The Blood of the Martyr

Originally published at BoomGen.TV, The Blood of the Martyr

For most Americans, the idea of a Muslim martyr can cause quite a bit of anxiety. Some immediately imagine a brown “towel-headed” man with an explosive device duct-taped to his chest, or sewn into his under garments, and a crazed murderous look in his eyes. Unfortunately, this kind of act in the name of Islam, an act that kills both Muslims and non-Muslims indiscriminately, is all too common.

The frustrations many Muslims across the world experience in their (real or imagined) political crises and their desire to affect change are easy prey for those looking to fulfill their own dreams of power and influence, often under the guise of martyrdom. But as we look at the role of Islam in the Green Movement of Iran, we see that an Islamic martyr can be, and has been at different times in history, a champion of justice and human rights.

Looking at photos taken of the streets of Tehran on December 27, 2009, one would think they are viewing images of war: bloodied people on the arms of their comrades limping away from scenes of rising flames, passing dead bodies and debris while men in uniform aim their guns and wield their batons at unruly citizens. It was the Day of Ashura, a holy day for Shi’as to remember the slaying of Imam Husayn in the seventh century and a day when historically no violence has been permitted. It was a day when the Green Movement in various parts of Iran took to the streets and identified themselves with their slain hero and his oppressor with the autocratic Islamic Republic.

The regime has sullied their hands with the blood of protesters before, but to kill and severely injure more people than on any other demonstration and to do so on a national Islamic holiday is an act of hypocrisy that is difficult to spin. So difficult, in fact, that Iran’s deputy police chief, Ahmad-Reza Radan, has claimed that of the protesters killed, one “fell from a bridge, two others were hit by cars and one other was shot dead by an unknown assailant”.[1] As Roger Cohen states in a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, “the emperor has no clothes”.[2]

Not only has the Ashura demonstrations and those in the following days signaled a crucial turning point for the government, but for the opposition as well. Witnesses report that the protesters fought back, though not as lethally, by setting police property on fire and attacking the Basij with their bare hands.[3] There are also reports of guards who surrendered or refused to open fire and joined the opposition instead.[4] One journalist who spoke to Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty is quoted as saying, “Protesters stood against the repressive forces and plainclothes agents and they demonstrated that they have the ability to confront them and even make them retreat. This is, I think, the new message of the Green movement… I hope that those who are concerned about the country listen to this message and prevent more bloodshed.”[5]

This idea of a community being brought together and even strengthened by the murder of one of its own in the name of a noble cause is one that has had a particular resonance in Iranian history. Persian society is seeped in a tradition of martyrdom as a celebration of life and redemption of the community in both its Islamic and pre-Islamic history. Tragedies culminating in martyrdom were prevalent in the pre-Islamic popular myth and culture as is exemplified in the tenth century Persian epic Shahnameh. The subsequent dominance of Shi’a Islam in the Persian Safavid Empire reinforced these ideas within the culture and continued to hold sway long after the age of empires had passed.

The Day of Ashura is practiced by both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims but has taken on a particular significance in Shi’a tradition. The day is meant to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, a grandson of the Prophet, who was killed at the Battle of Karbala in a bloody dispute over who should succeed the Caliphate. As Shi’ites became a persecuted sect, this day of mourning became an expression of present suffering under oppression. The Shi’a Buyyid dynasty, which ruled over what is now modern day Iran and part of modern day Iraq, popularized Ashura by instituting a public ceremony of commemoration. In his article on martyrdom in Iranian politics, Professor Manochehr Dorraj notes that the celebration of Ashura has also served to functionally instill a sense of Shi’ite identity in the people of Iran and create a sense of communal solidarity.[6]

Though the idea of martyrdom and redemptive suffering was used mostly in an Islamic political context in Iran, secular political movements of the 1960s and 1970s also kept with this tradition. In the days before the Iranian Revolution, these groups were small in number and mostly of a Marxist persuasion. For them, it was the love of the people, rather than love of the divine, that demanded their willingness to sacrifice themselves. These secular populists could never have competed with their Muslim counterparts, for Islam was a more potent symbol for garnering the support of the masses. During the Revolution, clerics like Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Mutahhari used the tradition to mobilize millions against the Shah. The funerals of those who were killed in the demonstrations only served to mobilize even more people, spelling doom for the Shah as the death toll rose. Even after the Revolution, the tradition still served a functional purpose as Iran entered into a bloody war with Iraq. The Islamic Republic even set up a foundation that ensured the families of those martyred would be given financial security and preferential treatment in various areas of society.[7]

One of the many lessons the world can take from the recent Ashura demonstrations is the enduring power of Islamic symbols and traditions in Iranian society today. As it becomes more and more likely that the Islamic Republic will fall, we must accept the possibility that the new regime will still maintain a strong Islamic character and that there may not be anything to fear from that. What is even more encouraging is that within the Green Movement is the possibility of an Islamic politic that does not rely on a hatred of the West and Israel as tools to stay in power and that has grown independently of any foreign influence.

