Compromise and Tolerance: Are they Words in Islam?

Perhaps the devout Muslim who toes the line has nothing to fear, but woe to all those who culturally decide to stray. Not content with letting Allah be the judge, religious police and ‘Virtue vs. Vice’ commitees are hellbent on punishing blasphemers, government anarchists and plain old hooligans, and it doesn’t matter if you’re a commoner or a celebrity figure.  Just ask Aliaa Magdy, Adel Imam or Al-Haqed.

With a career that spans decades and hundreds of films, TV programs and theatre pieces under his belt, comedian Adel Imam is a bonafied star in Egypt. It seemed every channel I clicked on whilst in Egypt was showing a program featuring him; even the Arabic TV channel here in NYC recently showed his film roughly titled “Take Care of Your Neighbors.” But just recently, Adel Imam was sentenced to several months of jailtime for insulting Islam, proving that even movie stars are not above the cultural police. While blasphemy is punishable in most (all?) Muslim countries, what’s unique about Imam’s case is that the 71 yr-old actor himself didn’t speak ill of Islam: it was the characters he portrayed in films many years ago which were condemned for their immorality.

Say what??

Adel Imam in the film Morgan Ahmed Morgan

Clearly, Egyptian judges are not willing to show tolerance for differences, nor do they have a sense of humor. A film, even a silly comedy, is not just simply a ‘film,’ but it doesn’t mean that by showing a character drinking or doing something “unIslamic” that the film director is promoting vice or encouraging people to be unIslamic. And it certainly isn’t the actors fault, nor do the words he speaks/way he behaves in the film reflect his own personal opinions, although it could be argued that a truly good Muslim would not want to portray someone who was immoral. Clearly, freedom of speech doesn’t even extend to fiction when it comes to ‘insulting Islam.’

Another famous figurehead who recently got in trouble with the law was Moroccan rapper Al-Haqed, whose name ironically means “The Enraged One.” After rapping his contempt for the police on one of his songs, the rapper was sentenced to a year in jail. “You are paid to protect the citizens, not to steal their money,” resonates in much of the Middle East (and, lets face it, most of the developping world), where police take bribes to look the other way. Granted, Al-Haqed could be viewed as promoting anarchy against the state, but the Moroccan court would rather silence it’s opposers and continue tolerating corruption and oppression rather than tolerate the idea of a more pure (and a more Islamic!) Morocco.

Al-Haqed, image sourced from his website l7a9ed.com

Remember Aliaa Magda al-Mahdy, the young Egyptian activist who posted a nude photo of herself online to protest the lack of freedom of speech in her country? Lest one think that receiving death threats and being socially shunned weren’t enough to make her feel pain, legal action was formally started in the aftermath of her exposure back in November by a group of Coalition of Islamic law graduates, accusing her of “violating morals, inciting indecency and insulting Islam.” (If anyone knows more information on the legal procedings or Aliaa’s current situation, please add your comment to the bottom of this article!) Nevermind the fact that Aliaa is a self-proclaimed Atheist and therefore Islamic law shouldn’t apply to her. Forget the honorable act of pardoning, or forgiving, one for their sins: instead of letting Allah weigh on Aliaa’s deeds in the afterlife, Egyptian society would prefer to take matters into their own hands and play the role of God.

In short, tolerance seems to be in short supply in the Middle East, which is somewhat ironic when one considers that, for many years-decades, even-Arabs ‘tolerated’ intensely corrupt governments and leaders without nary a complain. Of course, that could be because-cue Al-Haqed’s case-it is against the law to criticize the state, but herein lies the paradox: government and religion must be obeyed, no compromises made, but individuality will not be tolerated. These three legal situations, two involving celebrity figures, remind us of the T.S. Lawrence quote that I cited in my last blog post on Saudi Arabia, inwhich Lawrence insists (I’m paraphrasing) that Arabs are “all about black and white extremes, no grey areas.” Indeed, grey areas are glossed over: certainly the fact that Adel Imam, whose fictional character he portrayed went against Islamic thought, would be a grey area in the terms of shariah law. By eliminating the grey areas in life, shariah law effectively denounces compromise between the difficult, touchy areas in life which are not easily explained.

Man should not tolerate corrupt governments, theives, murderers or people who actively set out to physically harm others. Man should, however, tolerate individuality and personal choice, as long as those choices don’t hurt others. Freedom of speech and opinion, even if it differs from a strict interpretation of Islam, shoudl be allowed. With Saudi Arabia probably being the one exception (and even there, there exist Christian expats and the much-detested Shiite sect of Islam), most countries of the world are very diverse and therefore compromises must be made so that all people are happy and accepted by the majority. The words compromise and tolerance do exist in Arabic (حل وسط for compromise,  تسامح for tolerance), so let’s see these words and concepts exercised!

S-L-M

Links:

1. http://bikyamasr.com/48732/legal-action-against-egypt-nude-activist/ 

2. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/opinion/egypt-convicted-actor-adel-imam-khalil/index.html?hpt=imi_mid

3. http://insidethemiddleeast.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/13/moroccan-rapper-jailed-for-song-insulting-police/

The ‘What-ifs?’ of the Middle East

There are a lot of ‘what-ifs’ bouncing around the Middle East at the moment: speculation and hypothesis are rampant, but even these are subject to constant change and modification. Witness Syria, which renegged on it’s ‘peace plan:’ civilians continue to die each day. Or consider the Muslim Brotherhood, which has officially thrown it’s hat into the presidential election ring after consistent hem-hawing. News giant CNN has even jumped onto the speculation bandwagon, with articles on ‘Why American’s Should Care About Syria’ (which delved into the possible consequences of both pro-action and inaction in Syria) and ‘What if Israel Bombed Iran?’ which starts with,

 ”Imagine that you wake up tomorrow morning and discover that during the night. Israeli planes had conducted a bombing raid on Iran. How would your world have changed?”

