Even though (or maybe because of the fact that?) I am a humanitarian in heart and mind, I have always been skeptical about American efforts in Afghanistan, whether we are hurting more than helping, creating more enemies than fighting, endangering more civilians than we are protecting.
I have failed to consider, however, that the person who serves (unknowingly) as my role model in life tends to side on the other side, however for some different reasons than most.
Sarah Chayes has lived in Afghanistan since she decided to leave her job at NPR that took her to that country in 2001. For years she has lived and worked with local population in Khandahar running a cooperative, and generally participating in indigenous life there. This has given her unique insight on Afghan society whci she has shared in a book, on Bill Moyers, with Charlie Rose, and in countless articles, including one fairly recently for the LATimes called many for the LATimes.
Chayes' main goal is helping the people of Afghanistan to rebuild and live prosperous, healthy lives in safety and secruity. (As opposed to many who might have US security interests first and foremost in mind, as those who directed the surge in Iraq were first and foremost looking for a US exit strategy. Fortunately said exit strategy included first and foremost protecitng the population. SO here again, COIN and humanitarian 'ideology coincide...kind of. By the way, I did not write the previous sentences in a critical light, everyone has a right to have their own interests and priorities and look at the world and situations like Afghanistan and Iraq from different perspectives; we need them all.) So considering Chayes' aforementioned perspective and goals, the fact that she titled her last article in the LATimes "'Lower your sights' is the wrong vision for Afghanistan" makes me think twice (well, a gagillion times) about blindly leaping into the Bacevich - Rory Sewart camp. She is also currently serving as an advisor to NATO and US led forces. I know she was in communication with Patraeus and no doubt the same is now true to McChrystal.
Stalker moment:
1. Sarah Chayes and I both served in the Peace Corps in Morocco.
2. Sarah Chayes and I both have a MA in Middle East History. (Full disclosure: her Harvard, me UVA)
3. I really want to be Iraq's Sarah Chayes.
4. Sarah Chayes might actually occupy my No. 1 person in the world spot. Close runners up: Karen Armstrong, Noam Chomsky, George Packer, Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, Steve Coll, Andrea Turpin, Andrew Sullivan, Crooks and Liars, Marc Lynch
Sarah, if you are reading this, which you aren't, please don't be scared by my stalker moment, I'm not crazy. I swear the fact that I want to be just like you is totally harmless. Pure admiration! (Call me k?)
Excerpt from LATimes article:
"The answer is not to lower the bar but to raise it. What is needed is some of that patented Obama "Yes, we can!" energy.
We can, for example, work to ensure not just the security of the upcoming Afghan elections but a modicum of integrity, by observing, reporting and sanctioning instances of abuse and by distancing ourselves from those Afghan officials illegally exploiting their offices to ensure a Karzai reelection. We can insist on accountability on the part of Afghan officials, especially regarding the expenditure of international funds.
We can help Afghans give teeth to what is perhaps the most important feature of American democracy -- one that was signally ignored by the Bush administration's Afghan design: checks-and-balances mechanisms.
Additional troops are desperately needed, and they should be deployed to protect the population rather than focused on hunting high-value targets or trying to seal off Afghanistan's borders. Development assistance, well targeted and monitored, is also crucial. But only with a concurrent full-court press on governance can the most limited U.S. goals in the region be accomplished.
The sudden appetite for Afghanistan in Washington, and the real attention being devoted there, allows me to argue to my cooperative members that the "lower your sights" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. This time, I try to assure them, our actions will outstrip our words. May I be telling the truth."
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Marc Lynch to 'Moderate' Arab leaders: Get off your patouches!
I am on a Marc Lynch kick. (See two posts below.) He wrote an important article in The National, "Don't Just Watch", this week encouraging "so-called moderate Arab leaders" not to "get too comfortable" and instead to be proactive in taking advantage of recent developments, "with Obama reaching out to the Muslim world from Cairo and battling with the Israeli government over settlements, Iran imploding over its contested electoral outcome, and Hezbollah failing to unseat the March 14 coalition in Lebanon".
Arab leaders can not just sit back and relax as Obama does the work. They must reciprocate; for example, prepare for negotiations with Israel, fill the void in Iraq, develop productive, engaging, rather than confrontational, policies toward Iran.
In the end, solutions must come from within, or at least seem to come mostly from them, for them to last.
Arab leaders can not just sit back and relax as Obama does the work. They must reciprocate; for example, prepare for negotiations with Israel, fill the void in Iraq, develop productive, engaging, rather than confrontational, policies toward Iran.
In the end, solutions must come from within, or at least seem to come mostly from them, for them to last.
Important new book on jihad.
