About a week ago, I wrote a rather negative story about life in Saudi Arabia - and I believed things to be so at the time. But over the last couple of days, the perennial curse of the ethnographer has hit me. I’ve started changing my mind about Saudi Arabia. The very same things that made my blood boil a week ago, have become a way to appreciate the better aspects of Saudi life.
As a Muslim country, naturally some of Saudi Arabia’s good and bad points relate to religion (especially as Islam isn’t seen as just a religion here, but a way of life). Combined with this, my major interactions with Saudis thus far has been at the Qur’an dawrah (revision) classes that I’ve been attending over the past month, so this is the area I‘ve seen Saudis up close in. Besides, this approach should clear up the meaning of some of my more impenetrable facebook statuses!
Lets take one of those right now:
“ "Rivalry in worldly increase distracteth you" (alhaakum attakaasur) - Ibn Abbas used to read that one ayah all night and weep.”
Reading that status again, it strikes me that, for someone who is not from a similar situated culture to me, most of that status will be absolute gibberish - and yet the status touches upon perhaps the most fascinating part of Arab life. Memorisation of books is an integral part of the classical style of Arab education, and as one of the most famous scholars of his time, Ibn Abbas had obviously memorised the Qur’an, as well as numerous other books, and was reciting the verse from memory.
Of course there are arguments against rote-learning in the fluid world of education theory - and by and large they are right. It is far better to understand how a large leaf increases the rate of photosynthesis, than memorising that fact. However, what people often don’t realise is that the role of memorisation in classical Arab education is not the end itself, but a means to an end - meaning that understanding is gained, and to an even deeper level than normal. The second part of my status shows this. The scholars of the time used to learn only ten sentences at a time, but they would then make them part of their life by acting and reflecting upon them - and we all know that kinaesthetic learning is the in-thing these days. This meant that not only did they understand what they learnt, but they could also recall it at an instant, making them true masters of their field.
Even the process of memorisation opens doors to an understanding not available to others. For those of you who have memorised things over the years, you know how much repetition, linking, and photographic learning is involved. This intense focus often throws up rather interesting implications of the text - implications that wouldn’t occur to someone who was just reading it once through. Hence the booming world of exegeses in the Middle East. To learn Arabic grammar, one must memorise al-ajroomiyah, a centuries-old poem, and then read and understand its exegesis. To learn the art of recitation, one must learn al-jizriyah, another poem, and read its exegesis. In fact, this rule is applicable universally. One must memorise the core text, then read its exegesis, then understand and apply it.
Then of course there are the associated benefits of the practise of memorisation per se. One’s memory is like a muscle - the more one uses it, the stronger it becomes. There are famous stories such as that of the child prodigy Shafi’i, who would hear something once and memorise it, or of Bukhari, who had memorised over 500,000 hadith narrations (an entire libraries worth). But even for normal people, the effects are staggering. Take me for example, I’m not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, and yet I can memorise an entire page in five to ten minutes. For others I have met, these effects are even more pronounced.
And yet…Saudi Arabia, nay the Middle East in general, is no longer renowned for its education. Gone are the days of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, where Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars would converge from all parts of the globe and exchange ideas. Gone are the likes of Averroes, Avicenna, and Ibn Khaldun.
And the reason for this decline is simple. The Arabs have lost their drive.
There are only two kinds of people in this world: shepherds or sheep. The shepherds are independent thinkers, willing to take risks, and who are leaders of men. Sheep do what sheep always do: follow. All of us fall into one of these two categories, and most of us into both. Unfortunately, most Saudis are sheep - but that’s not the problem. In a flock, there is only ever one shepherd, and lots of sheep. No, the problem with Saudi Arabia is that they don’t have the shepherds. Perhaps this is a corollary of being a monarchy, where independent thought on a political level is banned, or perhaps its because vision and imagination are looked down upon in this deeply conservative country.
But one thing has to be said in favour of the Saudis. They are the nicest sheep to be found anywhere. Their entire constitution is suited to that of a sheep. They are generally mild tempered, stoic to the extreme, uninterested in causing sedition and revolution, and affectionate. A few stories illustrate these characteristics clearly. A patient came to see my father, and after the results came through, was told that he was infertile. What was his response? “alhamdullillah!” he said. The literal translation of the phrase is “praise be to God”, but in use, it carries heavy connotations of thankfulness. My dad said afterwards that patients in most other countries tend to start crying, or get angry when told this kind of news, but that in Saudi Arabia he found that the feelings most displayed were that of forbearance and fortitude.
