Richard Cohen op ed in Wash Post on the Obama Doctrine - which msut be a realistic, not a moral, policy toward the ME
I don't think you have to abandon morality with realism though.
I take issue with the last line of this paragraph:
"For the most part, this is good. Even George Bush was starting to realize that he had overreached, overdreamed, underthought and underanalyzed. The war in Iraq is coming up on its seventh year, and the one in Afghanistan has lasted even longer. The Taliban have gone and come, and the democracy movement in the Middle East has withered from an utter lack of enthusiasm, not to mention a lack of democratic leaders."
BS. There are democratic leaders in the Middle East, we just don't support them. Read Anthony Shadid's Legacy of the Prophet: Depots, Democrats and New Politics of Islam for starters. There are groups in Morocco, Iran, Egypt especially, Jordan, Iraq, Syria (to an extent - all in jail and on trial) and Lebanon.
We should not give up on democracy promotion in the region - just the way that Bush did it!
Showing posts with label Newspaper articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newspaper articles. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Article - WSJ on Islam and Peace
Islam Needs to Prove It's a Religion of Peace in WSJ
Tawfiq Hamid (a former member of an Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) calls on Islamic scholars to stop teaching about violent practices in Islam and to speak out against traditional practices with no place in this world.
He argues that..."we [Muslims] must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings."
He reminds us that stoning of women exists in the old testament and in the Sunna (Islamic tradition), the difference being that Jewish scholars have spoken out successfully against the practice, discontinued long ago, while Muslims have not.
WHY won't many Muslims give up these traditions? I think one answer is, broadly speaking, that they feel under threat - that their religion is under threat by local dictators and international actors. This pressure - be it real or perceived - must be relieved.
Tawfiq Hamid (a former member of an Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) calls on Islamic scholars to stop teaching about violent practices in Islam and to speak out against traditional practices with no place in this world.
He argues that..."we [Muslims] must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings."
He reminds us that stoning of women exists in the old testament and in the Sunna (Islamic tradition), the difference being that Jewish scholars have spoken out successfully against the practice, discontinued long ago, while Muslims have not.
WHY won't many Muslims give up these traditions? I think one answer is, broadly speaking, that they feel under threat - that their religion is under threat by local dictators and international actors. This pressure - be it real or perceived - must be relieved.
Dealing with Hamas and Hizbullah
Article in Time - "Dealing With Hamas: Can the US Avoid It?"
Roger Cohen op-ed in NYTimes - "Middle East Reality Check"
Cohen urges the govt to follow Britain's lead and open talks with Hezbollah's political wing. The same should be done with Hamas' political wing. Both organizations have moderate political players (and provide social services and have major constituencies that support them...) Coopt coopt coopt.
It is important to see Hezbollah and Hamas for what they really are - mutifaceted organization with a militant wings fighting an occupation. (See Olivier Roy post below.)
He also reminds us that as long as Palestinians are divided peace efforts will fail.
Cohen mentions a most important point: "The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state."
Hamas could very well give up its advocacy of the destruction of the state of Israel if it is allowed at the table - they have already offered to do so in the past, to Jimmy Carter among others.
Sure Hamas officials say dumb, incendiary crap - but most important is - why do they use such rhetoric? (Frustrations of occupation and their treatment by international community. Shoot, if I won an election and was then cut off by the world I'd be pissed too.) AND, can the US and Israel be the bigger person (act like legitimate countries) and look beyond this hollow rhetoric?
Cohen also makes a nice point about war in Gaza:
"At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are seen throughout the Arab world as legitimate resistance movements."
Roger Cohen op-ed in NYTimes - "Middle East Reality Check"
Cohen urges the govt to follow Britain's lead and open talks with Hezbollah's political wing. The same should be done with Hamas' political wing. Both organizations have moderate political players (and provide social services and have major constituencies that support them...) Coopt coopt coopt.
It is important to see Hezbollah and Hamas for what they really are - mutifaceted organization with a militant wings fighting an occupation. (See Olivier Roy post below.)
He also reminds us that as long as Palestinians are divided peace efforts will fail.
Cohen mentions a most important point: "The 1988 Hamas Charter is vile, but I think it’s wrong to get hung up on the prior recognition of Israel issue. Perhaps Hamas is sincere in its calls for Israel’s disappearance — although it has offered a decades-long truce — but then it’s also possible that Israel in reality has no desire to see a Palestinian state."
