Film Review: Pluralism in America
This Fourth of July I had the extreme pleasure of going to the world premiere of Islam in America, the latest project of Dr. Akbar Ahmed and his wonderful team of motivated youngsters. The film takes a look at the various Muslim communities across America, from big cities in the East to small towns in the Midwest, and focuses heavily on the voices of these ordinary American Muslims. It is done in a very low-tech style that may not be for everyone, but certainly it helped capture a very down-to-earth and intimate feel.
My own feelings going into the film were mixed; I was excited by the mission of the project itself yet nervous that I would be assailed by stories of discrimination and victimization leaving me with little hope for the future. My fears were not eased by the opening, in which a stream of protesters shouted offensive epithets at participants in a Muslim parade. As a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or WASP), I often cringe when I see my ethnoreligious kin demonstrate their own hate-fuelled ignorance. Even more embarassing was the scene in which a woman with unfortunate teeth started talking about the Somalian Muslims in her community going with “the American way”, as though the Muslim way and the American way were mutually exclusive lifestyles. I imagine this is how many Muslims, not just in America but across the globe, feel when the ugliest aspects of their community are put on display as though they were the only face of Islam.
As the film proceeded, I was pleasantly surprised and inspired by the positive stories of friendship and cooperation between non-Muslim and Muslim Americans. There was the story of a bishop and an imam in Las Vegas who find ways to work together and support each other in serving the local poor and underprivileged. There was also the story of a little town in Alabama, ironically named Arab and to be pronounced as Ay-rab, whom the team was expecting to react rather badly to Hailey dressed in hijab. Instead of what we might have expected (i.e. some barely comprehensible Deliverance-esque hill billy telling them he didn’t take kindly to their folk, which really should reveal a lot about my own prejudices) Hailey, Dr. Ahmed, and the team were greeted with genuine southern hospitality.
Islam in America touches on so many different layers of American and Islamic identity, and while we never quite come to a conclusion in reconciling the different characterizations of these social constructs we nonetheless conclude that they are varied and equally legitimate. It would be impossible to survey the full history of Muslims in America or even list all the different views Muslims have of their own American communities and how they relate to non-Muslims, but the most important feat of this film is that it broke the surface. And in breaking that surface, we are confronted with a challenge to look deeper into ourselves in order to better relate to those who we perceive as an other. What better way to engage the rest of the Muslim world than to take a critical look at our own Muslims, our own diversity and pluralism?
More than a nation of immigrants or (as some consistently claim) Christians, America is a nation of human beings. The American experience is the human experience: complex and often contradictory, full of noble ideals and actions and plenty of shameful ones too. But if nationalism is anything, it is an optimistic drive towards the better qualities of our human nature. We as Americans must accept our strengths and our weaknesses while continuously pushing toward a “more perfect union”.
For more information on the team, the documentary, and the project itself please visit Journey Into America.
3 comments July 6, 2009
Viva la (r)Evolucion!
Although I haven’t yet posted on the situation in Iran, I have been faithfully observing. Its absolutely thrilling and I am so proud of both the Iranian people for their dedication and to President Obama for keeping relatively quiet on the situation while still condemning the Iranian government. I don’t think its necessary for me to explain why its important that the US government observes quietly from a distance because history makes that very clear. I also don’t think I can say anything that hasn’t already been said about the implications for future relations or speculate on the inevitable (r)evolution. Rather, I’m much more interested in focusing on the nature of the protests and the rebellion in terms of civil society empowerment.
For the greater Middle East and elsewhere in the world, bloody revolutions and military coups that replace one tyrant with another only to have him ousted in yet another violent uprising are all too common. In the Cold War era, these cycles were encouraged through the various political alignments and the priority of oil. While oil is still a priority, global affairs have experienced a major shift in consciousness. After 9/11, the Huntington Clash of Civilizations theory was the closest and easiest explanation for the West and non-West alike to make sense of what had been happening since the end of the Cold War. However, the cracks in the theory appeared early on and with the many failures of the Bush administration it quickly lost credibility. There may not yet be a clear majority of theoretical approaches in the international community, but what should be clear is that we cannot divide the world along such imaginary and meaningless lines anymore. Especially when we, the US, have so many different interests in various region that don’t involve oil.
