Old ghost in the Iraqi vote

October 16, 2005 By

mosqBagd2I don’t know about you, but every now and then I get two emails and, because I read them back to back, they become connected. This happened today, when I reached Jackson, Tenn., to visit Union University. I thinned out the deluge of email from the previous day or so and then started reading.

The Iraqi vote, of course, is one of the biggest stories out there today. I read the main Washington Post piece and, to my way of thinking, there was something missing. If the White House is going to be excited about this election and its impact on something that can be called a “democracy,” then I want to know about the impact of this vote on issues such as free speech, women’s rights, religious liberty and other related topics.

It may not be fair to read this story and let it stand alone, without taking into account other Post stories from the recent past. Still, read it and tell me what you think. Early on, we are told:

The strong overall turnout in the west, however, raised the possibility that the disempowered Sunni minority could defeat the draft charter, which endorses a loose federal system with a weak, religiously influenced central government. Many Sunnis fear the draft would bring the breakup of Iraq into ethnic and religious substates, and make permanent their loss of power to the Shiite Muslim majority after the toppling of Hussein. …

In his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush said that the referendum dealt “a severe blow to the terrorists” while sending a message to the world. “Iraqis will decide the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency.” Bush said the referendum was “a critical step forward in Iraq’s march toward democracy.”

The religion element is there, but quickly vanishes. We learn valuable information about the strong turnout, the threat of violence, the potential political impact of the votes and other topics. But if religion is at the heart of these issues, what happened to that information? How will the vote and this new constitution affect basic human rights?

At that point, I opened another email. Click here to read a fresh Freedom House release on the vote. Then read the Post report again.

I don’t know about you, but I want the excellent reporters at the Post to answer some of the questions raised by the Freedom House activists.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Journalism, Social Issues, World

The “why” question

October 6, 2005 By

question markPerhaps one of the more difficult questions asked in journalism — there are the traditional five Ws and the H — is the “Why” question. The contrast in this Washington Post story, on the likely increase of suicide bombers in Iraq during Ramadan, between the way the holy month used to be in Iraq and the way it is today is striking. The details the author uses are also quite gory:

A burst of white light followed, and a boom, muffled by the concrete blast walls that ring Baghdad’s Green Zone. Shreds of bloody cloth and flecks of flesh rained upon stunned survivors. Among them, witnesses said, was the targeted Interior Ministry official, standing in the gore and flame, unscathed.

The unknown attacker ended his life on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, when some radical Muslims believe the gates of Heaven open and those who die in the name of the faith have their entrance to Paradise guaranteed. Two fist-size gobbets of soot-streaked flesh dangled from coiled concertina wire.

Compare that grisly scene with what Ramadan is typically like:

Ramadan is normally one of the happiest periods of the Islamic calendar, one when aunts, uncles and cousins assemble after daylong fasts for elaborate meals. Children stay up into the early hours for TV and conversation. Men head out to cafes for smoky late-night outings.

In more peaceful times, commercial districts in Baghdad would be thick with people at the close of each day, as shoppers gathered food for the nighttime gatherings. But Ayad Abu Jihad, a salesman standing unhappily in his empty appliance store in the Karrada neighborhood, said: “This is nothing like Ramadan.”

The author of the article gathers a lot of facts and colorful antidotes but fails to even address the “why” question, let along attempt to answer it. Clearly answering that question — why are people apparently using this celebrated holy month to commit horrible acts of violence? — would require delving into the theology of Islam.

That type of reporting is noticeably lacking in the American mainstream press’s coverage of terrorism. I believe that while there is fine reporting of statistics and gathering of graphic scenes from the ground, reporters covering terrorism are missing a key question.

If the predictions come true and this month of Ramadan turns ugly, I will be looking for some solid reporting into the theological motivations of the suicide bombers.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Journalism

What will Ken do?

September 23, 2005 By

RazanneA Barbie doll with a prayer rug and a hijab? I don’t have a lot of experience with Barbie Dolls (seriously!), but this seemingly incongruent combination struck me as one of those “signs of the times.”

The New York Times has the story:

Fulla roughly shares Barbie’s size and proportions, but steps out of her shiny pink box wearing a black abaya and matching head scarf. She is named after a type of jasmine that grows in the Levant, and although she has an extensive and beautiful wardrobe (sold separately, of course), Fulla is usually displayed wearing her modest “outdoor fashion.”

