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/

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

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy: A Girl and her Photo

Girl takes nude photo. Nude photo appears on the internet. What happens?

If you’re a porn star, people salivate and save it to their computers. If you’re a celebrity, the same thing also happens–and the girl either shrugs it off as “any publicity is good publicity” or she tries to sue whoever leaked the photo. If you’re Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, said girl get insults, threats, and worldwide debate.

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, a mere 20 year old  Cairene student and activist, posted a nude photo of herself on her blog. The reason? She wasn’t trying to be a slut or flaunt herself, but she was definitely trying to garner attention: Aliaa was protesting freedom of speech and, I would say, people’s extreme views on sex in the Middle East. She is quoted as writing:

‘Hide all art books and smash naked archaeological statues. ’Then take off your clothes and look at yourselves in the mirror, then burn your body that you so despise to get rid of your sexual complexes forever, before subjecting me to your bigoted insults or denying my freedom of expression.’

Words cannot describe how happy I was when I heard about this girl. My father had seen an article about her on AOL news. His response? “Well, Egyptian girls are rather attractive, aren’t they?” How radically different was his take on the photo from the many Muslims (mostly male, but there were women too) who poured hate onto her blog as well as her Facebook page, which I promptly added. The diatribes and hate people wrote were  sickening and disheartening. This girl is not a slut; she is not a whore. She is not a “crazy little bitch.” She took a picture of her body.

The profile photo for Aliaa Magda Elmahdy's facebook group "Aliaa Magda Elmahdy."

The human body is just that: the human body. Her comment as quoted above about people hating their own bodies is absolutely right: some people (particularly in the Middle East) are so hung up on sex that they have debased the human body. We all have a body, and who cares, quite frankly, if men’s bodies are slightly different from a woman’s body?

There is a tiny part of me that wishes that she had not taken the photo, and it is the part of me that sadly acknowledges the realities of life in Cairo, Egypt and that, as the Daily Mail article I read suggested, she may have done more harm than good. She took a radical step, and I’m not quite sure if Egypt was ready for such a bold move. Unfortunately, stripping down for this photo might have just reinforced people’s ideas that women are sluts and must be covered, otherwise they will go all out and bare all.

It’s unfair that, even in protesting, one should be prudent in taking care as to how one demonstrates. But the Daily Mail also pointed out another potential problem that could result from Aliaa’s statement: that her radical liberal approach might turn even lightly conservative people away from the liberal parties campaigning for office in Egypt. Egypt needs to maintain a “liberal,” open-minded and secular government. It will be such a shame if they replace Mubarak with extreme fundamentals who will certainly deny freedom of speech to a possibly even greater extent.

Despite the problems that her photo might cause for both her cause and for her personally (in my mind I see her cooped up in her flat, unable to leave for her own safety) I still think that, looking at the bigger picture, it needed to be done. She got not only Egypt’s attention, but the worlds!  She made her point clear: that one statement should not define a person, nor should one “statement” be enough to condemn her/him.

If I had to name my heros, Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, a girl who I have never met and whose name I had never heard until today, would be featured on that list. To risk your life, social standing and possibly freedom to defend freedom is something worth honoring. The woman should be respected, not condemned.

S-L-M

Links:

1. Aliaa Magda Elmahdy: Foolish act of bravery? Egyptian activist risks her life after posting full frontal nude shot online sparking outrage among Muslims” by Maysa Rawi, The DailyMail  UK, 18 November 2011.
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2063201/Aliaa-Magda-Elmahdy-blog-Egyptian-activist-posts-nude-photo-online-sparking-outrage.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

There is No Fun in Islam? Charlie Hebdo learns the Hard Way

Is there truly “no fun in Islam?” Is it truly a live without sin and die kind of religion, as the infamous (and certainly depressed) Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran once famously stated?

Ayatollah Khomeini. He looks suitably miserable. Who bans fun from their life, unless they sinned too much? (photo from mideastweb.org)

Charlie Hebdo, a French weekly paper, might agree with Khomeini and say that yes, there is no fun in Islam, after the recent bombing of it’s headquarters.

Charlie Hebdo, like it’s Danish predecessor a couple years ago, became the recipient of Muslim ire and violence when a Molotov cocktail was thrown at it’s building and destroyed the office, after it decided to make the Prophet Mohammad a “Guest editor” for the magazine and included several cartoons.