Marc Lynch reports here on Yusuf al-Qardawi's new book, Fiqh al Jihad or the Jurisprudence of Jihad, which refutes Al Qaeda's vision of jihad as a "mad declaration of war upon the world." (Lynch names Qardawi as "the most influential living Sunni Islamist figure"; he is the founder of Islamonline, host of Al Jazeera's Sharia and Life, and Chariman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Murshida update.
I will be posting on last night's Murshida meeting and lecture later today.
In addition, I will be going with some the students from the group on Monday to observe one of the Murshida's counseling sessions.
In addition, I will be going with some the students from the group on Monday to observe one of the Murshida's counseling sessions.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Meeting with Murshida tonight!!!!!!!!!!
I am so incredibly excited: tonight, one of the instructors at the American Language Center (ALC) here in Marrakech here has organized for a Murshida to come speak our group.
I wrote here about the Wash Post article about the Murshida here in Morocco about a month ago. Murshida are basically religious social workers/ preachers, female imams, who counsel troubled women - those abused or imprisoned, for example. They are schooled in Islam as well as social work.
An article in Time magazine framed the Murshida as a tool against terror. That's one way of looking at it. The instructor here at the ALC also informed me that that the Moroccan government developed the Murshida in response to the Casablanca bombings and their subsequent realization that an 'extemist' 'radical' element of Islam was entering Morocco, that included the spread of Wahhabism. Those familiar with the terrorist scene know that there exists Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb ('Maghreb' refers to Morocco but also to North Africa as a whole, as it does here), and that yes, some suicide bombers and resistance fighters that have popped up in Afghanistan and Iraq have Moroccan passports. So here we see something extremely important, Muslims, and governments in Muslim countries, taking responsiblilty for 'taking back their religion' from those who pervert and corrupt it.
(Sidenote: Any of you who know me or read this blog, know that I am of the school that thinks that Islam, religion in general play little role in violence and terrorism. Yes Islam serves to legitimize acts, but it surely does not motivate them. it is not a root cause of these acts.)
When you take away all the terrorist talk, these women are also, and maybe most importantly, helping women in need in Morocco. And, it is a government funded, governemtn legislated, program. They are also doing inside, rather than outside of Islam. That Murshida are indigenous and associated with Islam gives them and the program legitimacy in the eyes of the people, the women it helps and those around them. A husband, for example, might be more willing to allow a Murshida, a religious scholar, into his home rather than a woman known to be from a NGO that receives foreign funding. (No offense, NGOs do great work, but we all know how they are perceived in the eyes of local population, especially in the eyes of men when they deal with women’s rights issues.)
This kind of program represents the kind of steps governments in the region need to take to provide their populations with social services. It is the government (with hopefully eventually some wholesome help from a private sector) that needs to initiate these programs, not international NGOs with a USAID grant.
Here is the Wash Post article on Murshida.
Here is another recent article in Wash Post about social and political developments in Morocco.
I am planning on applying for a Fulbright in the Fall to study Murshida. If any of you have ideas or suggestions please let me know.
I wrote here about the Wash Post article about the Murshida here in Morocco about a month ago. Murshida are basically religious social workers/ preachers, female imams, who counsel troubled women - those abused or imprisoned, for example. They are schooled in Islam as well as social work.
An article in Time magazine framed the Murshida as a tool against terror. That's one way of looking at it. The instructor here at the ALC also informed me that that the Moroccan government developed the Murshida in response to the Casablanca bombings and their subsequent realization that an 'extemist' 'radical' element of Islam was entering Morocco, that included the spread of Wahhabism. Those familiar with the terrorist scene know that there exists Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb ('Maghreb' refers to Morocco but also to North Africa as a whole, as it does here), and that yes, some suicide bombers and resistance fighters that have popped up in Afghanistan and Iraq have Moroccan passports. So here we see something extremely important, Muslims, and governments in Muslim countries, taking responsiblilty for 'taking back their religion' from those who pervert and corrupt it.
(Sidenote: Any of you who know me or read this blog, know that I am of the school that thinks that Islam, religion in general play little role in violence and terrorism. Yes Islam serves to legitimize acts, but it surely does not motivate them. it is not a root cause of these acts.)
When you take away all the terrorist talk, these women are also, and maybe most importantly, helping women in need in Morocco. And, it is a government funded, governemtn legislated, program. They are also doing inside, rather than outside of Islam. That Murshida are indigenous and associated with Islam gives them and the program legitimacy in the eyes of the people, the women it helps and those around them. A husband, for example, might be more willing to allow a Murshida, a religious scholar, into his home rather than a woman known to be from a NGO that receives foreign funding. (No offense, NGOs do great work, but we all know how they are perceived in the eyes of local population, especially in the eyes of men when they deal with women’s rights issues.)
This kind of program represents the kind of steps governments in the region need to take to provide their populations with social services. It is the government (with hopefully eventually some wholesome help from a private sector) that needs to initiate these programs, not international NGOs with a USAID grant.
