Reaction to Obama Speech: Amusing and Insightful

Submitted by Guest Blogger Faisal Qazi

The coverage from today's speech in Cairo from our Media has it's usual array of amusing elements. The Yahoo headline stated Obama offering an "unclenched fist to the Muslim world", a poor attempt at sensationalization. The McClatchy News boasted "In speech to Muslims, Obama rejects Israeli settlements", projecting some sort of a unique link despite the fact that the settlement freeze notion is a longstanding although non-applied US policy and an international requirement. The Fox News after not getting any attention to it's rants about why Obama didn't visit Israel during this trip knowing full well that the objective of the trip was to address the Muslim world that would have not been possible in Tel Aviv and after not getting any substantial support for questioning why Muslim Brotherhood members were invited to the speech, something that US Embassy has done in the past when other officials (VP Cheney) have visited the Embassy, the headline today stated "Obama Embraces Islam". This one was really comic in nature.


What of the reaction of Muslims, Muslim leaders and their partners? Although not likely to get headlines, it may be the more substantive part of post-speech analysis.

The expectations were constantly being lowered prior to the speech by most experts and one leader even suggested that it's the same play different actor. The overall excitement amongst the Muslims was simply under-reported and still is under assessed.

One could gauge some of that excitement in commentary post speech where Tariq Ramadan suggested on NPR that President Obama has presented a "new vision" and Shibli Telhami noted a "new discourse" altogether. James Zogby called it an "effective speech". Arsalan Iftikhar in his commentary in CNN underscored more of the usual complaint that he hasn't visited a local mosque but also rightly pointed out that compared to prior years, Obama's speech was a "concert of enlightenment". It may also be worthwhile noting that previous Presidents including Bush have verbally recognized Islam's contribution to world civilizations but to most Muslims these just resonated as hollow words and mostly not believable.

Nihad Awad from CAIR appreciated the courage of Mr. Obama to speak to billions of Muslims with "clarity, decisiveness and sincerity". However there was a noticeable difference between the African American commentators that seem to fully appreciate the message and immigrant Muslims. One African American Muslim female attendee at a gathering of Muslim leaders watching the speech in DC found it to be "very encouraging" while Rahim Jenkins at this same event suggested that "stage has been set for real atonement and reconciliation" and called on the world to "embrace the words of this leader".

This optimism is in slight contrast to skepticism of others but may point towards a divergence in the world views of these two segments of Muslims in America, although it could be argued that the immigrant community has no real world view of their own, at least not yet.

I think the critics of the President, both Muslims and non-Muslims have missed out on enjoying an event of historic proportions at least to the fullest. Those that contend that Obama kept a distance from the Muslims during the campaign, those that complaint that he didn't comment on the Gaza war during last days of Bush are left puzzled but certainly mesmerized with the nature of the initiative (even though they'd never admit it) hopefully should now be able to see that this man is measured in his approach and it's better to work with him to gradually achieve lasting results. And there are those that are left wanting of action to follow words but are fairly realistic of our domestic politics that is unlikely to allow Mr.Obama to make broad gains given the significant negative views that America holds against the Muslim world. Nevertheless they should also enjoy the moment and take a chance in believing that it could be made right just like the President took his chances in Cairo.

(Sources for this paragraph includes various media websites and video clips)

Remember SeaQuest?

I was a fanatic when it came to Seaquest. If you dont remember, it was Spielberg's made for TV sci-fi program that followed Seaquest- a submarine- trolling the Earths oceans after the world divided them up amongst economic confederations that were constantly on the verge of annihilating each other.

Seems like a wonderful ocean twist on the space adventures of Star Trek, kept me entertained.

Anyway, I started watching a couple of episodes on NetFlix and I wondered whatever happened to the actors that appeared on the show. To my sad surprise I found out Johnathan Brandis, the young computer whiz kid that found his way on to Seaquest committed suicide years after the show ended- in 2003 to be exact.