Fulla’s creator, NewBoy Design Studio, based in Syria, introduced her in November 2003, and she has quickly become a best seller all over the region. It is nearly impossible to walk into a corner shop in Syria or Egypt or Jordan or Qatar without encountering Fulla breakfast cereal or Fulla chewing gum or not to see little girls pedaling down the street on their Fulla bicycles, all in trademark “Fulla pink.”

Apparently young girls are crazy about Fulla and their conservative parents are OK with the idea of buying one. I know my parents never allowed my three sisters to have Barbie Dolls, but they did have other, um, more modest, dolls to play with.

According to the NYT article, Fulla will never have a boyfriend, but will appear in plenty of advertising to promote the toy:

On the children’s satellite channels popular in the Arab world, Fulla advertising is incessant. In a series of animated commercials, a sweetly high-pitched voice sings the Fulla song in Arabic (“She will soon be by my side, and I can tell her my deepest secrets”) as a cartoon Fulla glides across the screen, saying her prayers as the sun rises, baking a cake to surprise her friend Yasmeen, or reading a book at bedtime — scenes that, Mr. Abidin said, are “designed to convey Fulla’s values.”

A series of commercials seems more familiarly sales-oriented, starring young Syrian actresses who present Fulla silverware, Fulla stationery, Fulla luggage and, of course, new accessories for Fulla herself. “When you take Fulla out of the house, don’t forget her new spring abaya!” says one commercial.

Not everyone is thrilled about this culture development, but it’s for different reasons than one might think. Oh the fuss over a toy. Apparently the doll is too conservative. Perhaps Osama would approve? Here is what the progressives think:

Maan Abdul Salam, a Syrian women’s rights advocate, said Fulla was emblematic of a trend toward Islamic conservatism sweeping the Middle East. Though statistics are hard to come by, he said, the percentage of young Arab women who wear the hijab is far higher now than it was a decade ago, and though many girls are wearing it by choice, others are being pressured to do so.

“If this doll had come out 10 years ago, I don’t think it would have been very popular,” he said. “Fulla is part of this great cultural shift.”

“Syria used to be a very secular country,” he added, “but when people don’t have anything to believe in anymore, they turn toward religion.”

Can the social impact of children’s play things really be that significant? (It’s important to note that these are not legally Barbie dolls.) My parents certainly felt it could be by banning what so many other girls found a delightful toy. If this is the case, the NYT has certainly grabbed an important story with a clever, if entertaining, catch.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Journalism, Pop Culture

Burning questions

September 12, 2005 By

burning questionIt’s not every day that religious buildings are burned, which is why the razing of synagogues in the Gaza Strip made headlines today in the world’s major newspapers.

The Los Angeles Times’ piece today summarizes the situation:

GAZA CITY — Palestinians surged triumphantly into demolished Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip early today, torching empty synagogues and firing shots into the air, as the last Israeli soldiers withdrew after 38 years of occupation.

Just a few questions for the reporters behind this story: Why did the Palestinians feel the need to burn synagogues? Why didn’t the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority stop this from happening this way? And why, after bulldozing the homes of 8,500 Israelis, did the government not simply remove the synagogues themselves?

Flaming synagogues seems only to encite further violence on both sides. These are just some of the questions that come up in reading the lead to this piece, so let’s dig in and see if we can find some answers.

Several paragraphs into the story, the Times reporters start to explain the politics behind this complex issue:

In a last-minute reversal, the Cabinet voted to leave intact more than two dozen synagogues in the former settlements, despite warnings from Palestinian Authority officials that they could not ensure their protection. Palestinian officials announced late Sunday that they would demolish the buildings.

Palestinian leaders’ displeasure with the Israeli Cabinet’s decision on the synagogues prompted them to boycott a hand-over ceremony with Israeli commanders at the Erez crossing between Israel and the northern Gaza Strip.

But why did the Cabinet vote to leave the buildings of worship? The political information is nice, but what about the religious significance? Nothing in this piece delves into the religious implications, rather focusing on the political situation.

What we have here is a failure common in — well, ironically — the realm of political journalism. The reporters are assuming that readers know which political/religious blocs Mofaz and Sharon represent. They assume readers understands the history and the importance (or lack there of) of a synagogue to the Israeli people.