Here is the Wash Post article on Murshida.
Here is another recent article in Wash Post about social and political developments in Morocco.
I am planning on applying for a Fulbright in the Fall to study Murshida. If any of you have ideas or suggestions please let me know.
No calm after the storm in Iran.
Instead of calm after the storm, it seems there is definitely some bad weather in middle and upper levels in the Iranian system.
Massive demonstrations of past weeks have created, or exposed, cracks at the middle level, for example, among clerics in Qom who two days ago sent a letter calling the government illegitimate, and, to a lesser extent but albeit important way at the top in the Assembly of Experts. Karroubi (reformist candidate in recent elections) Khatami and Moussavi are the most visible representatives of this camp. The NYTimes reported on all of this today. Other news sources have also been reporting on it here and there.
This is not to say they have the upper hand or are alone in expressing feelings on the election. Hard liners and conservatives have been vocal in validating the elections. Qom seminary Ayatollah Morteza Moghtadai called the election 'case closed'. Ayatollah Muhammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad's spiritual leader, has dismissed the elections as 'window dressing'; they didn't, and don't, really matter in a religious system like the one in Iran. Or at least the one he envisions in Iran; the people most probably disagree with this vision. Here he mistakes the legitimacy of a government as purely religious, when Iranians seem to see legitimacy come from other sources, like their own will, their voice, popular elections.
Either way, the Iranian regime - Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad - has lost a great deal of legitimacy. I found myself raising my eyebrows and a 'yeah right, good luck with that' smirk on my face when reading that the regime might arrest and try Moussavi and Khatami and other outspoken reformists who they call terrorists. What power do they have to do this, I thought to myself. Their loss of, and desperate struggle for, legitimacy is also visible in their attempts to dismiss protestors as foreign agents, an attempt to remove their legitimacy and return it to the Assembly taking their legitimacy and return to its 'proper' owners. (Please excuse excessive use and abuse of the word 'legitimacy' in this post and paragraph.)
Massive demonstrations of past weeks have created, or exposed, cracks at the middle level, for example, among clerics in Qom who two days ago sent a letter calling the government illegitimate, and, to a lesser extent but albeit important way at the top in the Assembly of Experts. Karroubi (reformist candidate in recent elections) Khatami and Moussavi are the most visible representatives of this camp. The NYTimes reported on all of this today. Other news sources have also been reporting on it here and there.
This is not to say they have the upper hand or are alone in expressing feelings on the election. Hard liners and conservatives have been vocal in validating the elections. Qom seminary Ayatollah Morteza Moghtadai called the election 'case closed'. Ayatollah Muhammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad's spiritual leader, has dismissed the elections as 'window dressing'; they didn't, and don't, really matter in a religious system like the one in Iran. Or at least the one he envisions in Iran; the people most probably disagree with this vision. Here he mistakes the legitimacy of a government as purely religious, when Iranians seem to see legitimacy come from other sources, like their own will, their voice, popular elections.
Either way, the Iranian regime - Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad - has lost a great deal of legitimacy. I found myself raising my eyebrows and a 'yeah right, good luck with that' smirk on my face when reading that the regime might arrest and try Moussavi and Khatami and other outspoken reformists who they call terrorists. What power do they have to do this, I thought to myself. Their loss of, and desperate struggle for, legitimacy is also visible in their attempts to dismiss protestors as foreign agents, an attempt to remove their legitimacy and return it to the Assembly taking their legitimacy and return to its 'proper' owners. (Please excuse excessive use and abuse of the word 'legitimacy' in this post and paragraph.)
Friday, June 5, 2009
Something great going on in Morocco.
This is by far one of the most interesting things I've read about in months.
The Wash Post reported last week on the Murshida, female religious counselors. The Ministry of Religious Affairs in Morocco has been training women to be Murshida so that they can counsel women in need. They do house calls, work out of mosques, hospitals, schools and prisons.
The article reveals that a similar movement is going on in Turkey, where there are hundreds of 'vaizes' or women preachers, and that across the Middle East women are becoming muftis, who are experts in Islamic jurisprudence and can issue fatwas.
The Wash Post reported last week on the Murshida, female religious counselors. The Ministry of Religious Affairs in Morocco has been training women to be Murshida so that they can counsel women in need. They do house calls, work out of mosques, hospitals, schools and prisons.
The article reveals that a similar movement is going on in Turkey, where there are hundreds of 'vaizes' or women preachers, and that across the Middle East women are becoming muftis, who are experts in Islamic jurisprudence and can issue fatwas.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama and Islamists
From Wonk Room at Think Progress: Will Islamists be Part of the President's New Dialogue?
POMED report on Democracy in Egypt.
New report from POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) entitled, "Looking Forward: An Integrated Strategy for Supporting Democracy and Human Rights in Egypt." Download it here.
