Such nonsense

Ali Eteraz provides a great rebuttal to Edward Luttwak’s absolutely moronic op-ed in the NYT .* Why are there practically no Muslims who are worried about Senator Obama’s alleged apostasy? Because he isn’t an apostate, because he was never a Muslim. And the reason that Luttwak’s piece contains not a single quotation from a Muslim or scholar of Islam is because it has no basis in reality whatsoever. The best points are Eteraz’s third and fourth ones:

My list

A good friend of mine who is also a blogger (though his postings enjoy greater intervals between them than mine do) enjoys compiling lists and determining rankings. His latest is a ranked roster of the books “most important” to him. Since we have read many of the same books, having completed the same secondary curriculum, I thought it would be sheyyeq (interesting) to do the same, using some of the books from his list and other books have read. Mine, however, will not be ranked. Here it is:

Muthiir lilihtimam!

The poverty of second and third hand sources, as exhibited in Forward:

You might find it odd that a Hebrew word for “interesting” is used regularly in Israeli Arabic. I once asked an Arab friend of mine about this and was told, to my surprise: “That’s because we don’t have our own word for ‘interesting.’ The closest we can come is either ajib [‘strange’ or ‘unusual’] or else muhim [‘important’ or ‘noteworthy’], and neither really means what me’anyen does.” When I checked on this with other Arabic speakers, it was confirmed. Is this just a linguistic oddity, or is it indicative of a deeper feature of Arab culture — the absence, perhaps, of the very concept of “interesting” that is so basic to the Western mind, since what isn’t unusual enough or noteworthy enough to arouse curiosity is not considered worthy of attention?

To clarify, Arabs do find things interesting, and do possess a “concept of ‘interesting’”. In fact there are multiple expressions in Arabic that are equivalent or precisely the same as “interesting” in English. !شَيِّق

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Jesus depicted

“An Iranian’s vision of Jesus’ life stirs debate,” (from 29 April) brings some thoughts to mind. Firstly, it tends towards treating the presentation of the Islamic view of Jesus (عيسى,`Issa) as if it were any different than presenting the Christian view of Jesus. In what way is this film different than Passion of the Christ? Few Westerners will probably see this movie, though this has not stopped some Christian writers/bloggers from angrily commenting on it, where as many thousands of Muslims saw Passion of the Christ with little controversy. The Catholic version of Jesus’ story is in direct conflict with the Muslim one; Muslims nevertheless watched the film where ever it was available, as it depicted the life of a Muslim prophet albeit from a different perspective. There was at least one Muslim actor in the film. Since Christians regard Jesus as the Messiah, many of them will probably take this view as an insult, as is mentioned in the article. The article presents the film’s sense of Jesus as if it were novel. It is not. It has been the view of Jesus for millions, and now about a billion or so, Muslims for a thousand odd years. It is an interesting perspective on the Muslim Jesus.

Secondly, it seems rather surprised that an Iranian film would make use of a rather “Western” physical template for the appearance of Jesus. There is no discussion of the theological views of the depiction of prophets, a quite lively debate among Muslims and between them and non-Muslims.  All Muslims agree that depictions of Muhammad, the messenger of God, should not be made, though they disagree on to what extent this should be followed. Some Muslims, especially conservative Sunnis, go further and take issue with the depiction of any prophets, including Muhammad’s companions. During the Cartoon crisis, I recall hearing more than one interviewed protester stating that he was not only opposed to the depiction of Muhammad, but “all prophets” as well, including Jesus specifically. I wonder how these men would react to this depiction Jesus. Shias tend to disagree with Sunnis on issues of iconography and quite often display prominently depictions of such figures as the Imams`Ali, Husayn, and so on. Muhammad is never depicted in the iconographic manner that these fellows are. I bring this up because, as the film is an Iranian production, it is fair to presume that it will follow Iranian Shia religious cultural norms. The depictions of Islamic historical figures seem to always follow a similar template: long hair, excessively fair skin, and angular Caucasian features. These are identified with purity, piety, beauty, and other desirable traits in most Middle Eastern cultures. The cast of actors in the excellent 1977 film Al-Risala (”The Message,” known in English as Mohammad, Messenger of God) consists of actors generally following this template, excepting of course Bilal bin Ribah, who was portrayed by Johnny Sekka in the English language version and by a Sudanese actor in the Arabic language version. The Iranian actor playing Jesus in Jesus, Spirit of God has redish hair and very European features. The Western interpretation of Jesus has currency the world over, largely due to the dominance of Western popular culture (through conquest and resultant missionary efforts, and popular culture). In any event, the article reminded me of this post at the Angry Arab:

Since I was a kid, I used to see this version of an imagined picture of Imam `Ali Bin Abi Talib [ . . .] I first thought that it was the picture of a Western movie star. And notice that he resembles the European imagined picture of Jesus Christ. Ali was born in Mecca and must look like Saudis*, just as Jesus must look like Palestinians. But alas they want their prophets and Imams to look like the White Man–preferably the Swedish White Man.