Then, when my brother went to get an egg roll during break at the Qur‘an dawrah, but found the bag empty, a ten year old boy standing nearby gave him his egg roll instead - the very last one. Then later that day, on the bus home, a boy of about fourteen gave up his seat to me, because I was older than him, then a younger boy gave up his seat to him. This great characteristic of preferring others over yourself, could arguably be linked back to Islam, but I think that would do a great injustice to the Arabs. I know for a fact that no Pakistani would ever relinquish his seat, his egg roll, or his fertility without a titanic struggle beforehand. Islam didn’t give the Arabs these good qualities, it merely refocused them into doing it for the hereafter.
Without wanting to be dragged into the murky waters of life after death, I have noticed that “death” isn’t a taboo subject here, as it is in Britain. For a few days I puzzled over this. Surely Saudis wanted to stay alive as much as any other race? But then it finally clicked. Whereas we in the West view the timeline of our existence as starting from our birth, and ending at our death, in the Middle East this timeline starts from the creation of our souls, and stretches into the after life. In other words, the Saudi/Arab/Muslim view of death is as merely a stepping stone on an infinitely long journey. This beautiful concept gets rid of the fear associated with death. In fact an Arabic saying for the deceased is “they have gone on ahead, and we will be joining them”.
And perhaps this desensitising of death is the very reason for the loss of drive in the Arabs. There are no ultimate deadlines in their view of existence, and hence no urgency. But this not the real reason, as it didn’t stop the Arabs from the Middle Ages from making the biggest advances in science at their time. So what was the difference between the Arabs then and the Arabs now?
To understand that, one has to realise that life is all about being able to switch between the general and the specific. One has to have a big general aim, and then has to gradually narrow the focus down to the specifics which will make that general aim a reality. Without a general aim, the specifics are aimless, and without the specifics, the general is unattainable. The difference between the Arabs now, and the Arabs of centuries bygone, is that the Arabs now, are stuck in the specifics, without really understanding why they are devoting their energies to a particular end; whereas the Arabs of the Middle Ages had a vision in mind; they had a thirst for knowledge, both religious and otherwise, and they were learning it to benefit humanity. Take Shafi’i, the child prodigy mentioned earlier. Not only did he go on to found one of the four established schools of thought in Islam, but he was also an accomplished doctor, poet, archer, and author of over a hundred books - and he died at the age of only 56.
But having said all that, it is this very rough-and-ready character of Saudis, hinting at their Bedouin past, that brings with it all the good traits too. In the times of the second Caliph, Abu Bakr, the Bedouin armies started assembling in the capital of the Muslim Empire Madinah. The uncouthness, rudeness, and harshness of these Bedouins riled the citizens of Madinah immensely, and they complained to the Caliph about them. But Abu Bakr didn’t take any action against them. He told the people to be patient, for these Bedouins were the very ones that were going to defend them and the Empire.
The same is true today. The Saudis have many bad traits - but along with these bad traits come corresponding good traits. It takes a bit of time to get past all the dead wood, but once one does, then one realises that the humanity that is found inside all of us, burns as brightly in this desert kingdom as anywhere else.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
The Iran issue
The Media War: A precursor to every military conflict
Living in Britain over the last three years, I’ve been exposed to a relentless attack on Iran and Ahmadinejad by the Western media. These attacks are not always blunt and instantly apparent. In fact they are nearly always veiled as neutral reporting, but are always sneakingly snide in tone and implicitly insinuating. Only occasionally does the language flare up in intensity, like it has this preceding week. But in many ways, the revelation of a second nuclear facility by Iran has not changed the political narrative much. The fundamental arguments and accusations levelled against them remain the same. These are essentially two: That Iran denies the Holocaust and that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Of course when we academically consider these claims they hold little to no credibility. And when we compare this to Israel’s denial of the Nakbah and their military posturing over Iran’s nuclear programme, it becomes clear who the real nuclear bully in the Middle East is.
First of all, lets take a look at the Holocaust denial charge.
