Old Liberal Islam blog

The psychology of Palestinian suicide bombing and Israeli paranoia

2009-12-02T09:14:00.006Z

(Published at MuslimWakeUp.com on June 14, 2004 and in Bangladesh in the daily New Age on June 21st, 2004.)

Post-9/11, Muslim organizations have spent a lot of effort distancing themselves from the image of the Islamic suicide bomber, proclaiming 'true Islam' to be a peaceful and non-violent religion. But is this the best way to talk about terrorism and extremism to non-Muslims?

By definition, that audience doesn't believe in Islam; so there isn't any such thing as a true Islam from their perspective. It would be more productive for mainstream Muslims to develop a more secular way of talking about, and distinguishing themselves from, the more extreme views of religion espoused by the violent minority. A more psychological approach might be useful in this regard, since it can
provide a secular language which will more effectively communicate with a non-Muslim audience. The adoption of a secular language also helps to highlight the environmental factors which lead to terrorism, and thus prevents it from being associated with Islam in the simplistic religious reductionism which has become commonplace.

The thing that one should bear in mind about suicide bombings is that they are, in fact, suicides. From a psychological healthperspective, suicide is a symptom of a pathological condition such as depression. Bearing this simple fact in mind might change how we view suicide bombing. In fact the psychological point of view tends to oppose the common assumption that suicide bombing is the result of political or religious views. People with pathological psychological conditions are not completely rational, so the logical connection between Islam and suicide bombers disappears in this framework.

Obviously suicide bombers do justify their actions as being politically and religiously motivated. However, as psychologically literate observers, we should not take that rationalization at face value. Any such justification should be qualified by our knowledge that it is the pathology speaking as much as the person in these cases.

When we look at the terrible economic and political conditions under which Palestinians have lived for generations, it is easy to understand why a disproportionately large number of people would become frustrated, pathologically depressed and even suicidal. Hopelessness and anger in the face of Israeli policies which create the realities of settlement and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are what lead to Palestinian suicide bombings. Religion is just one of many
environmental factors which figure in this complex picture.

There has been an attempt in the Western media to re-label suicide bombers as 'homicide bombers', in order to highlight the violent nature of their actions. But this ignores the facts of suicide, which is intrinsically a violent phenomenon; one which always has victims other than the person who kills himself or herself. Usually these victims are members of the suicide bombers own family, who suffer the emotional aftermath of the suicide for many years, and have measurably higher rates of depression and suicide themselves as a result. The suicide bombers victims are of course different in that they die immediately; the violence is direct and immediate rather than indirect and gradual. But this violence is never completely unintentional. Both suicide and suicide bombing express the same underlying anger at those surrounding the suicidal person for having been unable to help alleviate (or in the case of Israeli occupation, for having actively contributed to) the unbearable environment from which death is perceived as the only escape. So regardless of what the Western media says, one cannot overlook the suicidal act involved in suicide bombing. Acknowledging this will always lead to the question of the cause of the suicide, which leads us again to the Israeli occupation.

The fact is that the attention focused on suicide bombing by the Western media largely ignores the brutality and hopelessness of Israeli occupation which causes it. This one-sided journalism oversimplifies the issue and turns it into yet another catchphrase to paint Palestinians as terrorists inspired by a murderous Islamic
religion. This sort of religious reductionism removes responsibility from the Israeli government policies which have created an oppressed, desperate and hopeless Palestinian population, one in which suicide and the violence of suicide bombing are obviously symptoms of a greater, overlooked psychological illness.

Nor is psychological illness only a characteristic of the Palestinian side of the conflict. For its part, Israeli society has also developed its own variety of pathological behavior. Israeli politicians persist in holding on to the occupied Palestinian territories, and consequently refusing to negotiate a just and final
peace based on the 1967 borders and the Geneva accords. Their justification is laden with paranoia that Israel is surrounded by dangerous Arab enemies and cannot give up an inch of territory, much less allow them a foothold next door. But objectively, how rational is this perception of an Israel besieged? Israel is militarily one of the most advanced and powerful countries in the world. This has been
completely obvious since it decisively defeated its Arab neighbors in only six days in 1967. Even aside from Israel's conventional weapons superiority, it has been the only nuclear power in the region for around two decades. Objectively it should see itself as dealing from a position of strength, not vulnerability. This denial of reality does not indicate psychological health on the part of the Israeli public. Rather, the misplaced feeling of vulnerability which persists in spite of an objective reality of overwhelming military power point to an underlying paranoia. It is this paranoia which seems to lead to the Israeli obsession with security, and effectively rationalizes away any and all brutality against the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Such a deep-seated paranoia in Israeli society cannot be explained by suicide bombers, as it has persisted ever since the 1967 war, and suicide bombing is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It seems more likely that the only real explanation of this mass paranoia lies in the psychological trauma which was experienced by the Jewish community during and in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Oddly enough, it does seem that the Palestinians have in fact become the latest
victims of the Nazi holocaust.

