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.
I’ve been recently listening to Sh. Imran Hosein and I must say that I find many of his teachings very much resonating with my personal thoughts. And so, as part of my ongoing contribution to the world, I will write up some posts summarizing a few of his lectures. Let me begin with a most beautiful explanation he has given of the first four verses of Sura al-Layl:
Consider the night as it veils in darkness, (92:1)
and the day as it rises bright! (92:2)
Consider the creation of the male and the female! (92:3)
Verily, you aim at most divergent ends! (92:4)
The night and the day are presented as two separate entities, followed immediately by a seemingly unrelated verse mentioning the creation of man and woman. It concludes with a proclamation that man (as he is commonly understood to be the subject of the verse) is full of diversity in his work.
In Sh. Imran’s understanding, the presentation of the day and the night is, in fact, directly linked to the creation of man and woman. As different as are the day and the night, so too are man and woman. The day with his sultry brightness is the period of toil and work. The night with her mysterious darkness is the place of cool comfort and serenity.
The day is naturally attracted to the night and the night to the day. When the day approaches the night, the skyline reflects the universal change in mood. The day calms himself in preparation for the night’s warm welcome. All the hustle and bustle found in the blazing heat of the day is brought to a soothing end.
As the day turns to dusk and the dusk turns to night, the tender embrace of the night overtakes the sluggish day. Once the day enters the night, he succumbs to her alluring influence and takes a backseat. The night reigns supreme within her domain.
And when the time comes for the day to leave, the night refuses to let him go quietly. She slowly releases the day, one ray at a time, until finally the day breaks free of her comforting grasp and goes back to work.
Presented as such, it becomes clear how the phenomenon of the day and night translates to the Quranic understanding of the relationship between man and woman.
What remains clear throughout this reading is that each of these creations of Allah (swt) are exceptionally unique. The day can never become the night (and vice versa) nor can man ever become woman (and vice versa). And if there was any doubt, the fourth verse puts it to rest by explicitly declaring that the functions of man and woman are separate. They are not to be confused nor mixed up. Just as the day and the night are complementary yet completely distinctive, so too are the roles of man and women.
Now let us see what would happen if the roles were to become distorted. If the night became the province of work (or other activities) with the day being used primarily for sleep, the result would be society-wide chaos. It's been proven, for the most part, that individuals working extended stints in the graveyard shift suffer a variety of medical conditions. Besides work, other types of nocturnal activities, in conjunction with the lack of sleep, undoubtedly result in lowered productivity and effectiveness. And finally Ben Franklin must have known what he was talking about when he coined the phrase ‘Early to bed, Early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.’ (smile)
Another noteworthy point in the interpretation of these verses is that neither the day nor the night can claim superiority – both are equally essential to maintain the natural balance. Only a fool would declare the day more important than the night. And only a vampire would declare the night more important than the day.
And so, one can easily deduce the Quranic view on claims of male (or female) superiority.
Many may question or even denounce such an unorthodox reading, but I found it extremely enlightening and very much in line with the ever-flowing wisdom found in the spiritually refreshing fountains of the Quran.
My friend Marc Manley responded to my recent post on the scourge of Secular Capitalist Islam for which I’m greatly honored. Its always nice to get critical feedback, whether in the form of comments on my blog, emails in my Inbox, or dedicated blog posts.
So I will respond to his response in kind – with a post of my own.
I will begin with a clarification, one that I feel is a bit unnecessary. I made overarching generalizations in my original post. I realize that. But it should have been clear that everything I stated is applicable to those cases where the ‘shoe fits’.
I am completely aware of the existence of American Muslims who are NOT giving in to the secular capitalistic way of life and are NOT willing to sacrifice any Islamic principles in the molding of their American Muslim identity. They have not deceived themselves into believing in the validity of the Secular Capitalist Islam that I spoke of so critically. They are not the target of my critique.
Did I really need to explicitly state that? I guess so.