New book on reformers in the Middle East.
Michael Gerson mentions a great new book that focuses on seven reformers in the Middle East in his oped on Ayman Nour, The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.
EGYPT.
Wow, I picked a bad few days to go out of town. There are so many darn articles on Obama's speech in Egypt and on democracy in Egypt I can barely think straight.
First and foremost, here is the transcript of the speech. There are many many things I liked about the speech, but in the interest of time, I will recount them at a later time after I have caught up very briefly on all the great articles written while I was gone.
Marc Lynch's initial analysis of the speech.
The speech led to a flurry of articles on why Obama should NOT give up on democracy promotion in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. For those who were angry he chose Egypt because of its lack of democracy, this flurry might give them reason to pause because it seems to have brought democracy back on the agenda, if it was ever gone.
There has been a debate raging on whether democracy promotion should be part of foreign policy. And, if in fact it should, how to do it - direct funding of democracy groups, or through more indirect paths such as economic development. Egyptian activists and citizens seem to think it should be a huge part of our foreign policy - Ayman Nour and Saad Eddin Ibrahim to name just two of the most active and well known political opposition leaders.
Important to note:
- The US government recently stopped funding civil society organizations that the Egyptian government does not recognize (bad)
- The US government (Gates) publicly stated that there will be no 'conditionality' clause on defense aid to Egypt (bad)
- The Bush admin., after advocating major democratic reform in Egypt, abandoned democracy promotion after Islamist parties (many were Islamic democratic parties, but that didn't matter to them...) won an overwhelming number of seats in parliament in 2005
Obama In Egypt: A Vision for Democracy Promotion , in World Politics Review by Brian Katulis and Michael Cohen.
Don't Give Up on Egypt, in Foreign Policy by POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) peoples.
Michael Gerson on Ayman Nour in the Wash Post. (Ayman Nour is a leading political opposition figure in Egypt, he ran for President in 2005.)
Realism May Not Play in Cairo from NYTimes Week in Review section.
Variety of opinions from bloggers and activists in the region from the NYTimes oped page.
Ditching Democracy in Egypt? from MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard) by Scott Carpenter. (I learned via Marc Lynch that Carpenter is responding to this article by in Newsweek by Steven Cook article on why fiunding democracy programs in Egypt is not effective.)
I would love to read and write on this for days, maybe I will at some point, but for now I am going to move on to list a few other important developments and articles from the past few days.
First and foremost, here is the transcript of the speech. There are many many things I liked about the speech, but in the interest of time, I will recount them at a later time after I have caught up very briefly on all the great articles written while I was gone.
Marc Lynch's initial analysis of the speech.
The speech led to a flurry of articles on why Obama should NOT give up on democracy promotion in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. For those who were angry he chose Egypt because of its lack of democracy, this flurry might give them reason to pause because it seems to have brought democracy back on the agenda, if it was ever gone.
There has been a debate raging on whether democracy promotion should be part of foreign policy. And, if in fact it should, how to do it - direct funding of democracy groups, or through more indirect paths such as economic development. Egyptian activists and citizens seem to think it should be a huge part of our foreign policy - Ayman Nour and Saad Eddin Ibrahim to name just two of the most active and well known political opposition leaders.
Important to note:
- The US government recently stopped funding civil society organizations that the Egyptian government does not recognize (bad)
- The US government (Gates) publicly stated that there will be no 'conditionality' clause on defense aid to Egypt (bad)
- The Bush admin., after advocating major democratic reform in Egypt, abandoned democracy promotion after Islamist parties (many were Islamic democratic parties, but that didn't matter to them...) won an overwhelming number of seats in parliament in 2005
Obama In Egypt: A Vision for Democracy Promotion , in World Politics Review by Brian Katulis and Michael Cohen.
Don't Give Up on Egypt, in Foreign Policy by POMED (Project on Middle East Democracy) peoples.
Michael Gerson on Ayman Nour in the Wash Post. (Ayman Nour is a leading political opposition figure in Egypt, he ran for President in 2005.)
Realism May Not Play in Cairo from NYTimes Week in Review section.
Variety of opinions from bloggers and activists in the region from the NYTimes oped page.
Ditching Democracy in Egypt? from MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard) by Scott Carpenter. (I learned via Marc Lynch that Carpenter is responding to this article by in Newsweek by Steven Cook article on why fiunding democracy programs in Egypt is not effective.)
I would love to read and write on this for days, maybe I will at some point, but for now I am going to move on to list a few other important developments and articles from the past few days.
Friday, May 22, 2009
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Egyptian blogger Ahmed Mohsen is to be jailed for “Exploiting the democratic climate to overthrow the government.”
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Article.
I wish Cheney lived in Egypt.