 In honor of the sort of vague wave of speculation and uncertainty that has rooted itself in the present climate of the Middle East (replacing that wild wave of rioting and violence, although rioting and violence are obviously still continuing in certain countries), let’s take a look at some wild-card, vague what-if possibilities, because, as Kate Capshaw so cheesily reminds us in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, anything goes!

“Anything Goes” from Indiana Jones

The negative what-ifs

> What if Salafis overtook the Egyptian government?

Egypt’s Military rulers have pretty much made sure that this won’t ever happen, since they recently disqualified several promising presidential candidates from both the Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood parties. A strong Islamic rule over Egypt thus seems unlikely in the near future, but anything goes in Egypt, where protests seem to ignite every other day and people (a.k.a. the Military government and the police) keep pulling a fast one on the general public. However, if, perchance, this did happen, or a Muslim Brotherhood candidate decided to run less moderately than his party has been appearing to be as of late, the results would be possibly disastrous for Egypt, at least on an international level. Would tourism go back to pre-revolution times, if strict dress was required and Egypt’s clubs and beach resorts disappeared?

 >What if oil disappeared from Saudi Arabia/Middle East?

Ok, so this one isn’t happening relatively soon, but it’s worth throwing it out there anyway. Saudia Arabia itself is not the heyday country of endless public spending that it used to be, back when the oil was first discovered. In some of these countries, oil is the only thing keeping them afloat in the global economy. Take away the oil, and what do they have? Weak economies that don’t even produce food, let alone exports; unskilled (and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, unwilling) workers; and a lack of any other resources. Some of the Arab countries don’t even have natural water supplies, which makes the situation even more precarious. If the despotic and new-regime governments have the people’s (and their own) interests at heart, they should start boosting other sectors of the economy (once the rioting subsides).

>What if Iran bombed Israel?
CNN’s article discusses the possible outcomes of Israel bombing Iran. But what about if Iran somehow managed to bomb Israel? Would there be full-out retaliation (providing that Israel’s weapons weren’t hit?) The USA, in either scenario, would likely get involved-how could they not, seeing as supposed nuclear weapons are at stake and Israel is so closely tied with our government?-but this scenario, out of all the rest, would affect the world the most. Oil prices would probably go up, the Middle East would probably explode (with celebrating? with shame?) into even greater turmoil, and Iran would certainly become even more of a pariah than it already is.
>What if Bashar Al-Assad doesn’t step down?

This is the biggest question of all, and is being asked on a daily basis by the international community. It doesn’t seem likely that the USA/NATO will intervene. The United Nations probably won’t, either; after all, it’s been over a year now and al-Assad is still hanging in there. It seems unlikely that the Syrians will cave in, but a good fact to point out is that, unlike in Libya, where the rebels were strongly against Gaddhafi loyalists, there doesn’t seem to be a huge split between pro-Assad citizens and the protesting body.

…..And now the positive ‘what-ifs’
 
>What if women were granted equal rights?

Would men lose rights? Would children suffer as their mother’s joined the workforce, gained hobbies, spent less time at home? Would houses go uncleaned and fester, would food go uncooked, would families break down and split apart? Would men have more sex, or less? Would society’s morals scatter to the wind? Would immorality reign? Would women become more competitive and self-absorbed? Would Islam be insulted? Would Middle Eastern society, in effect, cease to exist? No, no, no and, oh, no! There really are only positive benefits to this eternal ‘what-if.’

 
>What if Israel gave Palestinian’s the right to govern themselves and withdrew?

 At the moment, this seems highly unlikely, given that France’s Le Monde reported that both countries are at an extreme impasse and unwilling to even talk. What with the constant hunger strikes and international media attention, Palestine on any level seems an impossibility. But if Israel did experience a coup de coeur and decide to give freedom to it’s Palestinian brothers, I could only hope that the Middle East would rejoice, and that Muslims and Christians could live side by side as they did in the past (kinda seems impossible in today’s climate, but if it was possible then, it’s possible now!)
 
>What if Ahmadinejad was no longer president of Iran?

I don’t think it’s a stretch that if the Iranian government was replaced, that Iran would probably embrace freedom and reopen it’s doors to the rest of the world. Is it solely Ahmadinejad that embodies what was started by Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution? Of course not, but it seems that the Iranian government rallies around a central figure to dominate. If revolution did occur in Iran, I believe it would be better organized and a lot more peaceful than the other Arab Spring Revolutions, because the Iranians are proud of their heritage, their religion, and culture and I believe that in the aftermath of such a revolution, that they would quickly unite to form a new, stable government.

All of these what-ifs are important questions. Are my speculations

realistic or not?

Who knows? When it  comes to the Middle East au moment, anything

goes!

S-L-M

Divorce, that Luxury Alternative to Honor Violence or Misery

Marriage can be a difficult decision to make. The decision to divorce is even tougher, even in today’s society, where celebrities divorce after 55 hours (see Britney Spear’s first marriage) or after 72 days (see Kim Kardashian’s arguable publicity stunt of a marriage). In the Western world we’re lucky to have the right to decide to marry whoever we want, and to divorce for whatever reason (although I must ask, why is the divorce process such a lengthy procedure?) In the Middle East marriage is often a more formal, family-oriented affair; divorce, while legal in Islam, is a frowned-upon affair that usually rests solely on the husband’s whim.