Now, let me address the contentions of the good brother, beginning with his comparison of American Islam in its infancy to the growing pains that Muslims must have gone through in ‘traditional’ Muslim outlets such as Egypt, Morocco, or Pakistan.
“It is very easy and convenient to think of Egypt as a Muslim country now, but what was Egypt’s transition like, from a non-Muslim polity to a Muslim one? What struggles did Egypt have to go through to negotiate this transformation? Even to this day, there are folk holidays still in practice such as Shams an-Nasim.”
In my original post, I alluded to this point when I stated that “[American Islam] is NOT Islamic with simply an American twist, like what may be found in China or Indonesia or Africa – those instances of Islam were never born in such a hostile environment (to Islam in specific and religion in general), necessitating great conciliatory gestures from its followers”.
I am convinced that when Islam was introduced in the cases that I mentioned as well as Marc’s examples it was a completely different experience than what we are witnessing in America. The power politics were simply not the same, which makes the comparison between then and now as day and night.
Historically, Muslims never entered into a land except as victors. They never suffered from inferiority complexes. They rode into those lands with their heads high and their core values even higher. The indigenous non-Muslim masses were scrambling to adopt the ways of the Muslims in order to “jump on the bandwagon” of the winning side.
Need I ask, who is jumping on whose bandwagon nowadays?
And in those rare cases, where they were not the conquering force (e.g. Indonesia), they were not entering a hostile environment, where their beliefs were being demonized and their traditions were being belittled. Theirs was a pre-modern time where principled religious beliefs were celebrated and embraced, in stark contrast to the current-day atmosphere which finds an anti-religion secular worldview proudly boasted in America.
In such challenging circumstances, where not only Islam, but religion in general is under attack, how can American Islam be nurtured and allowed to blossom *on its own terms*? In such a charged environment, where American Muslims are told to choose a side, how can American Islam genuinely develop its own character? It is naïve to remove the political context from the equation when analyzing the introduction of Islam into new lands.
The other point that Marc brought up was the typical counter-argument presented whenever Muslims in America are criticized – “Well, look at the Muslims in [choose any Muslim country]. They’re even worse than us!”
Living here in Riyadh, I’ll be the first to admit that crass consumerism has hit the shores of Saudi Arabia in a disgusting way. And sadly, this is the case all over the Muslim world. Muslims are falling over each other to talk, walk, dress, and act like their Hollywood heroes. The ‘tradition’ of the West, as glorified in the media and the web, is being replicated all over the Muslim world.
But the key difference is that Muslims in these lands are not sacrificing their Islamic identity in pursuit of this hollow lifestyle. As repulsive as it may be to see Muslims opting for gaudy Bentleys and Guccis, jet-setting in Europe, and clubbing in Dubai, no one is attempting to incorporate these social mores into a new flavor of Islam.
And that is my greatest fear – an Islam that has taken such conciliatory steps in order to assimilate with its adopted culture that it has sacrificed core Islamic principles.
Yes, all the illnesses found in American Muslims are becoming apparent in Muslims around the world. But these other Muslims are not in the formative stage of their Islamic identity, this most critical stage in the development of a child, a people, or a civilization. These other Muslims have centuries of Islamic tradition to fall back on, when faced with a philosophical crisis. These other Muslims have Islamic institutions built on principles of truth, not compromise. These other Muslims never had to concern themselves with conflicting loyalties between their adopted nation and their deen.
What of the American Muslims?
As I was coming into my personal Islamic awareness many years ago, I was convinced that the light of Islam would reignite itself from within America, similar to how Prophet Musa (as) was raised and reared in the house of Pharoah. Back then, I viewed the Muslim world as backwards and in need of serious guidance – which American Muslims, stripped of cultural baggage and historical hiccups, would readily provide them.
But recently, I’ve begun to feel serious disillusionment with this entire “American Islam”* project.
Maybe it’s all the desperate talk of Islam being compatible with western democracy, which is in actuality a crooked corporatocracy.
Maybe it’s the post 9-11 lulling that saw so many Muslims tone down their stance against American's secular hedonistic ways and imperialistic aspirations out of fear of sounding unpatriotic.