Article.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
"How Pakistan Failed Itself"
I read this article from Time, "How Pakistan Failed Itself" today when getting a pedicure. How Washington. It was actually informative and interesting and kept me drying my nails for much, much longer than usual. (I am disgustingly impatient and usually leave far too soon and mess up three nails in 5 minutes.)
The article shows many sides of Pakistan, focusing at times on conversations with a upper level female Pakistani pilot and her progressive urban friends at a bar/restaurant in the Himalayan resort town of Nathiagali. I kind of want to hang out there with them. Feel free to drop me an email if you're reading this, Rifat.
Her voice echoes Mufti and Cole on Bill Moyer's last Friday night (see below for my post on the show):
"What is all this talk of Talibanization? Not once have these maulvis [religious leaders] complained that a woman is flying their plane," she says. Guests nod in agreement. "There is no way the Taliban can take over Pakistan," says one. "We are too many, and they are too few."
I thought this point from author Ayrn Baker was smart:
"Talibanization doesn't start with a military takeover. It happens when there is a Red Mosque in every city and citizens are afraid to stand up to its edicts. "
The article shows many sides of Pakistan, focusing at times on conversations with a upper level female Pakistani pilot and her progressive urban friends at a bar/restaurant in the Himalayan resort town of Nathiagali. I kind of want to hang out there with them. Feel free to drop me an email if you're reading this, Rifat.
Her voice echoes Mufti and Cole on Bill Moyer's last Friday night (see below for my post on the show):
"What is all this talk of Talibanization? Not once have these maulvis [religious leaders] complained that a woman is flying their plane," she says. Guests nod in agreement. "There is no way the Taliban can take over Pakistan," says one. "We are too many, and they are too few."
I thought this point from author Ayrn Baker was smart:
"Talibanization doesn't start with a military takeover. It happens when there is a Red Mosque in every city and citizens are afraid to stand up to its edicts. "
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Kuwaiti women in Parliament.
Kuwaitis elected 4 women to the 50 seat Parliament yesterday! Women only received the right to vote in that country in 2006. Interestingly enough, all were educated in the US. All winner ran as independents.
Islamic parties dropped from 21 to 11 seats.
Marc Lynch has great analysis of the Kuwaiti elections.
Islamic parties dropped from 21 to 11 seats.
Marc Lynch has great analysis of the Kuwaiti elections.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Refutation of Quranic sanction of Ploygamy (really amazing piece)
Now I can go to sleep happy:
Amazingly well-evidenced refutation , by A Faizur Rahman, that polygamy is sanctioned in the Qur'an.
I am talking using evidence straight from the horses mouth:
"Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society.
Polygyny, which finds mention just once (4:3) in the Quran, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Islamic law. It has been abused over the centuries by Muslim men without appreciating the spirit behind its exceptional sanction, which is clearly contextualised in the historical conditions of the time when a large number of women were widowed and children orphaned as Muslims suffered heavy casualties in defending the nascent Islamic community in Medina. Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society."
Please click on the link and read the rest!
Amazingly well-evidenced refutation , by A Faizur Rahman, that polygamy is sanctioned in the Qur'an.
I am talking using evidence straight from the horses mouth:
"Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society.
Polygyny, which finds mention just once (4:3) in the Quran, is one of the most misunderstood concepts of Islamic law. It has been abused over the centuries by Muslim men without appreciating the spirit behind its exceptional sanction, which is clearly contextualised in the historical conditions of the time when a large number of women were widowed and children orphaned as Muslims suffered heavy casualties in defending the nascent Islamic community in Medina. Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Quran allowed conditional polygyny, mainly to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society."
Please click on the link and read the rest!
It's a bone picking week: Now Andrea has a bone to pick with me!
My brilliant friend Andrea had a bone to pick with me at dinner tonight. (She got your back Sabrina Tavernese...maybe, see comments.)
A usual, we went to the new Matchbox on Capitol Hill, drank our favorite Malbec Felino, I ordered an awesome pizza, while Andrea ordered one of sub-par value. One thing Andrea and i can be sure of when we go to M-box: neither of us will ever really ask for a slice of the other's pizza.
Andrea made an important point about my post, directly below, on militancy in Pakistan and its connection, or lack thereof, to Islamic schools.
Andrea and I are both people at all costs try to steer people away from the dangerous stereotype that Islam is a violent religion; that Arabs have a violent culture. However, she reminded me that sometimes, I might be too overprotective of Islam. I am used to defending it against relatives who think that Muhammad was a predator (my Uncle Billy - that's a whole different story for another day) and sometimes I need to let my guard down and admit that there of course, are issues with Islam. Heaves to Betsy, I don't want to sound like a stinkin apologist.