Yet even the Middle East shows signs of the Western world’s penchant for making spur-of-the-moment decisions, as is evidenced by the recent divorcing of a Saudi man’s wife over a mall loudspeaker. Bikya Masr reported on a Saudi man who, after seeing his wife accept another man’s telephone number while out shopping in the mall, got on the mall’s loudspeaker system to tell his wife he was divorcing her.

Public humility? Check. Deciding to throw away a sacred vow because of one silly incident? Check. Like many American marriages that are built more on lust than love, it would seem safe to say that this Saudi marriage was built on a foundation of distrust and not love; after all, even if you’re angry, you don’t jump on the mall loudspeaker to tell the whole world that you’re breaking up with the mother of your children. The actions of this Saudi husband are abhorrent, and they highlight a strange sort of contradiction where men are to be accorded the highest honor, particularly in a marriage, and yet this husband decided to publicly air his dirty private laundry.

The preferred method some Middle Eastern men (or the families) take when dealing with misbehaving wives would be honor killings, or honor violence; after all, why let the wife (who was most likely abused or mistreated) go free and have the choice to make a new life? Throwing a troublesome woman into the Nile is a much preferable option, as was the case for one Egyptian woman who was recently tossed into the Nile River to die by her own family after she refused to remarry her abusive, much-older ex-husband.

Honor violence is one of the many tragedies women face in the Middle East, but what makes it perhaps the most despicable tragedy of all is that it is not simply a sexist matter, nor is it a private matter between a couple. Many times honor violence is approved (and even encouraged) by a victim’s mother or other female relative (though I believe sister’s might not be so keen on having their siblings battered, as they can empathize too easily). Countless honor killings are preformed not just by the spurned or cuckolded husband but by fathers, brothers, uncles. It is incomprehensible that a mother could condone the killing of her own daughter; that a grandmother would accept the treatment of her granddaughter as a punching bag.

Sourced from muslimwomennews.com, an excellent and intriguing website.

Divorce is legal even under strict Islamic shariah law; therefore, it should not be as stigmatized and frowned upon as it is. If a man is technically allowed to have several wives under Islamic law, why can’t a wife who is just one of many wives and who is more or less ignored be able to decide on divorcing her husband without risking a violent retaliation, or social suicide? Why does she have to give up her kids in order to be free?

Coinciding with the recent Nile-drowning attempt (the young woman lived), Egyptian Parliament Member Mohammed EL-Omda has decided to push legislation that would overturn the approved circa-2000 bill that granted Egyptian women their right to file for divorce. This shocking bit of news is troublesome for Egyptian women and Middle Eastern women in general; after all, Egypt was traditionally seen as a model country among it’s neighbors. And while the as-of-late ‘moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood is going strong at the moment, the majority of power (excluding the SCAF) is in the hands of people religious enough to call themselves Islamists: in these times of stress and uncertainty in Egypt, who’s to say that confidence-lacking Egyptian men might not pull a Taliban and decide to do away with womens rights, starting with women’s right to divorce, in order to boost their confidence and create an illusion of “security and stability?”

In the West, divorce is difficult because one party may still love the other one, or has been emotionally hurt. In the Middle East, divorce is difficult purely because of a sense of honor, a sense of property and a sense of familial propriety which is hopelessly outmoded. Either way, it’s not a pretty situation, and there is no need to make a difficult decision worse by purposely punishing one of the parties involved.

To conclude with a passage from the Qu’ran, Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow):

And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does …

S-L-M

Links:

1. http://bikyamasr.com/63265/egypt-mp-calls-for-end-to-womens-right-to-divorce/

2.http://bikyamasr.com/64198/woman-thrown-into-egypts-nile-over-divorce-highlights-honor-violence/

3.  http://bikyamasr.com/63386/saudi-man-divorces-wife-over-loudspeaker-at-mall/

Slower than a Snail, but Moving Forward All the Same: Saudi Women’s Rights

It’s not easy being a woman, period, in the Middle East, but in Saudi Arabia being a woman takes on a whole new meaning. Their infamous lack of rights-from not being able to drive to not being able to vote (recently ‘amended’) to not even being able to go out or travel by one’s self (and this applies to foreign, Western women tourists too)-have long been condemned by human rights groups everywhere.

Yet there is progress occurring in Saudi Arabia even as women near and far across the Middle East continue to suffer at the hands of dominating, sexist men. Just take a look at these recent measures:

A Mall Without Men

Rarely do women have any rights over men, but such was the case when it came to visiting a mall in Saudi Arabia: apparently, single men were barred from visiting the malls except for during weekday lunchtime hours so that the malls could be “family-friendly” places and women wouldn’t be harassed. Recently it was decided that the law would be changed. While this might not seem as a move towards women’s rights, since women once again might be exposed to, ahem, lustful men who stalk them in public spaces, it nevertheless is a very big step in the direction of true women’s rights: acknowledging that men and women are equal and that both should be allowed to roam the same public place, in trusting that both can behave themselves! What was that phrase from the 1950s-”Separate is NOT equal?”

A Woman at the Olympic Games

Like anything else that the West might deem “fun,” athletics are highly discouraged for women in Saudi Arabia. Women athletes do, nevertheless, exist, and as in Iran they are usually prevented from participating in sporting events abroad. Yet one Dalma Malhas may become the first Saudi woman in recent history to participate in a sporting event of such magnitude as the upcoming Olympics in London. While the decision to allow her to participate has not yet been officially declared, this is a great milestone for women athletes that the possibility is even being considered. However, the reason Dalma Malhas is even being considered is probably because she is an equestrian, which is pretty “tame” in terms of dress (watching the Hampton Classic equestrians in full riding dress in 80-degree heat always makes me sweat) as well as contact: it’s not like soccor or volleyball, where women wear skimpier uniforms and are pushing, shoving, sweating and moving in, ahem, unladylike ways. Even if she will be forced to wear a hijab or other Islamic-style dress to the Olympics, Dalma will still pave the way for aspiring Saudi atheletes.