It's quite sad to think that fame, money and that sort of lifestyle creates such a psychological state and expectations. I was reminded while reading this tid-bit about Abu Hamid Al Ghazzali (Tusi) from the voluminous "Alchemy of Happiness" the chapter "On the Treatment of Love for This World":

"The Messenger (SAW) said: 'Whoever seeks the world for swagger and self-glorification will see God wrathful against him; but if he seeks it in order to be independent of others, he will come on the Day of Resurrection with a face shining like the full son' So, the world is that in which there is immediate pleasure of the self for which there is no need for the Hereafter. Everything that one needs for teh Hereafter, since it is for the Hereafter, is not of the world; just as the fodder for the beasts of burden on the road for the pilgrimage is a part of the provistions of pilgrmiage. God Most High has called whatever is worldly 'desire': ...In another place He has collected five things together and has said: (Know that) the life of this world is play, sport, adornment, self-glorification among you, and rivarly for wealth and children. (Q. 57:20)...This is happiness of people in teh world."

The idea is about balancing the needs of this world and the responsibility for the hereafter, and each person is responsible for his (or her) keep. Though I am not trying to reflect on Brandis's life, however, in his death and what those around him suggested as his depression and desolation from his inability to take his career anywhere, reflecting on the balancing of life and the hereafter is important, no matter how popular or simple folkish you maybe.

Americans Must Take a Loyalty Oath and Swear to never say ill of the United States

Imagine, if you will, for just a moment--longer if you can tolerate it--that you are a Native American living on your impoverished reservation in the dry badlands of the upper Midwest or the desert Southwest and reading in the newspaper or seeing on television that the Senate's subcommittee on patriotism of the Senate Homeland Security Oversight committee--or whatever its name may be--has just voted to send a bill to the full committee for debate.

The bill says the following: that all Native American people, as well as Japanese Americans, African Americans, East Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans--that is to say, all Americans who are not White Christians--must swear allegiance to the United States as a "Christian Democratic nation." Further, the draft legislation has a provision that if any American called publicly for the end of the United States as a "Christian" (and "democratic") state, they would be thrown into prison for one year. The bill additionally specified that commemoration of the Massacre at Wounded Knee, or the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942-43, or the mention of slavery during Black History Month, or Commemorations of the Holocaust, were illegal.

All of us would support that truly democratic bill, don't you think? Especially strong in their support would be the governing party of the United States--let's pretend for the moment that John McCain and the Republicans had won the election. (I don't see the Democrats producing such a bill; at least not yet; no telling what might happen if we had another terrorist attack on the Democrat's watch).

Well, that is exactly the kind of legislation that has gained traction in the Israeli Knesset. According to the Jerusalem Post, the bill was sponsored by a member of the Israel Beiteinu party--the party of the racist foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. It garnered 47 votes within the ruling coalition. It calls for a loyalty oath on the part of Palestinian Israelis to the "Jewish democratic" state, and provides a year of imprisonment fro publicly speaking out against the state (as in calling for a single state solution or a "secular" state); it contains further penalties and jail time for commemoration of al Nakba, the events of displacement and ethnic cleansing that took place at the time of the declaration of the state of Israel.

Of course, opposition to the bill by the opposition parties has been strong and outspoken, but that the legislation is even contemplated and voted upon preliminarily, is not a good sign, and it does not speak well for Israel's self-proclaimed status as the "only democracy" in the Middle East. It's a new and more virulent form of the political infection we know in America as McCarthyism.

Lieberman's party has had on its agenda since its beginning the transfer of the Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship to other Arab countries or to the occupied territories. Of course, the presence of Palestinian citizens, who compose about 20% of the total population, has been a long-standing concern of the Israeli government. The government claims that they have full citizenship, but any one who studies the Israeli-Palestinian question learns quite early on that Palestinian Israelis have a second-class citizenship, receive far less services for their tax dollars than other Israelis, are kept in segregated neighborhoods, are spied upon and harrassed in a way that other Israelis are not. The right to vote is always trumpeted as proof of equal citizenship. Any Israeli citizen speaking honestly will tell you that equality is not the case.

Over the last weekend I went to the 7th Annual Al-Awda Conference. Al-Awda is a mostly Palestinian- American group, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. It is, so to speak, the conscience of the Palestinians in diaspora, steadfastly reminding everyone that the "right to return" to one's home is an inalienable right under international law, and constant in its reminder to all--including the PLO--that unless the right of return is an integral, primary issue to be discussed honestly and at the start of negotiations, Palestinians will not receive full justice. The Right of Return, because it is the most painful issue of all, has always been shelved for "final status negotiations." And why? Because if it is discussed honestly by Israel, Israel will be in the position of publicaly having to admit that they did in fact expel, transfer, or murder Palestinians in 1947-1949. They also will have to admit to the destruction of over 500 Palestinian villages in the territory originally assigned to Israel by the UN partition act of November, 1947.