The Sydney Morning Herald report also leads with the synagogue-burning and I find out early on a specific reason the Palestinians want to see them burned:

“When I got here it was 12:30 and already there was no one, so we went straight to the synagogue and set it on fire,” Talalka said. “It was an illegal building on our land. The Israeli Jews don’t respect anyone’s religion but their own. I am very happy. The Israelis are out of here. We have more land and we got rid of the roadblocks.”

Not only is that a great quote, but it’s also quite informative. Nowhere in the Times story is there any mention of the Palestinian belief that the synagogues are illegal.

Here is a good explainer piece in Haaretz, a fairly liberal newspaper based in Jerusalem best known for its opinion pieces:

All our oppressors desecrated and destroyed synagogues and all massacred Jews.

And yet, despite that knowledge, our ancestors never once descended to the level of their oppressors. They never pre-empted the destruction of their synagogues by lending their own hands to that destruction.

If you’re curious, read the rest of the piece (it’s quite interesting), because I am going to quickly move onto a related issue. While I understand that space is limited in a newspaper (it’s certainly not on a blog!), the Times Online found room for this bit of detail that I haven’t found anywhere else:

In Neve Dekalim the green flag of Hamas group hung from the roof of the ransacked synagogue and the black flag of Islamic Jihad was raised from a wall in the compound. A Nazi swastika was spray-painted on the wall. Police stood helplessly nearby.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so shocked.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Judaism, Religion, World

Attention Dobson, Colson, et al.

August 23, 2005 By

OK, I am confused and I predict that my confusion is shared by many other Christians, Jews, moderate Muslims, freedom-loving secularists and who knows who else.

Here is the crunch section of a Washington Post story today on Islam-and-oil battles in Iraq right now as the new constitution comes down to the wire and then over the wire into double overtime.

The draft constitution submitted Monday stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state and that no law can contradict the principles of Islam, negotiators confirmed. Opponents have charged that the latter provision would subject Iraqis to rule by religious edicts of individual clerics or sects.

The opponents also said women would lose gains they made during Hussein’s rule, when they were guaranteed equal rights under civil law in matters including marriage, divorce and inheritance. The draft constitution says individuals can choose to have family matters decided by either religious or civil law.

Supporters say a separate bill of rights would protect women, and provisions of the constitution say no law can contradict democracy or that bill of rights.

So laws cannot contradict Islam, or democracy (I assume this means strict majority rule) or the new bill of rights (another product of democracy and majority rule). So in this majority-rule equation, what happens to the legal rights of women and religious minorities? I have not seen, in the MSM coverage, any mention of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Check out Article 18 if you want to see some really controversial, old-fashioned liberal language.

So I have questions:

What are the conservative Christian supporters of this White House thinking right now? What are they thinking about the war and this possible outcome? Are they getting angry? Have I missed an update on that? Check out this thread over at Open Book. Also, shouldn’t we be hearing more about this issue from human-rights activists on the left?

This could be one of those times when the sanctuaries in the red and the blue zip codes have just cause to be mad about the same thing at the same time. Meanwhile, keep one eye on the old-fashioned liberals — that often makes them conservatives today — at Freedom House.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Politics

tmatt, the Kurds and secularism

August 22, 2005 By

kurdflag2I guess anything can happen in the age of the WWW. Take a look at this Kurdish essay and tell me: Am I on the side of a more secular approach to Islam or not? Or am I being quoted to back the Islamists?

The decline of secularism can be seen as a global phenomenon, more than an Arab one, because the Arab world has refused all secular aspects, whether in religion or customs. When Samuel Huntington talked about the “clash of civilizations”, he gave priority to factors of culture and religion over secularist ones in reshaping relations among different nations. Today, secularism doesn’t sell in the marketplace. As American religious affairs columnist Terry Mattingly noted, “people hunger for spirituality, miracles and a sense of mystery . . . but the core question remains: should believers defend eternal truths or follow their hearts?”

At least the Kurdistan Regional Government quoted one of my more symbolic columns. Click here to see the context for the quote in my 10th anniversary column.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: First Person, Islam

Religion explosion in the L.A. Times

August 19, 2005 By

The Los Angeles Times dropped a splurge of religious stories yesterday. The articles are not directly connected to one another, but all have ties to one another. It’s one of those things that the editor probably didn’t realize until looking over the paper the next day.