Lingerie Shops Run by Women, for Women

Sourced from smh.com.au

Women selling lingerie to women sounds like a no-brainer: what salesman could possibly know better than a woman when it comes to how a bra fits, and what undies are comfortable yet attractive? Yet in Saudi Arabia, where women are basically forbidden to work, lingerie shops were staffed with men. Indeed, this was another one of those awkward situations that the Saudi government got itself into: women and men are so deterred from interacting, and yet if a young girl needs help buying her first bra, she’s going to have an older man hand it over to her? After lobbying  and complaining, the Saudi government finally decided to let women work in lingerie shops, thus not only creating new jobs for women but also insuring that shopping for underthings is a more relaxing experience!

Joining the Anti-Bod Squad

Out of all of these recent achievements for Saudi women, perhaps the most thrilling (and telling) of all is that women are being considered to join the Religious Police, which I have nicknamed the ‘Anti-Bod Squad’ since making sure women are dutifully covered is just one of their many arduous tasks. If Saudi women are being deemed worthy enough to judge others and take authority over even a man, than that means that they are being seen as equals. However much I applaud the shiekhs for even considering this, I do feel that allowing women to join the religious police will be a bust. What sexist man is really going to take a woman “arresting” him without putting up a fight? A woman telling a man what to do? Sacre bleu!

S-L-M

Links:

1. Saudi Women Break a Barrier: The Right to Sell Lingerie, by Thomas J. Lippman on Jan. 21, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/saudi-women-break-a-barrier-the-right-to-sell-lingerie.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share

2. Al Ahlam http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/37664.aspx

3. Bikaya Masr http://bikyamasr.com/63741/single-saudi-men-not-welcome-in-shopping-malls/

4. http://bikyamasr.com/58754/saudi-king-suggests-allowing-women-to-join-religious-police/

A Circle Has No Beginning in MidEast Politics

“Calm will be reciprocated with calm, fire will be reciprocated by fire,”

commented IDF Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. The idea of reciprocation–otherwise known as that ages-old “eye for an eye” rule that was established in ancient Babylonia-remains a popular concept in the Middle East, no matter one’s religion. Lt. General Benny Gantz, an Israeli, was referring to the recent rocket-launching between Israel and Palestine, a situation which classically reproduces the whole “she said, he said” theme and has one pondering the question “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

Problematic, isn't it? Or is there a beginning? Sourced from resistanceisfruitful.com

The answer is that a circle has no begining. There seem to be an awful lot of circles in the Middle East right now: cycles of violence, poverty and oppression that we see repeating themselves in the same fashion, over and over again. Time and again Palestinian militant groups like Hamas will set off terrorist attacks against Israel; Israel will likewise respond with it’s military prowess. Time and again innocent people across the Middle East die because of retaliation measures taken up by their governments/the people in charge. I think it’s time for us to look closer at the circle. Are those really circles we see, with no true beginings or ends, or do they actually start somewhere?

“Circle arguments,” to coin a new phrase, are those arguments in which both sides will forever point the blame at each other, forever unwilling to back down or admit wrongdoing. (Perhaps you are saying to yourself right now, that sounds like most arguments! To me, politics is nothing but circle arguments). Circle arguments deny any traces of a true begining, as neither side will agree to a common starting point, and they certainly prevent any end point from ever being reached. Although admirable in other aspects of society, circle arguments–or the “eye for an eye” rule–have no place or bearing in government and politics.

Essentially, following reciprocitiy or “an eye for an eye” basically eliminates the chance to forgive; it only enhances the competitition. And do the governments of the world really need any more competition than they already have? Competition eliminates any possibility of peace, and even if world peace will never be acheived for a multitude of reasons to lengthy to discuss here and now, it is still imperative and honorable to aim for it. Many Americans would probably say that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was an “eye for an eye” measure, a proper retaliation for the events of 9/11. But was it really neccessary to subject entire countries to years of struggle, poverty, and terror based on the events of that one day? 9/11 was a tragic moment in history, a moment that should have humbled the entire human race; but it did not merit an eye for an eye approach. Did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really help America, apart from ridding the world of Saddam Hussein? Did they really make Americans feel more comfortable and et ease with our worldly image? If anything, retaliation only hurt America more.

The “relationship” (if one could call it that) between Israel and Palestine is a never-ending circle of retaliation and finger-pointing, as both sides try to prove their righteousness. Both sides have acted inhumanely, disgustingly. Both sides have every reason to be angry–but, one must consider: is there a start to their circle? The creation of Israel seems like an obvious start to a circle of hatred and violence, but it is of course a tricky begining, for no one alive today was around at the time of the takeover of the Palestinian state and, therefore, one cannot blame any Israeli today; in fact, if anyone was to blame for the start of violence in this little, ancient corner of the Old World, it would be Britain and those who brought the state into being.