One of the speakers at the Al-Awda conference, an Israeli Palestinian doctor, Hatim Kanaaneh, has lived for years in his family home in Gallilee. Dr Kanaaneh is a gentle man, whose memoirs, A Doctor in Galilee, is an excellent corrective to the stereotypical view, unfortunately perpetrated by staunch champions of Israel, that all Palestinians are terrorists. For many years, Dr. Kanaaneh was involved in public health matters, and he knows well how the second-class citizenship of the Palestinian Israelis has adversely affected the overall health of his minority.

Dr. Kanaaneh's blog, with the same title as his memoirs, is a gateway to knowing what it is like to live as a Palestinian within the Israeli state. An April entry on his blog, an "Open Letter to President Barak Obama" will give you insight into just how threatening the Israel Beiteinu proposals are to Palestinian Israelis. Here are some excerpts from the full letter, and I urge you to go to the blog to read the full text:

Mr. Lieberman wants me transferred out of the country though I have lived on land I inherited legally from forefathers who almost surely have better claim to descent from the ancient Hebrews than his. And mind you, Mr. President, my residence in the home he wants me evicted from predates the establishment of the state he wants to appropriate as his, and his alone, while he is a recent immigrant from Moldova. Would you, Mr. President, take a loyalty oath confirming your second-class status?

And:

You have to understand, sir, that I speak here of life-and-death issues for me and my family. Mr. Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, attained his impressive status through an openly racist election campaign that featured mass rallies at which calls of “Death to Arabs” were standard. Would you trust such a man with your future in the international arena, Mr. President? I surely hope not: but the majority of Israeli citizens seem to have done exactly that.

We as Americans, pride ourselves on our democratic tolerance of free speech, we lament the thought that some citizens receive second-class treatment. Yet in this California which has just created a new class of homosexual second-class citizens, I also find a reluctance on the part of the main stream media even to acknowledge the racism and injustice and very undemocratic implications of new proposed legislation in Israel. Americans should know what is going on there and make their objections known to Lieberman's brand of discrimination.

--
Posted By Thone to Turnings and Truings at 5/27/2009 02:59:00 PM

FBI- Keeping Us Safe or Undermining our Liberties?

Wearing your heart on your head

Hands-down one of the best articles about wearing hijab (jazaks Marya!)...whether you're trying to understand why women put it on or take it off this is the place to start. Chaudry not only captures a lot of the external and internal struggles Muslim women go through, she do so with amazing clarity and objectivity.

After months of struggling to understand why so many American Muslim women are taking off their headscarves, I have come to this conclusion: that women of all shapes and sizes, cultures, and religious denominations undervalue themselves. And, contrary to Western feminists’ romanticized notions that the stripping off of one’s headscarf is inevitably a moment of rebellion against patriarchal institutions, I have found that, a great deal of the time, when an American Muslim woman takes off her headscarf it is likely a moment of surrender to a combination of social, political, cultural, and self-imposed pressures. Rather than it being a triumphant moment in which she seeks to define her spirituality beyond the confines of her wardrobe, or seeks to distance herself from a construction of her religious identity that seeks to contain her, it is most likely a moment in which she becomes overwhelmed by the growing weight of a society that labels her as an oppressed terrorist and a religious community that labels her as particularly virtuous and likely socially awkward.

You see, if and when an American Muslim woman puts on a headscarf out of her own free will, it is a unique moment in which her private relationship with God is manifested in a very public way. Unlike prayer, fasting, or even reading the Qur’an, when a Muslim woman chooses to cover herself she is suddenly putting a piece of her religiosity on display. There is a saying that some people wear their hearts on their sleeves. Well, for an American Muslim woman who covers her hair as a personal choice, to some extent she wears her spiritual heart on her head. She bows her covered head in prayer five times a day in submission to God, and chooses to prolong these moments of prayer by keeping her head covered throughout the day.

Although women of many religions cover their hair - including Orthodox Jews and Catholic Nuns - the idea that a woman’s spirituality is a function of how many yards of fabric she wears is an interesting concept, and one that does not sit well with mainstream society. In fact, in insisting on an increased modesty, an American Muslim woman who covers offends many Western sensibilities. And, adding to her challenges, she is also placed under a heightened level of scrutiny by a religious community that imposes an unrealistic construct of virtue upon her. Her community suddenly expects her to adhere to rigid rules and regulations, and she is in turn both resented and loved by her community as she struggles to adhere to these mandates.