Maybe it’s the unfounded need by American Muslims (under immense pressure from MSM and the American military industry) to constantly denounce terrorism and the unfortunate extension of this condemnation to now include Islamists, who, although having never partaken in acts of terrorism, have nonetheless incurred their wrath.
Maybe it’s the convenient acceptance by many American Muslims of principles of gender relations as understood by Western society, relegating centuries of Islamic tradition on the role of men and women to history’s dustbin.
Maybe it’s the glaring dilution of the Islamic concept of Jihad, or worse, its deliberate suppression altogether.
Maybe it’s the callous attitude of American Muslims striving for the American dream while participating in a system that is ravaging the entire world, politically, militarily, economically, and environmentally.
Maybe it’s the unquestioning adoption of capitalistic maxims which finds American Muslims enslaved by their struggles for better jobs, bigger homes, and nicer cars – all the while claiming to be adhering to the Sunnah of our Prophet (saw).
Whatever it is that’s causing my unease, my dear brother Yursil captured my feelings quite well with his recent posts on Suburban Capitalist Islam (Part 1 and Part 2). While he didn’t address all my grievances, he did well to introduce a long list of oddities found in American Islam.
I particularly like his characterization of American Muslims as naively accepting of their adopted culture, as long as it doesn’t outwardly contradict any Islamic teaching. This includes the whole McDonalds, blue jeans, and Hollywood outlook of American culture. The widely accepted view is that American Islam can be formulated by simply weeding out the haram components of American culture and freely embracing what remains.
The problem is that the ethos of these remains is not Islamic.
The result is not American Islam, but a twisted version that I prefer to call Secular Capitalist Islam (taken from Yursil's term 'Suburban Capitalist Islam'). This Islam is primarily American, with an Islamic veneer, not the other way around. It is NOT Islamic with simply an American twist, like what may be found in China or Indonesia or Africa – those instances of Islam were never born in such a hostile environment (to Islam in specific and religion in general), necessitating great conciliatory gestures from its followers:
Change can only come about by way of assimilation and integration - otherwise, we will be deemed foreigners, anarchists, or terrorists.
The interest-based banking system is too entrenched to be questioned – the best we can do is minimize our exposure.
The educational system is our fast-track to success, regardless of any negative socio-intellectual repercussions.
Mixing politics with religion is taboo.
Scaling the corporate ladder is the only way to prosperity.
Gluttonously living beyond our means is completely acceptable.
All technological advances must be blindly embraced, regardless of socio-spiritual impact.
All forms of entertainment (adapted to Islamic mores, of course) are a necessary release from the pressures accumulated in daily life - this includes movies, music, sports, vacations, etc.
Environmentalism is about reducing our ecological footprint, not reducing our consumption.
These are the views underlying Secular Capitalist Islam, the core of which is fundamentally at odds with the Quranic worldview. And no amount of window dressing can alter this reality.
Just like most everything else in American culture, we’ve opted for the drive-thru version of actualizing Islam in America. Our instant recipe consists of slapping on a hijab or growing a beard, implementing the personal acts of worship, meekly presenting Islam to our friends and coworkers, and attending feel-good weekend Islamic programs, all the while diving headfirst into the American way of life.
And yes, I am aware of the American Muslim mantra that we have greater religious freedom in the West than our counterparts in the Muslim world. That may be true. And if it is, it makes the sin of Secular Capitalist Islam even more egregious. For instead of using this freedom to become moral leaders in the West and challenge the status quo, American Muslims have chosen passivity and integration, fearful of the repercussions of speaking out.
Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the declaration of Tauheed and rejection of Taghut?
Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the proclamation of love for the Prophet (saw)?
Sadly, Secular Capitalist Islam has replaced these sacred endeavors with the very profane struggle for the American dream.
In part 2, I want to discuss the legacy our children will be inheriting from us, the founding fathers of Secular Capitalist Islam.
==================
*I place the term in quotes because I’m not comfortable with creating varying flavors of Islam, but since the term is commonly used by so many American Muslims, I’ve stuck with it.