Religion plays a subtle part in this picture. Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions all have a tendency to equate suffering or asceticism with nobility and purity. This is evident from examples ranging from the Hebrew Bible's description of the suffering servant of Isaiah, to the Christian image of the crucified Jesus, and even the persecution faced by Muhammad and the early Muslims in Mecca. When suffering is accepted voluntarily for the sake of others, it may indeed create a heightened sense of morality and sacrifice. However, neither the Jews killed by the Nazis nor the Palestinians killed over the last few decades by Israeli guns, tanks and helicopters (which is always far higher than the number of Israelis killed in the same period)
volunteered for that suffering. Far from ennobling Israelis and Palestinians, all this suffering has simply brutalized them. On the Palestinian side this combines with the experience of hopelessness and oppression to produce suicide bombers. On the Israeli side it produces a paranoid denial of the facts of Israeli military invulnerability which have been true for decades, and continues to hamper efforts at peace through measures like the supposed security wall which actually continues a long-standing Israeli policy of creating 'facts on the ground' through land-grabbing and illegal settlements.

Support Gaza; boycott Israel's corporate allies

2009-03-05T11:17:00.001Z

JANUARY'S massacre in Gaza by Israeli forces should give us all pause to think. Are we really totally powerless to stop Israeli armed aggression against Palestinian civilians? The answer is, actually, no we are not completely powerless.

South Africa, the original apartheid state, was brought to its knees by an economic boycott against its policies. Yes, Bangladesh is a small country and far from the Middle East; but our imports are bought with the same American dollars that support the Israeli economy, and we should utilise them intelligently.

The economic boycott of South Africa was about more than boycotting South African products; it also targeted multi-nationals that invested in (and thus economically supported) the apartheid state. Bangladesh already disallows direct imports from Israel through its import policy; but Bangladeshi consumers have yet to take action against multi-nationals that have the dubious distinction of directly supporting Zionist land grabbing, or receiving Israeli government awards recognising their investments in Israel.

One company directly supporting Israeli land grabbing is Intel. Exports from Intel's Lachish-Qiryat Gat plant total $1 billion a year. Al-Awda (the Palestine Right to Return Coalition) has pointed out that the Intel plant is built on land Israel confiscated from Iraq al-Manshiya, which was a Palestinian village of 2,000 people. The Palestinians were replaced by the new Jewish settlement of Qiryat-Gat, where Intel then invested and became a big employer.

Alongside Intel, many Western high-tech companies invest heavily in Israel, viewing it as a cheap source of technical talent. Companies like Nokia, Microsoft, and IBM are all big investors in Israel, with large research and development facilities there.

In May 2002, the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce awarded IBM the Ambassador's Award in recognition of its outstanding contribution to the development of the Israeli high-tech industry and to advancing Israeli exports.

It would certainly be better to buy phones and computer hardware made by Asian companies, which do not outsource to Israel. Taiwanese chip manufacturer Via, for example, makes Pentium clone chips comparable to those from Intel; Taiwanese Acer makes PCs, and Korean Samsung makes phones. No one should buy Microsoft software, as free alternatives like OpenOffice and Ubuntu Linux are good replacements.

Companies which receive awards from the Israeli government are particularly suspect. In 1998, the following companies received the Jubilee Award from right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu: Johnson and Johnson (manufacturer of many baby products), Kimberly Clark (makers of Kleenex tissues and Huggies nappies), AOL Time Warner (owner of Time magazine and CNN news), Nestle (owner of Nido milk and Cerelac baby formula brands, as well as the ever-present Nescafe coffee and Kitkat, Quality Street, Smarties, and After Eight chocolates). These are all popular brands in Bangladesh; the question is do they deserve our money?

Coca Cola (which also owns Fanta and Sprite) is another such case. In 1997, the government of Israel honoured Coca-Cola and its 30 years of support at the Israel Trade Award Dinner. Would it really be difficult to switch to some of the other myriad soft drink brands available?

Only the conscience of the Bangladeshi consumer will keep out Israeli goods and punish companies that support Israel. So all of us should become more aware of the activities of the companies from whom we buy. In this way, we can pressure multi-nationals to stop doing business in Israel. They should decide which is the more important market; Bangladesh with its 150 million consumers, or Israel with only 7 million.

In these times of global recession, organising boycotts against Israel and its corporate supporters could actually work. The customer is king; and kings should understand the world and use their influence to improve it.

All data from http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-israel.php

Reforming independent madrasahs in Bangladesh

2009-03-05T11:12:00.000Z

Periodically, the topic of low-quality education imparted by some private universities becomes a matter of debate. However, there is a much bigger problem of low-quality education in Bangladesh; namely, the thousands of Qawmi madrasahs across the country.