Most importantly, she reminded me that something about these Islamic schools is contributing to militancy:
The Qur'an, taken out of historical context, just like the old and new Testaments are violent books. Stories of battles and hatred are intertwined in stories of compassion and empathy. Manipulated and perverted by the 'right' kind of people - militants in Islamic school - they are all dangerous. (Ie the use of the Bible to justify Christian militancy and the Torah to justify that of violent Jewish settlers.)
Big Dre's (Andrea) important point el numero dos: The manner of teaching at these schools - the way, the pedagogy, or lack thereof (sorry to use this phrase twice), is problematic; it is indoctrination. These kids are taught to obey, to follow, to listen. They are not taught to question, to think critically, to evaluate. Anything the 'teacher' says, goes. And he has a gun, so, even if you don't believe him, you're eventually intimidated into doing so.
The Qur'an taken out of historical context (like all holy books) combined with the indoctrination style teaching a la Stalin or Mussolini are a recipe for disaster.
A usual, we went to the new Matchbox on Capitol Hill, drank our favorite Malbec Felino, I ordered an awesome pizza, while Andrea ordered one of sub-par value. One thing Andrea and i can be sure of when we go to M-box: neither of us will ever really ask for a slice of the other's pizza.
Andrea made an important point about my post, directly below, on militancy in Pakistan and its connection, or lack thereof, to Islamic schools.
Andrea and I are both people at all costs try to steer people away from the dangerous stereotype that Islam is a violent religion; that Arabs have a violent culture. However, she reminded me that sometimes, I might be too overprotective of Islam. I am used to defending it against relatives who think that Muhammad was a predator (my Uncle Billy - that's a whole different story for another day) and sometimes I need to let my guard down and admit that there of course, are issues with Islam. Heaves to Betsy, I don't want to sound like a stinkin apologist.
Most importantly, she reminded me that something about these Islamic schools is contributing to militancy:
The Qur'an, taken out of historical context, just like the old and new Testaments are violent books. Stories of battles and hatred are intertwined in stories of compassion and empathy. Manipulated and perverted by the 'right' kind of people - militants in Islamic school - they are all dangerous. (Ie the use of the Bible to justify Christian militancy and the Torah to justify that of violent Jewish settlers.)
Big Dre's (Andrea) important point el numero dos: The manner of teaching at these schools - the way, the pedagogy, or lack thereof (sorry to use this phrase twice), is problematic; it is indoctrination. These kids are taught to obey, to follow, to listen. They are not taught to question, to think critically, to evaluate. Anything the 'teacher' says, goes. And he has a gun, so, even if you don't believe him, you're eventually intimidated into doing so.
The Qur'an taken out of historical context (like all holy books) combined with the indoctrination style teaching a la Stalin or Mussolini are a recipe for disaster.
Monday, May 4, 2009
I've got a bone to pick with you, Tavernese.
Sabrina Tavernese, I'm really angry with you. Your article today on the front page of the NYTimes is just plain wrong in its blatant direct linking of Islam to militancy in Pakistan. Ugh, the last thing we need is someone else purporting this hollow stereotype. It is most problematic bc the more we blame Islam, the further we get from a solution to the real roots of the problems there (this case in Pakistan), and the further moderate Muslims move from us.
This line really got my blood a boiling: (Good thing for you, Sabrina, I read it at a bar with a nice glass of full bodied red wine. Is there any other type of wine really though.)
"The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy."
Koran = sympathy to militancy? Please don't tell me you think that Islam is to blame for all of this violence?
Despite these romantic 'violent Muslim' lines, in reading the rest of the article one can see that militancy in Pakistan has other roots, like a lack of economic opportunity (no jobs) and the lack of mobility due to the importance of political connections. Tavernese, however, does not direct us toward these practical explanations, rather she continues to make unsubstantiated claims blaming Islam.
For example, throughout the article she states that despair and poverty and neglect have created this space for the Islamic schools. My response is: Then is it not this desperation and neglect and poverty that cause militancy? Why is it Islam?
Furthermore, just because the kids that go to these schools become militants doesn't mean it's because of Islam, I'd argue it is because of the networks they fall into in these schools and the desparation they feel.
Also, these Islamic schools might teach these kids messed up conservative crap (no music, etc) but most of it, first of all, is not even 'Islamic' and second of all, what they teach is not the root of the problem, why they are there is.
Why are they there? Because there are few public schools and fewer good ones. Tavernese even states that few kids actually go to any school in these regions; Islamic schools make up only 7% of all primary schools. Private schooling is out - too expensive in these parts.
Many kids that attend these Islamic schools have nowhere else to go; these kids are usually the poorest of the poor. Islamic schools don't charge much, if anything, due to financing from the state. It is these kids that are vulnerable to militants, but they are vulnerable not because of their religious feelings but because of their poverty and desperation - their total lack of social networks and economic opportunities and political connections.