Hamas could very well give up its advocacy of the destruction of the state of Israel if it is allowed at the table - they have already offered to do so in the past, to Jimmy Carter among others.
Sure Hamas officials say dumb, incendiary crap - but most important is - why do they use such rhetoric? (Frustrations of occupation and their treatment by international community. Shoot, if I won an election and was then cut off by the world I'd be pissed too.) AND, can the US and Israel be the bigger person (act like legitimate countries) and look beyond this hollow rhetoric?
Cohen also makes a nice point about war in Gaza:
"At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are seen throughout the Arab world as legitimate resistance movements."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Talks with the Taliban - Is the classic colonialist policy of divide and conquer a good idea?
Helene Cooper discusses the potential US strategy in Afghanistan of divide and conquer in her article, "Dreaming of Splitting the Taliban," in the Week in Review section of today's NYTimes.
Historically, divide and conquer (D&C) has caused years of conflict. Used by European colonialists in Africa to suppress local opposition movements, local tribes and groups were turned against one another and are still fighting today. One of the most famous examples of this policy is the Rwanda, where the minority Tutsi group was favored and put in power while the majority Hutus were oppressed and barred from governance.
There are definitely differences between the D&C of colonialists and D&C today - back then entire populations were turned against one another while today the US considers turning two groups against one another. The local population doesn't even like the Taliban, especially the extremists, so they wouldn't be any hard feelings.
But that is if and only if they are eradicated. The colonialists fomented hated and then left the groups to duke it out - if the US eradicates extremist Taliban and AQ elements, maybe things could turn out better. Not sure.
I don't know, generally, these manipulations of local forces, picking a group and arming them, most recently done in Iraq in Anbar, while it works in the short term, always ends up HORRIBLY in the long run.
Another important point raised in the article is legitimacy (see below post on Olivier Roy and the importance of legitimacy). Clare Lockhart, former adviser to the Afghan govt and author of How to Fixed Failed States says "The key to winning back the population is to establish legitimate government...If you give people a government with sufficient credibility - and basic jobs - you can win back their trust."
I wonder how this would play out in Afghanistan where a strong legit centralized state really isn't possible - I guess you would have to have legitimate local/ provincial administrations tied to the central state but one that has some sort of legitimacy.
Historically, divide and conquer (D&C) has caused years of conflict. Used by European colonialists in Africa to suppress local opposition movements, local tribes and groups were turned against one another and are still fighting today. One of the most famous examples of this policy is the Rwanda, where the minority Tutsi group was favored and put in power while the majority Hutus were oppressed and barred from governance.
There are definitely differences between the D&C of colonialists and D&C today - back then entire populations were turned against one another while today the US considers turning two groups against one another. The local population doesn't even like the Taliban, especially the extremists, so they wouldn't be any hard feelings.
But that is if and only if they are eradicated. The colonialists fomented hated and then left the groups to duke it out - if the US eradicates extremist Taliban and AQ elements, maybe things could turn out better. Not sure.
I don't know, generally, these manipulations of local forces, picking a group and arming them, most recently done in Iraq in Anbar, while it works in the short term, always ends up HORRIBLY in the long run.
Another important point raised in the article is legitimacy (see below post on Olivier Roy and the importance of legitimacy). Clare Lockhart, former adviser to the Afghan govt and author of How to Fixed Failed States says "The key to winning back the population is to establish legitimate government...If you give people a government with sufficient credibility - and basic jobs - you can win back their trust."
I wonder how this would play out in Afghanistan where a strong legit centralized state really isn't possible - I guess you would have to have legitimate local/ provincial administrations tied to the central state but one that has some sort of legitimacy.
Darfur and Beshir's ICC arrest warrant
While I am a firm believer that a country and a people can only move forward if those responsible for genocide and violence and perpetrating civil war and conflict are brought to justice, this justice must be timed to minimize civilian casualties and maximize effectiveness. I do not think this was the best time for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue a warrant for Sudanese President Omar Beshir's arrest.
(This, by the way, comes from a humanitarian, someone who wrote their Thesis on the history of Darfur - showing that the conflict was based on resources due to desertification rather than 'Arab' and 'African animosities. But I am also, as I said above, a firm believer that justice brings lasting peace.)
