students of Islam? Or is it a school where students gravitate to terrorism?
“We are in Lahore, Pakistan. Dozens of children, some only five, are painstakingly memorizing every word of the Koran, every word. It can take years.
(on camera): These children begin their studies at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning. They get a break for breakfast around 8:00 a.m. Then they go back to their books. They get a break for lunch, then studying again all afternoon. A long break in the early evening, and then back to their books again.
(voice-over): But is this about love, love of Islam or hate, hate for the U.S. and the West?
(on camera): Extremists could try to recruit young men from here?
Robertson then introduces Ghazi, the Red Mosque imam recently killed in the gun battle between students and the Pakistani army:
“This man, Mullah Abdul Rashid Ghazi, runs some of the largest anywhere. He says he met Osama bin Laden and describes himself as being ideologically close to the world’s most wanted terrorist. In fact, he says jihad, war with oneself and one’s enemies, a holy war, is part of the Koran, so he must teach it.”
Any non-Muslim watching the documentary would be led to believe that the young boys and girls in madrassas are taught nothing but the Qur’an, which includes (rather, emphasizes) jihad or holy war and whose mentors are like Ghazi, the radical leader of the Red Mosque who had met Osama bin Laden, his ideological brother.
In his interview with Ghazi, Robertson says:
“In the 1980s the madrassas launched graduates of holy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the 1990s madrassas produced leaders and soldiers for the Taliban. And since 9/11, they have incubated a growing hatred for the West, declaring the war on terror a campaign against all Muslims.”
Robertson conveniently did not mention the fact that these jihadist-producing madrassas were created and massively financed by the CIA and American governments in the 1980s and 1990s.
EFFECTS OF THE DOCUMENTARY
The documentary made ordinary middle class Pakistanis like the engineer blogger to become more anti-US; while, pro-US and pro-Musharraf Pakistanis like the Pakistani-American blogger to become angry at American media at the least or turn anti-US at the most. The documentary would confirm to most of the world’s Muslims the anti-Muslim bias of America.
Ironically, the ones who would approve of the documentary would be the anti-US, anti-Musharraf people like the Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslims as the documentary serves their purpose – to make the Muslims angry at America and Musharraf.
(end)
[1] Madrassa means Islamic school.
Madaris is the plural form but I’m using
madrassas as the plural form following the usage in the documentary
SEE RELATED POSTS:
****************************************
****************************************
June 26, 2007
The New Renaissance according to Hassan al-Banna | # |
Current events, Socio-Political, Islam — jamalashley @ 6:12 pm
Looking over my computer files, I saw these notes from my graduate course in Islamic Political Thought. The article is THE NEW RENAISSANCE by HASSAN AL-BANNA From Political and Social Thought in the Contemporary Middle East Kemal H. Karpat (1968), ed., : New York: Praeger, pp. 118-122
(Note: Hassan al-Banna is considered by Bush, Blair, the CIA, FBI , MI-6 or whatever as one of the dangerous fanatical Muslim political thinkers of the 20th century.)
Hassan al Banna (1906-1949) founded Al Ikhwan Muslimin (The Muslim Brotherhood) in 1928, the largest and well-organized group in Egypt at that time. He was assassinated in 1949.
In this article, al-Banna expressed gladness at the new thrust of interest on Islam by Islamic writers, who previously had only praises for Western civilization. He noted that “voices are raised proclaiming the necessity for a return to the principles, teachings and ways of Islam, and taking into account the situation, for initiating the reconciliation of modern life with these principles, as a prelude to ‘Islamization.”
This development, Banna wrote, naturally “worried a good number of governments and Arab powers.” And these people blame “extremist organizations and fanatical groups.” This sounds familiar to today’s readers even if more than 50 years separate this article from today’s events.
Banna argued that the causes of this Islamic renaissance are: 1) failure of the West, 2) perfection of Islam and 3) “the development of social conditions between the two murderous world wars.
The failure of the West is due to its very materialistic viewpoint. The west has forgotten that “man does not live by bread alone.” According to Banna, “Man’s hunger grows from day to day: he wants to free his spirit , to destroy this materialistic prison and find space to breathe the air of faith and consolation.”
The second cause is the re-discovery of Islamic thinkers of Islam’s perfect principles.
And third, the development of Nazism and Fascism after WWI and their fall, which ended WWII, as well as the victory of Communism and Soviet Russia made Muslim thinkers go back to Islamic teachings and re-discover the validity of Islam and assert their right to freedom from colonial rule.