In the days of the Islamic Revolution, the US looked at Iran as a threat because they would not side with us over the Soviet Union. Iran became an unstable variable in our great Middle Eastern plan. Now, when we look at the civil unrest, we don’t see as much of the concern over strategic alignments anymore. We see a moderate and thoroughly modern population struggling against oppression and they are gaining support worldwide. Although Iran’s relationship with its Arab neighbors may be a troubled one, the prospect of this uprising should strike fear into the hearts of many Middle Eastern theocrats and autocrats. Its not US intervention they should fear when they crack down on dissidents in the name of “security”, its their own people.
The civilians of Iran have empowered themselves despite their government’s attempts to disempower them. Protests were banned, and before anyone could attempt to organize, spontaneous demonstrations of civil disobedience already began to take place. Although this lack of organization is detrimental to the long-term stamina of the protesters, the attempts of the authorities to crack down have not gone unnoticed. The bans, the arrests, the killings are occurrences we should be prepared to face, and will most likely continue to face, in this crisis. But in this instance, the fact that so many of these occurrences are flooding the airwaves and the internet and provoking global moral outrage is PROOF that nonviolent methods of resistance WORK.
If we want to see real change occur, not just in Iran, but anywhere, there are two responsibilities we must all accept: (1)those directly involved in the conflict must continue to resist nonviolently, and (2) those of us who are outside must recognize, validate, and legitimize this form of resistance. As I happen to fall into the latter category, I say to all my Iranian friends, colleagues, and readers that I am excited for you and watching such displays of passion and commitment make my idealistic youthfulness that much more pleasurable. To my non-Iranian American, Palestinian, Israeli, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, White, Black, South Asian, and Latino friends, colleagues, and readers: let us continue to watch, sympathize, empathize and SPEAK OUT for these people.
Add comment June 25, 2009
Demilitarize This!
Obama’s speech in Cairo threw down the gauntlet for Israeli leaders to respond. The New York Times observed that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was as much done for the Israeli evening news as it was for the Obama administration. I found it boring, infuriating, and tend to agree with Aliyana Traison of Haaretz that it was full of “vague validations” and “vows to break”. Netanyahu’s principles and conditions were presented in categorical, take-it-or-leave-it terms. He ignored the various Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the past two decades, under three American presidents, which were designed to attempt to resolve precisely the vexed issues of recognition, demilitarisation, borders, Jerusalem and refugees. (The Economist)
Many look to Netanyahu’s use of the term “Palestinian state” as a sign of hope for an end to the occupation and the ground work for going through with a two-state solution. But I don’t see how any of that could be true. Yes, he used the word “state” but I couldn’t find anything to demonstrate his willingness to see a Palestinian state that corresponded with any of the major negotations that have taken place over the decades.
“‘Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about negotiations, but left us with nothing to negotiate as he systematically took nearly every permanent status issue off the table,’ Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement. ‘Nor did he accept a Palestinian state. Instead, he announced a series of conditions and qualifications that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.’ (Kershner)
For starters, Israeli settlements will not be frozen as Obama had declared should be done in Cairo.* Though Netanyahu pledged not to build new settlements or to appropriate more land; he did insist that “normal life” must continue in the existing settlements. Which of course is code for continued building there. (Economist) Famed Israeli author, and one of my personal favorites, Amos Oz describes the Israeli settlements as a fight over what exactly the Jewish civilization is.
