Naeem's Blog

Here's a very interesting article over at Christian Science Monitor on 10 terms not to use with Muslims. It includes common buzz words like secular, jihadi, and reformation.

I was going to write down my thoughts but Dunner beat me to it. Do check out his post. For example, here's JD's take on the term Moderate:

"Moderate" - "Moderate Muslim" isn't necessarily a bad term per se, but the real problem is that for most non-Muslims, a "moderate Muslim" really means a "secular Muslim." The way non-Muslims talk about Muslims, there's little to no difference between an observant Muslim (one who prays, fasts, etc.) and the al-Qaida types. That's what makes "moderate Muslim" such an offensive term. It doesn't help matters when governments promote this type of thinking, such as in the recently leaked British documents that "define" who is an extremist Muslim. (According to the British criteria, I qualify as an "extremist," an idea I find patently absurd.)

My one additional comment is on the term 'clash of civilizations'. Here is the excerpt from the CSM article:

'1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.'

The author starts off by dismissing the entire good vs evil paradigm that was popularized by W Bush. Good start.

But then he props it right back up when he creates his own two sides of civilization - one that's made up of murderers of innocent civilians and the other consisting of institutions that protect minorities while upholding the rule of law.

Interesting, but what about the institutions who maintain their selective 'rule of law' while murdering innocent civilians?

It's extremely naive of him to suggest that the institutions he refers to are 'for civilization' while the evidence clearly indicates that those very institutions have a bloody track record of murdering civilians.

The clash of civilizations does exist. But its less ideological (Islam vs West) and more economical (North vs South). It's between the haves and the have-nots, most of whom just happen to inhabit the Muslim world. As long as the powerful continue to loot the lands and rape the resources of the powerless while maintaining control with despotic, proxy rulers, there will always be a clash.

Let's not kid ourselves.

In the face of gripping news like the AIG fiasco, the Pakistan masjid bombing, the Madonna adoption drama, and so on, its important to sometimes sit back and focus on the more simpler things in life.

This is one of those times.

I was attending a class on Fiqh and the teacher went on a rant on how Muslims have lost sight of the Sunnah when it comes to water consumption. He mentioned how the Prophet (saw) used to make wudu with a single bowl of water (!) and take a bath with 4-5 bowls worth (!!).

And here we are, completely ignorant of the immense amount of water being wasted through our own actions.

This is not about environmentalism and becoming 'Green'. This is not about global water shortages.

This is about the spirit of the Sunnah. The Prophet (saw) taught us to conserve water even when water is abundant (like a running stream).

This is about rejecting the frame of mind that sees the world through purely utilitarian lenses and instead tuning into the frequency of the cosmos.

This is about ceasing to view water simply as a compound of two hydrogens and one oxygen and beginning to see it as a most fundamental element of Allah's creation.

This is about realizing that water is a blessing, just like our wealth and our health, and is not to be misused, abused, or overused.

So what did the teacher suggest? Nothing sensational - just common sense stuff:

1. When you brush your teeth, turn the water off. No need to keep it running.

2. Try bathing yourself with a bucket of water. It consumes much less water than a typical shower. However, if that's too difficult, turn the shower off when you're lathering yourself with soap. No need to keep it running.

3. Perform your wudu with a trickle of water. No need to run the faucet at full blast.

4. Stop taking a shower every single day. Well, not all of you. But most people don't get so dirty and stinky that they need to shower every day. Skipping a day here or there for the sake of conserving water would truly be a good deed. Again, this may not be true for all of you (you know who you are).

With the proper intention, these steps can all become beautiful acts of worship.

And indeed, Allah (swt) is Most Merciful and Generous in rewarding His servant.

I was listening to Sh. Mokhtar Maghraoui's lecture on Turning Points in Islamic History and came across this very interesting tale from the Prophet's life.

Here's a quick summary: Due to a stipulation in the Treaty of Hudaibiya that prevented new Muslim converts from joining the Prophet (saw) in Madina, a group of 70 of them setup camp on the Syrian caravan route outside Mecca. They proceeded to attack and loot the Meccan trade caravans until the leaders of Quraish pleaded the Prophet (saw) to take these Muslims into his ranks in Madina.

