Pilger is spot on with his definition of Americanism, especially the final sentence about a popular culture designed to distract and stultify the masses:
"Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a "pre-fascist era". Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. "Fascism" is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is "more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent."
This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent."
John Pilger, Have a Nice World War, Folks
Most of you have heard about the latest audio release by Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki (the audio and a response). In the past few years, many of those in the West who found immense inspiration in his audio series on the Lives of the Prophets, the life of Abu Bakr, and the Hereafter have become disillusioned with his transformation to a revolutionary supporter of Jihad.
One of the common arguments used against Awlaki is that he once espoused universalist messages of Islam (“Islam is peace”, “Muslims are against terrorism”, etc.) and then (after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), he transformed into the exact opposite. The argument continues that such a revolution of thought is a sign of instability and misguidance.
Regardless of where you may stand on his views, there is one point that we should all agree upon – an evolution of thought does not always indicate a deficient understanding of the truth.
Similar arguments are made against Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who took a somewhat inverted approach to Awlaki’s journey, going from a firebrand speaker, calling on Muslims in the West to disassociate themselves from the wayward mores of Western society, to an assimilationist, preaching a more tolerant message of Islam in the West.
I find many people negatively critical of individuals who go through intellectual renovations. The implication being that those persons who consistently stick to the same worldview have a more solid base and represent a more balanced frame of mind.
Nonsense.
These same people refuse to study and analyze thoughts and teachings espoused by anyone outside their outlook, fearful of diluting their ‘intellectual purity’. They claim that guidance can only come from their ‘authentic’ scholars and unabashedly reject all others as deviant.
The irony is that these folks are actually the ones on weak foundations since they’re too afraid to be intellectually challenged by foreign ideas.
Imam Ghazali is the most famous example of intellectual evolution, going from a more exoteric life as an Islamic judge (Qadi) to a more esoteric life of Ihsan and spiritual excellence. In the process, he embraced the challenges posed by other methodologies, such as contemporary philosophy (Falsafa) and extreme theology (Bataniyya, Mutazila).
Personally, I’ve never shied from reading works by authors outside my personal point of view. And in the process, I’ve come to adjust and reinvent my outlook, while always keeping my foundation fixed firmly on the fundamental principles of Islam.
Sure, some of my colleagues have been critical of my intellectual ebbs and flows but I personally find myself stronger in my convictions after having challenged them against countering ideas.
Not sure why so many people are afraid/critical of the maturation process of one's personal thought. I guess it's easier to stand behind the cover of select scholars, blindly regurgitating their words than to withstand the barrage of intellectual arrows in the battlefield of ideas.
I remember from days long past, trying to be the first to yell 'Shotgun!' in an attempt to get the front passenger seat. The one rule governing this childish antic is that one must *see* the car in order to win the position. So my siblings and I would quickly throw on our shoes and run outside, screaming 'Shotgun!' at the top of our lungs.
Of course, the fun of being in the front quickly subsided when we discovered that it was rather easy for our father to grab our ears when we were situated right next to him.
And so, it is with that quaint memory that I read the question posed by a brother who recently commented:
"who sits beside the husband in the car? wife or mother?"
My initial gut reaction would be to have them compete for it the old-fashioned way (by shouting 'Shotgun!'), but in case my mother won, that would make it easier for her to grab my ear for having the audacity to ask her to play this silly game.
So after some thought, I would have to advise my good brother to seriously consider setting things straight in his home.
My first advice is one that I got from Sh. Zulfiqar who taught that when you get married you must realize that you now have two fathers and two mothers. You must treat your spouse's parents as if they are your own parents. All this garbage of father-IN-LAW or mother-IN-LAW needs to be rejected. Her parents are your parents. Full stop.
When she sees you treating her parents with the same respect as your own, she will undoubtedly 'return the favor'.
Once that is established, the wife must then realize that complete respect is owed to the parents. So if and when a situation arises where the wife and the mother are at odds, it must be clear that precedence goes to the mother. Full stop.
If someone is to eat first, it will be the parent. If someone is to sit first, it will be the parent. If someone is to speak first, it will be the parent.
Obviously, I am simplifying the complex dynamics between relations, especially those living under the same roof (which I might add is *always* a bad idea). But the husband and wife must realize that both sets of parents are to be placed on a pedestal.
