Sorry for the tremendous absence... been busy, with school; you know, research, grading, reading, note-taking, proctoring, not lecturing, but it's almost over. An end - albeit not the end - is in sight. Found a fun lecture on the intersection of science and Islam, delivered at Harvard, by Bruno Guiderdoni: A tremendously learned and intellectually wide-ranging individual. He must come to NYU.
An NYT article on Fethullah Gulen's school network as developing in Pakistan; the Turkish school model is being established and will, insh'allah, offer alternatives to what exists in Pakistan and enrich the cultural and religious atmosphere. The article, though, is sadly typical in its terrifically absurd portrayal of
Pakistan. To wit, "Pakistanis everywhere assume he is not Muslim because he has no beard." That makes sense after all, since when Pakistanis see the man to the
right, they must understand that he too is not a Muslim. Or the other
man on the right, lower down. He is definitely not a Muslim.
Will someone tell me who these Pakistanis are, and how there are so many of them? Might it not be something else, like the quoted teacher in question's appearance (he is "Turkish" [nationally] and maybe of Balkan stock, so that plus his dress says "Western" and "non-Muslim" - not out of any extremist spite but rather simply a misunderstanding [How many white Muslims are there in Pakistan, really?]). Never mind that he runs a school, and is a foreigner, and there is suspicion of what such schools could or could not bring. How typically New York Times. Exaggerating and sensationalizing for no purpose. But nevertheless the article is worth reading, and very exciting to read about such a venture, and such cooperation between Muslim movements, or rather the healthy growth of a healthier Muslim movement, outside of the framework of politics or mere rhetoric.
In other Pakistaniyyat, Goatmilk offers us an interview of Fatima Bhutto, niece of the deceased PM.
The latest edition of LRB offers us a review of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine; in that same issue, read all about "the end of world trade" and the credit crisis. Kind of ties into - admittedly loosely, except of course that it makes things harder for most of us (as in, "people," people) - this NYT piece on how even America's insured feel the rising cost of health care.
This summer promises many movies I'm looking forward to: The Happening, The Dark Knight, X-Files: I Want to Believe ("I Want to Believe This is Not Actually the Title They Chose"), Speed Racer, Incredible Hulk, Tropic Thunder; two especially promising fun summer movies are Hancock (watch the trailer) and, much later (as in next summer's movie season) unfortunately, the new Star Trek movie (check out a fascinating cast, including John Cho as Sulu). It's amazing to see Star Trek on that kind of scale (watch the trailer... that's detail, and ambition... it's never looked like this before is all I can say, and then wait impatiently 370 days.)
Can't J.J. Abrams & Co (yes, the Lost folks!) give us another trailer?
Finals time, so busy. Many comments. Must respond soon. Eventually. Interview on Democracy Now with Debbie Al-Montaser; worth hearing. (Follow up to this post.) More of this type of mongering targeting Islamic banking industries. Will touch on that soon I hope. But not before Guam helps the cause.
"Common sense is not so common."
Can you believe this video? Dropping babies. Certainly not a litigating society.
Every once in a while, he makes a strong point; his most recent NYT column is a good case in point: "We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite." [Link]
With gas prices going up, shouldn't we be pushing for new investments and new penalties for egregious wastes of energy? Better to hurt a little now than a lot later. But McCain and Clinton offer us, as their insightful, presidential solution, tax rebates, which as a strategy obviously solves nothing, offers meagre financial relief and takes even more money away from long-term solutions while we continue to mire ourselves more deeply in long-term problems.
Is it not strange that we, as such an otherwise resourceful country, are so incapable of producing leadership that can see around a corner, that can fathom that spending what you don't have, over and over, to the tune of huge debts and eventual defaults (to economic competitors no less), is ... a bad idea? Certainly the insights a Messiah would be made of.
There were a number of comments to my previous post on Explaining Certain Atheists. Well, I have been thinking about these intriguing comments a lot, despite my absence from the comments section. (Still thinking though!) I do wonder however how convenient a fiction the "need for meaning" is, namely as a charge against religion's "veracity" or "authenticity"; that is to say, that the "need" for something -- how is this need determined, and how it is classified a "need"? -- necessarily explains anything away, precluding the possibility that the need for a thing may in fact be evidence of that thing (humanity's need for meaning is a sign of Meaning; in the loosely Derridean sense, the "theology" of meaning). It is in fact a kind of end-of-the-road point, "here and no further" (see my last paragraph for repetition) -- the dismissal of religion as a "need" for meaning itself reflects a need for meaning, albeit an atheistic one: the need to find a meaning for religion that conforms to an atheist worldview, maybe a scientistic one (not a secular one.)
At the end of the day, it's all metaphysics, isn't it?