This brings up some very intriguing questions:

1. What, if not terrorists, were these group of 70 Sahabah who attacked civilian traders? In fact, this group seems to fit the very definition of highway robbers (hirab), against whom Allah (swt) has legislated one of the severest punishments (death, crucifixion, or cross-amputation).

2. What was the Prophet's response to their actions? It seems he could have easily commanded them to cease and desist, but refrained from doing so. What does that tell us?

3. How do scholars interpret the actions of this 'renegade' group? How are the lessons from this episode applicable in current times?

===========

For those interested, here is a more detailed version of the story:

In the 6th year after migrating from Mecca to Madina, the Prophet (saw) took 1500 companions to peacefully return to Mecca in order to perform Umrah. Due to agressive tactics by the Quraish, they were forced to camp outside Mecca at Hudaibiya. Negotiations ensued and the peace treaty of Hudaybia was the outcome.

The treaty had several seemingly unacceptable clauses, primarily the one that stated that if a person from amongst Quraysh leaves Mecca without the permission of his elder and joins the Muslims, Muhammad must return him to Quraysh. However, if one of the Muslims goes away to Quraysh they will be under no obligation to surrender him to the Muslims.

The Prophet (saw) agreed, and amazingly, this clause was put to the test even before the treaty was signed.

Abu Jandal, the son of Suhayl bin Amr, the Quraish representative, entered the Muslim camp during the negotiations, seeking refuge from his father (Abu Jandal had converted to Islam and his father had imprisoned him as punishment). At the sight of his son, Suhayl forcefully demanded that his son be returned, as was conditioned in the yet-unsigned treaty. When the Prophet (saw) replied that the terms hadn't even been finalized, Suhayl stubbornly refused to continue and declared the peace talks over.

Eventually, he (saw) gave in and let Suhayl take his son Abu Jandal back with him. The Prophet (saw) consoled him with these prescient words of wisdom: "O Abu Jandal! Be patient. We wished that your father should hand you over to us by way of love and affection. Now that he hasn't agreed to do so, you should be patient and forbearing and should know that Allah will open a path of relief for you as well as for others who are under arrest".

Not long after the Messenger of Allah had returned to Madinah, a man named Abu Basir left Mecca to join the Muslims. The Quraish complained to the Prophet (saw), 'Under the terms of the treaty which you made with us you must hand him over.' So the Prophet (saw) allowed them to take Abu Basir, but on the way back to Mecca, he escaped from them and fled to the coast.

As it turned out, Abu Jandal also escaped and since he couldn't join the Muslims in Madina, he joined Abu Basir. Eventually, all those who became Muslim and left Quraish joined Abu Basir until they comprised a group of seventy. They set themselves up on a trade route and whenever a caravan of the Quraish left for Syria, they laid siege to it, killing the merchants and taking the booty.

Witnessing the terror wrought on their trade caravans, the Quraish went to the Prophet, begging him to cancel that clause in the treaty and take in his fellow Muslims in Madinah, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Muhammad (saw) when he stated "Allah will open a path of relief for you as well as for others who are under arrest."

The very clause of the treaty that was most objectionable to the Muslims proved most damaging to the Quraish.

(Sources: Sahih Bukhari, Encyclopedia of Islam)

Scene A:

Young Muslim wife 'discovers' that Islam has empowered her with the freedom of keeping her wealth for herself, freeing her of any financial responsibilities towards her family. She relishes this newfound freedom, especially in the face of constant criticism that Islam is misogynistic and Muslim women are oppressed.

She is keen to constantly remind her husband of this Islamic ruling by repeating the new Muslim feminist mantra 'My money is mine, your money is ours!'

Ugly divorce ensues in three...two...one...

=====

We've all seen this play out across many Muslim communities (all except for that last part, since many husbands don't take their wives too seriously and simply gloss over this expression of immaturity, choosing rather to continue toiling in support of their families).

This Muslim-feminist-dream-come-true is starting to bother me.