The redemptive quality of martyrdom in social and political contexts is not unique to Islam. In the Christian tradition, Jesus readily submitted Himself to death for the salvation of the world. Many of His disciples would follow his example, including Saint Peter who, according to Catholic history, was sentenced to crucifixion but considered himself unworthy of a death in the likeness of Christ and specifically requested to be crucified upside down. Though, martyrdom is not unique to religion either, as may be seen by the great American Revolutionary rallying cry, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Martyrdom is one of the many human responses to death, which can seem bereft of any meaning or purpose, and preserve the life of the individual. Given our human inclination to revere the dead and honor their memory, the martyrs of the Green Movement are unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.

———————–

[6] Manochehr Dorraj “Symbolic and Utilitarian Political Value of a Tradition: Martyrdom in the Iranian Political Culture” The Review of Politics, Cambridge University PressVol. 59, No. 3, (Summer, 1997), pp. 489-521 (503)

[7] Dorraj, 519

Gatekeepers of Religious Truth

Hey, y’all: check out my latest piece on the American media’s inconsistency in its portrayals of Islam on BoomGen TV entitled The American Media: Gatekeepers of Religious Truth?* Here’s an excerpt:

“When news broke out in November that a US Army psychiatrist and self-identified devout Muslim shot his colleagues at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, it didn’t take the American media long to start speculating on what role Islam played in the massacre. But five months earlier, when the American media began covering the post election protests in Iran where many invoked the name of Islam in a quest for human rights, this sort of speculation was mostly absent.

As more details of the Fort Hood story were surfacing, there was already a fierce debate on what the shooter’s motivations were. The American right and left even took it as an opportunity to blame the other’s approach to radical Islam and for allowing, or at least silently encouraging, this sort of atrocity. Always at the heart of the debate was the question of who had the correct view of Islam and how to respond to radicalism…

Nearly six months after the protests began, the American media has displayed either little to no interest in discovering just who these protesters are or has simply forgotten that the opposition includes many Muslims who deem their faith important to their politics…

The American media is playing a dangerous game in directly and indirectly telling the public what is and is not “orthodox” in Islam. Constant repetition of violent images with significant emphasis on the religious language involved will reinforce the idea that the only true Muslim is some wild-eyed fanatic with guns and bombs. If that is the message that is sent we will be placing ourselves in a position to make it a truth and essentially take on a good portion of the proselytizing for militant Islam. It is essential that we take ourselves out of this game if we are to revitalize our policies towards Muslim engagement and quell the threat of Islamic radicalism in Iraq and Afghanistan as well preventing it from gaining ground at home the way it is in many European countries. Much of American media is already in poor journalistic shape; we don’t need it to play God too.”

Please join me in the discussion of the American media’s attitudes towards violence and nonviolence in the name of Islam and how the media can also engage in “truth-making” instead of “truth-telling”.

While you’re on the site, please check out some of the other great articles on the politics of human rights resolutions, the successes of the women’s movement for freedom and democracy in Iran, and daily video updates on the situation in Iran. Why not even take some time to send BoomGen a Christmas gift in the form of a donation?

Special thanks to the BoomGen team!

*I know its tempting, but don’t get distracted by the photo of Charles Krauthammer looking like a very unhappy snapping turtle.

Nonviolence Finally Gets Some Action on American TV

The most important interview on any global affairs issue the Daily Show has ever had happened last night with the appearance of Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Beltzer, both advocates for a nonviolent solution in the Israel Palestine conflict. There are so many great sound bytes in the unedited version that appears on the Daily Show website. Here are my favorites:

• Barghouti says the Palestinians are victims of a system of segregation that is totally unjust. Someone from the audience shouts “Liar!” Neither Barghouti or Baltzer seem thrown off in the slightest, and Barghouti even expresses a wish to sit down with the man and explain his position to him.
• “This severe reaction sometimes reflects a nervousness on the side of people who are afraid of change, and the change is happening, the change is coming. Palestinians are entitled to the same freedom that the Jewish people should have.” Barghouti
• “The controversy around our appearance here shows that people don’t want to hear from nonviolent activists and [yet] people say ‘Where are the Palestinian nonviolent activists?’” Beltzer
• “Palestinians are not only Muslims, they’re also Christians. We have Palestinian Muslims and Christians.” Barghouti
• “I don’t tend to think that the Palestinian issue today is an Arab issue or a Muslim issue, its a human issue.” Barghouti
• “The Israelis will never be free until the Palestinians are also free.” Barghouti
• “There’s nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There’s nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So much of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore.” Baltzer
• Another man, or possibly the same man as before, shouts while Baltzer is speaking. I think he’s announcing that he’s leaving because something Baltzer said was so offensive to him. Still, neither of the guests are really thrown off.
• “I don’t think the question is should Israel be singled out for criticism. I think the question is should Israel be held to the same standards that every other country has held.” Baltzer
• “You know a lot of people don’t realize how much, first of all, cooperation there is on the ground. That so many Israelis oppose…the settlements, the majority of Israelis oppose the settlements. And that busload after busload of Israeli activists are coming in to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.” Baltzer
• “I personally believe that the best peace that will last, like in the experience of other countries, is the one between two democracies where a solution is not imposed from one side on the other but it is accepted by both people and I think that is achievable.” Barghouti
• “Remember that Jews lived better in the Arab world than virtually anywhere in the Western world … and the important thing is this shows us a precedent. That these things are not unachievable, that these are not peoples who are somehow fundamentally incompatible.” Baltzer

However, I’m not 100% behind everything that was said. For instance, I have trouble believing that 90% of the Palestinian struggle is nonviolent. Simply because I have no idea what is being included in “the Palestinian struggle”. Is he talking about the struggle of the Palestinian National Authority? Or is he including the PNA, the various resistance groups that have been formed over the years, and the everyday struggles of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories? We could come up with a variety of different statistics based on what we consider part of the struggle. And then of course we can slip into the debate over whether or not stone throwing or property damage can be considered part of nonviolence.