Most recently in the news, an American soldier went on a killing spree and gunned down 16 Afghanis, among them women and children. Immediately, Afghanis declared “retaliation” against the Americans for this act of supreme cruelty. Aha, here we have the “circle argument,” the “eye for an eye” motif again, and again we must ask is it really worth it? Will the Afghanis truly be satisfied by killing American soldiers in afghanistan? No, they will not; this act will not bring back the dead, The act of one deranged man should not be cause to attack his fellow countrymen; by declaring retaliation against Americans/America, the Afghani’s are only weilding the stereotyping and racism paintbrush (so very popular in society) which deems that one person is responsible for all those of the same nation/ethnicity. One man does not represent the whole of America; nor did the terrorists of 9/11 or any other day represent the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim populations. Rather than learn to forgive (or at least recognize the difference between one person and his brothers) the Afghani rebels would rather bring about more violence and fire.

The conclusion? Fight fire with fire in your own private battles, but when it comes to the security and prosperity of an entire nationhood of people, let the people keep their eyes, even if you feel differently. For if the whole world is blind, who can we turn to?

Links:

1.Shaky truce appears to end along Gaza-Israel border, CNNWire Staff, CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-13/middleeast/world_meast_gaza-israel-airstrikes_1_gaza-militant-groups-gaza-borders-palestinian-resistance-factions/2?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Seriousness in Syria

The situation in Syria has no doubt escalated beyond what anyone  imagined: it’s been nearly a year since the rioting began, and yet the al-Assad Regime is still in place. What makes the situation even stranger is that no one is stepping in to help.

When the situation in Libya got ugly-i.e., Gaddafi refused to go out in peace (and instead went out with a definitive  bang)-NATO stepped in and gave the rebels a little assistance. France was all up in arms (literally) to save the plebians of Libya. The situation in Syria is just as dire as that in Libya was, or so one would think: the majority want the president out. The despotic, nepotistic president refuses, and rains bloodshed on his people, calling them “terrorists.” But, with the exception of the Arab League’s “peace talks” which were an utter failure, no one is gearing up to arm the rebels this time.

Why not? With more than 9,000 deaths since the rioting began, what’s happening in Syria is a massacre. Al-Assad clearly doesn’t believe in democracy, and it is a shame and a sham to call him “president;” he is a dictator, not a president. Where did the Middle Eastern “presidents” of old (Ben Ali, Gaddafhi, Mubarak, Al-Assad et al.) got the idea that to be called president meant a lifetime of service, unopposed, unchallenged? Why won’t Al-Assad just let it go? Even if he was able to squelch the Syrian National Council, he would never be favorably received by any decent government ever again, and if said governments had any ounce of honor they’d sanction Syria until Al-Assad submitted. Oh wait, but that hasn’t worked so far!

The main reason Al-Assad is probably still sitting in office is because he has no real physical threat-that is, war-from  the outside world. I am in no way suggesting that the poverty-stricken West or any other country (except maybe the wealthy Gulf states, in act of penitence) should go to war against Syria; war and violence are never the answer. But since the rebels will never stop fighting, the least the world could do is offer up money and/or arms.  Sanctioning and public shaming don’t seem like they will work, unfortunately (look at Iran); and as a result, the citizens of Syria are put at risk as their country falls into ruin.

Perhaps the West is afraid of Al-Assad’s downfall. The once-promising Arab Spring has never looked so unpromising now. With the exception of ringleader Tunisia who seems to have pulled itself up to acheive the goals of it’s revolution, Egypt has (as I have so “lovingly” documented) been a disaster; Libya likewise. And with protesters on the move in Bahrain and even Saudi Arabia, the West is no doubt nervous about further overthrows. An interesting excerpt from a CNN article says:

“The Alawites [minority sect that Al-Assad belongs to] remain an important component of Syria, and will continue to enjoy the same rights as other citizens as we build one nation of Christians, Muslims, and other sects,” an SNC statement declared. “The regime will not be successful in pitting us against one another. We are determined to unite our society, and the first step is for us to extend our hand to our Alawite brothers and sisters, to build in Syria a nation governed by citizenship and the rule of law.”

This statement from the Syrian National Council sounds promising, not to mention very democratic, but recent history has proved that sectarian violence has not ended with the overthrow of a dictator. Post-Gaddafhi, those who were loyal to the leader were taunted, harassed, even executed; loyals even recaptured Gaddhafi’s hometown. Post-Mubarak, Christians in Egypt have  suffered just as much, if not more, as the police also disappeared from the scene. People without a  strong figurehead, apparently, would rather fight with each other than find a solution.

The situation in Syria continues. Rebels and innocent Syrian bystanders alike, including world-class journalists such as Marie Colvin, continue to die. When is the world going to step in and say that enough’s enough? Or better yet: why can’t Al-Assad just give it up?

Links:

1.

Syria says referendum results coming Monday; vote punctuated by new violence

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/26/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

Grab Your Parasol, ‘Cause it Might Rain in Europe’s Banlieus

From the Tunisienne Faculte Facebook page

“A burka?! You’re going to take that off for me right now!”

“Uh, by the way, you do know that you’re talking to an umbrella…”

The above bande dessinee was found shared on the Facebook page “Tunisienne Faculte,” which is actually a treasure trove of political cartoons and inspirational images if you check out their “wall photos” album. Although I am not sure whether the illustrator was French or Tunisian (or perhaps both), it pretty accurately sums up one viewpoint of the French towards Islam and, more specificially, the burka.

The man in the cartoon is shocked (and somewhat terrified, a mon avis) of the burka and want’s it removed immediately, which reflects France’s action against la voile integrale (the niqab, which covers all but the eyes, is also banned from public). The woman’s snide reaction–”Oh, the person under there is not a human being, it’s a beach umbrella”– is in effect dehumanizing women who wear full coverings. It shows how little the French care that women do choose to put these on-at least, in some places/cases-and that the veil is, for them, a symbol of their religion and faith, not something as silly as a parasol.