Low-quality private universities generally target students who are not bright enough to get into the state-funded or better private universities; Qawmi madrasahs are serving (or rather dis-serving) a similar low-quality market composed of lakhs of impoverished rural children. The parallels between the two provide an interesting clue as to how to reform the Qawmi madrasahs, which generally seem resistant to change.

Qawmi madrasas are a remnant of Bangladesh's traditional Muslim educational system. Although, post-1971, they have slowly modernised by teaching in the medium of Bangla instead of Urdu, as well as by including some English and mathematics, they still largely follow the medieval-inspired Dars Nizami syllabus.

Since they are set up as locally-supported waqfs (Islamic property trusts, like mosques), they are self-supporting and completely outside the funding and regulation of the government educational system. Students unable to afford admission, textbooks, transport and private tuition required to attend government schools may often find that their only option is a Qawmi madrasah. Unfortunately, one gets what one pays for: a low-quality education composed of rote memorisation of outdated material, with almost no job opportunities.

In the case of private universities, it is clear how to improve the situation; increasing regulation and supervision by the University Grants Commission to improve quality. Furthermore, the private university market is increasingly competitive, and the under-performing universities are forced to improve or close for lack of students.

Unfortunately for the rural poor, there is no government department regulating and improving Qawmi madrasahs. In fact, the slightest hint of government intervention is enough to stir protest among the legally independent Qawmi madrasah administrators. So the only way to force them to improve is by increasing competition in the market for poor rural students.

Market mechanisms are effective regulators if utilised correctly. The presence of a Qawmi madrasah in any location obviously indicates a population of education consumers (students) whose needs are not being supplied by any government school. This may be due to excessive distance or other costs of attending local government schools. In that case, the appropriate market response is to set up a good quality government school nearby, and to target it with larger than normal quantities of student stipends. If the government were to make such moves, Qawmi madrasahs would soon find their student numbers dwindling. Rational parents would send their children to the better government school which offers better job prospects, provided it is accessible and affordable.

Such a change in the rural education market would not eliminate the Qawmi madrasahs; but it would force them to change and improve, just as they adapted to the post-1971 reality of Bangladesh by introducing Bengali.

Whereas now Qawmi madrasahs are not willing to change, if the government made them compete for their students, they would be forced by the market for students to adopt a more modern and higher quality syllabus. Such an initiative needs to be taken by the government sooner, not later.

Reforming government-run madrasahs in Bangladesh

2009-03-05T11:08:00.001Z

Much has been written about the divide between madrasah education and standard government SSC/HSC education. However, it is worth considering this question from a fresh angle; namely, what is really valued by the public and worth retaining from the traditional madrasah approach? The answer to this question should dictate the means of unifying the various educational systems in Bangladesh.

The most valued part of madrasah education is not hard to find. Bangladesh is overwhelmingly made up of Muslims, among whom the reading of the Qur'an is universally appreciated. Middle class households who can afford it employ a local moulavi saheb to ensure that the children of the family recite the entire Qur'an at some point. Memorisation of the Qur'an is generally acknowledged as a significant act of devotion.

So, obviously, the reading of the Qur'an, which takes place in madrasah education is fulfilling an important public service; it allows poor families which may not be able to afford the services of a private maulana to fulfill their desire to have their children recite, or even memorise, the Qur'an. However, the practice of reciting the Qur'an just by repeating memorised Arabic words has a big limitation; the student understands nothing.

Here is an interesting point; the Pickthall translation of the Qur'an, along with Arabic text, is about 750 pages. That means that any child could easily read it over the course of 10 years in school by reading only 75 pages a year. This should show us the rational way of integrating religious education into SSC; have an optional SSC subject on the contents of the Qur'an in Bangla translation (studied from class 1 to 10).

Additionally, memorising 750 pages should easily be possible in 2 years (it requires memorising only 1 page a day). This then tells us how to integrate madrasah education into HSC; have an optional subject on the Arabic text of the Qur'an (studied during classes 11/12).

If we look at all the other traditional madrasah subjects (Arabic, Hadith, interpretation of the Qur'an/tafsir and Islamic law), it is immediately obvious that these do not have anything like the mass appeal of the Qur'an to the guardians of schoolchildren. No one hires a maulana to get children to read the Hadith. In fact, these subjects are of little use to anyone except a family law magistrate. In that case, they should not be part of basic primary or lower secondary education (class 1-10). They should be options only in class 11 and 12.

Arabic could be particularly useful at HSC level to ensure that the many migrant workers bound for the Middle East have a decent knowledge of the local language of their employer.

But if the SSC and HSC syllabi were revised as mentioned above, all the government-funded Alia madrasahs could be turned into regular schools. All the regular government schools and colleges would also have the option of giving their students a thorough knowledge of the Qur'an, which a considerable number of families are likely to appreciate.

The religious studies teachers who would no longer be required at Alia madrasahs could simply be moved to regular schools and colleges as Qur'an teachers. And almost everyone in Bangladesh would get the same education system; except for the non-government Qawmi madrasahs and English medium schools, which are a separate matter and need to be dealt with differently.

