Freedom to Be Me: The meanderings of a freed mind.
Monday, 29 December 2003
Now
I had a dream
while listening to the radio.
And on the radio
a debate ensued
about whether it was ok
to parade Saddam -
a POW,
debased,
humiliated,
in front of millions of TV viewers
around the world
as part of a
bloodthirsty
land thirsty
oil thirsty
campaign of imperialistic terror.
And then music ended the debate.
And as the last stanzas were sung,
I woke
from a dream in which I was running
away from my very own sister,
and I feared for my life.
And I was reminded of a dream
that I dreamt long ago
as a child.
I dreamt that I was
a Spanish solider,
overseeing the deaths
of Cathars
in white robes
singing
holding candles
unafraid.
When I woke from that dream,
I made a promise to myself.
I promised that I would never
ever
let it happen
again.
But the voices of the mature called
for me to remain silent.
And so silent I fell,
until the day when I saw
it all happen
in front of my eyes
again. NOW.
Prayers for Nablus
There is a photo of the city of Nablus in the files section of my very old, defunct group homepage. Nablus heads up the district of Nablus in Palestine. I got the photo from someone else's website and added the hands on my own. The original picture was taken in 1948, before the Nakbah reached Nablus. In truth, the first major assaults on Nablus did not take place until 2000, when the most recent wave of the Intifada (Uprising). Much of the city's infrastructure and architecture was damaged, and since the occupation and recurring sieges - all illegal - which have taken place since 2000, Nablus and her people have been thrust into one of the worst social and economic backslides in Palestinian history.
Nablus lies in what is today called the "West Bank". It is nestled between mountains which are known as "Jabal an-Nar" - the Mountains of Fire. One of these mountains serves as a holy site for the nearby Samaritan community. Nablus has become known as the City of Fire because of the strength and determination with which their resistance fighters resist the illegal occupation of the zionist military and militant colonists.
For more information on this beautiful city, see http://www.nablus.org.
Nablus lies in what is today called the "West Bank". It is nestled between mountains which are known as "Jabal an-Nar" - the Mountains of Fire. One of these mountains serves as a holy site for the nearby Samaritan community. Nablus has become known as the City of Fire because of the strength and determination with which their resistance fighters resist the illegal occupation of the zionist military and militant colonists.
For more information on this beautiful city, see http://www.nablus.org.
Sunday, 28 December 2003
Najaf Is Fourth, not First
We Shia Muslims are, primarily, Muslims. All else comes after that.
As such, our holiest shrines are in Mecca and Madina, the mosques of Prophet Muhammad. Not Najaf. Not Karbala. Not any other city in any part of the world where Shia Muslims predominate.
Please get it right. The misinformation spewed out by the media is only aiding the increase of the divisions among Muslims and everyone in the world (as if western media wanted anything other than to divide and factionalise the Muslim world already). If a reporter is told something about Shia Islam, please - before broadcasting that rumour to the world - check it with a *scholar* of *Shia* Islam. Naturally, a Shia scholar will know the most about Shia Islam, just as a government expert will know the most about the government. You do it for them. Do it for us.
As such, our holiest shrines are in Mecca and Madina, the mosques of Prophet Muhammad. Not Najaf. Not Karbala. Not any other city in any part of the world where Shia Muslims predominate.
Please get it right. The misinformation spewed out by the media is only aiding the increase of the divisions among Muslims and everyone in the world (as if western media wanted anything other than to divide and factionalise the Muslim world already). If a reporter is told something about Shia Islam, please - before broadcasting that rumour to the world - check it with a *scholar* of *Shia* Islam. Naturally, a Shia scholar will know the most about Shia Islam, just as a government expert will know the most about the government. You do it for them. Do it for us.
Thursday, 25 December 2003
France, Secularism, and Islam
originally posted Thursday, December 25, 2003
As a progressive woman, I certainly affirm the right of a woman to dress as she pleases - however, I also feel that men should cease and desist from their nauseating cries for women to constantly strip and pose for them, and to use our naked bodies so that their sorry selves can sell some corporate produce. Women are humans not commodities to enjoy and to use in marketing strategies.