Whether or not your a fan of la voile integrale, France is wrong to ban it. The women aren’t walking around nude, for God’s sake-and I suspect that France would have less of a problem if there was a herd of women strolling around in their undies than their burkas. Although I am certainly not a fan of it, and understand that in some cases it can even pose a safety threat (how do you know who’s really under there?) the outrageousness of passing a “fashion law” seems a bit…..well, similar to the actions the Taliban took against Western fashion.

Europe’s queasiness concerning their expanding Muslim population was highlighted by Hishaam Aidi in an Al-Jazeera article (see below), which discusses the alienation of Muslims in their new homelands, particularly in France where they are often relegated to the banlieus. The U.S. government, apparently, is queasy about Europe’s cold shoulder towards their ‘new’ immigrants and has been trying to improve Muslim integration and participation in France and the U.K. The title of the article caught my eye for it hearkened back to the image of the U.S. as supreme “Big Stick” policeman: “Are Europe’s Muslims America’s Problem?” To answer: No, I don’t believe that they are America’s problem, but I do feel that they will be a very grande problem in Europe if these countries don’t open their hearts.

Put it this way: France, the U.K., Holland, Sweden and other European states have already opened their doors to Muslim immigrants. Now, they don’t like the results; but it’s too late to shut the door. It’s time for these governments to ‘open their hearts’ and find compassion and understanding for their new countrymen. If the United States can survive as a nation of immigrants, why can’t Europe be a mixed-bag, culture-wise, as well? The most recent edition of National Geographic describes France’s melting-pot port of Marseille as a place not only teeming with traditional Muslims, but also Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians who go to the plage just like everyone else, strip down to their bathing suits and enjoy the sun. Clearly, not all of France’s Muslims are against integrating and enjoying traditional French pleasures, so why paint them all with the same brush?

Quite frankly, the “backlash” that Europe had to America’s “soft-power programs”-a.k.a. outreach programs run mostly by the American embassy and aimed at youth-is embarassing. The U.S. was just trying to help a bad situation which they recognized from experience: after going through the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s, it’s pretty easy for an American to see that what’s happening in the banlieus and slums of Britain is quite similar to the treatment of African Americans in the past.

To quote the author: ”Sarkozy a few years ago threatened to clean up a cité with a Kärcher, a high-pressure hose.” Not only is this reminiscent of the fire hoses used on African Americans back in the 60s, it’s also a disgusting and cruel thing to say, as though the citizens of the projects were not citizens but garbage: used and broken invisible umbrellas. What did he think that would do? Did he think he could wash all the non-white French people away? Did he think he could cleanse them of their foreign attitudes, wash away the “dirt” of their religions and traditions?

The article mentions the fear of a “loss of cultural identity” as these newcomers hold fast to their traditions. But no one is telling the French to become Muslim, attend Friday prayer, slaughter a sheep: let everyone do what they want, I say. What makes us countrymen is not if we both share the same love of baguettes or pita, wine or the a la menthe, lamb or ham: what makes people countrymen is their shared values, the love of inalienable rights such as the ability to choose to do whatever you want, even if that means donning your own personal parasol to go to the beach.

S-L-M

Links:

1.   Are Europe’s Muslims America’s problem? By Hisaam Aidi, 26 Jan 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212110539569620.htmlvalentines

True Lust, not True Love, is behind Orfi Marriages

Valentines Day may be over, but true love lasts more than a day: “forever” seems to be the fairy-tale measurement, at any rate. Per the story book, true love is sealed by a marriage: a commitment that in the past used to actually last a lifetime. And while marriage is certainly more often than not a permanent situation for most couples in the Middle East, there are an alarming number of marriages that end up just as short as a Hollywood celebritie’s Las Vegas wedding. The cause behind these extremely (as in a few hours at times!) short marriages is none other than true love’s just as passionate but much more spontaneous sibling, true lust, whom Muslims are finding harder to suppress despite their conservative cultures.

One way to know when the marriage is real: you have a ceremony, and tout le monde is invited!

“Faux-marriages” are a common practice for those in Egypt who want to be able to legally “be intimate” with someone who is not a spouse. Known as “orfi marriages” these allow couples to live together without being harassed by their landlords (as I found out, non-married couples cannot rent a flat or even a hotel room in Egypt; proof of marriage is required). While the logic behind the orfi marriages seems sound (from a liberal Westerner’s point of view) the underlying problem is that most of the time the woman (more often than not a foreigner) is not told that the marriage actually has no legal standing with the Egyptian government or any foreign government. Basically put, the orfi marriage is designed so that a man can have sex with the female of his choice and leave her when he’s finished, no strings attached.

A recent article on a French-language Tunisian website (see below for link) shed more light onto fake marriages in the Middle East, albeit in a completely different manner. In Tunisia, the practice of orfi marriages exists the same as in Egypt, but with several twists. Firstly, both parties know that the marriage is not binding nor long-lasting; secondly, both parties are usually Muslim (and sometimes of the more penitent type); and thirdly, it has not only become socially acceptable, but fundamentalist Salafis actually support le mariage coutumier.