No, I am not Fugstar

2008-01-20T07:25:00.000Z

Some people seem to be spreading rumours that I am Fugstar. Can't understand why, myself, since we talk about very different things. I suppose the fact that we're both Bangladeshis who have spent some time in the UK and talk in our different ways about Islamic stuff is enough to confuse people who are too lazy to read what we've actually written and decide for themselves.

Blogging at ProgressiveIslam.org

2006-07-05T07:28:00.000+01:00

Just a note to say that I'll be blogging at ProgressiveIslam.org from now on.

UK Muslims 'sidelined' in anti-terror policy

2006-07-03T14:07:00.000+01:00

I somehow doubt that the Blair government will pay any heed to this voice of reason; it seems pathologically incapable of listening to anyone who links the 7/7 bombings to the Iraq invasion.

The government risks sidelining Muslim voices by ignoring the recommendations of working groups set up in the wake of last year's London terrorist attacks, a Labour MP will warn today.
In a Fabian society speech tonight, Sadiq Khan, a former member of the joint Muslim police and security taskforce set up after the July 7 bombings, will accuse the government of causing a "huge amount of frustration" within Muslim communities over its failure to implement a raft of recommendations put forward by established working groups...
The report, published before Christmas, identified "inherent injustices" in British foreign policy as a contributory factor in triggering "radical impulses" among British Muslims...
Mr Khan said group members felt "let down" as only three out of 64 recommendations had been taken forward to date...

London IslamExpo to coincide with July 7 bombing anniversary

2006-07-03T07:29:00.000+01:00

I had seen a flyer for the London Islam Expo somewhere, but hadn't realized that it was going to coincide with the date of the Underground bombing. However, someone has certainly had a good idea:

...organisers plan to make a virtue out of the coincidence and host a commemoration service to which people injured in the bombings and victims' relatives have been invited.

Not much of a joiner, but I might go check this out.

Found: 'Non-contactable' witnesses who could free a Guantánamo detainee

2006-07-01T11:18:00.000+01:00

The United States government said it could not find the men that Guantánamo detainee Abdullah Mujahid believes could help set him free. The Guardian found them in three days.

Three cheers for the Guardian!

US Supreme court rejects Bush terror powers

2006-06-30T08:17:00.000+01:00

At last some measure of sanity seems to have prevailed.

In compelling the administration to comply with the Geneva convention at its war crimes trials, the court also implicitly outlawed some of the other controversial practices in the war on terror, such as torture and rendition, lawyers for the 460 detainees at Guantánamo said.

Unfortunately, that's not the end of the story; the US Congress can still pass new legislation allowing Bush to continue his farcical trials by military tribunal. So no one should get too hopeful just yet.

However, the story does have a pithy summary of the facts of Guantanamo which I can't resist quoting:

759 detainees have been held in Guantánamo since the US began using the camp in January 2002. 10 have been charged before US military war crimes tribunals for conspiring with al-Qaida. Officially there have been 41 suicide attempts by 25 detainees since January 2002. Defence lawyers believe the number to be much higher. 18 inmates are on hunger strike, down from a total of 131. 55% of detainees have not engaged in any hostile act against the US or its allies.
60% are "associated with", 30% are "members of", 8% "fighters for" and 2% have no identified connection to a terrorist group.

This is probably why the Guardian previously reported that 90% (actually 92%: 60%+30%+2% above) of the detainees are likely to be innocent. They have probably been rounded up with no evidence other than guilt by association, which will not hold up in any real court.

Fun-da-mental to test UK glorification of terrorism law?

2006-06-28T09:13:00.000+01:00

Rap is not really my kind of music, but this news item caught my eye. Some of the lyrics will be easy for any post-colonial to relate to:

Reject your blood
I reject your creed
Reject your queen and her stolen crown
Reject your media falsified news
Reject your patronising liberal views...
Reject your thieving foreign policies
Reject your elitist congregation
Reject your mini skirt liberation
Reject your concept of integration

Although I'm not sure what this fellow has against mini-skirts. =)
There's also a song about a suicide bomber. If this means that the Paradise Now film has opened up a long-sealed can of worms, I'm glad. The lyricist claims to understand suicide bombers without approving of them, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Let's see what happens to the album.

Hamas accepts a state in territory occupied in 1967

2006-06-27T22:22:00.000+01:00

This means that they have essentially agreed to UN resolution 242, which advocated a two-state solution. Most rational people would agree that this should remove any grounds for the Israelis and everyone else to not recognize them as a legitimate government of the Palestinian Authourity. Unfortunately, rationality is irrelevant; the Israelis are continuing to refuse to talk to Hamas until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, ignoring the fact that any state only has the right to exist within its internationally recognized borders. And, post-1967, Israel has never declared its border; to do so would require it to release the West Bank, which was conquered from Jordan, since conquest of territory is prohibited by international law. But why would the Israeli government care about international law, human rights or any of that inconvenient rubbish?