In my constant struggle to raise my children in this very chaotic world, I have found myself consistently battling the fitnah of the television. I simply haven't had the fortitude to throw it away.
Pathetic, I know.
When we were in the US and my two older kids were younger, we didn't have cable, so they would only watch PBS cartoons and animated movies (I am scarred for life after watching 'Spirit' 10,000 times).
Then we moved to our compound here in KSA where Cartoon Network and Disney Channel were freely available. So the kids began watching a variety of cartoon shows (without those dreaded commercials that are often worse than the show itself).
You see, I've always restricted my children to only watching animated cartoons, never allowing them to watch sitcoms or movies with real actors. That was my way of restricting the influence of television.
Or so I thought.
When I started seeing the content of the cartoons they were watching, I became extremely disgusted. Shows like Kim Possible had the lead character, a female tween who moonlighted as a spy, always sporting a croptop, exposing her midriff while struggling with a dorky family and typical boyfriend issues.
Another popular show, Ben 10, made light of the constant bickering between the lead character, Ben, and his cousin Gwen. They would regularly insult each other and try their best to get the other in trouble - unfortunate traits that soon began to manifest themselves in my two older kids.
I realized that the good ol' days of the Smurfs, Transformers, and Voltron were long gone.
So, I decided to turn off the TV and replaced it with a weekly movie. I would get the latest Pixar or Disney movie on DVD and make it an event with pizza and ice cream. Can't go wrong with that, eh?
Yeah, right.
While I always realized that these feature films had underlying messages, I never considered them to be so pernicious. Probably because I was older when I began watching them (we never watched such animated films in my childhood) and simply laughed off the silliness of every woman finding her white knight.
However, I am now faced with my young impressionable children being exposed to extremely questionable morals subtly injected into these supposedly innocent cartoon movies.
Like the film, Shark Tale, that glorified the vegetarian shark choosing his alternate lifestyle and 'coming out' as a dolphin. Or Mulan's defiant stance against authority. Or the racial stereotypes like the Arab accent of the villains in Aladdin (while the good guys had normal American accents) and the hyenas in Lion King voiced by an Afro-American and Latino.
I think it naive on my part to assume that my children will not be negatively affected by these messages.
For example, almost every animated movie revolves around some love-story component. Do I need to expose my daughter to such fantasies, where the pinnacle of every girl's dream is to find her prince charming? Do I want my son to believe that adult authority is inept and always to be questioned - even rejected, as portrayed in almost every one of these animated movies?
So I've decided to boycott all animated cartoons and films. No more Cartoon Network. No more Disney. No more Pixar.
Instead, I've found another alternative: family movies from the 60's and 70's. I just shared that old classic 'Escape to Witch Mountain' with my kids and they really liked it.
Until I finally throw away the boob tube, I guess that's the closest I'll find to wholesome entertainment.
There are no coincidences in life. None whatsoever. Every single event takes place for a reason.
A few days ago, I posted about the unfortunate loss of my wife's purse, which contained, among other items, her two credit cards.
Then today, I was listening to a lecturer talking on Riba (Interest/Usury) present his argument against keeping credit cards. And I must admit, to date, his argument has been the most effective one I've heard:
When signing up for a credit card, we all agree to pay the interest fees in case the full balance is not paid off after the first month. Many Muslims (including yours truly) convince themselves that everything is halal as long as the payment is made before the end of the month.
But in essence, would we ever sign a similar contract that required us to drink a glass of beer at the end of the month if we didn't pay the credit card balance?
Worse yet, would we ever sign a contract that required us to fornicate with our neighbor's wife if we didn't pay the credit card balance?
In reality, the contract we are signing with the credit card company is much worse than the above examples. So how can any sane Muslim ever sign the dotted line on a credit card contract?
Simple, yet powerful.
And with that short lesson I am able to connect a few more dots in my life. The loss of the credit cards combined with the effect of the lecture has inspired me to be rid of these shiny plastic devils once and for all.
