A Letter to the Retriever Weekly Regarding "The X-Ray Project"

Dear Retriever Weekly,

I am writing concerning the “X-Ray Project” which has recently been installed in the Commons at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. This work consists of x-rays of victims of suicide bombings taken from Israeli hospitals. While I do not believe in censorship and certainly reject violence against innocent civilians, I object to the content of this exhibit for several reasons. It is utterly devoid of context; it depicts the violence perpetrated by one side in a brutal conflict in total isolation from the ongoing brutalities of the Occupation of Palestinian land. The exhibit ignores the structural injustices and ongoing military actions against civilian targets which breed the types of violence it seeks to condemn. The result is an unbalanced caricature of the conflict, one which serves no higher function than that of partisan propaganda. Whatever high moral feeling is meant to be reflected in the exhibit is vitiated by its selective presentation. By valorizing the suffering of the Israelis exclusively it negates the suffering of the Palestinians. The result is a kind of censorship by omission.

In addition, given the recent Israeli act of aggression against Lebanon it is in extremely bad taste to focus on a hand full of Israeli victims of terror while ignoring the near total destruction by Israel of one of its neighbors. The military actions against Lebanon included the use of cluster bombs, a war crime, which generate carnage on a scale that the wielder of a ‘suicide belt’ could only dream of achieving. The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon frequently targeted areas which were well outside of Hizbullah’s area of influence and served no purpose other than to inspire terror in the civilian population and undermine Lebanon economically. A well known example of the latter is the bombing by the Israeli Defense Force of a Christian farm complex in the North of the country; this farm had won the contract, formerly held by an Israeli company, for providing food to UN Peacekeepers stationed in the south.

This exhibit has a broader context than that of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Viewed in the wider context of Post-Colonial studies, it serves to demonize the resistance of the poor and oppressed, often conducted using crude, homemade weaponry, while sanctioning the use of military violence by states. This leads to moral paradox of condemning, rightfully, the death of a handful of innocent civilians at the hand of a resistance fighter while glorying in the destruction of towns and cities full of innocent civilians via aerial bombardment, as was the case in Groznyy, Beirut, and Fallujah. The fact that, more often than not, the suicide terror condemned in the exhibit stems from military actions such as these has been completely disregarded. The fundamental moral flaw, which is the pretense that the modern nation-state has the moral authority to deal out death and destruction as it sees fit, is left unaddressed. The problem of terrorism will never be resolved until the structural injustices which breed it are corrected and the violent proclivities of the nation-state are curtailed. No solution is offered by this exhibit; its sole purpose is to demonize Palestinians so that when Americans hear of the violence directed against them they shrug it off as a just desert.For this reason, I have no choice but to condemn this exhibit as propaganda.

Finally, this exhibit is inherently racist because it exhibits the results of the actions of a handful of Palestinians without calling attention either to the depredations which the Palestinian people daily face as a result of a decades long military occupation or to the fact that is in reality only a handful of Palestinians that are reacting in this way. Imagine, if you will, someone creating an exhibit which consisted of pictures of the Watts Riots and the LA Riots; imagine if these pictures showed only African-Americans engaging in looting and burning and various acts of violence. Would such an exhibit not be racist by the very fact that it excludes the context of ongoing, violent, structural oppression that the African-American population has been forced to experience? Would not the protestations by the exhibit’s creator that she is simply being ‘anti-riot’ be seen for their mendacity? And would not her complaints that her critics are ‘apologists’ for rioting be seen as the worst type of ad hominem attack? For these reasons I cannot remain silent when this type of exhibit is presented for the perusal of the student body. Silence becomes even more unacceptable when the author of the exhibit stigmatizes her critics as apologists for terrorism. I hope that the Retriever will see fit to publish this letter either in the Letters section or as an Op-Ed as a welcome opposing view on this controversial installation.

"Baghdad Burning"

The 17 year long genocide of the Iraqi people continues with these strikes against 'terror targets'. Once again, the US is bombing one of the most populous cities in the Arab world. Once again, the seat of a culture which was ancient when the Greeks were first developing an urban civilization is being destroyed by the forces of Western racism and imperialism.