Truth and Reconciliation commissions in South Africa and Rwanda and Liberia and Sierra Leone have been helpful in improving relations among former warring parties. After conflicts end (or toward the end) in these countries, and when other nations can secure the safety of civilians, arrest warrants for war criminals are also effective and necessary.
There have been a boatload of great op eds on this - an interesting one today from Nicholas Kristof who is fearful of the humanitarian outcome of the warrant as aid agencies are kicked out of Darfur - leaving 100s of thousands vulnerable to disease and without access to water and food.
He also mentions that no one he spoke to in the camps a week ago favored a delay in ICC proceedings.
He echos General Merrill McPeaks advocacy in an oped in in the Wash Post last week for a no fly zone in Darfur.
The worst thing about Darfur is to read that other Muslims (Sudanese Muslims out in the streets supporting Beshir, Hamas citicizing the warrant) speak out against this warrant as another western imperialist strategy in the region. Beshir and his cabal have killed thousands of MUSLIMS in Darfur.
(This, by the way, comes from a humanitarian, someone who wrote their Thesis on the history of Darfur - showing that the conflict was based on resources due to desertification rather than 'Arab' and 'African animosities. But I am also, as I said above, a firm believer that justice brings lasting peace.)
Truth and Reconciliation commissions in South Africa and Rwanda and Liberia and Sierra Leone have been helpful in improving relations among former warring parties. After conflicts end (or toward the end) in these countries, and when other nations can secure the safety of civilians, arrest warrants for war criminals are also effective and necessary.
There have been a boatload of great op eds on this - an interesting one today from Nicholas Kristof who is fearful of the humanitarian outcome of the warrant as aid agencies are kicked out of Darfur - leaving 100s of thousands vulnerable to disease and without access to water and food.
He also mentions that no one he spoke to in the camps a week ago favored a delay in ICC proceedings.
He echos General Merrill McPeaks advocacy in an oped in in the Wash Post last week for a no fly zone in Darfur.
The worst thing about Darfur is to read that other Muslims (Sudanese Muslims out in the streets supporting Beshir, Hamas citicizing the warrant) speak out against this warrant as another western imperialist strategy in the region. Beshir and his cabal have killed thousands of MUSLIMS in Darfur.
Article - Desert's Sand and Rocks Become Precious Resources in West Bank Dispute
In a NYTimes article, Ethan Bronner reveals Israeli expropriation of resources (sand and rocks) crucial to a future Palestinian state. This is the kind of counterproductive move that prevents a Palestinian state (natural resources are key to a viable economy) and therefore Israel's own security.
These expropriated West Bank natural resources account for nearly a quarter of the sand and rock Israel uses every year.
I wonder if they are using this to build settlements? (And then employing Palestinian laborers to do the work...) Talking about twisting the knife in the wound...or in this case, driving the knife in the peace talks.
In legal terms - the Fourth Hague Convention states that occupying powers may not remove natural resources and that any gain obtained from their exploitation must be kept in a designated fund for the local population.
While of course this was not Bronner's intent - there is a parallel to colonial practices of exploitation of natural resources in Africa.
Israeli rights group Yseh Din is bringing the case to the Israel Supreme Court next week.
These expropriated West Bank natural resources account for nearly a quarter of the sand and rock Israel uses every year.
I wonder if they are using this to build settlements? (And then employing Palestinian laborers to do the work...) Talking about twisting the knife in the wound...or in this case, driving the knife in the peace talks.
In legal terms - the Fourth Hague Convention states that occupying powers may not remove natural resources and that any gain obtained from their exploitation must be kept in a designated fund for the local population.
While of course this was not Bronner's intent - there is a parallel to colonial practices of exploitation of natural resources in Africa.
Israeli rights group Yseh Din is bringing the case to the Israel Supreme Court next week.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Article - Saudi Reforms
Saudi reforms analysis in NYTimes.
On the appointment of a new female education minister and the removal of conservative hardliner from posts of chief of religious police and senior judge.