” [If the settlers] succeed in their cause, they may drag both me and my children with them, to kill and to die in a perpetual and unnecessary war, or perhaps turn Israel into a monster like Belfast, Rhodesia, or South Africa. For this argument is not an intellectual exercise: it is a matter of life and death, pure and simple.” (In the Land of Israel)
Another key issue is the Palestinian refugee situation and the right of return. Netanyahu explicitly stated that the refugee problem must be resolved outside Israel’s borders and any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermined Israel as a state for the Jewish people. (BBC) Certainly I don’t think it would be at all possible to guarantee every refugee a right to return, but there must be concessions on both sides to recognize the injustice committed against Palestinian refugees and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state so that we may look to compensation and reconciliation for the refugees. Indeed the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character is important. Israelis already are in heated debates over what this Jewish character means, but there can be no denying that Israel has a right to exist and that it is Jewish.
Hands down, my favorite analysis of the speech coupled with some reccomendations for what to do next comes from the author I mentioned earlier, Aliyana Traison. Traison writes that in return for the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Israel must create a concrete plan of withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. She also added that if Palestine is to be demilitarized, “then Israel would have to compromise for denying a sovereign democracy the right of defense. Israel and Palestine must therefore sign a pact of non-aggression as a concession for a demilitarized state.”
Perhaps this speech has taken the entire negotiation process many steps back, or maybe it was Netanyahu’s election that did that. In any case, it is not hard to lose hope for a sustainable peace anytime soon. I grumbled as I felt myself growing more cynical after reading Eric Alterman’s piece on the Daily Beast.
“As difficult as it may appear to be to make peace with a corrupt and potentially powerless Palestinian Authority and a hostile Hamas, Israel’s other choices are actually worse; either to expel millions of Palestinians from their lands to preserve the state’s Jewish character or give up on democratic rule entirely, embracing a nightmare future much like that in South Africa under apartheid. Barack Obama offered Bibi Netanyahu an escape hatch, perhaps the last one Israel is likely to see while the conflict remains potentially solvable. Absent the pomp and circumstance, Netanyahu’s response could hardly have been clearer: ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”
But in the midst of all this pessimism, I look at the work of Just Vision and all the various people they have encountered and I become the wide eyed idealist youth again. Israelis and Palestinians who have lost homes, lives, daughters, sons, been imprisoned, been beaten down yet still continue to struggle for peace by nonviolence and reconciliation. They’re just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that many of us might let corrupt our sense of humanity and compassion, and yet they are not. So I encourage you, my readers, whenever you comes across a piece of news that makes you think peace will never happen because nobody is willing to work for it visit Just Vision’s website and read any of the interviews they have done with these everyday heroes.**
Notes and Sources
*At this point I want to say that the American policy has been fairly consistent in opposing at least the expansion of the settlements. So this cannot be said to be an “Obama thing”
**That might have been uncomfortably cheesy, but hopefully you’ll check out Just Vision despite my word-fail
- Aliyana Traison, “Demilitarized Palestine? Just sign this non-aggression pact first“, Haaretz
- The Economist, “Israel and Palestine: A change of heart?“
- Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats“, New York Times
- Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel, p.127
- BBC News, Israel sets terms for Palestinian state
- Eric Alterman, “BiBi’s Bait-and-Switch“, The Daily Beast
Add comment June 15, 2009
Obama Talks the Right Talk
Cairo is an ancient city that has become a modern urban hub of the Arab world. It is the primary place to produce Arabic pop music, the favored study abroad location for Americans looking to study the Arab world, and the birth place of Pan Arabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ponder all those contradictions for a moment, and you’ll understand just how un-monolithic Egyptian and Arab society really is. This week, Cairo was also the chosen site for President Obama to deliver what he promised would be a historic speech to the Muslim world. Historic it may very well have been, but it was not without controversy.