The supposed difficulty of closing Guantanamo

2006-06-24T18:52:00.000+01:00

The Guardian carried this story a few days ago; hidden in it was the following bit of information:

But the practicalities of dismantling the prison are daunting. For Guantánamo to go, prisoners must be brought to trial, or released. So far, only 10 have been formally charged by the much-maligned military tribunals. A study this year by a New Jersey law school found 90% of the inmates had nothing to do with terrorism.

Well, I'm glad someone in the US has finally been able to do a study confirming what most outsiders have suspected all along about Bush's disgraceful gulag.

Poll says UK Muslims are anti-Western

2006-06-23T17:18:00.000+01:00

An interesting poll, mainly because of the following findings:

The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice...

That's a welcome finding, and an interesting contrast to the government position, which certainly has become much more paranoid about Muslims. Official paranoia is the only way to explain the police killing an innocent Brazilian and shooting and wounding another innocent British Bangladeshi since the London bombings.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%)...

Personally I'm uncomfortable knowing that one in three Britons think I might be violent just because of my name. But it's relatively good news for Muslims in Britain, as opposed to terrible news for anyone who happens to live elsewhere. Here's another really depressing bit of information:

Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims... The Pew poll found that British Muslims are far more likely than their European counterparts to harbour conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks. Only 17% believed that Arabs were involved, compared with 48% in France.

There's one question I have about the above. Did the poll give respondents a chance to express views about Israel separately from views on Jews in general? If not, the overwhelming pro-Palestine/anti-Israeli occupation sentiment of Muslims could have led to this anti-Jewish result as a way of respondents registering their disapproval of Israel. This is the tricky thing about polls. On the other hand, if 83% of British Muslims still believe in 9/11 Jewish conspiracies, they may simply be too stupid to explain away.

While finding ample confirmation of the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, the poll did find some signs of encouragement.

"Confidence in Osama bin Laden has ... fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years," the survey concluded. That was particularly true in Jordan, where 24% expressed confidence in the al-Qaida leader, compared with 60% a year ago.

Support for suicide bombing has also plummeted in Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia. In Pakistan now, 69% said the terrorist tactic was never justified, compared with 38% four years ago.

Always nice to be able to end on a slightly high note, I suppose. But the headline of the article really bothered me. How did this establish that British Muslims are anti-Western? Again, the limitations of polls are very significant. Did the poll allow respondents to specifically condemn Blair and his Iraq war? If not, anti-war feeling could easily have come across in the poll as "anti-Western" sentiment.

Bangladesh's polygamy tax

2006-06-15T22:19:00.000+01:00

A very interesting legal development in Bangladesh; the city of Rajshahi is apparently imposing taxes on registering marriages of additional wives. Interestingly, foreign and local media have slightly different reports of the views of Rajshahi mayor on the matter. Bangladesh's Daily Star reported as follows:

Rajshahi City Mayor Mizanur Rahman Minu said the fresh taxes were proposed for the 'welfare of the families'.
He said the taxes are intended to discourage multiple marriages. "Multiple marriages in some cases result women repression and increase population growth," he added.

On the other hand, the UK Telegraph reported a much more severe denunciation of polygamy:

Mijanur Rahman Minu, the mayor of Rajshahi, said: "Polygamy is a disrespectful and outdated act."

What did he actually say? Perhaps he simply decided to be more diplomatic to the press of the predominantly Muslim Bangladesh? Either way, it's nice to know that at least one mayor is trying to indirectly modernize Bangladesh's family laws.

US role in Somali anarchy

2006-06-06T09:34:00.000+01:00

A good article in today's Guardian about the situation in Somalia, where anarchy has prevailed since 1991. Hope for stability finally seems to have arrived in the form of the militia of the Islamic Courts Union, which has taken over Mogadishu and might be in a position to end the conflict between the different warlords. It seems to be quite similar to the situation which enabled the Taliban to first take over Afghanistan way back.

Fighting in the capital flared up in February when a group of secular warlords, including four government ministers, formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-terrorism as a bulwark against the growing authority of the Islamic Courts Union.

Established as a means of dispensing clan justice, the ICU had grown in popularity in Mogadishu in recent years - less for its hardline stance than for bringing some sense of order. But the presence of suspected jihadis in the courts hierarchy raised fears, particularly in Washington, of a creeping "Talibanisation" in Somalia.

The US is understood to have provided financial support to a number of secular warlords through its counter-terrorism base in Djibouti in return for handing over suspected al-Qaida militants or information about their movements. The US has refused to confirm or deny the reports, saying only that it will help anyone fighting terrorism.

"This is a staggering defeat for the US strategy of counter-terrorism by proxy," the Horn of Africa analyst said. "It also represents seismic shift in Somali politics. For the first time in many years we have a new political group that is capable of forming some sort of administration."