If we actually consider what Ahmadinejad says, rather than the disgraceful twisting and paraphrasing of the Farsi which goes on in British papers, Ahmadinejad stated in a speech at Columbia University, “I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not judgment that I'm passing here. The Holocaust should be left open to debate and research like any other historical event.” This argument finds traction with the likes of Professor Finkelstein, the author of the “Holocaust Industry”. He argues that the Holocaust has been abused by being used as propaganda, and being mythologized by the Zionist lobbyists for their own land-grabbing purposes rather than being considered as the solemn and sensitive historical event that it is. And Finkelstein is ideally placed to draw these conclusions - his own parents were in the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad also argues that “the pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie, a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, (as) the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust”. What he is saying here is NOT that the Holocaust is a myth as numerous Western media outlets crowed, but rather that the whole argument for the state of Israel is. This argument was of course that the Jews needed a place in Israel to survive after WWII. This is utterly baseless. Indeed, historically speaking, Ben Gurion and his crazed Zionist friends actually struggled to get the volumes of immigration to Israel, as most European Jews were going to the US instead. Even today, most Jews live in America, not in the “homeland”. The Jews might have needed a place to call home, but they overwhelmingly chose the USA, not Israel.
Ahmadinejad also referred to the Holocaust as a sealed “black box” and asked why Western powers refuse permission for the claim to be “examined and surveyed”. This entire argument is beautifully summed up by Professor Dossa, a Canadian expert on Iran, who says “Ahmadinejad has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation; he has never done so in any of his speeches on the subject (all delivered in Farsi/Persian). As an Iran specialist, I can attest that both accusations are false... What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust and the “Zionist regime’s” continued killing of Palestinians and Muslims. He has even raised doubts about the scale of the Holocaust. His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. And he does not really care what we in the West think about Iran or Muslims; he does not kowtow to western or Israeli diktat.”
Now lets compare that with Israel. Israel has never accepted the historical fact that the Nakbah took place.
For those of you who don’t know what that is (this ignorance is a testament to the powerful Israeli propaganda machine - you know what the Holocaust is right?) the Nakbah, or Catastrophe took place in 1948 when the Zionist forces, led by Ben Gurion, systematically planned and carried out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to achieve their aim of a Jewish majority state. This was achieved by November 1948, by which time approximately 700,000 Palestinians had lost their property, wealth and land and were made into refugees overnight.
The Nakbah also contained several well-documented accounts of massacres carried out by Israeli troops. Some of these were led by future Prime Ministers of the country! If that’s their leaders, then what more can you say? Ayn Zaytun, Sasa, Jaffa, Haifa, Deyr Yasin and many more Palestinian village were all the sights of Israeli butchering, and are now the sights of prosperous Israeli towns.
All that is strenuously denied by the Israeli Government. To this day they absolve themselves of any responsibility in creating the refugee crisis. They have also banned the teaching of the Nakbah in all Israeli schools. Interesting that. The Nazis too banned teaching things which damaged their twisted philosophy.
Now lets consider the claims that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map”.
This statement was apparently made by Ahmadinejad at a conference in 2005. It has been (wrongly) translated as “Our dear Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine.”
Firstly, linguistics aside, Ahmadinejad's phrase was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini, just like the Pope quoted how the Qur’an was a load of nonsense. The Western media played the linguistics game then, but seems to avoid it in this case.
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad),” - Clearly much less provocative.
Professor Dossa puts an end to the controversy by concluding that “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—“wipe Israel off the map” —suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.”
Never mind starting a war, Ahmadinejad is also on the record on a number of occasions as explicitly ruling out war or attacks on Israel. In 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you... there won't be any war in the future,” he said. This was reported by the BBC.
When asked if he had issues with Jews, he replied that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.
Now lets compare that to Israel. Here are a list of quotes of what Israel’s leaders have to say of the Palestinians.
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” (Ben Gurion, first Israeli PM)
“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.” (Begin, former PM)
“The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it.” (Rabbi Ginsburg)
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” (Ben Gurion)
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” (Golda Meir former PM)
Combine all that hatred with the clear evidence that Israel is preparing for a unilateral strike on Iran, as seen by its very ostentatious movement of warships, practising of bombing drills, and leaked documents. They have a track record of unilaterally attacking other countries too. Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon all count themselves as victims of “pre-emptive” strikes. Naked, unbridled aggression in other words. Its clear who the real Nuclear bully in the Middle East is.