The Hype and The Reactions
Some, including author Reza Aslan, decried Obama’s choice of Egypt for the apparent message it would send about American complacency towards their brutal government then later expressed excitement over his talk of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the aftermath, the Huffington Post’s Peter Daou also expressed disappointment with regards to Obama’s talk of human rights and women’s rights. Michael Hirsh of Newsweek praised Obama’s fine words, but fears that they will remain just words. International reaction has mixed, as many see hope for better policies and others have been jaded by American promises of change. My former professor and colleagues over at Team Akbar Ahmed were genuinely excited by Obama’s embrace of the concept of a Dialogue of Civilizations. Its something Dr. Ahmed and others have been supporting fervently for years. Dr. Ahmed asserts that the speech is evidence that America is finally engaging in dialogue. Frankie Martin, my friend and Ibn Khaldun Research Fellow, writes in the Huffington Post that of course, a dialogue about dialogue isn’t enough.
“Dialogue of Civilizations” is not meant to be a “kumbaya” philosophy for the President, but a real strategy to combat anti-Americanism and win allies. The President’s use of the phrase should be followed by action including reform of U.S. visa policy to bring more people from Muslim countries to the United States, programs to encourage American students to study abroad, and more vigorous public diplomacy to bring our diplomats out of their embassy fortresses and interact with Muslims where they live.
UPDATE: Here are two of the aforementioned authors discussing the speech with Chris Matthews on Hardball.
Choice Moments
I absolutely loved the speech. I hate that I love it, because it makes me look like an eager to be pleased Obamania victim. I assure you, my love of the speech has nothing to do with the man who actually delivered it, but of course I greatly commend him for it. So here are a few of my favorite excerpts.
“Tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”
“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”
“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one.’”
“Six million Jews were killed [in the Holocaust]- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
“The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’
The Talmud tells us: ‘The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.’
The Holy Bible tells us, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’”
Additionally, I also loved the entire portion of the speech where he praised the scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab and Islamic world. That acknowledgement I think goes really far, especially since it seemed our last administration was much more impressed their oil wealth.
Time To Get To Work
I will remain a skeptic about the potential of any American president to make significant strides in proving good will through action and not just words. I think our presidents have shown they can do a lot more good when they’ve left office than when they’re in it. My hope is less that Obama will make good on his speech, but that all Americans will make good on his speech. I want the American people to feel empowered to create better relations, to demand better relations, to demand the right kind of action from our government and non-government organizations.
And to be a shameless plugger of my own contacts and colleagues in the field, I want the American people to check out Dr. Ahmed and his team and the media organization that provides proof that there are committed nonviolent peacebuilders in Israel-Palestine, Just Vision. You should absolutely become a fan of them on Facebook.
Add comment June 4, 2009
The Other A-Bomb
A few days ago, an abortion doctor who was a feminist hero to some and baby-killer to others was shot while serving as an usher at his church. The shooting is a blow to Pro-Life supporters, besmirching their campaign, painting them zealots who need only the slightest push to cross the line into violence. There is a rush for anti-abortion groups to distance themselves from any blame and to further distance themselves from their extremist counterparts.
Pro-What?
I don’t really want to get into a debate over Dr. Tiller’s life and work, because I’m jumping into that far too late. What I do want to get into is the debate that is always fresh and teeming with emotion and political divisions. That is to say, the A-word. The word we all get nervous of uttering in public in case we unwittingly enter ourselves into a fight with friends or strangers. The A-word that makes us put bumper stickers on our cars with hokey slogans and pictures of fetuses. The A-word that divides us into two, and only two, camps of thought. You know its coming, abortion.
I don’t proscribe myself as either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, because its pointless. Neither one really embodies my feelings on the subject. I’m a mix of the two, and not just the kind that says “abortion is ok under certain circumstances”. I see abortion as bad, but when we start talking about it in a political context (which is nearly always the case) I think we fool ourselves into believing that its only about a doctor terminating a pregnancy at the mother’s request.
Where do unwanted babies come from?
Abortion is not birth control. An unwanted pregnancy is insufficient reason to terminate it. I understand the fear and anxiety of any young teenager or grown woman who is suddenly faced with an unplanned pregnancy that she is simply not ready for. But the problem isn’t really the abortion in such cases. The problem is the sex that got that woman there. Its about sex education and the sexual values we promote in society. Abstinence is a great idea, but not every teen will make that choice (and yes, I stress the word choice here). We can sell it to them, but we can’t force them to buy it. Abstinence and safe sex need to be taught concurrently if we want to be serious about teen pregnancy prevention and the spread of STDs.