The Blasphemous cover of Charlie Hebdo (taken from their Facebook page) which ignited such ire. "1000 lashes," Mohammad says, "if you don't die of laughter" Eh ben, personne ne mort de rire!

This incident has been bothering me for a while, and I decided to take a break from my Koran reading posts (which have also been bothering me) to discuss the incident. I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech, as long as you are not grossly name-calling or demeaning a certain people. (For example: there are many horrendous WordPress blogs that I have encountered denouncing Islam, Arabs, even our own country which disturb me oh-so-greatly for their pure lack of ignorance. I was called a “dumb little girl,” when I tried to rightly stand up to the ignorance. No such luck)

Muslims insisted that Charlie Hebdo (like the Danish cartoons before it) was insulting Islam and the Prophet and, in retrospect, themselves. This time, I’m going to have to stick up for the freedom of speech for several reasons, namely that:

1. The magazine wasn’t saying that Islam or Muslims were stupid or wrong.

2. The cartoonists weren’t blasphemizing, since they are not Muslim

3.  If we can’t poke fun at life, than we are going to end up like Iran (or Saudi Arabia; at least women drive in Iran and have water fights).

4. The issue was supposed to commemorate Tunisia’s moderate Islamic party victory; they weren’t condemning it (hey, Mohammad got the seat of honor: he was editing the magazine!)

6. Christianity-poking cartoons are produced without full-scale international clamor and bombing; learn to take a joke, please!

5. Violence is never, ever the answer. Protest all you want; but turning to violence is wrong. The cartoonists weren’t trying to destroy Islam, they hadn’t hurt anyone, but if someone had been in that office, they probably would have been dead. I never condone violence unless it’s self-defense (self-defense of your religion does not count).

Another reason that I sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo people is that I hope to one day publish the highly satirical Christian play I wrote, entitled L’Eglise (une comedie), and I sure as Hell don’t want my future abode to be bombed by some fanatical Christian who thought I was blaspheming and trying to bring down his religion.

Well, at least it looks like Charlie Hebdo has no hard feelings. “Love is stronger than hate:” what a good message!

S-L-M

"Love is Stronger than Hate" La une/cover of Charlie's post-bombing mag (from charliehebdo.fr)

The End of Gaddafi, the Start of a New Libya

Being away from the computer for a mere 24 hours shows that a lot can happen! I returned home from NYC to find out that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, thus punctuating the end of over-long era.

The fate of Gaddafi–the first of the Arab Spring dictators to be killed- is one that all dictators who rule with an iron fist (are there any who don’t??) must know is always a possibility down the line. True, Ben Ali of Tunisia managed to escape whatever fate the Tunisians had in store for him by fleeing to Saudi Arabia. Hosny Mubarak of Egypt was arrested, stripped of his millions and his dignity as he was wheeled into court. Will he be punished by death, like Gaddafi? Gaddafi’s fate might seem like the worst punishment, but in a sense it isn’t. Mubarak certainly has it worse as he is forced to sit chained in the grille box that criminals sit in in court: that level of humility is high. Ben Ali, although “free,” is exiled from the country of his birth and everything that implies–certainly not a light sentence. It makes one wonder: how does it feel to be a former leader removed from power by the citizens you once ruled who came to loathe you?

Alas, little sympathy can be spared for such figures, as they have run their countries into the ground economically, had dissenters silenced and/or murdered and basically used their power for corruption. These are people who appear to have little empathy. Wasn’t Saddam Hussein still cursing the Americans just before he was hanged, saying we’d all go to hell? You would think that he might have felt a bit of remorse for what he had done, seeing that if he hadn’t been so greedy in the first place he wouldn’t have become reviled, captured and executed. I don’t suppose there’s ever been a dictator who actually did good for their country.

The downfall of a dictator does not automatically mean that a country is “saved” and liberated. Egypt is struggling with it’s military rule. Iraq is a country still engaged in war, and torn apart. Did Libya “win it’s revolution,” as President Obama said? Yes, they might have gotten rid of their eccentric dictator  but the battle has really only begun. Now is their chance to create the Libya that they have been waiting for.

Good luck!

S-L-M