Life is a series of dots, each one representing an event, each one representing a special moment. Memories are made up of these dots, be they blissful, heartbreaking, or both.
Special is the one capable of connecting some of these dots. Like when a child barely capable of holding a pencil accomplishes the feat, connecting two or three dots results in pure joy.
What then of the select few who are able to make complete pictures from these dots and glean true meanings of life? Ya Allah!
Here, then, is my humble tale of connecting a few dots in my life. Maybe one day I shall be able to make something from these various connections dispersed throughout my life that resemble a picture.
But for now, I simply get giddy when I connect a few lonesome dots.
---
It all began with a harmless donation of 200riyals (~$50).
My friend from Madina was on a quick weekend trip to Riyadh and hadn’t brought sufficient pocket money. I suggested he take the 200riyals for his immediate needs and upon his return to Madina, he could donate it to his Sheikh, who looks after the needs of over 50 destitute families in Jeddah. With that condition, he happily accepted.
Fast forward a couple hours.
My wife had gone out to a local mall where unfortunately her purse was stolen. Seems like a group of young abaya-clad girls rushed into the store where my wife was shopping, causing a commotion of sorts, and rushed back out, in the process conveniently taking her purse as it hung off the back of the stroller.
Needless to say, everything was lost.
Included in the damage was my wife’s phone, which had a pre-paid balance of 1,300riyals. While we immediately cancelled the credit cards and ATM cards, we weren’t able to cancel the phone SIM chip. The SIM card wasn’t under my name, so I was told to come in-person to the local STC (Saudi Telecom Company) office. Unfortunately it was 8pm and they would only open up the next day at 4pm.
My immediate response was to write off the 1,300riyals as, I figured, any small-time pick-pocket surely knows how to transfer the balance to another phone number. Either that, or they would use the bulk of the balance to make international calls and what not.
So you can imagine my pleasant surprise when I walked into the STC office the following day and found the balance untouched. They quickly issued a new SIM chip with the 1,300riyal balance.
1,300riyals were miraculously rescued from the debris of the purse-snatching fiasco.
Or so I thought.
“Or who is there that can provide you with Sustenance if He were to withhold His provision?” (67:21)
The Prophet (saw) stated “…and the Rizq is fixed. Nothing will take place before its due time, and nothing will be deferred beyond when it is due.”
The following day, I went to my HR department to request new health insurance cards for my wife and 4 kids. 200riyals a pop they told me. Stunned, I asked why in the world is it so expensive to print some cheap plastic cards?
Fraud was the answer. Many employees report lost or stolen cards while passing them on to relatives or friends who use the cards to avail medical services they are not entitled to (most hospitals don’t ask for picture IDs – I bet they knowingly turn a blind eye, preferring the guaranteed insurance money over turning away a fraudulent patient).
So, I had to pony up 1,000riyals for the insurance cards. Oh well - you gotta do what you gotta do.
I then went to the two banks to have them re-issue the ATM cards. They told me that the charge for it would be 50riyals. A bit pricey for a small plastic card, but clearly more reasonable than the insurance card. So I didn’t argue too much.
And that’s when it struck me and a few dots seemed to connect.
With the combination of the insurance cards, ATM cards, and the donation, that 1,300riyals was simply not meant to be in my pocket. My sustenance (rizq) has been predetermined and this amount was going to leave my hands one way or another.
Just as it is said that your rizq will run after you like death (and so, the teaching goes, there is no point in running after it), it can be equally stated that it will run away from you in a similarly guaranteed fashion.
Today, I stand before you as living proof of that.
It's all about rebranding.
According to this excellent piece by Naomi Klein, the American corporatocracy, after taking a major global PR beating during the Bush years, rebranded itself with Obama.
Just like Blackwater renamed itself Xe after the numerous scandals in Iraq, the sole imperial power in the world decided it too needed a major face lift. And Obama was exactly what the plastic surgeon ordered.