This line really got my blood a boiling: (Good thing for you, Sabrina, I read it at a bar with a nice glass of full bodied red wine. Is there any other type of wine really though.)
"The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran creating a widening pool of young minds that are sympathetic to militancy."
Koran = sympathy to militancy? Please don't tell me you think that Islam is to blame for all of this violence?
Despite these romantic 'violent Muslim' lines, in reading the rest of the article one can see that militancy in Pakistan has other roots, like a lack of economic opportunity (no jobs) and the lack of mobility due to the importance of political connections. Tavernese, however, does not direct us toward these practical explanations, rather she continues to make unsubstantiated claims blaming Islam.
For example, throughout the article she states that despair and poverty and neglect have created this space for the Islamic schools. My response is: Then is it not this desperation and neglect and poverty that cause militancy? Why is it Islam?
Furthermore, just because the kids that go to these schools become militants doesn't mean it's because of Islam, I'd argue it is because of the networks they fall into in these schools and the desparation they feel.
Also, these Islamic schools might teach these kids messed up conservative crap (no music, etc) but most of it, first of all, is not even 'Islamic' and second of all, what they teach is not the root of the problem, why they are there is.
Why are they there? Because there are few public schools and fewer good ones. Tavernese even states that few kids actually go to any school in these regions; Islamic schools make up only 7% of all primary schools. Private schooling is out - too expensive in these parts.
Many kids that attend these Islamic schools have nowhere else to go; these kids are usually the poorest of the poor. Islamic schools don't charge much, if anything, due to financing from the state. It is these kids that are vulnerable to militants, but they are vulnerable not because of their religious feelings but because of their poverty and desperation - their total lack of social networks and economic opportunities and political connections.
These grievances are classic fodder for revolutions, as I commented on here, it has happened plenty of places over time, Iran, China, Russia, the list goes on.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Taking Back Islam.
Nicholas Kristof reported on an extremely important conference that took place last week at Notre Dame "Quran in its Historical Context".
Strict Islamic scholars have tried to remove the Qur'an over time from interpretation and meaningful discussion, 'protecting'/ prohibiting it from adapting and adjusting to the modern world. They do this because to interpret it literally justifies their own hunger for power and privilege, and also at times because they feel insecure, that Islam is under attack.
In fact, no religion's holy book should be (and is today by rational people - even religious figures) read literally. The Bible and the Torah are full of violence and contradictions. Karen Armstrong, who religion is lucky to have as a scholar, tells us that the only thing we CAN and should take away from every passage in the Bible, like from every Surah in the Qur'an, is compassion - the whole do unto others. (She spoke brilliantly about this on Bill Moyers a few weeks back.)
Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, highlighted in Kristoff's article, encourages moving away from literal interpretations of the Qur'an. He correctly argues that at the core of Islam's holy book, is that lesson of compassion: social justice, human rights and women's rights.
It is up to Muslims like Dr. Abu Zayd and Fatima Mernissi (Islamic feminism) and Islamic democrats - to take back their religion through conferences and discussions as such, and books and articles, but it is up to all of us to not fall into the trap of blaming Islam for violence and oppression of women. Those conditions are not there bc of Islam, rather they have political, social and economic roots. As non-Muslims, our attacks on Islam only lead to further protectionism and insecurity which serves the purpose of corrupt, dictatorial Muslim scholars.
Here I wrote about a similar conference in Turkey last year.
Here is a truly excellent analysis of various verses of Islam's holy book entitled "Taliban's Coercion Betrays the Qur'an" by Aloysious Mowe, International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.
Strict Islamic scholars have tried to remove the Qur'an over time from interpretation and meaningful discussion, 'protecting'/ prohibiting it from adapting and adjusting to the modern world. They do this because to interpret it literally justifies their own hunger for power and privilege, and also at times because they feel insecure, that Islam is under attack.
In fact, no religion's holy book should be (and is today by rational people - even religious figures) read literally. The Bible and the Torah are full of violence and contradictions. Karen Armstrong, who religion is lucky to have as a scholar, tells us that the only thing we CAN and should take away from every passage in the Bible, like from every Surah in the Qur'an, is compassion - the whole do unto others. (She spoke brilliantly about this on Bill Moyers a few weeks back.)
Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, highlighted in Kristoff's article, encourages moving away from literal interpretations of the Qur'an. He correctly argues that at the core of Islam's holy book, is that lesson of compassion: social justice, human rights and women's rights.
It is up to Muslims like Dr. Abu Zayd and Fatima Mernissi (Islamic feminism) and Islamic democrats - to take back their religion through conferences and discussions as such, and books and articles, but it is up to all of us to not fall into the trap of blaming Islam for violence and oppression of women. Those conditions are not there bc of Islam, rather they have political, social and economic roots. As non-Muslims, our attacks on Islam only lead to further protectionism and insecurity which serves the purpose of corrupt, dictatorial Muslim scholars.
