All Things Not Considered

A Sisyphean Challenge

The Danish cartoons are once again in the news along with the tumult of the sanctimonious harangues on one side and the ill-advised street riots on the other. This is a sequel that restarted when the Jyllands-Posten and 15 other Danish papers decided to reprint a denigrating. While the theme of the 2005 episode was ‘Freedom to Blasphemy’, this latest one was ‘Solidarity and Defiance.’ Personally, I think the underlying theme to both is simply naked provocation, guised racism, and a childish game of intellectual ‘fart-counter-fart.’ A game as old as time where the only useless result it engenders is a stench that wafts up to our noses and drives us away from where we need to be: The round-table of discourse, of joint understanding, and mutual respect.

I am a Moroccan nonbeliever and I don’t have of a ‘religious’ dog in this fight. However, out of a sense of fairness, social equity, and moral justice I just couldn’t sit it out. It is true that I was irked when I heard of the republication of the prints, but I was equally irate when I saw the riots and heard of the misplaced public comments that ensued. This behavior will only alienate the Muslim minorities at best and vilify them and their religion at worst.

This past week, true to form, the neo-cons and some members of the European far right wing punditry weren’t a bit derelict in their propagandist obligations to stoke the fire under this controversy. And so we had to endure their calls for ‘Freedom of speech’, ‘Freedom to Blasphemy’, ‘War of ideology’, ‘East vs. West’, and the proverbial ‘The Clash of Civilizations.’ However, these same experts were remiss in their duties to be fair and just when they conveniently and temporarily spurned their own laws to support their spurious arguments.

For the record, in France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, and Austria it is against the law to deny that the Jewish or Armenian holocausts took place. On February 20, 2006, an Austrian court convicted British historian David Irving for making a speech where he claimed that some hitherto reported events about the holocaust didn’t actually take place thus breaking the law and getting a 3-year jail sentence for it. Here’s another rhetorical tidbit: How do you think the Jewish community would react if a newspaper in the US decides to print a caricature of an Israeli president drooling over few dollar bills? Well, there will be outrage, accusations, indignation, and all rightfully so. So why is it OK to protect the rights of some to desecrate while deny it to others? Why the double standard?

This is an absurd Tragicomedy, a progeny of some deep ethnic and religious differences that have since eroded the foundation of discourse and have widened and deepened the chasm between the ‘us’ and ‘them.’ To make matters worse, extremists in the Muslim world pull no punches in their senseless drive to galvanize the populist movement around their hateful, dogmatic, and acerbic message. They will do so even if they have to resort to unethical and morally outrageous deceptions. Equal to the task, the right-wingers in the West will resort to whichever means to drive their own ideological agenda or secure some profitable dividends. Freedom of speech is then decoupled from civic responsibility; moral decency and justice are replaced by xenophobia and hypocrisy.

It’s time to rethink these failed strategies and reconsider these fundamentally flawed preconceptions of each other. It’s time for the West to take an active role in the true enfranchisement of the Muslim minorities. It’s time to openly accept their cultural differences, learn and understand their ethnic and religious backgrounds, and allow them the benefit of the doubt. It is also time for the Muslim minorities to take a serious step toward a complete and genuine assimilation and integration within their host countries. It’s time to open up the intellectual sarcophagus where they have buried themselves for centuries and allow for some much needed fresh air to chase away a rather stale interpretation of the world. More importantly, we all need to revisit our respective definitions and interpretation of Tolerance. In his book “The Open Society and its Enemies Vol 1” Karl Popper convincingly proved that we couldn’t be tolerant of the intolerant. If we were, intolerance would invariably annihilate the tolerant as well as Tolerance itself. This is pretty much a call both sides need to seriously heed not just for the sake of human progress but also and more importantly for the sake and the future existence of humanity.

According to the Greek mythology, there was king by the name of Sisyphus who throughout his years had developed a reputation for being greedy, envious, and cunning. To punish him for his bad deeds, the Gods decided to put a curse on him. He was to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll all the way down. He was to endlessly repeat this futile endeavor Ad infinitum. Sometimes I feel that we, in a way, embody the myth of Sisyphus. In our quest to continually better each other and ourselves, we have been cursed with the apparent chimera of racial unity. We keep striving to climb the mount of human consonance and societal harmony, but over an over again we find ourselves at the bottom of it. But in the words of Albert Camus as they relate to our fateful Greek hero ‘…the struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’ Indeed, Hope is eternal.