Leading of was this story on a terrorism investigation, relying primarily on anonymous sources, of potential terrorists who seemed to live normal lives.

As the midday call to prayer was sung out, members of an Inglewood mosque said Wednesday that they were shocked to hear that three of their fellow worshipers were under investigation for a possible plot to shoot up National Guard recruitment centers and synagogues.

Members of the mostly South Asian mosque described the trio — two African American Muslims and a Pakistani national — as “friendly, devout” adherents and said that they had been unaware of any dangers the men might have posed.

“They said their prayers on time and were known to myself on a first-name basis,” said Imam Junaid Kharsany, the clerical leader of Jamat-E-Masijidul Islam mosque. “We had no reason to believe that these men were criminals with bad intentions.”

Yes, Imam Junaid, I’m sure these guys were nice people to your community, but so were the London bombers.

The key issue that journalists covering these situations must remember is the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The reporters and editors must be especially careful in a case like this when indictments have yet to be issued. Remember, these people are just under investigation.

Exactly what standards did the Times use in deciding to publish this report? Its lawyers must not have been able to sleep, because if this investigation fails to pan out, the anonymous sources used in this report could find themselves hit with some hefty lawsuits.

On a side note, the shooting spree that investigators believe these men were planning is exactly the type of terrorist attack Americans should dread the most. Put two pairs of heavily armed gunners at the ends of four typical American malls and say Go. Hundreds would be dead in communities across the country and many more wounded. American commercialism, at least in malls, would grind to a halt for fear of repeated attacks. And Amazon.com stock soars.

In a related story, the Times focuses on the education of young Muslims in Pakistan, and the news is not encouraging.

Since joining the U.S. as an ally in its “war on terror” four years ago, Musharraf has urged Pakistanis to shun radical Islam and pursue “enlightened moderation.”

Musharraf and U.S. officials say education reforms are crucial to defeating extremism in Pakistan, the only Islamic nation armed with nuclear weapons. Yet reformers who study the country’s education system say public school lessons still promote hatred against non-Muslims and urge jihad, or holy war.

The story delves into a debate over the meaning of jihad. Some believe that the concept, taught to children throughout Pakistan, can mean peaceful struggle or refer to an inner struggle in a person’s soul. Reminds me of objections I heard in college to the name of the Christian group “Campus Crusade.” But the Crusades ended centuries ago. Extremist Muslims are carrying out their violent jihad in Iraq today.

And in an unrelated story, the Times explores a Jewish shopping mall that people say is dying.

Hemmed in on one side by glitz and on the other by glamour, Los Angeles’ best-known Jewish business district is feeling the squeeze.

Longtime merchants say investors are buying up modest Fairfax Avenue storefronts that for half a century have housed kosher bakeries, butcher shops and bookstores and are imposing rent increases that are forcing mom-and-pop ventures out of business.

The shops that have formed the heart of the city’s Jewish commercial core are being replaced by flashy boutiques more likely to be stocked with designer tees and jeans than lox and bagels.

Two things stand out in this story. First is the clear connection the reader makes with the Gaza evacuation, but the reporter fails to touch. Second is the clear sadness the writer expresses in the decline of the district. The reason the author makes no mention of the Gaza situation is likely because there is no direct connection in the events — one is a political situation, the other, economic. But the image is there nonetheless. The author does drop an optimistic note in the story, at the very end:

“The sadness is you lose the culture when neighborhoods change,” Charet said. “The upside is America is open enough to embrace this culture and others as well.”

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, World

Strange times, strange times

August 16, 2005 By

You know we are living in strange times when you are more likely to see the name of progressive heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a Wall Street Journal byline than in a headline linked to a human-rights fest in Hollywood. She is, of course, the Somali-born Dutch liberal who has been forced to live in hiding because of her criticism of radical forms of Islam. Her op-ed essay focuses on issues linked to the rights of women in two nations that seem, at first glance, radically different — Iraq and Canada.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting — using the Canadian Charter of Rights — to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.

It’s all about religious liberty, isn’t it? Now tell me: Is this a “liberal” issue or a “conservative” issue?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Islam, Politics