Here I wrote about a similar conference in Turkey last year.
Here is a truly excellent analysis of various verses of Islam's holy book entitled "Taliban's Coercion Betrays the Qur'an" by Aloysious Mowe, International Visiting Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Troubled Argument.
In an oped today in the Wash Post, "Kurdistan's Troubled Democracy" Scott Carpenter and Michael Rubin make a shockingly troubling and inaccurate argument about elections.
(Not all that shocking, though, when one notices that they are from Washington Institute for Near East Policy and AEI.)
I could barely get past this line:
In Iraq, elections are critical. They improve security by legitimizing power relationships while allowing people to vent frustration. In the Jan. 31 provincial elections, Iraqis chose for the most part to "throw the bums out," selecting candidates who they thought would abandon narrow sectarian objectives and best address their problems at the local level. The question now is whether a similar degree of freedom will exist in Iraqi Kurdistan.
My response: In the past elections in Iraq, like 2004, legitimized and cemented detrimental, not to mention formerly nonexistent, sectarian identities, not 'power relationships,' whatever that means. Yes, in the January provincial elections of this year, there were steps away from this as many Iraqis chose candidates proven to deliver services or who supported a national identity over sectarian.
I do not know the intricacies of dealing between the two Kurdish political parties, the KDP and PUK, but I haven't heard great things. I hope to learn more about this when I am over in northern Iraq next year.
But in general, what we should NOT do now is push, or rush, elections like we did in 2004, in areas where there are volatile unstable relations between parties - in this case the PUK and KDP - like they were in 2004 between Sunni and Shii in 2004.
I don't know, again, I am not en expert on the KDP and PUK wranglings up there, but we shouldn't jump to elections as the solutions for political instability.
Paul Collier would love to argue with these guys. His argument is also mine here in response to Rubin and Carpenter. Please see my post on it here Paul Collier's argument - which he put forth in his recent book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places - is that elections do not mean democracy and even are detrimental to democracy building if conducted at the wrong time, like when other democratic institutions do not exist. And, by the way, he came to this conclusions through an empirical study - he is an economist and he collected a ton of date for this. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I believe democracy is worth pursuing in the region, just not a la Bush.
(Not all that shocking, though, when one notices that they are from Washington Institute for Near East Policy and AEI.)
I could barely get past this line:
In Iraq, elections are critical. They improve security by legitimizing power relationships while allowing people to vent frustration. In the Jan. 31 provincial elections, Iraqis chose for the most part to "throw the bums out," selecting candidates who they thought would abandon narrow sectarian objectives and best address their problems at the local level. The question now is whether a similar degree of freedom will exist in Iraqi Kurdistan.
My response: In the past elections in Iraq, like 2004, legitimized and cemented detrimental, not to mention formerly nonexistent, sectarian identities, not 'power relationships,' whatever that means. Yes, in the January provincial elections of this year, there were steps away from this as many Iraqis chose candidates proven to deliver services or who supported a national identity over sectarian.
I do not know the intricacies of dealing between the two Kurdish political parties, the KDP and PUK, but I haven't heard great things. I hope to learn more about this when I am over in northern Iraq next year.
But in general, what we should NOT do now is push, or rush, elections like we did in 2004, in areas where there are volatile unstable relations between parties - in this case the PUK and KDP - like they were in 2004 between Sunni and Shii in 2004.
I don't know, again, I am not en expert on the KDP and PUK wranglings up there, but we shouldn't jump to elections as the solutions for political instability.
Paul Collier would love to argue with these guys. His argument is also mine here in response to Rubin and Carpenter. Please see my post on it here Paul Collier's argument - which he put forth in his recent book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places - is that elections do not mean democracy and even are detrimental to democracy building if conducted at the wrong time, like when other democratic institutions do not exist. And, by the way, he came to this conclusions through an empirical study - he is an economist and he collected a ton of date for this. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I believe democracy is worth pursuing in the region, just not a la Bush.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Afghan women out in the streets.
About 300 Afghani women - Sunni, Shii, Hazari, you name it - were out in the streets protesting the new law that sanctions marital rape and restricts women from leaving their homes. Here is a line of Afghan women police protecting the protesters.
Some of the response of the counter-demonstrators response with:
“We Afghans don’t want a bunch of NATO commanders and foreign ministers telling us what to do.”
"Slave of the Christians." (Man I wish he knew the Catholic church's take on women, and how 'Christianity' has traditionally treated women. I mean painting women's rights as a Christian value is just backwards. )
OK, to be fair, we know what he means: women's rights = western value; west = invading, oppressive, occupier.
I am not saying I agree with these yahoos - I do not think that foreign policies alone have led to a lack of women's rights in the region and in Afghanistan - but they have played a role.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