The article on lustful Tunisians shocked me, mostly for it’s hypocrisy. Although I once again understand the logic behind two young people who want to have sexual relations but can’t because they are not married nor can be married, the fact that both the man and the woman are usually Muslim was kind of hard to grasp, since unlike in the case of the Egyptian marriages both parties knew that was they were doing was “wrong” and in some cases the girls were the religious type who were veiled! Religion is complicated, but I don’t really see how one could consider herself so “close to God” that she must hide her body from men, but yet she willingly submits to a non-blessed marriage (the article called these marriages ‘halal’ but I think not) just because she wants to have sex? Oh, the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy of course extended to the fact that the extreme fundamentalist Salafi group actually encourages couples to engage in orfi marriages. This statement was not expounded upon, which I greatly would have appreciated, as it seemed to jar with everything that Salafis stand for along with the other commentary that the article provided, such as the fact that orfi marriage is still illegal under law. The article did point to the fact that many of the orfi participants are young, poor and relish the ability to enjoy an aspect of marriage “sans pour autant en supporter la charge financière, généralement très lourde.”

The “charge financiere,” or financial burden, points to a very interesting comparaison between the evolution of a Christianity and Islam. The Christian bible also states that sexual relatons should only be between a husband and wife, yet there are plenty of people nowadays who call themselves Christian but who engage in premarital sex, among other previously “forbidden” practices. Orfi marriage in the Muslim world suggests that some Muslims are challenging the rules that are suggested in the Qu’ran like their Christian counterparts before them. Orfi marriages suggest that even Islam, often seen as a stalwart and stubborn bulkhead to modernity, adaptation and change, is not completely immune to our rapidly changing world. Marriages cost money, and not everyone has money in these harsh economic times. Thus, even those who believe strongly in God have thought realistically and come to the conclusion that they don’t want to end up as the 40-year old virgin.

Will custom be overtaken by personal desire, lust and opinion in Tunisia? The citizens of this tiny country have already proved themselves as trendsetters of the Middle East (hello, Sidi Bouzi and the Arab Spring!) so let’s see if they can start a more cultural, liberal revolution.

S-L-M

Links:

1. “Tunisie – Le sexe hors mariage, désormais « halal » grâce au mariage « coutumier »” by Synda Tajine. 27 January 2012.  http://www.businessnews.com.tn/Tunisie—Le-sexe-hors-mariage,-d%C3%A9sormais-%C2%AB-halal-%C2%BB-gr%C3%A2ce-au-mariage-%C2%AB-coutumier-%C2%BB,520,28998,3

2. Photo copyright:  weddings.divanee.com

Grab Your Parasol, ‘Cause it might Rain in Europe’s Banlieus

From Tunisienne Faculte Facebook page

“A burka?! You’re going to take that off for me right now!”

“Uh, by the way, you do know that you’re talking to an umbrella…”

The above bande dessinee was found shared on the Facebook page “Tunisienne Faculte,” which is actually a treasure trove of political cartoons and inspirational images if you check out their “wall photos” album. Although I am not sure whether the illustrator was French or Tunisian (or perhaps both), it pretty accurately sums up one viewpoint of the French towards Islam and, more specificially, the burka.

The man in the cartoon is shocked (and somewhat terrified, a mon avis) of the burka and want’s it removed immediately, which reflects France’s action against la voile integrale (the niqab, which covers all but the eyes, is also banned from public). The woman’s snide reaction–”Oh, the person under there is not a human being, it’s a beach umbrella”– is in effect dehumanizing women who wear full coverings. It shows how little the French care that women do choose to put these on-at least, in some places/cases-and that the veil is, for them, a symbol of their religion and faith, not something as silly as a parasol.

Whether or not your a fan of la voile integrale, France is wrong to ban it. The women aren’t walking around nude, for God’s sake-and I suspect that France would have less of a problem if there was a herd of women strolling around in their undies than their burkas. Although I am certainly not a fan of it, and understand that in some cases it can even pose a safety threat (how do you know who’s really under there?) the outrageousness of passing a “fashion law” seems a bit…..well, similar to the actions the Taliban took against Western fashion.

Europe’s queasiness concerning their expanding Muslim population was highlighted by Hishaam Aidi in an Al-Jazeera article (see below), which discusses the alienation of Muslims in their new homelands, particularly in France where they are often relegated to the banlieus. The U.S. government, apparently, is queasy about Europe’s cold shoulder towards their ‘new’ immigrants and has been trying to improve Muslim integration and participation in France and the U.K. The title of the article caught my eye for it hearkened back to the image of the U.S. as supreme “Big Stick” policeman: “Are Europe’s Muslims America’s Problem?” To answer: No, I don’t believe that they are America’s problem, but I do feel that they will be a very grande problem in Europe if these countries don’t open their hearts.

Put it this way: France, the U.K., Holland, Sweden and other European states have already opened their doors to Muslim immigrants. Now, they don’t like the results; but it’s too late to shut the door. It’s time for these governments to ‘open their hearts’ and find compassion and understanding for their new countrymen. If the United States can survive as a nation of immigrants, why can’t Europe be a mixed-bag, culture-wise, as well? The most recent edition of National Geographic describes France’s melting-pot port of Marseille as a place not only teeming with traditional Muslims, but also Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians who go to the plage just like everyone else, strip down to their bathing suits and enjoy the sun. Clearly, not all of France’s Muslims are against integrating and enjoying traditional French pleasures, so why paint them all with the same brush?

Quite frankly, the “backlash” that Europe had to America’s “soft-power programs”-a.k.a. outreach programs run mostly by the American embassy and aimed at youth-is embarassing. The U.S. was just trying to help a bad situation which they recognized from experience: after going through the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s, it’s pretty easy for an American to see that what’s happening in the banlieus and slums of Britain is quite similar to the treatment of African Americans in the past.

To quote the author: “Sarkozy a few years ago threatened to clean up a cité with a Kärcher, a high-pressure hose.” Not only is this reminiscent of the fire hoses used on African Americans back in the 60s, it’s also a disgusting and cruel thing to say, as though the citizens of the projects were not citizens but garbage: used and broken invisible umbrellas. What did he think that would do? Did he think he could wash all the non-white French people away? Did he think he could cleanse them of their foreign attitudes, wash away the “dirt” of their religions and traditions?