Terror In Casablanca - Part I

These past two weeks Casablanca has once again witnessed more suicide bombings that inflicted much harm to many civilians as well as some members of the police city department. Although the modus operandi of these murderers doesn't quite mesh with the common characteristics of Al Qaeda's, there just might be a link that ties in all these odious incidents together. It is not the equipment they have been using or the locations they have picked but the common thread is the neighborhoods where they have come from.

Most of these aimless hearts belong to the fundamentalist group called Takfir or Takfir Wal Hijra. According to their philosophy, anybody who doesn't religiously - no pun intended - adhere to their strict interpretation of the teachings of Islam is an apostate and therefore a kafir. Their aim is to purify the political system and restore the spirit of the Islamic community (Umma) to the country.

So the questions we have to tackle are: How did this problem originate? And what can we do about it?

The first question seems a bit easier to answer but further thought and analysis will prove otherwise, rather quickly. There are many reasons why this movement has taken root and has successfully mushroomed in the outskirts of many cosmopolitan centers in the Maghreb in general and Morocco in particular.

Sociological Most of these people are landless peasants who were driven out of their rural environment and out of desperation and need, have settled around old and abandoned quarries in the outskirts of big cities like Casablanca, Tangiers, Meknes, Fes, and Marrakech. These shantytowns have no electricity, no running water, and no semblance of urban character. These people feel they have been shunned and pushed aside by a society that in large despises them and even questions their citizenship.

Psychological This urban and sociological disintegration has marginalized them to the point where they feel no bond to the greater society. As outcasts and societal pariahs, they feel like a black and dirty spot on the Moroccan cultural tapestry. A spot that unmistakably identifies them as a victim and stigmatizes them as an inferior member of the social order.

I am usually asked what I like about America. My usual response is: Alternatives. There's nothing worse than not having alternatives or options. Just imagine you have a job that you hate but you can't go anywhere because nobody will take you. How would you feel? Well take that and multiply it by 10, maybe 100. That's what they feel in those makeshift shelters that have become their permanent lives. That's the reason why militant Islam seems like a good way out. But we will get back to that later.

Economical From a macroeconomic level, there's an undeniable collusion between the Moroccan government and various financial and world trade institutions to render the economy a market based one. This results in harsher economic conditions, public sector gentrification, and a paradigm shift in the citizen-state relationship. Moroccans, who have gotten used to a modicum of state sponsored economic stability, do now see it eroding to the global economic conditions imposed by the foreign investors.

On a microeconomic level, many people in Morocco are in a financial tailspin. The prices keep climbing while salaries stagnate. Unless you are well networked and have some financial gravitas or some serious name recognition, opportunities will be rare to come by, if nonexistent.

For these culturally and sociologically marginalized folks, life is a lot tougher. They usually lack the education and the skills that could help them better their lives and lift them out of their misery. They don't have the means to invest and their networks are more often than not just as financially destitute as they are.

Political The political machine has conveniently forgotten about this people. While the focus is on foreign investment, urbanization, and economic development, the side effects continue to pop up with gentrification, rural exodus, a widening gap between the have and the have-nots, and, case in point, the emergence of newer class of poor.

To a certain extent, the politicos have adopted the "ignore the nuisance and it might disappear strategy." This is very much akin to a person ignoring their rotten toe because they don't want to consider the possibility that it could be cancerous or diabetic and might need amputation. So instead of dealing with the problem, they opt to just forget about it and delegate the task to the immune system to carry the internal struggle and hopefully the complete annihilation of the disease.

In this case, these people know their predicament and they also know that not much is being done to rectify the most nefarious of ailments they face.

Religious Enter the religion. They are many people out there who prey on social and cultural victims of economic segregation to basically indoctrinate them into their ideological system and to serve their own twisted goals.

The late, and great, Kurt Vonnegut used to call them Psychopathic Personalities, or PP's for short. These are predators of the highest caliber. They combine all the aforementioned categories and intertwine them with a religious thread to strengthen and legitimize the cause, its necessity, its timeliness, and of course its relative and absolute importance.

Let's not forget that these soldiers of God are not the most educated and most intellectually skeptical bunch in the lot to start with. Couple that with their hapless existence, feelings of dread, psychological inferiority, and cultural Marginalization and you see how they use a sectarian idea of Islam to turn against the society and the system.

What can we do?

There are some possible solutions to this problem. And we better work hard in making them work because the alternative is not an alternative. I will post some possible solutions in the second part of this article.

The 'Don Imus Controversy' – A Circus of Inconsequence

When Don Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" this week, he seemed to think nothing of it. It was just another one of those lame jokes that has earned him the title of "equal opportunity offender."