It should be remembered that many Arabs and Iranians look quite Western. While giving a Power Point on the Ba`th in Syria, a classmate asked, quite seriously, “How did a white guy get to be the President of Syria?” She was referring to Hafiz al-Assad. I responded that this happened in the way that a black man became president of Egypt (Anwar Sadat): by purely undemocratic means.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Lady Cochrane

An interesting Monocle interview with Lebanese aristocrat Lady Yvone Cochrane on urban planning in Beirut and its “collapse from an architectural point of view.” She is disgusted by the inconsistency of urban growth and planning in modern Lebanon. Cochrane states that in addition to the exodus of large numbers of young Christians, “all civilized, educated Muslims, they’re all leaving. We’re going to be left with the bottom of the barrel. Yes, that’s the trouble.” Cochrane believes that “only a sort of confederation, Swiss type, with Syria will save Lebanon, after all, we were always a part of Syria” with Lebanon and Syria “united by a common direction”. An interesting point of view.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Addendum on Lebanon

[The addendum from the "On Lebanon" post.]

On Lebanon

“I saw him without a gun, shooting at me, and his bullets pierced me
just like all the other bullets.”

Rashid al-Daif, Passage to Dusk.

There is a very real possibility that tension over Abkhazia will
escalate, so understanding the nature of the conflict is key.
Unfortunately, Applebaum’s analysis sheds no light on the situation,
but rather points to a disturbing trend in American mainstream media:
presenting simplistic and therefore misleading analysis of
foreign-policy issues.

“Turning Abkhazia into a War,” Brooke Leonard, The National Interest, 9 May, 2008.

The working class?

Of course, Hillary is part of the problem, because she embraces this dichotomy and tries to use it to her advantage (taking photo-ops of herself doing shots in a bar, dissing economists, and so forth all while she withholds disclosing her 100 million dollar piggy bank). In her increasing desperation to remain in a race that she lost when it became apparent she didn’t have a strategy beyond Super Tuesday I, she has fed the media this narrative. It has gotten so bad that Bill had the audacity to make the following remarks in Indiana:

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules.”

This is the typical stereotype that media and politicians peddle to the actual working class. Living in an Ivory Tower world, such people are somehow convinced that the average man is more affected by show-offs, than discrimination or lack of work. In fact, when one of the candidates stops and recognizes how dependent the current American system has made working class people on their jobs - to the extent that work is connected to dignity - he is the one that is smeared.

“Working Class Elitists,” Ali Eteraz, The Huffington Post, 7 May, 2008.

There is much truth in Eteraz’s posting. I would argue, though, that Hillary is not part of the problem simply because embraces this false dichotomy. Rather, she is a part of the problem because she is desperately selfish (or ambitious) and embraces anything that holds a remote possibility of offering her victory. The “working class” talk is a mere symptom of her campaigning style, which has led her embrace more than subtle bigotry, first against Senator Obama’s supposed Muslim leanings and then his racial background. The real crime here is shamelessness.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

“The Spanish equivalent of the U.S. battleship Arizona”

The Spanish do seem to love their New World treasures!

NYT on Kuwait

In a region where autocracy is the rule, Kuwait is a remarkable exception, with a powerful and truculent elected Parliament that sets the emir’s salary and is the nation’s sole source of legislation. Women gained the right to vote and run for office two years ago, and a popular movement won further electoral changes.

“In Democracy Kuwait Trusts, but Not Much,” NYT, 6 May, 2008.

According to Freedom House, and common sense, Kuwait is not an “exception” to the autocratic rule: Its regime falls right within the norm, save for a few exceptional institutional features, most of which are of recent advent and of a tenuous nature. It was only last year that the country moved to the category of “partly free” from “not free.” On women’s rights, Kuwait is still within the regional norm as well. While the Kuwaiti endeavor is certainly interesting, the article would have done much better to have focused on the actual conduct of “democracy” in Kuwait, rather than focusing on the economic side almost exclusively, neglecting matters of human and civil rights which are still routinely abused in the statelet.