While the sisters are technically correct in standing up for their rights (a right too often suppressed in many Muslim countries where patriarchal systems dominate), they overlook the fact that the husband has refrained from calling upon his rights over his money.

You see, the man's money is not completely that of the family's. The duty of the man is to provide for his family's needs. You know, the basic stuff like food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and so on.

Upon fulfillment of his obligation, the rest of the money is HIS.

His obligation does not include that dream vacation you guys are planning for this summer.

Nor does it include that Coach bag you've been eyeing for the past several months.

Nor does it include your latest trip to the hair salon.

Additionally, he technically does not have to consult you on how he chooses to spend the remaining balance of his money. The fact that he does so is his way of placing the sanctity of a harmonious marriage over the technical issues of Islamic law.

You should try doing the same.

I've gotten lots of flak for spelling my son's name as Humza. Most people are used to spelling it Hamza. Can't really blame them, especially since most books refer to the Prophet's (saw) uncle as Hamza. And also, Sh. Hamza Yusuf spells it that way.

But I just don't get it.

The name is pronounced HUM-za, as in hummingbird. It's not HAM-za as in hamster.

But for some reason, people are retarded and insist that it's spelled with an A. Some folks who I will not name but are male relatives of my wife deride my spelling and mock its pronunciation by making an ugly face and saying something like 'Hey look, its HOOOOME-za's father. How is HOOOME-za?'

They stink.

You see, I don't want bullies (or rude coworkers) coming up to my son and mocking him 'Hey HAM-za the HAM-lover, did you eat HAM today? HAHA. Your dad really messed up your name...HAHA.'

You're probably thinking 'What kind of person thinks this way? So far into the future?' Well, its people with vision. Visionary folks have foresight, hindsight, insight, and outsight. All kinds of sights. Normal people just wouldn't understand.

Anyways, I digress. This foolishness ends now. I will leave it up to my esteemed readership to once and for all decide the fate of my son. Enter your suggestions as comments and I will count the votes in 2 days. I shall vow to follow the democratically suggested spelling of my son's name.

I trust most of you are intelligent and will see things my way. Otherwise, feel free to jump on the Hamza bandwagon and choose the way of the intellectually malnutritioned.

It's your choice.

Oh btw, I have veto power.

Yeah, and uhmmm...the wife doesn't know about this, so let's keep this whole vote thing between us. She's not democratically-inclined like that...being Arab and all...

I just watched the 2008 movie Traitor, starring Don Cheadle, and I must say I was very disappointed.

It's a completely fear-mongering film. If you want to monger anyone's fear of Muslims, let them watch this piece of crap.

It features a seditious plot to simultaneously blow up 50 buses using terrorists who have secretly blended into American society. Said terrorists have been laying low for an extended period of time, waiting for their diabolical instructions. These normal folks include an upper middle-class fellow living in suburbia, a female college student, a young man working at a coffee shop, and a construction worker.

The implication is so very clear. But thank God movies don't affect people's behavior and thinking.

Oh wait.

So not only should Americans be afraid of the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the Muslim world, they should fear the new Muslim who just moved into the neighborhood or the Muslim co-worker who begins to pray five times a day (incidentally, the film had the Don Cheadle character getting fired from work due to that exact reason).

Even the hero of the film has questionable loyalties upto the end. So no worries Mr. Joe Sixpack, go ahead and question your fellow American Muslim's loyalties. It's completely understandable.

Nice.

And of course let's just totally forget about the legitimate threat posed by homegrown terrorists.

The other item that made me sick was the inference that the only good Muslim is the one who proves his allegiance by turning informant to the FBI. I've written on this before and coincidentally Suhaib Webb recently put up this related post on his site.

The movie comes off as some pseudo analysis of the inner conflicts faced by Muslims torn between their faith and country. But it fails. Miserably. Not only because of what I mentioned above, but in its 'analysis' the movie fails to once make mention of possible grievances that Muslims may have against the west such as Iraq, Israel, economic exploitation, etc.

Save your money, your time and your mind. Don't make the mistake I made.

On the bright side it could have been worse. I could wasted hours reading some stupid book.

Oh wait...