In the end, an American Muslim woman in a scarf really has only one place to go for solace, for strength, and for peace – back to God. The society that she lives in writes her off as complaisant to her own oppression and the community that she belongs to insists that her worth lies not in the personality that the scarf contains but in the scarf itself. In either arena she is reduced and the headscarf is misappropriated and misunderstood. As much as a Muslim woman’s headscarf is no one’s business but her own, the headscarf has become everyone’s business and is on everyone’s mind.

Continue here

PS: The next time you hear a brother giving a lecture to sisters on wearing hijab, make sure he's read this. Many of them have great intentions but have no clue what it's all about.

FBI: Waiting for Mercy

FBI: Less Drama, More National Security?

FBI Spying on Mosques Draws Senate Attention; Rights Workshop Helps Local Muslims Deal With the Feds

Thursday, Mar. 26 2009
By Matt Coker in A Clockwork Orange, OC Religion

Orange County Weekly


A Senate Judiciary Committee questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller Wednesday about a Muslim coalition's consideration of breaking ties with the bureau following the highly publicized federal government spying on an Irvine mosque.

Meanwhile, a workshop has been organized for this Sunday to help local American Muslims deal with this frightening new twist in the "Global War on Terror." Details on that in a bit.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Mueller he was "disappointed" to learn of the AMT statement in light of recent discussions urging "the FBI to gain the trust of the American Muslim community to assist in the effort to stop terrorism."

Reading from a news report where AMT claims the FBI has pressured Muslims to become informants, labeled civil rights advocates as criminals and spread misinformation, Feingold had a question for Mueller: "Can you determine and report to this committee whether mosques have been entered by FBI agents or informants without disclosing their identities under the authority of the attorney general guidelines and, if so, how many?"

(New Justice Department guidelines that took effect in December have lowered the threshold for beginning FBI investigations, allowing race and ethnicity to be factors in opening a probe. The ACLU has a fact sheet on the guidelines here.)

Replied Mueller: "I will say that we do not focus on institutions, we focus on individuals. And I will say generally if there is evidence or information as to individual or individuals undertaking illegal activities in religious institutions, with appropriate high-level approval, we would undertake investigative activities, regardless of the religion. But it would -- we would single that out as an exceptionally sensitive circumstance that would require much vetting before that occurred..."

Feingold then asked if the new attorney general guidelines are helping or hurting the FBI's relationship with the U.S. Muslim community, and what the bureau plans to do in light of the AMT statement to improve relations. Mueller responded that his "expectation is that our relationships are as good now as before the guidelines" and he added that the Muslim community "has been tremendously supportive and worked very closely with [the FBI] in a number of instances around the country."

Al-Hasan al-Basri

Intro here

Unfortunately, after the passing away of Umar bin Abdul Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him), the Ummayid ruling family returned to it's old ways of lavishness and excessive love of worldly pleasures. However, Allah (swt) blessed the ummah of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) with pious scholars and people of dawah who stood against this wave of materialism to remind the people of the true essence of their deen.

Of those great scholars of that time, Sheikh Nadwi singled out Imam al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah be pleased with him).

His early days
He was born 21 A.H. His father Yasar was the servant of Zaid bin Thabit, the companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him). His mother Khayyirah was the servant of Umm Salamah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and it is in her house that al-Hasan grew up and met many of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and heard from them, making him of the greatest of the Tabi'een (followerd of the companions).

His knowledge and passion
He had vast knowledge of the Quran and Hadith. Moreover, he was attentive to the details of the society he lived in: its different classes, manners, illnesses and cures. He was also a very articulate and charismatic person, one who captures and moves people with his words. Most importantly, his passion, sincerity and eman were what made his words sink right into the hearts of the people. Al-Ghazali describes him as "one whose words are the closest to the words of the prophets (peace be upon them), and whose guidance is the closest to that of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them)."

His method of dawah
Al-Basri's advise to the people revolved around reminding them of the shortness and treachery of this life, and the ever-lastingness of the Hereafter. He described in his talks the times of the companions and compared it to his time, and how much the faith and manners of the Muslim ummah had deteriorated.