I have never developed a liking for the Imus show. Although his political views and analysis are often spot on. His sophomoric humor, his tireless tirades, and his vitriolic remarks sap the validity and strength off the more serious comments.

Although his latest remarks were meant to be humorous, I am not here to defend him or condone his behavior. His remarks are simply thoughtless, unarguably objectionable, and utterly despicable. What I would like to focus on instead is the wave of protest that ensued. A wave that further exemplifies the underlying trend of glaring media sensationalism and blatant hypocrisy.

After the story broke, Imus went on a damage control campaign. He took advantage of every opportunity he was given to express his regrets and earnestly apologize for his faux pas. Almost every show or program he attended, featured Reverend Sharpton or Reverend Jesse Jackson to represent the views or comments of the black community. Neither one of them accepted the apology and both were adamant that Imus needed be fired for what he said.

What I find rather hypocritical is for the media to consider Sharpton and Jackson as the purveyors of wisdom and arbiters of decency. This is the same Jesse Jackson who referred to New York City as "Hymietown" and the same Reverend Sharpton who stood by the side of Tawana Brawley as she lied about her racist story and sold it to the rest of America. Moreover, What have both men done to stop the black rappers from denigrating and demeaning black women with their lyrics and video clips? If Sharpton, Jackson, and other black leaders want to address this issue in a credible manner, they ought to turn their attention to where the problem originates. Don Imus was wrong, but he was thoughtlessly aping black rappers who continue to be glorified for their insidious ‘poetry’ towards women.

Imus is getting his deserved punishment through a fierce public flogging, but like everybody else; he too deserves a second chance. He has repeatedly apologized and has sounded and looked contrite. It’s time to turn the page and move on, there are bigger and more important issues facing this country today.

Faith, Citizenship, and Identity

This is the result of a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Based on the question, it seems like Moslems, regardless of where they reside, identify with their religion more than their countries’ citizenship. Conversely, the Christians consider themselves more of citizens than members of their religion.

Many Christians in the US identify more with their religion than with their country. This distribution is rather skewed when compared to the European countries. One is left to wonder as to the reasons behind this and to the relationships between secularism, secularization, modernism, and of course, religion.

• Why is it that invariably, Moslems identify with Islam more than their country of residence?
• Why is it that the US numbers are statistically different than other countries in the West?
• Why is the Moslems distribution in France more balanced than any other place?
• What does this tell us about the Moslem/Christian dialog around current and future issues?

These and other questions will be addressed in a future article on this blog. Stay tuned.

Injustice in the Justice Department?

In defining Justice, the French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu said:

"Justice is a relation of suitability, which actually exists between two things. This relationship is always the same, by whatever being it is perceived, whether by God, or by an angel, or finally by a man.”

Justice is after all the pillar upon which our laws are based. These laws in turn, determine the extent and limitations of our personal freedoms. I am not here to lecture judge Alberto Gonzales on the philosophical or practical meanings of Justice for he is far more adept at explaining it than I could ever be. However, looking at the current situation in the Justice department, one has to wonder how much justice and fairness is still left unpolluted by the heavy dark cloud of dishonesty that lingers around the attorney general. A cloud that has thickened after eight US prosecutors were recently let go.

US Attorneys serve four-year terms coincidental to the presidency and are retained or dismissed at the end of their terms at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is not unusual for the US attorney general to clean house when a new administration takes over. It is however, unprecedented to oust eight US prosecutors after a disastrous mid-term election. What makes this firing more suspicious is a succession of contradictory statements from judge Alberto Gonzales himself.

First the judge said that the firing were performance related. We later find out that all eight US attorneys had no blemishes on their performances. One of victims of this purge is Mr. Iglesias. He was actually ranked as a high performer by the none other than the White House. Second, We are told that the judge was never involved in the decision making process. Emails from the department show that he attended a meeting that started the firing process. Third, we are told that the White House never knew about the firing nor was it involved. Emails and records contradict that statement as well. Last, we are told the firing were not politically motivated. But when we learn about the Republicans senators and the influential party members who have complained about these US attorneys to the White House, we can easily deduce the main reason behind the firing.

Montesquieu also said:

“Men are capable of unjust actions because it is in their interest to do them, and they prefer their own satisfaction to that of others. They always act with reference to themselves -- no one is gratuitously wicked; there must be a determinant reason, and this reason is always a reason of self-interest.”

It is factually obvious that the Justice Department has been politicized to support the causes that are near and dear to the Republican Party. Furthermore, these facts have eroded people’s faith and respect for this judicial institution. It is time to let judge Gonzales go because this country needs a credible attorney general who has the confidence of the American people and the backing of the House and the Senate.