I have to say that the "Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-terrorism" sounds absurdly like a Bush-backed organization. Obviously no one knows what will happen next in Somalia, but count on the US to aggravate the situation by arming secular militias and reinforcing secular vs. religious conflict. If Islamic parties do form a government now, will it be any surprise if they're anti-Western?

Haditha: US soldiers "totally tweaked out on speed"?

2006-06-05T13:27:00.000+01:00

I've refrained from commenting on the reports of US soldiers killing dozens of civilians in Haditha until now. But today's Guardian report quote the wife of a US marine in Iraq as follows:

The wife of the unnamed staff sergeant claimed there had been a "total breakdown" in the unit's discipline after it was pulled out of Falluja in early 2005.

"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."

Meanwhile, the press continues to debate whether or not Iraq is being lost. Pathetic.

OIC and US undermine global AIDS deal

2006-06-02T08:34:00.000+01:00

Apparently there's one area of foreign policy where the OIC and the Christian right-wingers of the Bush administration get on very well; namely sabotaging international attempts to fight HIV/Aids transmission amongst high-risk groups like prostitutes and homosexuals by distributing condoms. Today's Guardian has the story.

William Dever on early Israelite religion

2006-05-31T08:22:00.000+01:00

I've been meaning to write an essay for LiberalIslam.net on the evolution of Israelite monotheism for years. However, I've put it off because I didn't know of a scholarly yet readable book on the subject of Israelite archaeology to which I could refer people for further reading. However, William Dever's two recent books, Who were the early Israelites and where did they come from? and Did God have a wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel are excellent. Most writers on the subject, including Karen Armstrong in the introductory chapter of History of God, only focus on Biblical text rather than archaeological record. But a lot of the evidence for modern views of early Israelite history is heavily archaeological. This is a topic particularly relevant to South Asia, since Hindu vs. Muslim polemic is often phrased as polytheism vs. monotheism.

Hopefully I'll have this article done in a matter of weeks.

UK university lecturers vote to boycott Israel

2006-05-30T18:01:00.000+01:00

The boycott will have only symbolic value, as the university teachers association in question is about to merge with another union which has not participated in this vote. Hence it will not be binding. Still, it's a good sign; a pity this sort of thing doesn't happen in the US once in a while. It would to a lot to bring the similarities between Israeli occupation of the West Bank and apartheid-era South Africa into the public eye.

ProgressiveIslam.org

2006-05-30T02:32:00.000+01:00

Thanks to Laury and Ilan for including this blog as part of the ProgressiveIslam.org gang! For those who haven't read it, PI is a group of very diverse bloggers, a fact which I quite appreciate. In disunity is strength, after all =)

Frank Gardner on being a victim of Saudi terrorism

2006-05-24T11:53:00.000+01:00

The Guardian website has a moving interview and profile of Frank Gardner, ex-BBC correspondent for the Middle East. He was rendered paralysed by a Saudi terrorist shooting, but remains admirably objective about the underlying cause of his tragedy:

He may not blame the Saudis, but he puts the Saudi education system in the dock: 'It has, for years, fostered a culture of intolerance towards non-Muslims. The people who shot us were products of a system that taught young Saudis that, in some cases, they could even go to paradise if they attacked non-Muslims. Only recently have the Saudi authorities started to tackle this, but it will take a generation to work out.'

You're a better man than I am, Frank.

The sorry state of UK Muslims

2006-05-16T05:48:00.000+01:00

A good article on the economic deprivation suffered by the UK's Muslim population appeared today on the BBC. It serves to bring into perspective another article in the Guardian on the UK government's attempt to assimilate immigrants by educating them about traditional British values. What good is it to educate folks about the opportunities of life in the UK when their main experience is of poverty and alienation? As the Guardian story mentions:

Amar Latif, of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, accepted there should be a debate about role of Islam but there were other issues the government had to tackle. "It is not solely about teaching Muslims how to be good citizens. The government also needs to address its foreign policy and gain a greater understanding of the challenges ... faced by Muslims," he said.

In any case, the phrase "traditional British values" always seems incredibly ironic when used with regards to immigrants. Aren't these people generally immigrating from countries which were decimated by British colonial policies? I'm sure right wing British politicians would defend the racism of the Empire as a "traditional British value".

Paradise Now

2006-05-03T22:08:00.000+01:00

Just watched Paradise Now; although it's old news to many in other countries, the UK release was apparently delayed because of the London underground bombings. It was great to see a movie about Palestinian suicide bombing that really tried to get into the minds and the social world of the people involved. I tried to do much the same thing in my old article on the psychology of suicide bombing way back.

It's a great film which does a lot to dispel stereotypes. A much more real and tragic portrayal of the world than one normally gets from the movies. Although the teaser on the film poster annoys me a bit... "From the most unexpected place, comes a bold new call for peace". What's that supposed to mean? Why is it unexpected that a Palestinian film would contain a balanced, nuanced critique of terrorism? It only makes sense if you already subscribe to the Fox News-esque view that Palestinians and Muslims are by nature violent, crazed terrorists.