On the appointment of a new female education minister and the removal of conservative hardliner from posts of chief of religious police and senior judge.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Article - All Quiet in Pakistan's Swat Valley - Veil vs. The Suicide Belt
Fareed Zakaria's article in the Wash Post today is a tough sell. I agree that Islamic Democrats should be given a chance at power - hopefully some of their radical conservative social mores will be tempered by their populace when election season comes around. (Maybe, I am not 100% about this, maybe Islamic democrats will take power and be authoritarians, but they couldn't be much worse then what we have now - Mubarak - and if they are not given the chance - if they are not allowed to participate in society and in government through nonviolent political channels - their measures will be worse.)
But the Taliban is not an Islamic democratic group. (Though the past administration would have liked you to believe that ALL Muslim groups are on in the same...) The deal between the govt and the Taliban in the Swat region makes me nervous especially when there are reports of 1000s of girls' schools closed and bombed. Can these extremists be swayed and tempered? Is their terror means to an end - good governance - or aimed at establishing a totally new system? (See post below on Olivier Roy's differentiation between the two in his book Politics of Chaos of the Middle East.) If the former, possibly these extremists can be reasoned with, but if they are the latter negotiations are not possible.
But the Taliban is not an Islamic democratic group. (Though the past administration would have liked you to believe that ALL Muslim groups are on in the same...) The deal between the govt and the Taliban in the Swat region makes me nervous especially when there are reports of 1000s of girls' schools closed and bombed. Can these extremists be swayed and tempered? Is their terror means to an end - good governance - or aimed at establishing a totally new system? (See post below on Olivier Roy's differentiation between the two in his book Politics of Chaos of the Middle East.) If the former, possibly these extremists can be reasoned with, but if they are the latter negotiations are not possible.
Article - Muslim Sent Home and a personal story on discrimination against Muslims and Arabs at airports
Muslim Sent Home in the Wash Post describes how Rashad Bukhari, a Pakistani citizen with a multiple entry visa to the US and works for the organization Search for Common Ground (works to solve conflicts around the world), was denied entry to the US the other day.
The author, John Mark, a colleague describes well how detrimental these kinds incidents are the the US reputation abroad and to individuals (like Mr. Bukhari) and organizations who are trying to help in build and repair bridges between the US and the Muslim world. Mr. Bukhari is quoted in the articles describing how it is a blow to him on many levels - personally (insulting and will make it more difficult for him to travel int he future) and professionally (exactly the kind of discrimination and misunderstanding he works to end.)
Last summer when I studied Arabic at the French Institute for Near East Studies in Damascus, Syria. It was a great program and one of my professors, who I will not name as I did not ask his permission to recount this story, told us one day in class that he had been to the US and would never go back. Of course we asked why. The story he told was deeply saddened me and still does to this day.
This professor, by the way, is a jolly old, curmudgeonly, insightful Syrian man, really great sense of humor. He also started one of the first human rights organizations in Syria (you'd think the US might want to welcome him here...) and is a well known and well respected scholar, published on many topics. He came to the US for the MESA (Middle Eastern Studies Assoc) annual conference and was detained and interrogated at Dulles. He did not go into the details of his detention, I think it was just too embarrassing and sad for him. He wasn't angry about his incident - rather disappointed, I think. He will never try to come back to the US and no one here will benefit from his activism and knowledge on the Syria and the region.
These policies hurt the US and the world on many levels. My professor and Rashad Bukhari are individuals who are trying to build relationships between the US and the Muslim world - they are our best diplomats and the US government immigration policies are inhibiting their work. Secondly, these discriminatory policies hurt our reputation in the region. This has happened to countless other individuals, students, scholars, activists (Tariq Ramadan's Notre Dame experience...) and each one returns to their home to tell their story of rejection. It's like the effects of our torture policies.
The author, John Mark, a colleague describes well how detrimental these kinds incidents are the the US reputation abroad and to individuals (like Mr. Bukhari) and organizations who are trying to help in build and repair bridges between the US and the Muslim world. Mr. Bukhari is quoted in the articles describing how it is a blow to him on many levels - personally (insulting and will make it more difficult for him to travel int he future) and professionally (exactly the kind of discrimination and misunderstanding he works to end.)
Last summer when I studied Arabic at the French Institute for Near East Studies in Damascus, Syria. It was a great program and one of my professors, who I will not name as I did not ask his permission to recount this story, told us one day in class that he had been to the US and would never go back. Of course we asked why. The story he told was deeply saddened me and still does to this day.