He also displayed courage in facing the rulers with the truth and reminding them of their duties and responsibilities for which they will one day be held accountable by Allah (swt).

Al-Hasan al-Basri was not just another scholar or man of dawah who lectured or gave classes. He combined practical tarbiyah (disciplining/upbringing) with spiritual tazkiyah (purification) and was able to guide many to live the true Islam and taste the sweetness of Iman.

His death
He passed away in 110 A.H. in Damascus. It is narrated that his funeral was after Friday prayers and that all the people were busied by it that day to the extent that 'asr prayer did not take place in the city's masjid that day because there was no one left there to pray.

May Allah (swt) be pleased with him and bless us with some of his sincerity and passion for guiding the Muslim ummah to the straight path, ameen.

The first Revivor: Umar bin Abdul Aziz

Intro here

Sheikh Nadwi mentions several key characteristics that marked the short Ummayid rule of the Muslim world. Those include the return of the tribalism mentality and the idea of the superiority of one race over another (particularly Arabs over non-Arabs), which the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) had worked hard to eradicate. Also, there was a very dangerous change in the drivers and motivators of people, for many no longer performed good deeds (fighting in battle, generosity to neighbours,...) to get closer to Allah (swt), but rather to be talked about amongst the people.

There was also the unjustness of the rulers who would take from the poor and spend on their lavish lifestyles. Thus came to existance a very pampered 'aristocratic' class of people who were preoccupied by worldly pleasures. Nevertheless, this did not affect the majority of the ummah who still had a great respect for scholars and rightoeous people.

This is the world into which Umar bin Abdul Aziz was born and in which he was raised. It was said that his perfume could be smelt everywhere he went and that he had a particularly elegant walk which some of the women would try to learn. That was before his ascension to the 'throne' of khilafah.

The first thing he did was replace the unjust rulers of the Muslim provinces. He stopped the opressive taxes and was strict about rulers not accepting gifts or bribes, and about them not spending lavishly of the people's wealth.

On a personal level, he returned all the gifts he got to beit al-mal (the treasury of the ummah)and gave of his wealth and his wife's jewlery in charity. His zuhd and aversion of worldly comforts and pleasure was beyond that of any of the worshippers, let alone kings. He was also very conscious about not spending any of the ummah's wealth on himself. He would put off a candle which was fueled by money from the treasury if one busied him asking about himself (Umar's wellbeing).

He opened his doors to the people and announced rewards to those who would bring him news of the true state of society, or would advise him on something of benefit to the ummah.

He was able to embody the role of a true Muslim khalifah, one who takes responsiblity of the administrative and ruling affairs of the state, yet is also responsible for the knowledge and righteousness of the people (a role which had become restricted to the scholars of the time). He would send letters to the rulers of the Muslim provinces reminding them of their duties, guiding them to the straight path, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

Afterall, Umar bin Abdul Aziz was a knowledgable scholar of his own right. Mujahid (a famous scholar of the time) had said of him:"we came to him to teach him, but we did not leave until we learnt from him".

One of the greatest favors of this revivor on the Muslim ummah is his attention to the Hadith of the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him). For although hadith was written as early as the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), it was Omar bin Abdel Aziz who started the movement of collecting and preserving it by focusing the scholars' attention to it, just as his great grandfather Omar bin Al Khattab had encouraged the first khalifah Abu Baker al-Sideeq to do with the Quran (for more on Hadith collection, check out this post).

The effects
The reforms which Omar bin Abdel Aziz began were not favoured by all, and some worried they would lead to financial crises and losses for the ummah. However, what happened was to the contrary. The Muslim ummah was blessed with prosperity and security to an extent that the rich did not know where to spend their zakat. Yahya ibn Saeed narrates that Umar bin Abdul Aziz sent him to collect zakat from Africa. He did so, but could not find any poor people deserving of the money so he used it to free slaves.

The great khalifah passed away in 101 A.H., only two years and five months from the day he took responsibility of leading the Muslim ummah. May Allah (swt) have mercy on him and reward him for his great deeds.

The Seven Modern "Deadly" Sins According to the Catholic Church

1. Genetic modification
2. Experiments on the person
3. Environmental pollution
4. Taking or selling illegal drugs
5. Social injustice
6. Causing poverty 
7. Financial greed.
   

Source (and an interesting discussion on the sins of men versus women): BBC News