From a Muslim's p.o.v., it's not much of a charge (at least to me). God creates universe; God sustains universe; God creates a religion which is lived through laws; God creates a world that operates through laws; one of these laws is evolutionary in nature. Can human beings have evolved without a "need" for meaning? Can this not be biologically consistent (as in, environmentally necessary as humanity evolved) yet also a mercy from God, the mechanism or a mechanism through which we yearn to reach Him and return to Him?
Since Islam is a faith that operates through principles and an order of life, it is not hard to accept a universe that is similarly (but of course not exactly) comprehensible -- shall we say its comprehensibility is its similarity?; this also conforms to the epistemological tautology I cited in my Hitchens review: "That a belief in God imposes an admission that our understanding can go no further is an interesting point, but no different than the tautology that is empiricism. We can use our minds to explain the way the world works because the way the world works created minds that are capable of understanding the way the world works. No matter how far you go, the end is always the beginning: If not God, then some other force or process takes His place."
Attacking CAIR? Based on what, a rumor? (Scream)
Making the rounds, around the Muslim web, comes forward after forward of a New York Times expose of how Debbie Al-Montaser's career was derailed, wrecked and ruined - but she, like a good American, is fighting back and will by the strength of a still-proud justice system win - and she is vilified and wrecked by whom but a small (and, I should add, scared and marginalized) set of activists who saw an Islamist plot in a New York City public school. Such activists are near-sighted and far-sighted; they couldn't see a problem in the mirror. (Hint: That's where the problem is.)
They are, however, out to get people like you and me; intelligent, open-minded, forward-looking, moderate citizens and immigrants, Americans and otherwise, whether Muslim or not, whether brown, black, yellow or white, their cause is to keep hyperventilating, long after anyone with any hemisphere of her brain left has realized the Iraq War was a sham and we were betrayed, as a nation. So that their hyperventilation might anxiety attack us into some kind of action. (Namely, shooting down one of the smartest ideas in the post-9/11 environment. We are being harrassed by people who believe that knowing your enemy is becoming your enemy.)
Because they want to keep us scared. They want us to think that the Arabic language education initiative championed by Ms. Al-Montaser will demolish American society, and make way for a Eurabia on "this side of the pond," which is a miraculous tension that demands comment. Such concerns as theirs are firstly dangerous, because they are predicated on deception, fear-mongering, ahistoricality, racism, xenophobia and secondly, they are amusing, or at least would be if not for concern the first: their dangerousness. Does anyone actually believe that American Islam is a covert fifth column trying to establish shari'a law? My God, in a nation of 300 million, whose fastest-growing population is Hispanic Catholic, several million Muslims scattered over one of the world's physically largest and culturally strongest countries are ... a threat? What drug are you on, and from what dealer are you purchasing it, and is its price affected by the declining dollar? (Kind of like the Eurabia panic: As Muslims are more assimilated, birth rates slow and integration takes place. Europe will have a significant Muslim minority. A minority.)
But the real danger isn't the stink from sewer pipes, it's the so-called mainstream media, supposedly objective journalism that, in the words of Robert Fisk:
"Partly because of this awful trend of American journalism where you have to give 50% of your time to each side, you end up producing a sort of matrix, a mathematical formula which is bland, lacking in any kind of passion or realism, and is a bit like reading a mathematics problem. Much of the Middle East is reported like a football match: this side did this, they kicked a goal, they replied back, the ball went through the goal post, etc. Giving equal space in your report to two antagonists is ridiculous! I mean if you were reporting the slave trade in the 18th century you wouldn’t give equal time to the slave ship captain, you’d give time to the slaves." [Read the full interview at Goatmilk]
This is what the New York Times is doing. What's so dangerous in the hyped rhetoric of the Fascist-fascists, who see fascism in anything to which an 'o' can be appended (except, of course, fascism), is that their rumor and fear-mongering create an assumption among the average citizen, generally who does not know any Muslims, that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam as a religion. Any claim for equal treatment is in fact a claim for terrorism, a secret strike into the heart of our good democracy, as opposed to what it is: citizens claiming democratic and civil rights. This atmosphere creates the immediate suspicion that Islam is somehow itself evil, suspicious and slitherous; it is so strange and deceptive it causes Muslims to make up words. In this respect, the puny right-wing conspiracy has been successful - and no surprise. Generating fear is easier than generating fact; scaring people is easier to do and harder to undo than communicating actual knowledge and ideas.
They have drummed up enough fear that politicians shiver at any association with Islam, Muslims or the appearance of Islam or Muslims (remember Obama's "native dress"?) And here's where the problem is: In its expose, the Times commits such vulgar, distasteful acts, fear-mongering and rumor-milling, making accusations so absurd they demand retraction.