This professor, by the way, is a jolly old, curmudgeonly, insightful Syrian man, really great sense of humor. He also started one of the first human rights organizations in Syria (you'd think the US might want to welcome him here...) and is a well known and well respected scholar, published on many topics. He came to the US for the MESA (Middle Eastern Studies Assoc) annual conference and was detained and interrogated at Dulles. He did not go into the details of his detention, I think it was just too embarrassing and sad for him. He wasn't angry about his incident - rather disappointed, I think. He will never try to come back to the US and no one here will benefit from his activism and knowledge on the Syria and the region.
These policies hurt the US and the world on many levels. My professor and Rashad Bukhari are individuals who are trying to build relationships between the US and the Muslim world - they are our best diplomats and the US government immigration policies are inhibiting their work. Secondly, these discriminatory policies hurt our reputation in the region. This has happened to countless other individuals, students, scholars, activists (Tariq Ramadan's Notre Dame experience...) and each one returns to their home to tell their story of rejection. It's like the effects of our torture policies.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Article - What Iran's Jews Say
Roger Cohen had a great op ed in the NYTimes on Iran last week.
The article reveals that Iran's rhetoric toward Israel is not at all racist (directed at Jews) but rather political and nationalist (directed at struggle for Palestinain state.) I love the opener of this article, Cohen writes about a sign he saw, "Congratualtions on the 30th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution from the Jewish Community of Esfahan." He also mentions Jews in Iran who protested against the attacks on Gaza. (This article must have really sent Avigidor Lieberman off the deep end.)
Conflicts are so rarely (never really) at their core about religion and ethnicity, but about land and politics and power. Only when people realize this (thanks to Cohen for helping us down this road) will we be able to solve the problems of the region. Blaming suicide attacks on Islam just doesn't pay the bill.
The article reveals that Iran's rhetoric toward Israel is not at all racist (directed at Jews) but rather political and nationalist (directed at struggle for Palestinain state.) I love the opener of this article, Cohen writes about a sign he saw, "Congratualtions on the 30th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution from the Jewish Community of Esfahan." He also mentions Jews in Iran who protested against the attacks on Gaza. (This article must have really sent Avigidor Lieberman off the deep end.)
Conflicts are so rarely (never really) at their core about religion and ethnicity, but about land and politics and power. Only when people realize this (thanks to Cohen for helping us down this road) will we be able to solve the problems of the region. Blaming suicide attacks on Islam just doesn't pay the bill.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
They hate us!!
Wait, I thought they hated us. They hate our freedom, our culture, our democracy. But they love Friends in Gaza and Oprah in Saudi? HOW can I reconcile these conflicting viewpoints. Wait, I know, they don't hate us.
People in the ME love our culture and our way of life but they don't want it shoved down their throats with tanks and guns. Also they hate our ineffctive uneven policies in the region. (See my post "Foreign Hypocrisy" for starters and this great brief article by John Esposito, "It's the Policy Stupid: Political Islam and the US Foreign Policy")
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Turkey to the Rescue
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04islam.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
The article on the front page of the NYTimes today, Sunday May 4, "Turkish Schools Offer an Gentler Islam" is one that all should read.
A group of Turkish teachers and educators have opened schools in the NW province of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan credited for being a breeding ground for militants. The schools' aim to counteract the radical fundamentalist Islamic schools in the area by providing a balanced alternative: A well rounded curriculum that includes (but is not limited to) Islamic studies and prayer. The Turkish run schools teach Science, English, Math, History in addition to a course on Islam. They encourgae Islamic ways of life in dormitories.The article focuses on Mesut Kacmaz, a Turk teaching in Pakistan; he is quoted throughout the story, "Whatever the West has of science, let our kids have it, but let our kids have religion as well." This quote is important because Muslims must realize that science and Islam are not in opposition to one another as many corrupt fake Islamic scholars have taught. (See below paragraph for a brief background on this.)
(Bkgrnd: There was a backlash against subjects such as science and math that went along with the backlash against things western after years of imperialism, colonialism, oppression and discrimination against the Muslim world and Middle East by Europe and the West. However crazy you might think this is, it happened, and it is crucial that these subjects are reintroduced. There is precendence for this argument: A long history of Islamic scholars have attempted to show that science and math are not 'Western' but universal subjects. In fact, they originated in the East; Cairo and Baghdad were historical centers of learning before Western scholars began thinking about matters such as math: Al-Gebra for example. Two great examples 19th Century Islamic scholars Muhammad Abdo and Jamal al Din al Afghani who are considered 'Islamic Modernists' for their writings advocating higher learning - science, literature, math - within the framework of Islam.)