"When Obama was sworn in as president, the American brand could scarcely have been more battered - Bush was to his country what New Coke was to Coca-Cola, what cyanide in the bottles had been to Tylenol. Yet Obama, in what was perhaps the most successful rebranding campaign of all time, managed to turn things around."
"So, it seemed that the United States government could solve its reputation problems with branding - it's just that it needed a branding campaign and product spokesperson sufficiently hip, young and exciting to compete in today's tough market. The nation found that in Obama, a man who clearly has a natural feel for branding and who has surrounded himself with a team of top-flight marketers. His social networking guru, for instance, is Chris Hughes, one of the young founders of Facebook. His social secretary is Desirée Rogers, a glamorous Harvard MBA and former marketing executive. And David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, was formerly a partner in ASK Public Strategies, a PR firm which, according to Business Week, "has quarterbacked campaigns" for everyone from Cablevision to AT&T. Together, the team has marshalled every tool in the modem marketing arsenal to create and sustain the Obama brand: the perfectly calibrated logo (sunrise over stars and stripes); expert viral marketing (Obama ringtones); product placement (Obama ads in sports video games); a 30-minute infomercial (which could have been cheesy but was universally heralded as "authentic"); and the choice of strategic brand alliances (Oprah for maximum reach, the Kennedy family for gravitas, and no end of hip-hop stars for street cred)."
So with a few minor cosmetic touch-ups (announcing the closure of GitMo, assigning first female Latina to Supreme Court, ceasing usage of 'war on terror' terminology), the Obama administration has seemingly undone all the damage of the Bush years.
The reality is "that Obama played the anti-war, anti-Wall Street party crasher to his grassroots base, which imagined itself leading an insurgency against the two-party monopoly through dogged organisation and donations gathered from lemonade stands and loose change found in the crevices of the couch. Meanwhile, he took more money from Wall Street than any other presidential candidate, swallowed the Democratic party establishment in one gulp after defeating Hillary Clinton, then pursued "bipartisanship" with crazed Republicans once in the White House."
Who was it who said that as much as things change, they stay the same?
I recorded this short clip as I was walking out of the Haram this past weekend. I couldn't pass up the shot of these workers washing the floor of the Haram with the Ka'aba in the background.
(I tried embedding the video directly here, but no go. Will keep trying. In the meanwhile, sorry for that extra click.)
My father never really beat me. When upset with me, he would either grab my ear and squeeze really hard or force me into the murghi (chicken) position.
(What’s that? You’ve never heard of the murghi? Oh you poor, deprived non-Desi soul. This quaint punishment imported from the Indian subcontinent requires the trouble child to squat down, loop arms under the knees, and grab hold of the ears - Hold position until father finishes eating dinner, wakes up from nap, or just forgets about you.)
So, I’ve never really considered any type of corporal punishment on my children. I would normally yell at them until they obeyed and if that didn’t work, I would resort to taking away some privilege (ie. grounding). For the most part, that worked with my older 11yr old daughter and my 9yr old son.
However, in the past year or so, Humza’s been getting a bit rebellious and isn’t too bothered with losing his privileges. He’s quite strong willed and if need be, he’s willing to sacrifice playing video games or going out in order to get his way. He’s slowly lost respect for our authority and has even had the gall to talk back a few times.
This had to stop. Immediately.
So, in the midst of one of these spats, he went too far and I decided enough was enough. I took him into the bathroom, laid him over my laps, and smacked him on his behind. His reaction? He let out an is-that-all-you-got? chuckle. I got even more upset and hit him as hard as I could. Nothing. His butt was simply too thick. I ended up stinging my hand with no effect whatsoever on the chubby offender.
After that mishap, I decided to simply start hitting him on the back of his hand whenever he would upset me or his mother.
But, his attitude wasn’t changing. In fact, I noticed him getting worse.
So I did what I should have done from the get-go and starting researching the matter. I quickly learned that Muslims have no real thought-out plan on raising a well-disciplined child. Most scholars and teachers provide generic advice on how to cultivate a righteous child, but nothing exists (that I could find) that details how to specifically deal with a problem child.