Its been 6 years since we moved to Saudi Arabia and I've had a considerable amount of time to reflect on the overall pros and cons of making that move. I'm able to simplify it into a quick analogy:

Imagine two towns.

The first town has many amenities that make life easy and comfortable. Of these services, one of the most attractive is its fully loaded gym with swimming pool, sauna, and tennis and basketball courts. It allows me to regularly workout and keep my body in shape. However, the town has a terrible sewage problem in which many diseases lurk. If the malaria-infested mosquitoes and occasional outbreaks of cholera don't get you, the stink of the sewage-filled river will bother you to no end. Although the opportunities to get into good shape are abundant, the chances of getting sick are too high.

The other town is cleaner and has a proper sanitation system thereby limiting the exposure to life-threatening diseases. However it has limited amenities and most significantly has no gym. While this environment greatly minimizes my chances of getting sick, at the same time, the absence of the gym gives me little hope of getting stronger and healthier.

Which is better for my personal health?

6 years and counting, I find myself in the latter town. While I feel that I've brought my family to a setting that is safer for their spiritual well-being, it has not allowed us to improve and become stronger in our faith.

The strong, central community. The positive influences afforded through the camaraderie of the brothers. The gluttony of opportunities in community activism. The plethora of conferences and seminars and other educational outlets.

All things I need to build up the strength of my iman. All missing here in Riyadh.

I feel that I've basically preserved my faith while living here - having neither regressed nor progressed. And sadly I'm feeling the same fate is destined for my children.

Conversely, I'm too scared to consider the thought of moving back to the states as exposing myself and my family to the greater chances of 'getting sick' is not a viable option.

Sometimes I nostalgically look back and wish for the chance to run to the gym and do some serious 'lifting'. Until then, I guess I'll have to do with bench pressing cement blocks and doing squats with my kids on my shoulders.

I had this very entertaining conversation with this young woman who has sworn me to secrecy. So in keeping with my promise I will not reveal the identity of this mysterious women who provided me some light entertainment the other day. We can call her Mysterious Young Woman I Find Entertaining (M.Y.W.I.F.E for short).

Me: (while eating watermelon) Watermelon is best eaten with salt sprinkled on it.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: You must be kidding. That's just disgusting. The sweetness is completely lost. Must be a Paki thing.

Me: Actually, you're right it is a Paki...err, I mean a Pakistani thing. We like to add spice to our lives unlike you boring Arabs.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: Hah! You weirdos even add spice to your fruit salads! Tell me that isn't crazy.

Me: Hey now, don't hate. Fruit chaat is very tasty and you know it.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: Good point...I do like it. But its the principle...fruit salad and spices just don't mix.

Me: (mumbling under my breath) sorta like Pakistani and Arab.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: What's that?

Me: Nothing. Hey, I bet you didn't even know the crazy thing YOUR people do with watermelon.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: Wait one second (putting down her watermelon and grabbing her chair), let me brace myself for this amazing load of crap.

Me: People from Sham (Syria, Jordan, Palestine) eat their watermelons with salty cheese and pita bread. True story.

Stunned silence.

M.Y.W.I.F.E: Dork.

I hate conspiracies. Really, I do.

Conspiracies are by their very nature quirky and implausible. When the popular understanding of an event has more than satisfied the vast majority, the conspiracy theorist is keen to insert some deranged possibility ('we never really landed on the moon'). Conspiracies are conversational fodder for those situated at the periphery of society ('US government has alien remains stashed away in Area 51'). Sometimes, conspiracies are used by the weak and the weak-minded to explain away their failures ('the Jews are behind all the chaos in the world').

I hate conspiracies.

But more than that, I hate those of you who write-off plausible critical analyses to global occurrences as conspiracies. As if to say that any narrative not in sync with yours (which you've merely parroted from the media) must be some wacky conspiracy.

What freakin' arrogance.

So the point of view espoused by the talking heads and public officials and university professors and other gods of rhetoric and subsequently regurgitated by your not-so-discerning intellect is the one and only possibility? And anything to the contrary is laughed off as a stupid conspiracy?

Really?!