"Ms. Almontaser had accepted an award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim organization that critics claim has ties to terrorist groups (an assertion the group adamantly denies)."
Ties to terrorists? This is not a mild accusation; the Times makes it -- with no proof. Nothing to suggest that CAIR is a terrorist organization. But they just say it. I'm sorry, but this is b.s. plain and simple; where is the evidence to such a monumental accusation? "Critics say Joe X is a murderer. Joe X insists he's not." That's all we get; that's all I expect; my faith in the MSM has always been a dim light at the end of a hallway in the basement section of a misogynistic masjid, reserved for women and storage. This is, frankly speaking, shocking and unnerving, that an accusation peddled by critics who generally know nothing about anything, and flip out at the sight of a hijab, can be taken so seriously by the media, without informing readers of the substance of such a tremendous and frightening and career-ending and life-detaining allegation, if indeed any substance is there. (It's as strong as the case for WMD; remember the Times jumped all over that. Good for you, massive journalism resources and well-funded research teams; you have accomplished what a well-rounded education could not.)
Too true, Mr. Fisk.
I made a legit suggestion in the post previous (aka below); MSAs need to identify strong speakers, intellects and the like, who can clearly, cogently and excitingly dismiss the claims of Islamo-fascism and MSA-5th Columnism (which sounds like Communism. Bad! Boo! Scary!) In my next post, I'm going to dig deeper and rail against the kinds of attacks these Islamo-fascist-inventors have been all about. I'm going to give some insights, insh'allah that MSA leadership and dynamic young and engaged persons of all backgrounds can hopefully benefit from and reflect on. Because one shouldn't let the nonsense go nonsensing things up, without sensible response...
"I've always been smart, brother. I've just lacked self-confidence." (Rom, in DS9)
Like that.
Yesterday Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Dr. Richard Bulliett spoke to a packed auditorium at Columbia University; their introductory presentations were followed by an hour-long conversation, talk-show style, moderated by Anisa Mehdi. All due consideration for Shaykh Hamza's presentations, comments and insights, it is Dr. Bulliett who most impressed me, by his ability to convey a series of powerful points in relevant and engaging fashion. I have become more and more a fan of his. (Unlikely he knows this.)
We need more historians and academics like him, and we need more people in our circles, and among like minds and sensibilities, to purchase and collectively discuss his book, The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization
Maybe your MSA is facing Islamo-Fascism week? Another round of "The Clash of Civilizations"? What better remedy than Islamo-Christian Civilization? (Still more: Why not invite Dr. Bulliett to speak on the book, to put the lie to the totalitarian nonsense, fictional garbage narratives spewed out of sewer pipes... and to offer a fun, entertaining, educational, engaging presentation on why the history you hear isn't the history that happened.)
Elsewhere, to secondary effect:
The Times peeks inside Iran's nuclear program. Sort of. But they have pictures... even as Ahmedinejad visits India, and tests Indian foreign policy sovereignty. Get it, tests?
Wajahat Ali's wonderful interview of Robert Fisk, one of the greatest journalists and writers out there.
The Lakers, the No 1 seed out west, swept the Denver Nuggets, the number 8 seed. I watched only one game of the total four. (Blame absence of cable, a violation of my human rights.) Next up, either the Jazz or the Rockets.
It's because it's all that's left of the Ottoman Sultanate; because Turkey, instead of being colonized, is the leftover of a century-plus drive to modernize in order to survive, for which reason Turkey is often more modern than much of the rest of the Muslim world. Yes, a lot of credit goes to Ataturk; but not nearly as much as he or more properly his state-sponsored adoration demands: Turkey's Ottomans were well on the road to developing a modern society, according to European standards of the time, long before any other Muslim society was. This explains some of the "contradictions" of Turkey: That its center-right governing party, AKP, is more comfortable with private religiosity, and "yet" still pro-EU, eager for the West and yet assertively Muslim. Indeed, AKP would argue they are already the West, and waiting for the EU to acknowledge as much.
But the diehard pseudo-secularist state-within-a-state would like to topple Erdogan (correction: topple democracy), end any chances of EU membership, ban the AKP and replace it with their unelected, court-appointed fuzzy memory of Ataturk's order: That is, modernization, non-secularism and non-democracy, in its place Islam run by the state and for the state (Turkey is in its Ataturkist ideal no more secular than Pakistan was - I'm quite serious) and a populist, purist ethnic identity which is responsible for much of the long-running dispute with Turkey's Kurds and non-Muslim minorities. Already, the threat has threatened Turkey's 6-year strong, booming economy. If the pseudo-secularist elite accomplish this, they will radically change and tremendously destabilize Turkey, and perhaps create such a severe shock to the aura of Ataturk that they will redefine the country far away from themselves. (Not like they can see that far ahead.)
Recent Comments