Al-Banna gave a very interesting “parable” where he wrote that the greatness of the three kinds of government – communist, dictatorial and democratic – is embodied the simple act a Muslim going to prayer. The communist “notion of equality and condemnation of class distinction and the struggle against the claim to property” are present when a Muslim enters a mosque. Bannas wrote that “the moment he enters, he realizes that the mosque belongs to God and not to anyone of his creatures…And when the muezzin calls ‘Now is the hour of prayer’, they form an equal mass, a compact block behind the imam.” There is a footnote which noted that “the imam referred to is a leader of prayer, and not be confused with the Shi’ite Imam, who is the supreme head of the community.[1]
As to its dictatorial flavor, the congregation bows only when the imam bows and moves only when the imam moves. On the other hand, when the imam “makes a mistake in his reading or in his actions, all those behind him – young boys, old men or women at prayer – have the imperative duty to tell him of his error in order to put him back on the right road during the prayer, and the imam himself is bound absolutely to accept the good advice, and forsaking his error, return to reason and truth. This is what is most appealing in democracy.”
Banna’s description above is exactly how I feel about Islam. Every time I see a church closed to parishioners, I wonder why they do that. Does their God entertain prayers only at certain times, such as when their priests are present? On the other hand, mosques are open 24 hours a day. As a child, I used to enjoy the feeling of being one with the community in praying, especially when saying ‘Amen’ aloud. Unlike in Christian churches where the front pews are reserved for VIP’s, the mosque has no such places for anyone.
And what really struck me about praying was when an imam commits a mistake. I have seen them in Saudi Arabia and in Mindanao. The members of the congregation immediately corrected the imam. In fact, in Mindanao, especially during the tarawi’, the members of the congregation even tell the imam to “speed it up.” This is the essence of democracy. I doubt very much if Christian parishioners would dare correct the mistakes of their priests.
Al-Banna was correct in saying that all the good things in communism, democracy and dictatorship can be found in the simple practice of Muslims praying in mosques.
The article went on to demonstrate the “excellence of Islamic principles.” Banna concludes by emphasizing that “Muslims must move toward a return to their religion” and assuring everyone that “far from receiving impetus from blind fanaticism, this movement will be inspired by a strong regard for the values of Islam which correspond fully to what modern thought has discovered as most noble, sound and tested in society.”
The article is well written, not too polemical and certainly not extremist.
June 2, 2007
Senatorial topnotcher Loren Legarda-Leviste must be very happy with the election results. After all, in spite of her (separated) husband’s incarceration (but recently released on bail) as a murder suspect and her vice presidential loss in the 2004 elections and the subsequent (and still on-going?) electoral protest, she still managed to top the senatorial race. Her performance is so overwhelming that even teammate Nikki Coseteng raised eyebrows when she learned that Loren got 99 % or even more than 100 % of the votes cast in several places. Talk about statistical improbability!
But what I am really concerned about is Ms. Legarda-Leviste’s civil status. Is she married? Divorced? Separated? Or single?
There is no divorce in the Philippines so she could not be a divorcée. Her marriage to Leviste, the former Governor of Batangas could not have been annulled by the Catholic Church because she was not married in the Catholic Church.
Her husband, Gov. Leviste, is still married to his first wife when he married Ms. Legarda. Governor Leviste reportedly converted to Islam and then took Ms. Legarda as his second wife.
Under Philippine laws, Leviste would be guilty of bigamy and concubinage. Apparently, the Levistes are invoking Shari’a or Islamic Law where polygamy is allowed. But is it allowed in the case of the Levistes?
In Islam, everything revolves around INTENT or NIYYAT. What was the intention of Gov. Leviste when he converted to Islam? Was it just to marry another woman? And what was his intention in marrying Ms. Legarda?
When the Governor converted to Islam, it was incumbent upon him to persuade his wife to convert to Islam, too. Failing that, he could divorce the wife and marry a Muslim. This was what the former heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali did.
But the Governor neither divorced his first wife nor married a Muslim. Instead, he got another Christian wife.
Presumably, the Governor married Ms. Legarda in Islamic rites. He could not possibly marry her in civil or Catholic rites.
A few Muslim Filipinos marry Christians in Muslim rites. This is very problematic. Common sense dictates that a non-Muslim’s marriage to a Muslim in Islamic rites could not be valid because in the first place, the non-Muslim does not believe in Islam. I believe that existing Islamic jurisprudence supports this assertion.
It is the same case as a Muslim married to a Christian in Christian rites. It would simply be void ab initio.
Since Ms. Legarda is not a Muslim, her marriage to Gov. Leviste might not be valid.
Gov. Leviste and Sen. Legarda are now apparently separated. How did they separate? Did they go to a Shari’a court or to a civil court?
The legal status of Sen. Legarda’s marriage to Gov. Leviste needs to be settled. Being a lawmaker, Sen. Legarda could not afford to be a law-breaker like her husband who is charged for killing his aide.
And since there seems to be an increasing number of Muslim-Christian mixed marriages, there is a need for a definitive ruling on this issue.