To suggest that the Iraq war was more about money, oil, and geopolitical strategy than about gifting the people of Iraq democracy and liberty is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Darfur is more than the Arab government of Sudan savaging poor African farmers is a conspiracy?

To suggest that Pakistan's endless spiraling into chaos is more than the handiwork of jihadis is a conspiracy?

To suggest that the war in DR Congo is fueled less by tribal wars and more by corporate greed for natural resources is a conspiracy?

All the above have been callously labeled as conspiracies because they don't chime with the 'official' explanation that you've swallowed lock, stock, and barrel. Have you become so lazy that you refuse to lift the confusing layers of deceit blanketing the daily news?

Repeat a lie enough times and it will be accepted as truth.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest back in the 80's that America was supporting the Afghan mujahideen and even had a hand in creating Al-Qaeda.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in the short-lived coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.

According to you it was a conspiracy to suggest that America had a hand in Ethiopian forces storming into Somalia and ousting the Islamic Courts in late 2006.

The list goes on with countless other 'conspiracy theories' that have been proven true (Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, CIA renditions, etc.).

Simple minds accept simple explanations to complex situations.

Listen, I'm as skeptical of zany 9/11 theories as the other guy. Really, I am. But when serious geopolitical events take place around the world and the writing on the wall clearly suggests alternative narratives to the ones pushed forward by press releases and PR specialists, I'm more than a bit skeptical.

And my skepticism turns to outright anger when my suggestion of thinking outside the officially mandated box is written off by you as conspiracy. As if I'm being equated to the losers who believe that Elvis is still alive.

What the hell?!

You need to go back and re-read "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. It talks about the techniques employed by corporations and governments - "techniques of regimentation of minds used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course."

[For lazy slobs like me, watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary. You can download the entire 700MB video here. For the even more lazier, here is a nice summary about how consent is manufactured in public opinion.]

This urge to marginalize alternative explanations (as if to prove to the powers that be 'hey, look at me, not only have I fallen for your explanation hook, line, and sinker, but I'm even crapping on those who suggest otherwise') has seeped into the Muslim community. Now, any and every terrorist event is apologetically attributed to the Muslims. Granted, the jihadi element within the Ummah have long crossed the line on decency and acceptable norms, but must you so quickly take the baton from the western media and despotic heads of state in attributing every evil deed to Muslim terrorists?

And then you flippantly denounce any other possibility as a conspiracy?

Have you become so intellectually inert that you simply rehash the media headlines as you see them and the governmental press releases as you read them? Is it so difficult for you to allow the rays of your intellect to burn through the propaganda-filled fog clouding your judgment?

I just returned from Pakistan last week and one of the conversations I had with my relatives was about the statement made by one of Pakistan's cricket players that no one in their right mind would ever attack Pakistani cricket as its too sacred an institution in the country.

And with that I express my deep sorrow and even deeper anger at what just happened in Lahore, a few blocks from where my parents used to live.

I have only two possible explanations for what took place:

I am convinced, as are so many that I've spoken to, that a serious effort is afoot to destabilize Pakistan and render it a failed state. That would benefit too many bigtime players in the international scene - US (who would gain control of Pakistani nukes), Russia (who badly wants to get revenge on Pakistan for its role in Russia's Afghan debacle), India (self-explanatory), and even Afghanistan (who blames Pakistan for its failures). The Mumbai attacks, the constant US cross-border attacks into Pakistani territory, the kidnapping of a UN worker in Balochistan, and Pakistan's recent economic woes (it almost collapsed Iceland-style late last year) lead me to my conclusion.

The other possibility is the Pakistani military and its intelligence service, the ISI. They yearn for the days of military rule and are looking for reasons to bring back martial law and military dictatorship.

I'm also convinced that the jihadi elements are just not that stupid to carry out such brazen attacks on Pakistan's other religion, its beloved cricket. Pakistanis from all facets of life were rejoicing and ever grateful to the Sri Lankan team for having made the dangerous venture to their home country and such an attack would forever alienate the jihadis.

Things in Pakistan are not as black and white, good vs evil as many would like us to believe.