In cases of rape or incest, where the pregnancy is the result of a trauma which continues to terrorize the mother, I cannot make the choice for the mother. But I do believe she deserves a choice. What I would want to do is make giving birth the more attractive choice, whether or not she chooses to keep it, and in that sense the issue is less about the medical procedure of an abortion and more about our child welfare system.
Cutting through the smoke screen
In the above mentioned situations, I’ve made it clear the discussion shouldn’t be about the actual abortion but the actions leading toward it and creating better alternatives after the fact. I am constantly frustrated by both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps because I rarely if ever see any of them do anything really constructive with their time. We all need to come together and agree that abortion is a bad thing, whether or not its needed, and create better incentives for choosing life or better habits in pregnancy prevention. That’s the only way we can prevent such terrible things from happening.
Add comment June 2, 2009
Support Your Veterans, Take Them to the Zoo
This story greatly confuses me. I don’t know whether to go “Awww!” or get angry over the ridiculous pomp and circumstance.
For some reason, a Welsh battallion has a goat soldier…member…not mascot…I’m not sure. But its a goat, and his name is Billy. Billy is now a retired veteran of the Welsh battallion at eight years old.
Billy was not a mascot but a ranking member of the regiment. His main role was marching at the front of the battalion on all ceremonial duties.He spent two-and-a-half years overseas in Cyprus when the battalion was posted over there and has lived in Chester since their return. During his time in Cyprus, he was even disciplined and temporarily demoted from his rank of Lance Corporal to Fusilier for not marching in time during a parade for the Queen’s birthday. (BBC News)
Billy had his own little farewell ceremony where soldiers lined up to say goodbye as he was marched to his pen in full regimental regalia. But oh it gets better, because now the search is on to find a new goat to fill his position.
Add comment May 20, 2009
Sri Lankan Clash of Identities
As per my resolution to cover a wide breadth of topics, I’ve delved myself into the conflict in Sri Lanka. And yes, most of my reasons for doing so also have to do with my idolization of Sri Lankan-British rapper and popstar extraordinaire MIA. I suppose I’ve also been inspired to learn more by the disturbing death toll headlines that have been filling many of the major global news outlets.
The Makings of Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Strife
It is believed that the Tamils, originally from South India, appeared in the north and East of Sri Lanka some time before the 10th century. Others argue that the Tamils had no organized society until after 10th century while even more argue that they are the original inhabitants of the island of Sri Lanka. Given all the political and social strife, its easy to see how such various historical narratives become entrenched in identity politics and become such controversial issues.
The Sinhala, or “people of the lion”, are the mjaority ethnic group Sri Lanka and are predominantly Buddhist. According to Sinhalese historical narratives, the Buddha himself entrusted the Sinhala with the island as guardians of his teachings. (Spencer 3)
Although the categories “Sinhala” and “Tamil” are not colonial inventions, some of the current ethno-religious tensions have a root in colonial and post colonial reconstruction. In the Victorian era, the predominant racial theory was that the world was divided into different “kinds” of people. So in the set up of local colonial governments in Sri Lanka, groups had to prove their ethnic distinctiveness in order to gain representation. Spencer’s example is that of the Muslim Tamils who began to assert their Arab descendancy in order to gain representation that was more than just Tamil. (Spencer 8-9) During British colonial rule, the Tamils were seen as collaborators and believed to get special treatments from the colonizers. (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)
Though the fault lines between populations in Sri Lanka during the colonial period were religious, today’s divisions are defined by language. It is no longer Catholics (yes, there are Catholics) against Hindus and Buddhists, but Tamil Catholics against Sinhala Catholics, etc. (Spencer 8 )
Civil Blood
The civil war that has been raging in Sri Lanka for decades began in the 1970’s as Tamil rebels began to push for their own state, Eelam. These rebels, the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam or Tamil Tigers, enjoyed a firm hold on the north and east regions of the island for many years. The civil war in Sri Lanka ranks as South Asia’s longest in the modern era. It his displaced thousands, left large areas uninhabitable because of landmines and explosive debris, laid waste to agricultural land, contributed to malnutrition, weakened the state’s ability to deal with natural disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, and even seen the use of child soldiers as young as nine. (Sri Lanka Conflict)
History: I Owns It
Though the two sides disagree bitterly on many things, Jonathan Spencer, an anthropologist at the University of Edinburgh, finds one clear consensus: “present conflicts can only be explained by reference to the past”. (3) What has contributed to the Tamil real or imagined feelings of persecution is the single interpretation of Sri Lanka’s past according to the Buddhist Sinhalas.