One Reason Why America Needs Islam

It lacks a comprehensive vision of society which can succesfully integrate youth into society and raise them to be God-conscious, altruistic, and virtuous. Islam provides this. In addition it promotes a healthy disdain for riches and promotes ties of brotherhood across boundaries of class, ethnicity, and race. These factors combine to ensure that events such as this never happen.

Dialogue on Obligation

Imam: As-salaamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatulah, As-Salaamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullah

Malik(after counting Tasbih): Salaam Alaykum Iqbal Sahab. Kya hal hai?

Iqbal:Va laykum salaam, Thik hai.

Malik: Do you ever wonder, my friend, why we do this? Is it just to avoid punishment or is it because it is right to worship Allah in the way he has prescribed?

Iqbal: Ah, I see you're in one of your questioning moods again. Ideally, we should worshipping Allah out of love for Him, not out of hope of reward. But yes, he has a right over us that we should worship Him.

Malik: But what is the basis of this right? Is it simply that he has created us or is there something more basic involved, some fundamental moral duty?

Iqbal: I think, perhaps, that you've brought in assumptions about the nature of moral duty that are alien to world-view of Islam. Instead of trying to get beyond
this world in the attempt to see it as it relates to Allah(SWT), an act which is surely impossible, perhaps we should start with the human reality as we live it.

Malik: Please explain.

Iqbal: We have an innate sense of right and wrong, do we not? A conscience, if you will. I am not claiming that this sense is infallible, but we can agree that we do possess it, no? Is it not part of the fitrah, or natural disposition, that we, as Muslims, believe is a blessing from Allah (SWT) ?

Malik: I agree.

Iqbal: Doesn't this sense of right and wrong call us to virtue and ward us off from vice?

Malik: That seems to be its nature and purpose.

Iqbal: Is this sense rational and calculating; does it attempt to persuade us with arguments or an appeal to the facts?

Malik: No, it seems to, depending on its strength, either whisper suggestions or make commands.

Iqbal: So this conscience is essentially an inner call to duty?

Malik: That seems reasonable.

Iqbal: So obedience to conscience is a duty, a duty based in our nature as human beings. For when we disobey conscience we are certainly miserable, even if the misery is at times delayed. In our practical lives we have adopted a norm of rationality which compels us towards coherence and integrity in our beliefs and actions. To consciously act against them insites a kind of psychological vertigo, as if one's next step would be into the void itself.

Malik: This is true; to act against conscience seems to negate whatever foothold
we have in our dealings with reality.

Iqbal: And part of this framework of belief in which we find ourselves enmeshed is a belief in the duty to show gratitude to benefactors, is it not? This belief has immense pragmatic benefits when acted on in the context of human society; for this reason it can be found integrated into the world views of virtually every culture. While we can speculate as to how it came to be and even generate
faux doubts about it, in practice it is not something that is subject to living doubt.

Malik: This is true; in practice we don't even think about it. We just act on it.

Iqbal: So gratitude to benefactors is something that we would expect a rational human being to express?

Malik: Certainly.

Iqbal: And part of gratitude is service, is it not? If someone had done me a good turn and later came to me with a request, I would be an ingrate to decline that request, would I not?

Malik: Absolutely.

Iqbal: And the service requested is justified in so far as it does not exceed the original good that was done for me?

Malik: Of course.

Iqbal: Then Allah (SWT), who is our greatest benefactor, can rightfully demand whatever He wills of us because, as our creator, all good that we have ever experienced and ever will experience is a gift from him. The service demanded of us can therefore never exceed the good that was done for us.

Malik: That appears undeniable.

Iqbal: What follows from this is that not only is it expedient to obey Allah (SWT), in view of both the rewards He has promised us for obedience and of the blessings He has associated with the fulfillments of His commands, it is right to do so because failing to obey would violate that central duty of gratitude towards one’s benefactors which we discussed earlier.