I'm assuming that the parent is not abusively tyrannical, trying at all costs to sabotage the marriage, and make the life of the child a living hell. In that case, serious counseling may be needed for all involved parties.
Such extreme cases are the exception.
The problem nowadays is that all too often, the newly married couple feels it's their God-given right to be independent. They desire to make their own decisions. The concept of the extended family, where parents played a vital role in the lives of the newlyweds, has become outdated. The wife feels challenged when the husband's mother is present. The husband feels emasculated when the wife's father provides input. Too much ego, not enough humility. Sadly, I speak from experience.
Instead of welcoming and embracing the wisdom of the parents with awe and respect, the couple views them with disdain and spite.
To be frank, the fact that such a question (of whether the wife or the mother should sit in the front) was ever allowed to be voiced reveals the enormity of the fundamental problem - the absence of parental respect. In an atmosphere loaded with respect for all four parents, such a confrontation would never arise.
The child always yields to the parent. Full stop.
And when such a recourse is taken with the intention of pleasing one's Lord, no matter what the damage it does to one's ego, it will only result in goodness and blessing from Allah (swt).
that although my Creator, the Lord of all that exists in the heavens and the earth, Who existed before there was anything and will remain after there is nothing, Who is in no need of my feeble self, descends all the way from the highest heaven to the lowest heaven *every single night* for the sole purpose of listening to my pleas, I refuse to descend simply from my cozy bed to the prayer mat on the ground beside it to avail His infinite mercy!
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the night remains and says: Who will call upon Me that I may answer Him? Who will ask of Me, that I may give him? Who will seek My forgiveness, that I may forgive him?"
I used to laugh hysterically whenever that question was asked of women who are NOT pregnant. And then after I'd wipe away my tears caused by the momentous foot jammed in the mouth of the questioner, I would proceed to feel bad for the questioned.
And man, would I feel bad for those women - the worst being when the lady is actually *trying* to get pregnant. Salt meet wound.
Why am I saying all this? Because I now know what those women feel like.
I jump in the car this morning and my carpool partner asks me:
"Bro, you must be feeling really sore this morning, eh?"
Puzzled by the question, I respond, "Sorta yeah. I had a nice workout last night and my knees are hurting a bit. But how'd you know? Were you also at the gym?"
"Naaah, I didn't go. I just figured you're sore cuz I smelled the BenGay* cream."
I replied, "Uhhmm. Actually, I'm NOT wearing any BenGay" while lifting my arms to smell my armpits.
And there it was. My very own 'Are you expecting?' moment. Only this time, I wasn't wiping away tears of laughter.
*In case you've never used it, BenGay is this pungent cream used for muscle pain that is made from dead rats, dirty diapers, and rotten milk.
That's six for those of you counting at home. All within a span of two months. All in (or close to) densely populated areas.
First there was the 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Haiti (1/12), then 7.0 Japan (2/26), then 8.8 Chile (2/27), then 6.4 Taiwan (3/4), then 6.5 Sumatra (3/5), and now 6.0 Turkey (3/8).
And of course the priests of our time, the scientists, are allaying people's fears by constantly telling us that earthquakes aren't on the rise according to their data.
"According to long-term records (which exist since about 1900), the U.S.G.S. expects that about 17 major earthquakes (magnitude 7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) will affect the world in any given year."
Sure the frequency may not be increasing but the location of these earthquakes, in populated areas, is definitely noteworthy.
"In an average year, the geological survey estimates that several million earthquakes occur around the world. However, many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes."
So how come the location of these recent earthquakes is not being considered in the analysis? These quakes aren't taking place in remote parts of the Pacific Ocean - they are affecting millions and millions of people.
So what to make of this?
Regardless of what one may or may not conclude from these earthquakes, there must remain a place for the Divine in any related discussion. The fact that God has been removed from our discourse of these 'natural phenomenon' exposes our lacking epistemology, which places value only on the observable while turning a blind eye to role of the sacred. Worse yet, when God is injected into any explanation of these earthquakes, the response invariably is drenched in mockery and derision.
I say that Muslims buck this unfortunate trend and bring back other-worldly considerations to this-worldly occurrences. As Muslims, who place our Creator at the epicenter (pun intended) of our lives, such a callous attitude must be outrightly rejected.