Syrus on "V for Vendetta"

2006-04-30T15:40:00.000+01:00

This is undescribably brilliant. Sort of like the Muppets on acid.
Watch it! =)

Jackson Browne on politics

2006-04-28T08:50:00.000+01:00

Still thinking about political songwriting. Admittedly, my first love is folksy acoustic music; you can't get away with bad lyrics if you're just singing to a guitar. Jackson Brown's Lives in the Balance is probably my all-time favourite. Amazingly, it was written back in the 80's, which just goes to show how little things have changed in 20 years. Sadly, he seems to have disappeared into irrelevance along with the rest of the American left, post 9/11.

I’ve been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you’ve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And there’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can’t take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

There’s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can’t even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they’re never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

Coincidentally, yesterday's Guardian had a story about Neil Young's new song, Let's impeach the president. Go Neil!

Asian Dub Foundation on oil and Iraq

2006-04-28T08:40:00.000+01:00

After making that last post, I got to thinking about other politically relevant songwriting. A lot of people seem to have not liked Asian Dub Foundation's Tank album because of changes in the band's line-up, but some of the songs were really excellent. Noam Chomsky probably would not disagree much with their lyrics on "Oil":

How did we get to this lord?
How did we get to this?
(We want your oil)
The villages are mined the contract's been signed
we'll tell you one more time
(We want your oil)
Supply no longer guranteed we demand security
Running out of Texas tea
(We want your oil)
Children of the CIA we want somewhere new to play
Better get right out the way
(We want your oil)
Civilisation birth nerve centre of the earth
Welcome to our new turf
(We want your oil)

How did we get to this lord?
How did we get to this ?
Smart bomb with more brains than the President
Blipping and bleeping as they target residents
Of market squares and hospital wards King rat is safe in the wings of the hawk
While King rat is safe in the wings of the hawk
Watch me now
Beat seeking missile gonna blast yer mind out
Bomb for peace I'm gonna burn your eyes out
I'm covering my ears don't wanna receive it
I'm trembling in fear say me can't belive it
Inspector defector arms dealer revealer
Document leaker over here Mr.Speaker
A spin refugee like Mohammed Ali
Me say no Iraqi ever called me Paki

How did we get to this lord?
How did we get to this?
A secret never to be told always to be sold
Digging out the Black gold
(We want your oil)
Petro junkies must be fed Going Barefoot in the head
It's S.U.V's with warheads (We want your oil)
Tearing up formalities there is no neutrality
Welcome to reality (We want your oil)
Ignore treates line by line Litte countries fall behind
The lunatics will lead the blind (We want your oil)
The lunatics will the blind
How did we get to this load?
How did we get to this?

The Clash and UK terrorism paranoia

2006-04-27T21:14:00.000+01:00

An interesting article in The Nation about the politics of Joe Strummer appeared last week. It was inspired by the tragically ridiculous case of Harraj Mann, whom the UK police apparently suspected of terrorism for listening to the following lyrics in a cab. Apparently, any song mentioning that "war is declared" makes one a security risk these days, at least if they look like a foreigner or have an Arabic-sounding name.

London calling to the faraway towns
Now war is declared, and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls
London calling, now don't look to us
Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust
London calling, see we ain't got no swing
'Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing
The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

It does make me wonder at how some songs age well and others don't. Admittedly, the continued relevance of the "meltdown expected" and "London drowning" lyrics are probably just luck; they wouldn't have guessed back then what a huge issue global warming would become now. Still, at least the War on Terror isn't a total loss: it's given me a new appreciation of The Clash.

By the way, for those not familiar with The Nation, it's the most prominent publication of the American left; ideologically, it's somewhere near The Guardian but with perhaps 1/100th of the circulation. Which says a lot about the state of politics in the US versus the UK.

More on glorification of terrorism

2006-04-25T06:15:00.000+01:00

Over the last few days, I've been wondering if some overzealous official will decide to prosecute me for "glorification of terrorism" under the new UK anti-terror laws. So I've retrieved my comments from a 2004 on-line dialogue on the Israel-Palestine conflict in order to analyse them for any trace of subversive activity.

"Although Islamic texts can certainly be interpreted to promote a pacifist or non-violent perspective, the Qur'an is also quite clear that violent resistance against oppression can be moral. The Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza is undeniably oppressive to the predominantly Palestinian population. … Armed resistance against this military occupation is a morally acceptable option, (and) Israeli military personnel would certainly be legitimate targets."

"…the heavily armed and right-wing Jewish settlers who have progressively taken over large areas of the occupied Palestinian territories are directly complicit in the Israeli policy of seizing land in the West Bank and Gaza through promoting settlements as immovable facts on the ground, which precludes the possibility of real Palestinian statehood. This policy violates the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit annexation of conquered land, as well as U.N. resolutions, which advocated a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. If the settlers are complicit with the army in oppressing and denying land and rights to the Palestinians, they could also be legitimate targets.