Malik: I am forced to agree. But what of the duties we owe to other human beings and to the rest of Allah’s Creation? These do not concern Allah (SWT) alone as do Salat and Saum; is his command sufficient to establish their justice? After all, what engenders so much of the criticism to which Islam is subject is the way in which Islamic Law is seen to mistreat women and non-Muslims.

Iqbal: Allah (SWT) is equally the benefactor of all of His creation; he can therefore rightfully assign the duties which one creature owes to another. For example, if I was owed a debt by two men I, being both generous and not in financial need, could rightfully order the first debtor to pay what he owes me to the second and vice versa. Similarly, Allah (SWT), who is exalted above any need, can rightfully command us to pay back part of the debt we owe Him in the form of good deeds directed towards his other creatures. Being our supreme benefactor he is entitled to exact whatever terms he pleases and these terms include how ought to act to his other beneficiaries. Part of gratitude is acceptance of the fact that He may ask more of some and less of others; a woman is commanded to cover more of her body than a man, while a man is commanded to provide financially for his children and a woman is not. Some are called upon to enforce these commands, while others are commanded to simply obey them. In none of these cases is there cause for complaint because what is made obligatory for someone never exceeds the good that has been done to her. Islamic laws, provided they are derived from authentic sources via a sound methodology and are applied correctly, can therefore never be unjust.

Malik: I feel as if a great burden has been lifted from my spirit. Praise be to Allah and may He reward you. Khuda Hafez.

Iqbal: Khuda Hafez.

Phoenix Reborn: The Fire of Truth: The Death of Progressive Islam

Some intellectual coolness from abdul-Haqq.

Islamaphobia is the methodological offspring of Anti-Semitism

In honor of the Daniel Pipes motivated hacking of Imam 'Abdul-Alim Musa's Myspace page I present the following reflection.

Both antisemitism and Islamophobia involve rifling through a diverse array of religious and cultural texts with the aim of extracting those statements which would cast the target in the worst possible light. Both presume to dictate to the Jew or to the Muslim what kind of person they ought to be; the fall back position for both the Islamaphobe or the Antisemite when confronted with Jews or Muslims who fail to typify a stereotype is to claim that these Jews or Muslims are not being true to their own beliefs, are inauthentic, self-hating, etc. Both the Islamaphobe and the anti-semite elevate text over context; they extract the lines they need with no concern for either the surrounding material or the larger tradition in which the text is embedded. The Islamaphobe takes Ayahs of the Quran which counsel against relying on non-muslims for protection and uses them to convict Muslims of intractable otherness and relentless hostility. Likewise, the Antisemite takes theoretical discussions in the Talmud about the proper relations between Jews and Gentiles and uses them to construct a slanderous stereotype of the Jew as petty tribalist, with no moral concern for those not part of his or her tiny nation. Both ignore the rich history of interaction between both communities and the outside world and both omit the underlying universalistic ethical stance of the two communities. It is inconsistent to abhor and excoriate one without taking a similar stance against the other.

"Martial law grips Guinea"

I think alot more than two people were killed when the butchers opened fire.

Thoughts on the Conference on Islamic Law in the West

On Friday and Saturday I attended a conference on Islamic Law and the West held at the Washington College of Law. The list of speakers included Dr.Umar Faruq Abdullah, Dr. Mohammad Fadel, and Dr. M. Shahid Alam. The introductory panel consisted of an interesting, if basic, introduction to the categories used in Islamic Law (Dr. Fadel), an analysis of Islamic Constitutionalism with reference to the ideas of Abdul-Karim Sourush (Intisar Rabb), and an account of the recent attempt to provide alternative, religiously based arbitration in Ontario (Jasmin Zine). Dr. Abdullah presented the keynote address on "Muslims in the Mainstream" where he recounted something of the history of Islam in America and suggested tipping points to increase our political capital and counteract mainstream media demonization of Islam and Muslims.