The article mentions the fear of a “loss of cultural identity” as these newcomers hold fast to their traditions. But no one is telling the French to become Muslim, attend Friday prayer, slaughter a sheep: let everyone do what they want, I say. What makes us countrymen is not if we both share the same love of baguettes or pita, wine or the a la menthe, lamb or ham: what makes people countrymen is their shared values, the love of inalienable rights such as the ability to choose to do whatever you want, even if that means donning your own personal parasol to go to the beach.

S-L-M

Links:

1.   Are Europe’s Muslims America’s problem? By Hisaam Aidi, 26 Jan 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212110539569620.htmlvalentines

A “Code Red” in Egypt

Due to internet problems, I have not been online in almost a week. Today is my last day in Egypt; I will return home tommorow. So much has happened in Egypt that it is hard to know where to begin.

Because I am now pressed for time, I would like to share with you a bulletin about what has been going on in the streets of Egypt, along with links to interesting articles concerning the matter.

One of the Lions that Gaurd the Oct. 6 bridge. Can Egypt rise up again like the lion, and resume it's pride and dignity?

• Top officials barred from Traveling Port Said, a large city on the Mediterranean, was the scene of more than 70 deaths as violence broke out at a football match. Fans stormed the field, attacking the players and then each other. While watching the coverage on TV a million questions ran through my head: what possessed them to attack the players? What possessed other spectators to join in the melee? And furthermore, why didn’t the police try to control the scene? Footage shows them just idly standing, not even trying to stop the rioting. The scene was, to quote my husband, “like crazed animals being released from a cage:” men were just running across the field, not for any purpose such as to run for safety or even to join in the fight; they just ran as though they were at a track meet, or, as an American friend who was over at the time for dinner said, “As though it was their dream to run across the soccer pitch.” Since then, massive protests have erupted throughout Egypt, leading to only more deaths, and top officials in Port Said have been banned from traveling out of the country as they face inquiries as to how this tragedy could have happened. There is talk of conspiracy on the terms of the government/police/military, but from what I can see, it was just a bunch of people rioting for no good reason.
• Fire in Cairo Stadium On February 1st, a fire broke out in Cairo Stadium during a football match (Zamalek vs. Ahly) after officials learned of the fighting in Port Said. Although this article states that the fire was due to a “circuit failure,” videos (youtube) showed hooligans setting off fireworks and running around along the track that surrounds the field. Cairo Stadium is just minutes away from my flat in Nasr City, and I watched the news coverage on TV with utter horror because, yet again, the police on hand seemed to do nothing to control the scene and, furthermore, the acts of the fans were just unbelievable. Fireworks are dangerous and should only be used in a controlled setting. Using them in a public place such as a stadium is poor judgement, and once again, people were both killed or injured in the incident. Personally, for everyone’s safety, I feel that fireworks should not be bought by the public! (This is one NY state rule that I agree with!)
• Gunmen rob HSCB in New Cairo This article includes the link to the video that was shot of the masked gunmen robbing the bank; what I’m curious about is, who filmed the robbery? Some bloke was just looking out the window with his camera and spotted the incident, or was he in on it? What’s disturbing about this incident is that it was one of several robberies throughout Egypt in the past week; similar robberies were also held in the resort town of Sharm al-Shiekh, where two European tourists were killed by Bedouin gunmen.
• Americans Kidnapped by Bedouins 2 Female American tourists were kidnapped for ransom by a Bedouin tribe, according to this article not for money but for the release of political prisoners. I do believe that they have since been released, but seriously: if Egyptians ever want a single tourist (tourism is a vital part of the Egyptian economy) to come back to Egypt, they need to rethink all of this protest and violence. Kidnapping is a surefire way for your country to be on the “Travel advisory” that the TSA puts out; even I, as a ardent traveler with a love for adventure, would not attempt to go to a country on this list!

The result of this week of terror? People have done what they do best here in Egypt: taken to the streets in their anger and frustration. Violence begets violence: more people are dead as a result of the protests. But shouldn’t mourners, those who lost a loved one in these events, be at home, grieving, and not stampeding the streets? Part of me believes that the robberies-for there were many more than the two that I just mentioned-were more than coincidence; after all, nothing like this has happened in the whole past year since the revolution, and now we have all this mayhem in just a week’s time.  I don’t want to believe that the stadium tragedies were the SCAF’s/police’s fault, because it would just show more gross error on their part and surely they would be smart enough (one would hope, but then again, in the past they have proved wrong) to realize that instigating these tragedies would only make the public hate them more. Part of the blame surely rests in the bloody hands of the average Egyptian who participated in the Port Said riots, or the mayhem at Cairo Stadium, and that means, sadly, that they only have themselves to blame.

As this will most likely be my last post on Egyptian soil, I would like to give a bit of parting advice to the Egyptian people, specifically those who feel the need to roam the streets, protest and cause mayhem:

Be cool. Calm down. Ask yourself what you really want, and how it may be achieved. Go to a masjid and pray for hope, pray for an answer. The Koran itself  does not condone violence just for the sake of violence. Roaming the streets, throwing smoke bombs and attacking each other will not solve your problems nor your conscience. Your country was a magnificent center of civilization; let’s restore it to it’s former glory, so that all Egyptians can be proud to call themselves Egyptians. Inchallah, I will be back to Egypt many times over the course of my life, and I hope to find it in good hands.

S-L-M