"However, the general Israeli civilian population outside of the occupied Palestinian territories is not participating in the illegal settlement activity, the grabbing of Palestinian land, or the oppressive division of the West Bank and Gaza into Bantustan-like cantons. So the civilian population of Israel is not a morally legitimate target for any kind of violence."

"Everyone knows how peace can be achieved between the Arabs and Israelis. A lasting peace will have to be a just one, with Palestinians gaining a real state, free of Israeli settlers and their accompanying Israeli military guards. For their part, the Palestinians will have to disarm completely and probably have to give up Jerusalem and the right of return of 1948 refugees. Unfortunately, both groups have leaders incapable of accepting these realities, which have not changed in three decades and were basically reaffirmed in the recent informal Geneva peace proposal floated by pro-peace groups on both sides."

Well, looking back on my comments I can't find anything I would disagree with now. The distinction between attacks on civilian and military targets is an important and common-sense point which has got to be made. It's obvious when you think about it; the World Trade Center, Madrid and London train bombings were reprehensible acts of terrorism precisely because they were against civilian targets. On the other hand, the ten months of guerilla struggle against the Pakistani military now known as the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh cannot be regarded as terrorism. The targets of the guerillas were the Pakistani army, which was at the time engaged in the massacre of several million civilians and the rape of hundreds of thousands of women.

I therefore disagree with people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who seem to support suicide bombing against civilians in Israel proper. That would obviously be immoral, and an act of terrorism: any Israeli who chooses to live in Israel proper rather than in West Bank settlements has effectively chosen not to support their country's policy of military occupation, and removed themselves from the site of the conflict. Clear-thinking Muslims should certainly regard such terrorism as un-Islamic; my guess is that folks like Qaradawi are being guided by an overwhelming anger at Israel rather than any rational moral thought.

Many countries of the Third World have undergone some sort of liberation struggle against their colonial overlords; and this has often involved guerilla warfare. If the word "terrorism" is to have any meaning, it therefore has to be distinguished from legitimate guerilla warfare, and this can only be done through the choice of targets. If the targets are military (or militant armed settlers, as in the case of the occupied territories of the West Bank), then the people involved have a real argument to be called freedom fighters rather than terrorists. This very basic political reality is ignored by Bush and his oversimplification of the world into the West vs. the "evildoers".

UK bans "glorification of terrorism"

2006-04-25T05:51:00.000+01:00

As of a week ago, Blair's new law banning "glorification of terrorism" became law, in spite of challenges from free speech and civil rights supporters. Details are at this Guardian article. The following quote sums it up nicely:

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn - one of the leading rebels against the terror laws - branded the glorification ban "absurd".

"The legislation is misguided and the whole concept of glorification is frankly absurd and will end up entrapping the innocent and preventing legitimate debate.

"What some would call a freedom fight going on in another country others might term a terrorist offence.

"Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher; he was later branded a freedom fighter," he said.

Quite ironic that this new law should come into effect shortly after the release of the V for Vendetta film. If only the law had passed sooner, and someone had tried to use it to prosecute the film distributor for encouraging the blowing up of Parliament. That would have provided a high-spectacle media circus around the new law and its curtailment of free speech. As it is, the public seems to have hardly noticed it.

Guardian on V for Vendetta

2006-04-22T09:40:00.000+01:00

Just found a review on the Guardian. The beginning of the review is quite telling:

Watching the big-screen adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel, V for Vendetta, I was moved to wonder whether the ancient law of sedition still stood and if it had ever been used to prosecute a movie. Certainly, this tale of a latterday Guy Fawkes on a heroic mission to blow up the Houses of Parliament was the closest thing I'd seen to a big-screen advertisement for anarchy in the UK, a swashbuckling adventure in which Britain's totalitarian government is righteously attacked by a mask-wearing, bomb-wielding terrorist who courts the audience's heartiest support.

How disgraceful; a writer for the most liberal mainstream UK newspaper worrying in public about their right to watch the movie of their choice. What about freedom of expression, or more pertinently, freedom of speech? If it was intended as a joke, it's not very funny.

V for Vendetta

2006-04-18T11:23:00.000+01:00

Although I'm a big Alan Moore fan and read his original graphic novel years ago, I was initially put off the movie by reports that he had disassociated himself from it. But finally saw it last night, and was simply bowled over. It was an excellent adaptation, shifting the focus away from Thatcherite racism to the war on terror and loss of civil liberties. There was even a great scene with a Quran and one of the main characters saying that he didn't have to be a Muslim to appreciate its poetry and beauty. Everyone should go see this.

I'm glad that the new UK law criminalizing glorification of terrorism hasn't banned this sort of film from being shown (yet).