All three of that which France banned could be used for political or nationalistic identification. In fact, the hijab was used exactly as such by many Iranian women during the dictatorship of the Shah. The sight of women wearing heavy makeup, smoking a cigarette, and donning a hijab was not uncommon. However, the same can be said for the turban of the Sikh, the red dot of the Hindu, the pro-Shah flag/shield of Iranian reformists, etc. Where does Chirac plan to draw the line? Or will he draw it? He is already known for his anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Regarding the hijab, it is usually easy enough to distinguish the forced or cultural use of it: the scarf is usually loosely tied or attached and falls easily from the head; it is accompanied by a year's worth of makeup on the face, it is loosened immediately upon entry into the school or mall, the ponytail falls loose and trails below it, etc. This is not to say that every slipped ponytail is intentional or that every hijabi wearing lipstick or blush is immodest. These are generalities, and they have their exceptions; and I could also be wrong. Usually, however, when someone fights so hard for her right to wear the hijab, it is because she believes that it constitutes an integral part of her religion and code of modesty.
I am one of them.
I take serious offence that someone would presumtuously assume a position to determine just what constitutes a part of my religion, especially if it is not that person's religion. Obviously it is not: Chirac is a secularist. I also take offence when someone who is not practising Islam presumes himself to be in a position to tell me what my beliefs and practises really are or really should be, when I am practising this religion and he is not. What right have these people to dictate to practising Muslims what is our religion? None!
And when a non-Muslim secularist takes an article of clothing which I and so many other Muslim women use to protect our privacy and claims that it constitutes an imposition of our faith on him, then deems it unnecessary for us and prohibits us from wearing it while we pursue a right that is guaranteed to us by many countries, if not international law, I take even deeper offence. What then, is so threatening about us? Perhaps it is the fact that we are different and not ashamed of it. There is no sin in being different, unless one is fascist.
It seems, then, that those who view articles of modesty as items of religious identification and see objects of religious identification as threats to his own secularist value system does not even feel secure in his own identity as a secularist. One who needs to be surrounded at every stop by symbols and articles of his secularist ideology should be questioned regarding his own personal faith in the system. And one who feels the need to outlaw that which is different from him should be checked for other fascist qualities.
As a progressive woman, I certainly affirm the right of a woman to dress as she pleases - however, I also feel that men should cease and desist from their nauseating cries for women to constantly strip and pose for them, and to use our naked bodies so that their sorry selves can sell some corporate produce. Women are humans not commodities to enjoy and to use in marketing strategies.
All three of that which France banned could be used for political or nationalistic identification. In fact, the hijab was used exactly as such by many Iranian women during the dictatorship of the Shah. The sight of women wearing heavy makeup, smoking a cigarette, and donning a hijab was not uncommon. However, the same can be said for the turban of the Sikh, the red dot of the Hindu, the pro-Shah flag/shield of Iranian reformists, etc. Where does Chirac plan to draw the line? Or will he draw it? He is already known for his anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Regarding the hijab, it is usually easy enough to distinguish the forced or cultural use of it: the scarf is usually loosely tied or attached and falls easily from the head; it is accompanied by a year's worth of makeup on the face, it is loosened immediately upon entry into the school or mall, the ponytail falls loose and trails below it, etc. This is not to say that every slipped ponytail is intentional or that every hijabi wearing lipstick or blush is immodest. These are generalities, and they have their exceptions; and I could also be wrong. Usually, however, when someone fights so hard for her right to wear the hijab, it is because she believes that it constitutes an integral part of her religion and code of modesty.
I am one of them.
I take serious offence that someone would presumtuously assume a position to determine just what constitutes a part of my religion, especially if it is not that person's religion. Obviously it is not: Chirac is a secularist. I also take offence when someone who is not practising Islam presumes himself to be in a position to tell me what my beliefs and practises really are or really should be, when I am practising this religion and he is not. What right have these people to dictate to practising Muslims what is our religion? None!
And when a non-Muslim secularist takes an article of clothing which I and so many other Muslim women use to protect our privacy and claims that it constitutes an imposition of our faith on him, then deems it unnecessary for us and prohibits us from wearing it while we pursue a right that is guaranteed to us by many countries, if not international law, I take even deeper offence. What then, is so threatening about us? Perhaps it is the fact that we are different and not ashamed of it. There is no sin in being different, unless one is fascist.
It seems, then, that those who view articles of modesty as items of religious identification and see objects of religious identification as threats to his own secularist value system does not even feel secure in his own identity as a secularist. One who needs to be surrounded at every stop by symbols and articles of his secularist ideology should be questioned regarding his own personal faith in the system. And one who feels the need to outlaw that which is different from him should be checked for other fascist qualities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)