“[Nationalism] is not what it seems, and above all it is not what it seems to itself. The cultures it claims to defend and revive are often its own inventions, or are modified out of all recognition” (Spencer 10)
Present Day Carnage
Although a cease-fire was declared in 2002, violence flared up again in 2005. What’s filling the headlines today is the Sinhalese government’s assault on the rebels which has given them control over those north and east regions for the first time in years. As a conventional military force, the Tamil Tigers are through with much of their leadership having been destroyed. Much of these achievements are due to the rise of President Rajapakse in 2005 and his increased focus on defense. However, this is not a victory, for either side, by far.
The conflict has now killed well in excess of 70,000 people, displaced tens of thousands more and held back the island’s growth and economic development. The death toll of civilians in 2009 overall could run into the thousands, the UN and aid agencies say…The manner in which they pursued their military victory – ignoring international calls for restraint – may have radicalised a new generation of Tamils, both on the island and in the diaspora in Europe, Asia and North America. (Q&A: Sri Lanka conflict)
As the conflict continues to fill the headlines, I will keep on top of it as best I can and bring you all unique and dynamic ideas on bringing about a resolution.
Sources
- Jonathan Spencer, Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, Routledge (1990)
- Preeti Bhattacharji, “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam“, Council on Foreign Relations (2009)
- Reuters AlertNet, “Sri Lanka Conflict”
- BBC News, “Q&A: Sri Lanka conflict“
Add comment May 18, 2009
Prose, Violence, and Problems with Aslan’s Cosmic War
In a post-college world, looking at grad school and gainful employment on the horizon, it appears I need to step up my reading habits. So in an effort to make this a more regular segment of the blog, I’m going to read and review at least one book a month. This month, I bring to you How To Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan, author of No God But God, who was one of my favorite Islamic authors when I was just starting out in the field.
He’s a young articulate scholar of religion and so its no wonder he’s been invited to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report a few times as well as numerous other media appearances. While I’m happy that there is such an Islamic scholar who’s so acceptable and successful in mainstream America, I continuously wonder whether or not he is someone I would want representing myself, my colleagues, and other academics in the field of religion, Islam, and global affairs.
The Premise
In Aslan’s own words, the book is a proclamation:
The War on Terror, conceived by the previous administration as a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil for the future of civilization, is over. It is time to strip this ideological conflict of its religious connotations, to reject the religiously polarizing rhetoric of our leaders and theirs, to focus on the material matters at stake, and to address the earthly issues that always lie behind the cosmic impulse…Because in the end, there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it. (11)
After taking a hard, unpleasant look at the plight of European Muslims, Aslan declares that America now has a great opportunity to become the champions of the slaughtered and reframe the War on Terror not as a war between good and evil, but an “earthly contest between the advocates of freedom and the agents of oppression”. He declares that Bush was right, only democratic reform can defeat the Global Jihadists. America must “strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies”.