But wow! There's a plethora of documentation on the Christian side. I mean, these folks have it down to a science. They offer multiple approaches in great detail with alternative steps for varying situations. Amazing stuff!
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Muslims know what they’re doing - they just haven’t institutionalized it. We don’t write about it in our books or teach it in lectures.
Muslims just aren’t into counseling as an institution. We’re simply told to deal with the problem (whether it’s a rocky marriage or a tantrum toddler or a pubescent teen or an in-family squabble) according to the Quran and Sunnah. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that just doesn’t cut it.
And so, I found much enlightenment on how to deal with a child from the vast collection of Christian books and websites on the topic.
1. The most important lesson I learned was consistency. Establish a rule and stick to it. Initially, I would yell out some random rule (“No more eating in the family room”) and never follow through with it. This led to the kids losing respect for my rules or simply unable to keep track of the latest rule. I now have fewer rules, but am unswerving in enforcing them.
2. Another essential concept is called First Time Obedience (FTO), which stresses that the child should obey the parent the first time they hear a command. The parent should never repeat him/herself. In repeating , the parent is implicitly stating that it’s ok NOT to obey the first few times – and that obedience is required only upon repetition or when an ultimate threat is given (“If you don’t listen, I’m going to ground you!”).
3. One should never raise their voice when asking the child to obey them. Again, the child is learning that the first few times when the request was made in a normal voice, he isn’t required to act – and obedience is only required when the parent begins to yell.
4. Drop the stupid counting to three tactic. When you ask the child something, your request should be serious enough to warrant immediate attention. By counting to three, you’re telling them that the initial request wasn’t to be taken seriously.
5. Stop with the crazy threats (“I will ground you for one year if you hit your sister again”). Say you what you mean and mean what you say. Follow-through is most critical.
6. Be ready to outlast them. Children are very keen on testing the parents to find their breaking point. If the child puts his foot down, be ready for a long staring match. If you give in, all what you’ve worked for will go down the drain.
7. In carrying out an order, the child must do so with a proper attitude. Grumbling and pouting while doing so is unacceptable and must be repeated, but with a better attitude.
When it comes to punishment, timeouts and groundings may be effective in some cases, but the stick must always be kept as an option. There’s so much negativity out there against physically disciplining one’s child. Clearly there is a difference between beating a child to a pulp and smacking them as a means of discipline. But all too often, both get thrown around as being forms of child abuse. That’s too bad because a properly placed smack can go a long way in dealing with a problem child.
Personally, I’ve begun to use a small stick with a quick smack to the back of the calf as their punishment.
And here is what I learned about the stick:
1. Never hit the child in a state of anger. Always be in control of your emotions. If you’re upset, walk away and come back when you’ve cooled down.
2. Let them understand that the punishment is a direct result of their action. No need to lecture. Just be clear that they understand how they broke the rules.
3. Never hit the child to hurt. The smack should be a deterrent from which they learn, not a scar that causes humiliation or hatred.
4. Never hit in front of others. The punishment is not intended to embarrass the child.
5. Never make play of the punishment or the stick. Nothing to do with it is a joke and the children must realize that it’s very serious.
6. Never hit with your hand. The hand should be seen as a part of the parent and should symbolize care and love. Using a small stick is ideal.
7. Fight the urge to hug or caress them after the punishment. Don’t tell them that this hurts you more than it will hurt them. The parent needs to be strong in establishing the importance of his/her order.
8. Of course, there are appropriate ages for implementing these punishments. You can't hit a 2-yr old toddler and if you're hitting a 16-yr old, it's probably too late.
All that being said, I can’t emphasize enough the need for a loving environment in which the child sees the parents smiling and playing with them more often than punishing them.
Finally, I like how the Christian perspective links the parent-child obedience to the God-man obedience. God doesn’t repeat or count to three or yell - He simply states a command and expects it to be followed. We try to constantly remind them that following our orders is but a subset of following the orders of Allah (swt).
For you news junkies out there, here's a nice list of top 10 stories that snuck under the radar this past year.