Back to the article. Also mentioned is Turkish Islamic scholar Fetullah Gulen, who sounds like a modern day Afghani, "without science religion turns to radicalism' he is quoted as saying. He advocates again, moderate Islam taught alongside Literature, Math, Science, and History.
The article also touches on how these fundamentalist schools contribute to the perversion of Islam: Power hungry men use these schools as venues for selling their militant agenda, misinterpreting the Quran and hadiths to recruit young followers. The article quotes Matiullah Aail, a religious scholar in Quetta who graduated from Medina University in Saudi which clearly gives him some street cred in the Muslim world. He compares these radical mullahs to lawyers and doctors, "Doctors and lawyers have to their degrees. But when it comes to mullahs, no one asks them for their qualifications. They don't have knowledge, but they are influential." Knowledgeable educators, like those coming from Turkey, will teach students to see through these fake radical Islamic scholars.
Using a balanced curriculum to teach the Pakistani youth how to think broadly and critically, not militarizing the region, arming tribesmen, and dropping bombs a la US foreign policy, will defeat radicalism and militants.
The article dubs these Turkish teachers the Muslim Peace Corps which I thought was fitting as an ex Peace Corps volunteer.
The article on the front page of the NYTimes today, Sunday May 4, "Turkish Schools Offer an Gentler Islam" is one that all should read.
A group of Turkish teachers and educators have opened schools in the NW province of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan credited for being a breeding ground for militants. The schools' aim to counteract the radical fundamentalist Islamic schools in the area by providing a balanced alternative: A well rounded curriculum that includes (but is not limited to) Islamic studies and prayer. The Turkish run schools teach Science, English, Math, History in addition to a course on Islam. They encourgae Islamic ways of life in dormitories.The article focuses on Mesut Kacmaz, a Turk teaching in Pakistan; he is quoted throughout the story, "Whatever the West has of science, let our kids have it, but let our kids have religion as well." This quote is important because Muslims must realize that science and Islam are not in opposition to one another as many corrupt fake Islamic scholars have taught. (See below paragraph for a brief background on this.)
(Bkgrnd: There was a backlash against subjects such as science and math that went along with the backlash against things western after years of imperialism, colonialism, oppression and discrimination against the Muslim world and Middle East by Europe and the West. However crazy you might think this is, it happened, and it is crucial that these subjects are reintroduced. There is precendence for this argument: A long history of Islamic scholars have attempted to show that science and math are not 'Western' but universal subjects. In fact, they originated in the East; Cairo and Baghdad were historical centers of learning before Western scholars began thinking about matters such as math: Al-Gebra for example. Two great examples 19th Century Islamic scholars Muhammad Abdo and Jamal al Din al Afghani who are considered 'Islamic Modernists' for their writings advocating higher learning - science, literature, math - within the framework of Islam.)
Back to the article. Also mentioned is Turkish Islamic scholar Fetullah Gulen, who sounds like a modern day Afghani, "without science religion turns to radicalism' he is quoted as saying. He advocates again, moderate Islam taught alongside Literature, Math, Science, and History.
The article also touches on how these fundamentalist schools contribute to the perversion of Islam: Power hungry men use these schools as venues for selling their militant agenda, misinterpreting the Quran and hadiths to recruit young followers. The article quotes Matiullah Aail, a religious scholar in Quetta who graduated from Medina University in Saudi which clearly gives him some street cred in the Muslim world. He compares these radical mullahs to lawyers and doctors, "Doctors and lawyers have to their degrees. But when it comes to mullahs, no one asks them for their qualifications. They don't have knowledge, but they are influential." Knowledgeable educators, like those coming from Turkey, will teach students to see through these fake radical Islamic scholars.
Using a balanced curriculum to teach the Pakistani youth how to think broadly and critically, not militarizing the region, arming tribesmen, and dropping bombs a la US foreign policy, will defeat radicalism and militants.
The article dubs these Turkish teachers the Muslim Peace Corps which I thought was fitting as an ex Peace Corps volunteer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