Honestly, when I first heard that was what the book was about, my initial reaction was that this topic has been done…like five years ago. My own personal favorite is of course Dr. Akbar Ahmed’s Islam Under Siege. With the War on Terror being in its eigth year now and the Bush Administration a thing of the past, do we really need another study on violent Islamic fundamentalism and the mistakes the US has made in dealing with it? I decided it was worth it to see if he could add anything new. Cosmic War unfortunately fails to deliver on that front, but it absolutely delivers on Aslan’s many talents as a writer.
Violence, Its Like, Whatever
Speaking as someone who’s undergraduate studies frequently lead me to explore the relationship between religion and conflict, I also was fairly disappointed that much of Aslan’s look at the role of Islam and religion in general dealt with only with its destructive aspects. I was even more deeply disturbed by the brevity of his nod to Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement.
Religion of course can be just as effective in promoting nonviolence and civil disobedience, as was the case with America’s civil right’s movement or India’s movement for independence from Britain. But for movements that operate in societies where democratic institutions are either wholly absent or brutally repressed by the ruling regime, countries where legitimate opposition is simply not allowed, collective violence may be the sole means for a social movement to pursue its goals of radical social transformation. (137)**
It is my belief that these societies are in the most need of nonviolent social movements. While it is certainly understandable that the populations under such regimes would accept collective violence as the best means of affecting change, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to break these cycles of brutality is through nonviolence. What’s more, I think the author is dangerously close to diminishing the brutality that the groups involved in the Civil Rights Movement and India’s demand for indepence were up against.
The Hype of Moderate Islam
If the Islamic fundamentalism that is implied is the extremist violent and intolerant kind, the one Bin Laden has become the icon of, then its polar opposite is not secularism or even “moderate” Islamism. These are near antonyms, many steps removed but not completely antithetical. The true opposite is a tolerant and nonviolent Islamic fundamentalism, militarism for peace.
Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a Thai expert on nonviolence and Islam, argues that because of the nature of modern warfare, nonviolence is not just the best option, but also the only option. If the violence used cannot discriminate between soldiers (real or self-identified) and civilians, then it is not keeping with Islamic principles. With modern technology being what it is, that kind of discrimination virtually impossible at present. (Islam and Nonviolence)
One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Michael N. Nagler, whom I discovered while reading Mohamed Abu Nimer’s (one of my favorite former professors) seminal work on nonviolence and Islam:
There is no theological reason that an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should. (War and Its Discontents)
The Verdict
How To Win A Cosmic War, while artfully and thoughtfully written, but it reads a bit like a jumbled mess of good but inadequately explored ideas. It jumps from the author’s own experiences in becoming an American citizen to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the hardships of Muslims in Western Europe without ever really tying it all together in a satisfying way. Even the epilogue feels out of place as Aslan describes his excitement at the election of Barack Obama. While certainly all such subjects have common elements, they never seemed to fit really well with the overarching theme of the dangers of buying into the violent militant’s black and white cosmic world view.
My conclusion is therefore that Mr. Aslan’s How To Win A Cosmic War is not a very good “how-to” book nor is it a comprehensive look at Islam in the Age of Globalization or the War on Terror. However, if you are in the market to read something about the current state of the world in lovely prose and fresh eyes this is the book for you.
Sources
1. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Islam and Nonviolence, ed. Glenn D. Paige (Honolulu: Center for Global Nonviolence, 1986), 22.
2. Michael N. Nagler, “Is There a Tradition of Nonviolence in Islam?”, in War and its Discontents: Pacifism and Quietism in the Abrahamic Traditions, ed. J Patout Burns (D.C.: Geo. U. Press 1996), 165.
Notes
**It was at that point in the book I wrote in the margins “WTF?!”
Add comment May 14, 2009
Pretty Places And Conflict Resolution
In honor of Earth Day, I’m going to post a little news story about Afghanistan’s first national park and the concept of peace parks.