Personally, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of news I absorb each day, as so much junk is out there.
Yay for me for ditching HuffPo from my list of daily reads! That site has gone down the tubes in the past year, resembling more a tabloid than a viable alternative to MSM. Even with Google News, I focus only on the World news as other useless sections clutter up their front page (Entertainment, Sports).
I'm finding this gluttony of information that the Internet has afforded us to be very unhealthy for my spiritual state. Is that a poor reflection on me or on the dismal value of the news?
Probably a bit of both.
Mrs. Jenkins* ruined me.
I wish I had never learned how the sunrise is a result of the Earth's rotation.
I wish I had never learned that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates.
I wish I had never learned how rain comes from condensation of water vapor carried within clouds.
I wish I had never learned that lightning is the discharge of atmospheric electricity accumulated within clouds.
I wish I had never learned how seasons are a result of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
I wish had never learned about the body's immune system, white blood cells and all that other physio-medical-biological crap.
Can you imagine how much sweeter my faith in Allah would have been if I attributed all these natural phenomena solely to His direct involvement in my life, instead of viewing them as some bio-chemical reactions?
Every sunrise would be a reminder how Allah has 'pulled' this blazing ball of fire out from the horizon.
Every deluge of rain would be an instant cause to run to prayer thanking Allah for the blessing.
Every earthquake or volcanic eruption would be an immediate reminder of Allah's power and wrath.
Sickness and health would be the domain of Allah, not doctors and pharmacists.
I'm convinced that pre-Industrial Age Muslims had a sweeter taste of Iman due to their lack of scientific knowledge. We may laugh off their ignorance and backwardness, but I'm sure they were stronger in Iman than most of us - they attributed all these mysterious occurrences in nature to God.
They had no other recourse. They didn't analyze and rationalize every single natural phenomenon.
They took them as communications from their Creator. The universe was one great blessing (or trial) after another.
Merely looking up at the sky would inspire immediate awe in them as how could Allah place above them this magical canopy without pillars or poles.
But for us, the sky is simply an empty vacuum we call space.
I imagine every spring renewing and re-energizing their faith by their mere witnessing of the dead plants coming back to life.
But not us - we see photosynthesis in action.
Just great.
Damn you Mrs. Jenkins.
*Original names have been altered to protect the identity of stupid 8th grade science teachers.
I just saw this work by artist Sandow Birk called the American Quran (h/t Calligraphy Qalam blog).
The project took five years (and counting?) and consists of Birk hand-transcribing the English Quran onto pages with paintings depicting life in America in the background.
My immediate reaction was 'Cool, another way of carving our own unique space into the American landscape.'
But then when I looked at the sample pics, I was turned off by certain imagery that clearly goes against "Quranic culture". Let's put aside the traditional Islamic stance against painting human images - for it can be argued that Muslim artists and miniaturists throughout the centuries partook in such forms of art.
What really offended me was seeing the translation of the Quran on a backdrop with a woman wearing a mini-skirt and another one breast-feeding her child. Blasphemous? No, not really. Such images are seen everywhere on a daily basis. But is it appropriate to place these images inside a work calling itself the American Quran?
What do the other pictures contain of the American lifestyle? Images from Spring Break in Daytona Beach? Maybe a scene inside a techno club in NYC? Or how about some fat-cat banker standing on Wall street holding up his million dollar bonus?
All images I would deem inappropriate inside a sacred text.
But then again, it *is* art, no? And as they say, 'All's fair in love and art'.
And the various pictures of dogs struck me as a bit odd, especially from someone who, according to his bio, "traveled extensively through the Islamic world, visiting several of the most populous Muslim nations".
You'd think he would've picked up on the small fact that mini-skirts and dogs are a bit taboo in most Muslim cultures. But I guess I'm projecting a non-American version of Muslim culture onto his interpretation of an American-Muslim culture.
I wonder if he's implying that an American instance of the Muslim culture will find these pictures acceptable.
Am I being overly sensitive?