But Barghouti is a politician, and so it only follows he speaks in the language of politicians. However, none of that invalidates what he’s trying to do.

Both of these people are incredibly brave and incredibly necessary to the global struggle to ensure human rights for all. w00t!

Opposition in Iran Doesn’t Want Your Money

The Obama administration has come under a lot of fire from people outside of the neo-conservative political spectrum for continuing many of Bush’s foreign policy initiatives. But recently, the administration cut off funding to Iran Democracy Fund conceived by the Bush administration to distribute money to opposition forces in Iran.

Is this a slap in the face to all those working for human rights inside Iran? The BBC reports that many Iranian activists find this a blessing.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of the hardline government in Iran:

“The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran’s government of being American spies because a few groups in America used these funds.”

And

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

He welcomes the change in policy: “These US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever.”

Could this really be a move worth making? I think it is. One of the ways in which the Iranian government holds on to its power is by blaming the US and the UK of undermining Iranian sovereignty. It continues to serve as a plausible, if many times far fetched and deceitful scenario. The current Iranian opposition is made up of many young educated men and women. And like many young people we tell our well meaning elders to back off because we want our achievements to truly be our own. I think that is one of the messages that is coming from the Green Movement in Iran: thanks, but no thanks.

We’ll Never Hear the End of It At Home

Way to go Norwegians!

I need to go on the record as saying that I’m not in favor of Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. There are so many many reasons why I think it was a bad idea. Please enjoy a nice little list of those reasons as said by various news outlets and bloggers.

Martin Indyk of Brookings, though not explicitly condemning it, shows that the award was given for strategic purposes. Which is one hell of a gamble.

“President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize should be seen as an acknowledgment of the promise that his presidency holds for leading the world into a new era of cooperation. Critics who argue that he hasn’t earned it miss the point. The Nobel committee clearly wanted to boost support for Obama’s world view and, judging from the overwhelmingly positive international reaction, they succeeded at least for the moment.”

The Economist on how the award is incredibly premature:

Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much…Mr Obama’s aspirations may be laudable, but he has several tough years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him but it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more. In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at least.

Peter Beinart of The Daily Beast on highlighting the gap between hype and accomplishments:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

And on the damage this has done to the Nobel Commitee and actual peacebuilders on the ground:

The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that. Let’s hope Obama eventually deserves this award. And let’s hope the Nobel Committee’s decision meets with such a deafening chorus of chortles and jeers that it never does something this stupid again.

Now here are some of my favorite tweets.

@abuardvark : Based on conversations in Amman there’s not going to be much Arab enthusiasm for Obama peace prize

@dandrezer : New blog post: EXCLUSIVE transcript of internal Nobel Peace Prize deliberations!! http://bit.ly/CY4EW. Must credit Drezner!!

@dandrezer : In move to restore credibility, Nobel committee announces Neil Patrick Harris will host awards presentation.

@AfPakChannel : RT @basseyworld: Mr. President, I’m happy for you & I’m gonna let you finish but Nelson Mandela was the best Peace Prize winner of all time

@FP_Magazine : Seven people who that never won the Nobel Peace Prize, but should have. http://bit.ly/1mCp42

@wonkette : NASA Moon-Bomber Left Hanging On High Five: Just as the President of the United States was accepting the Nobel.. http://bit.ly/1wTzc2

@EugeneMirman : Congratulations Mr. Obama! You won fair and square, even though I’ve been texting Hamas & Isreal requesting peace for weeks.

@anamariecox : YouTube of Nobel announcement…. http://bit.ly/XFmPO (And, uhm, clearly giving it to Obama for being notBush.)

@anamariecox : Update: Nobel Prize awarded not just to those who are not George Bush; must also not be John McCain.

@anamariecox : RT @12minds: While I haven’t fixed your iphone yet, I’ve THOUGHT about it and I hope to in the future. // Now just CLAIM to have fixed it.

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.

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

1. Aliyana Traison, “Demilitarized Palestine? Just sign this non-aggression pact first“, Haaretz
2. The Economist, “Israel and Palestine: A change of heart?“
3. Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats“, New York Times
4. Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel, p.127
5. BBC News, Israel sets terms for Palestinian state
6. Eric Alterman, “BiBi’s Bait-and-Switch“, The Daily Beast

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.

more about “Hardball:Arab world reacts to Obama s…“, posted with vodpod

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.

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?!”

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.