Weird Connotation, Cool Concept
Doesn’t the name “peace park” just bring all sorts of images of granola eating vegan hippies singing about free love? It does to me! Luckily, it is also known as a “transboundary protected” area so granola haters can sleep better at night.*
The UNEP defines a transboundary protected area as:
“Protected areas that meet across international borders provide important opportunities for collaboration between managers and scientists in neighbouring countries…These areas provide possibilities for promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use across politically divided ecosystems, while at the same time encouraging international collaboration in management, the sharing of experience and the sharing of information.”
When I first heard about peace parks I thought it was one of the dumbest ideas I had ever heard. How is a park going to promote peace in areas of conflict? Its all about bringing stakeholders together and getting them to understand their mutual dependence on the environment, and instead of fostering competition for resources, foster cooperation for conservation. Saleem Ali, a Pakistani-American who is a scholar on Islamic and environmental issues writes:”…If managed and implemented effectively, conservation with community consent and conflict resolution are goals worth pursuing”.
Anne Hammill and Charles Besancon in Ali’s book, entitled Peace Parks, note that while the concept of peace parks is exciting, it is largely an untested phenomenon. However, there is evidence to show that peace parks contribute to building a culture of peace and cooperation in the following ways:
- Acting as a symbol of cooperation and peace;
- Increasing security and control over resources in border areas so that rightful owners may benefit from them;
- Creating shared opportunities for ecotourism and sustainable development on a region-wide scale;
- And, developing resilient relationships among protected area managers from the countries involved, other government actors, international NGO’s, and the donor community. (Ali 24)
Peace Parks and the Reconstruction of Afghanistan
Stephan Fuller argues in Peace Parks that environmental protection along Afghanistan’s conflict-prone borders might offer new opportunities to ease ethnic tensions. He goes so far as to suggest that its classification as a “failed state” makes it a great candidate for the use of peace parks. Failed states are often those in which the governing body fails to find an acceptable means of expressing national identity. Addressing national identity through the use of peace parks can have dramatic effects on Afghanistan’s recovery. (Ali 291)
For sure, many humanitarian crises in Afghanistan are strongly correlated with 25 years of environmental degradation due to persistent conflict. It is only recently that reconstruction of Afghanistan has included environmental intiatives as well as those aimed at economic development, job creation, and poverty alleviation. (Ali 293)
Fuller asserts that environmental conservation alone is not enough to successfully rebuild Afghanistan.
“The key objectives of development and stability in Afghanistan and the region are not going to be achieved through a small program related to biodiversity conservation and protected areas, no matter how closely this is to community development and poverty alleviation. The most essential objectives include a regional program of partnership for economic development and trade, supported by enlightened policies of the principal players in the security umbrella that has been erected over the country, particularly the policies of the United States and its NATO partners.” (Ali 310)
Given all of those suggestions, its easy to see why the first national park at Band-e-Amir in the Bamiyan province holds such promise as a peace park. It is a “spectacular region of deep blue lakes separated by natural dams of travertine, a mineral deposit” and is visited by thousands of Afghans and pilgrims. (”Afghans get first national park”) Band-e-Amir is indeed listed among Fuller’s suggested protected areas.
“The capital of Bamiyan is where Taliban fighters in spring 2001 blasted away two towering ancient Buddha statues carved into the region’s red cliffs. Officials believe that Band-e-Amir and the remnants of the statues can combine for a powerful tourist attraction if Afghan, U.S. and NATO forces can tamp down militant violence.” (”Deep blue lakes become Afghanistan’s first park”)
Here’s hoping that US and NATO forces will be able to successfully reduce the violence so that this national park can have a truly great effect at restoring pride and dignity to the people of Afghanistan. Happy Earth Day!
Works Cited
Stephan Fuller, “Linking Afghanistan with Its Neighbors Through Peace Parks: Challenges and Prospects”, in Peace Parks ed. Saleem Hassan Ali (2007) pp. 291-312
BBC News, “Afghans get first national park“
Associated Press, “Deep blue lakes become Afghanistan’s first park“
*I don’t know why I brought that up because I actually really like granola.
Add comment April 22, 2009
Stumble It!