Allow me to begin with two anecdotal tales:

1.) I was talking to my son's second grade teacher from last year and he told me about a Pakistani national curriculum project he's working on, commissioned by one of Pakistan's largest publishing houses, Ferozsons Ltd. The Pakistani government, he told me, had hired some consultants from Germany to revamp their nationwide curriculum in attempts to modernize archaic teachings found in their outdated education system.

They submitted their proposal and one of the members of some governmental board wasn't too happy with the additions, which included subjects such as the celebration of Diwali (Hindu holiday) as well as taboo topics such as dating. This eventually led to Ferozsons getting involved and hiring my friend.

2.) My wife's friend teaches at King Saud University here in Riyadh at a newly opened English prep program that has been subcontracted to a British educational company. Their textbooks (and I read them myself) are filled with references to pop culture completely foreign to local Saudi culture (dance clubs, mixed social gatherings, Britney Spears, Bruce Springsteen, and many more cultural icons).

I was floored by the blatant message being pushed in their texts. It wasn't even subtle. Conversations discussing Xmas parties and social mixers. Vocabulary focused on attire specific to western society (tank tops, shorts, etc.).

I figured that since the program is new, the school administration hasn't gotten the chance to review the material, but boy was this stuff explosive. I would seriously have a difficult time exposing my children to such cultural propaganda (the Disney channel is bad enough).

I share with you these two tales to introduce my post on censoring education, especially as is being practiced in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

I'm seriously beginning to get upset with Muslims so callously denouncing the actions of ultra-orthodox traditionalists in the tribal areas of Pakistan - all based solely on the media's misrepresentation. But its a bit too much when respected teachers in the (online) community take a public stance without due diligence in getting all the facts.

For sure, I haven't traveled to northern Pakistan and gotten all the details, but based on my limited experience and personal reactions to disturbing trends in Western educational material being presented to our children, I can *begin* to understand what drastic measures an uber-conservative people (as found in Pakistan and Afghanistan) would carry out in order to counter such garbage.

Let's keep these factors in mind when reading about stories on girls education in northern Pakistan/Afghanistan:

1. These places are extremely poverty-ridden. The dynamics of such a society differs from ours. Education, for both sexes, is not necessarily seen as a way out of poverty. The boys normally drop out in order to help the family make ends meet, while the girls end up either staying home to help the extended family or they get married off. So when the school is seen as a source of questionable teachings, introducing thoughts and practices not only foreign to the society but antithetical to it, the result is a closing down of the schools.

2. The tension in the north of Pakistan has less to do with implementing Islam and more to do with the failure of the Pakistan government. The insurgency has used Talibanization as its vehicle to counter the gross incompetency of the national leadership. Sadly, education, seen as a propaganda tool for passing along the government's curriculum, is collateral damage in this war.

3. The other side of the story as told by the pro-Taliban folks is that the schools being blown up by them are in reality being used as base camps by the Pakistani army. They aren't targeting schools in order to shut them down, but as military tactics in their battle against Pakistani forces.

4. There is a major propaganda war going against militant Islam and one of the main weapons against them is the issue of educating girls. Just as apostasy, honor killings and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) were the favorite topics of yesteryear, girls education is the hot topic of today in countering Islamism.

Such sensationalism is so widespread that CNN has even ascribed shutting down girls schools to the recent implementation of Shariah in Somalia. Such a phenomenon (of preventing girls from attending school) was never advocated under the Islamic Courts nor has the more radical Shabab ever promoted it. CNN's attempt at cross-over demonizing is pure disinformation at its best.

So before we start criticizing these movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan for taking away the God-given right of education, let us introduce some perspective into our dialogue as well as get our facts straight.

for thinking Arundati Roy's "God of Small Things" was boring and lame?

I just read it after a couple family members recommended it as a must-read. I've always been impressed with her political writings so I thought I'd give her fictional writing a try.

Boy was I wrong. I want the past two days of my life back. And my 8 bucks.

Can the god of small things help me out here?

On a completely unrelated note, I'm selling a very nice doorstop. Since you all are loyal readers, I'll give it to you for..hmmmm...lemme think...$8. Any takers?