The next day saw a panel on Islam and Violence. I was captivated by the speech of Dr. Alam; he spoke a truth which needed to be proclaimed in an elite college like American University. His primary thesis was that the threat of terror has been greatly exaggerated in order to scare the American people into agreement with draconian government policies and to manipulate public opinion about which forms of resistance are legitimate. He detailed how the discourse of violence has succeeded in delegitimizing liberation struggles around the world and how talk of violence is primarily concerned with means and not results. He pointed out that the institutionalized violence which has resulted from the attempts of Neo-Liberal organizations such as the World Bank and WTO to enforce their economic policies on the global South has killed more people (many more) than terrorism has. I suggest downloading the podcast or the video for this discussion; Dr. Alam's delivery was remarkable, charismatic, and engrossing. I was moved to by his book and have found it quite a good read.

The last panel, on Islam and Gender Politics, was definitely the most controversial. On the one hand, I agree with the speakers about the need for increasing participation by female 'Ulema in the process of developing Fiqh, especially where Women's issues are concerned. Misogynistic and gynophobic practices such as 'honor' killing need to be stopped and the judiciary made to prosecute the perpetrators. I disagree, however, with the attitude which pervaded the discussion. Overall, it was rather defeatist; it either assumed that the West is right about the 'oppression' of women in Islam or it tied concrete matters of Islamic Law, such as the laws of inheritance, into the specific society in which they were revealed. While context is incredibly important in matters of Fiqh, issues such as inheritance are not left solely to the discretion of the jurist; the core of these laws is enshrined in the Qur'an itself. Rather than abandon them because they cause us difficulties (or embarrass us in front of our Western neighbors), we must ponder the hikmah behind their institution and work to create a society where they can implemented justly. The laws were revealed in part to maintain economic balance in a society where the men were given the responsibility to care for three generations: their children, their unmarried female siblings in the absence of parents, and their parents in old age. Women are absolved of these financial responsibilities. There is a balance here. While men get gross more under this system, they also have many others who have share in their wealth; a women's property is hers and hers alone: it is not required that she spend it on anyone, not even her children. This is not simply an archaic social system; there is a wisdom behind it. This system allows for bringing up of the next generation and for the care of the preceding one on the basis of natural ties of affection and of an Islamic sense of duty to one's Creator. The drive for filthy lucre which dominates Western thought on these matters and which has created a generation eager to dump their parents in 'retirement' homes and their children into the arms of the state and the television is altogether absent. It also recognizes the value of women's work in the home, a value which cannot be reduced to a dollar value. They are therefore free to keep what property they have earned (and to earn more at her discretion) without being burdened with additional responsibilities beyond those of caring for her children (Housework such as cooking and cleaning is, from what I have read, actually the husband's responsibility).

This can be usefully contrasted with the position of women in the west, where until recently a wife became subsumed into the legal entity of her husband, where her property became his property, and where the husband felt entitled to extract as much work from her as he could get. With the onset of the industrial revolution women were, in addition to the indignities already mentioned, forced to deal with new challenges: in addition to what was demanded from them in the home they were forced by the poverty created by capitalism to work in the factories in horrendous conditions, subject to the perverted desires of their male supervisors and bosses who wielded near total control over them. The liberation of women has very much been the liberation of women to work, to add to the value of accumulating capital. Women are the oppressed of the oppressed, forced to slave under tyrants in both the factory and the home, adding value to capital in one and rearing the next brood of workers in the other. Even the increasing penetration of women into managerial positions has an economic underpinning; who better to complete the exploitation of women but women? Who knows better how to most thoroughly and efficiently derive the maximum economic benefit from having women in the labor force and consumer base?