Iraq Occupation - 4 Years Later

It has been four years since President Bush decided to start his brazened invasion of Iraq.  $400 billion, 3,100 American casualties, over 600,000 dead Iraqis, and over 2 million refugees later, our commander and chief has still the audacity to stand in front of the world and to continue to ask for our support. 

20,000 more troops will be heading into this quagmire soon.  Their mission is to stop the insurgency, terrorism, and the sectarian genocide that this war has directly created and is ultimately responsible for. 

The current living conditions in Iraq are appalling. The poverty, disease, and deplorable living conditions are the bequests of this president whose political myopia and lack of moral decency know no boundaries.  Lest we forgot, he and his administration first told us that Saddam as an imminent threat to the US.  Once we invaded and found no WMD’s, the pretext for the war shamelessly shifted to a more noble cause, spreading democracy.  To this day, the reason is still changing according to the needs of the White House PR machine and the message it tries to sell.

Why did we invade Iraq? Contrary to popular belief it’s not because of the messianic instincts of an incompetent president who believes that foreign policy is an expression of God’s will.  And it is surely not because this government has suddenly discovered a moralistic call to democratize a tribal Middle East. The three reasons were to protect and strengthen the state of Israel, to turn Iraq from a centrally planned to an oil based market economy, and to stave off any attempt by China or India to have the geopolitical upper hand in that region.

So where does this leave us today?  The surge has temporarily quieted down the Shiites while the US troops are ‘taking care’ of the Sunni insurgents. We are told that this new strategy is different than all others and if we stand behind it and give it time it will eventually succeed.  The big test will come when the US forces are deployed out of Iraq. What will happen then?  In the absence of a politically comprehensive plan to unite Sunnis and Shiites and in the absence of an Iraqi army force to keep the peace, this diplomatic atrocity and human morass will only worsen.  But who knows, maybe by then this administration would have led us into a war with neighboring Iran.  Thus giving this monster a second head.

Many of us have come to term with Mr. Bush’s limitless ignorance and with his presidential hubris.  What remains unconscionable is his belief that he remains the only and ‘ultimate decider’. Even if we pretend to fight for Democracy abroad, we need to have the moral decency to abide by its precepts within this country first.

Islam and Secularization

Considering how Islam was recently used to rationalize the tyrannical authoritarian regimes of the Talibans in Afghanistan, their masters, the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, and the ayatollahs in Iran, it is no wonder that the Western scholars and people alike views the term ‘Islamic Democracy’ with a doubtful eye. Some of them reject this notion outright stating that Democratic precepts cannot be reconciled with fundamental Islamic values. While others posit that an Islamic Democracy can only exist insofar as there’s no a priori moral framework around it. And this brings me to the issue of secularization and its role as a democratization agent.

As the theologian Harvey Cox states: “ secularization is the process by which certain responsibilities pass from ecclesiastic to political authorities” (US). Whereas secularism is an ideology based on the suppression of religion from public life (Turkey). If you look at the two-faceted histories of the US you will easily discern the rhetorical from the factual version. As recognized 2 centuries ago by Alexis de Tocqueville, religion, with its Judeo-Christian moral framework is the keystone of the American political system. One only needs to pay attention to the political language around such polarizing issues as abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and government funded ‘faith-based initiatives” to understand the importance of religion in the US and how it permeates every fiber of its constitutional structures. I would highly recommend a book by Esther Kaplan called: “With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right”

Despite what we read in the history books, the true pillar of US democracy is not the symbolic words in “Separation of Church and State” as it is the long political evolutionary process of secularization based NOT on secularism but on pluralism. Pluralism is what defines democracy and not the moral framework it sits upon.

Islamic pluralism can be quite succinctly summed up in these two verses:

Qu’ran (42:38) “Those who hearken to their Lord and establish regular prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance”
In this verse, the Qur’an clearly orders Muslims to perform all their affairs thru (Shura) or consultation to mitigate the risks of oppression and authoritarianism thus inviting opposing views and opinions.

Qur’an (2:256) “There’s no compulsion in religion.”
The depth of this message was alas lost in translation when the purveyors of a different flavor of Islam established their pure and unadulterated line of demarcation between the sphere of peace (Dar Al-Islam) and the sphere of war (Dar Al-Harb) forever plunging us into a constant turmoil with devastating consequences.

In my opinion, the secret to democratization rests within the confines of inclusion, acceptance, and tolerance of everybody’s ideas and opinions. Past and contemporary History is peppered with examples where a failure to accommodate for diversity have had long lasting and painful scars in our collective political, religious, and societal psyche.