I have a feeling that many of us are fearful of being lumped together with the right-wing fanatics (such as Pat Robertson) who are extremely loud in condemning the victims as sinful and thus deserving of the 'punishment'.
But it needn't be the case that the role of God is solely as Punisher. It isn't either you make calls for the Armageddon or you remove God completely from the picture. These quakes can serve as a reminder of the raw power of God or that one day we will face the same fate as those who perished or a Divine call to arms to help those suffering in the wake of the tragedy or so on.
But one thing is for sure - explanations of and discussions on these events must not be devoid of Allah (swt), even if the only result is a burst of pure emotion culminating in a reminder that we all have come from Him and to Him we shall all return.
Well, this video is not technically a CNN report. It was produced by Suroosh Alvi of VBS.TV, but CNN is hosting Part 1 (Part 2 is here). So it's close enough.
Anyways, a friend forwarded me this video report and I must admit my ambivalence towards the overall tone. It's really geared towards the regular man on the street. The narrator takes extreme liberty in describing this most sacred rite in Islam, at one point comparing the crowds performing tawaaf to a mosh pit, but so be it. Such are the times we live in.
At the same time, he seemed generally apologetic in presenting the Hajj rites to his non-Muslim audience. For example, I found it odd how he expressed his concern that the airplane scene where all the passengers were chanting the Talbiyya made them look like a bunch of terrorists. Also, why did he mention the Filipino stewardesses and how they wished they were anywhere else in the world?
And when describing Madina, he talked about the camels and malls and oh yeah, there's also this cool looking mosque called the Prophet's Mosque. Huh? Isn't that the ONLY reason for going to Madina? And what about that tiny little detail of our Prophet (saw) being buried there? No mention. The stopover in Madina was all about getting into some 'meditative state'.
And since I'm all about picking on my brother Suroosh, it would've been nice if he had mentioned that the Ka'bah was built by Prophet Abraham (as). After all, he is the patriarch for the three main monotheistic faiths.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the flow of his piece, but I simply didn't care for his vibe.
He seems to have taken the Orientalist approach of communicating the Hajj experience to the Western public. He (and by extension, his audience) represent the world of sanity and civility while the millions of heathen pilgrims fill the role of the unsophisticated 'Other'. Clamoring on bus rooftops, jostling for position in front of the Kaaba, sleeping on the streets of Mina - these are the bedraggled masses hopelessly littering the sacred grounds of Mecca.
In addition to his questionable tone, I wanted to also make some corrections:
1. He says that video recording is strictly prohibited in the sanctuary of Mecca and so he secretly recorded his video footage and smuggled it out. Sure, if you're walking around with a huge camera on your shoulder, like those used by cameramen working for broadcast networks. But tiny digital cameras have become so ubiquitous that the Saudi authorities basically turn a blind eye. That's what allowed me to record this and this. And I recorded both videos in the open without any need for sneaking the footage out of Mecca.
2. The fancy high-rise hotels that shocked and disappointed the narrator are NOT solely for the super rich. In fact, most of the guests staying in those hotels are regular folks who are staying there via discounted rates afforded by their Hajj/Umrah group. And even for the regular guest (like me), the average cost per night ranges from $120 to $150 for a double room, hardly the scope of the rich and famous.
3. And our video host makes another mistake when he claims that the super rich take those rooms in order 'to pray from the confines of their rooms', as if to avoid the dirty company of the masses found around the Holy Mosque. That may be said of the Royal Palace, reserved for Saudi royalty and visiting dignitaries, that overlooks the Haram, but the pilgrims staying in the surrounding hotels have come from all around the world for the sole purpose of standing in front of the Ka'bah. Not sure who he met that was praying from within his/her hotel room.
Near the end of the second part, he describes the scene of pilgrims lining the streets in their makeshift tents and plastic mats as apocalyptic. Sure, I guess it may come off as a bit dreary and morbid from the confines of an air-conditioned bus. But in reality, when one moves away from the five-star accommodations afforded to pilgrims coming from the West and walks the streets with the 'regular' pilgrim, one only senses joy and elation. Thankfully, both times I was blessed to make the Hajj, I was able to get a taste of the more simplistic Hajj and I would most definitely not describe it as apocalyptic.