Islam is founded on struggle. We should not simply accept existing political, social, and economic realities; we should endeavor to change them. The talk of rights is very often a guise for "that single, unconscionable freedom- Free Trade"(Marx); there are profound structural injustices and systems of exploitation waiting to be imposed upon Muslim women in the name of liberation. Conversely, much talk of establishing Islam reduces to a desire to institute a hand full of Hudd punishments and call it a day. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable; we must evolve our own discourse of liberty within community, guided by our understanding of the texts revealed by All-Mighty Allah (SWT) and founded upon a vision which embraces all aspects of personal and communal life: familial, social, cultural, political, and economic. This latter part has been horribly neglected; we hear right and left calls for establishing Islam as a social order but very little is done to establish this order on a solid, halal economic foundation. What good is it to on occasion stone or flog someone in the interests of promoting public order if that very order is established on exploitative and unjust economic practices and institutions? How can you establish a halal superstructure on a haram economic base? Until these economic issues are resolved, and they will only be resolved through great thought and struggle, any attempt to establish Islam culturally or socially will fail. Attempts at political reform or revolution will be mere window dressing if the economic base isn't remade according "Islamic concepts of 'adl and Ihsan"(Dr. Alam). I pray that Allah (SWT) grants this generation the capacity to succeed at this economic refoundation which the Ummah so desperately needs. Ameen.

Washington College of Law Conference on Islamic Law in the West

I attended this conference last weekend and it was quite an experience. You can find a webcast here (video) and here (audio). Inshaa'Allah, I'll write more later.

Islam and Whiteness

"Once we realize that we have a common enemy, then we unite- on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy- the white man."
-Al-Hajj Malik Ash-Shabaz

Brother Malik ash-Shabaz (Malcom X) said these words at the tail end of his association with the Nation of Islam, but I don't think they can be dismissed as Black nationalist propaganda. Throughout his life, brother Malcom was intelligent, informed, and perceptive; he didn't magically gain these qualities in the last year of his life. So it behooves us as Muslims to consider these words. He ties in what he is saying (I am quoting from his Message to the Grass Roots) with the experience of the Bandung conference; I think this is key, because this conference had attendees from all over Asia and Africa. As he says, "the number one thing that was not allowed to attend the Bandung conference was the white man," so that the people could talk freely. He tells us that "once they kept him out, they found that they could get together." And they found out that when they looked at their various oppressors "the one thing that all of them had in common- they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue-eyed and white skins."

But surely there were people who were fair in skin and hair and eye at Bandung? After all it was organized by, among others, Pakistan, India, and Egypt, and was attended by representatives of peoples from throughout Asia and Africa. So the question is: Is it physical features and these alone which make one White or is Whiteness a social structure and a mentality which it is possible to opt out of and remove from one's self? This suggests the further question of whether one can be White and Muslim; Islam is opposed to all forms of jahiliyya and in the modern world there are few things more jahil than the notion of whiteness, of the superiority of the fair skinned people and the ideology and social system which supports White priviledge. It is quite clear from the authentic sources in Islam that the deen which Allah (SWT) has revealed to us through the Messenger (SAW) is for all mankind, of whatever geographic or ethnic origin and of whatever skin tone.

So there must be a way of opting out of Whiteness. This way can be found in the Sunnah of Rasulullah (SAW); by adopting his manners of dealing with other people, his pattern of dress, in short, the way of life which was revealed through him, Muslims can break the pattern of White supremacy which gags the social life not only of this nation but of the world. It uplifts the oppressed and rehabilitates the oppressor, socializing them to one another in the best possible away and uniting them in one common brotherhood. Practically, by wearing a Sunnah beard and observing the Hijab, by imitating the Messenger (SAW) in his manner of dress (such as the Kamees, the Thowb, and the Imamah) and by, if need be, changing one's name, a brother or sister of European origin can begin to break the back of the White priviledge which they have been given and can finally begin to understand something of the oppression under which our African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian brothers and sisters live. For this reason, I think it is advisable for european converts to marry outside of their ethnicity so as to avoid the formation of a new 'White' elite within the Muslim community living outside of the historic boundaries of Dar al-Islam. I think it is especially important for euro-american converts to follow the lead of our African-American brothers and sisters because they, more than any other group, are the indigenous Muslim community in this country and because they, more than any other group, have the experience to deal Islamically with the challenges which America poses for us. In addition this will be a necessary corrective to the unjust pattern of African innovation and euro-american co-optation which can so readily seen in the social history of the United States. The question that remains to be answered, as brother Malcom observed, is whether there are white people that want to be Muslim.