Over the last ten years Israel has instigated countless attacks, and a number of Wars. They have a long track record of violence. Compare that with Iran. How many wars has Iran been involved in, in the last ten years? How many international law statutes has Iran violated as compared to Israel?
The evidence is clear, and yet the Western media coverage continues to smear Iran is the aggressor, and portray Israel and the West as the victims. They still level the old character assassination arguments that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite and denies Israel’s right to exist, and that the US’s opinion is second only to God’s.
Well I’ve just enunciated the opposition view to all that, its up to you what you believe now.
Ibrahim Khan
Living in Britain over the last three years, I’ve been exposed to a relentless attack on Iran and Ahmadinejad by the Western media. These attacks are not always blunt and instantly apparent. In fact they are nearly always veiled as neutral reporting, but are always sneakingly snide in tone and implicitly insinuating. Only occasionally does the language flare up in intensity, like it has this preceding week. But in many ways, the revelation of a second nuclear facility by Iran has not changed the political narrative much. The fundamental arguments and accusations levelled against them remain the same. These are essentially two: That Iran denies the Holocaust and that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Of course when we academically consider these claims they hold little to no credibility. And when we compare this to Israel’s denial of the Nakbah and their military posturing over Iran’s nuclear programme, it becomes clear who the real nuclear bully in the Middle East is.
First of all, lets take a look at the Holocaust denial charge.
If we actually consider what Ahmadinejad says, rather than the disgraceful twisting and paraphrasing of the Farsi which goes on in British papers, Ahmadinejad stated in a speech at Columbia University, “I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not judgment that I'm passing here. The Holocaust should be left open to debate and research like any other historical event.” This argument finds traction with the likes of Professor Finkelstein, the author of the “Holocaust Industry”. He argues that the Holocaust has been abused by being used as propaganda, and being mythologized by the Zionist lobbyists for their own land-grabbing purposes rather than being considered as the solemn and sensitive historical event that it is. And Finkelstein is ideally placed to draw these conclusions - his own parents were in the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad also argues that “the pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie, a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, (as) the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust”. What he is saying here is NOT that the Holocaust is a myth as numerous Western media outlets crowed, but rather that the whole argument for the state of Israel is. This argument was of course that the Jews needed a place in Israel to survive after WWII. This is utterly baseless. Indeed, historically speaking, Ben Gurion and his crazed Zionist friends actually struggled to get the volumes of immigration to Israel, as most European Jews were going to the US instead. Even today, most Jews live in America, not in the “homeland”. The Jews might have needed a place to call home, but they overwhelmingly chose the USA, not Israel.
Ahmadinejad also referred to the Holocaust as a sealed “black box” and asked why Western powers refuse permission for the claim to be “examined and surveyed”. This entire argument is beautifully summed up by Professor Dossa, a Canadian expert on Iran, who says “Ahmadinejad has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation; he has never done so in any of his speeches on the subject (all delivered in Farsi/Persian). As an Iran specialist, I can attest that both accusations are false... What Ahmadinejad has questioned is the mythologizing, the sacralization, of the Holocaust and the “Zionist regime’s” continued killing of Palestinians and Muslims. He has even raised doubts about the scale of the Holocaust. His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. And he does not really care what we in the West think about Iran or Muslims; he does not kowtow to western or Israeli diktat.”
Now lets compare that with Israel. Israel has never accepted the historical fact that the Nakbah took place.
For those of you who don’t know what that is (this ignorance is a testament to the powerful Israeli propaganda machine - you know what the Holocaust is right?) the Nakbah, or Catastrophe took place in 1948 when the Zionist forces, led by Ben Gurion, systematically planned and carried out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to achieve their aim of a Jewish majority state. This was achieved by November 1948, by which time approximately 700,000 Palestinians had lost their property, wealth and land and were made into refugees overnight.
The Nakbah also contained several well-documented accounts of massacres carried out by Israeli troops. Some of these were led by future Prime Ministers of the country! If that’s their leaders, then what more can you say? Ayn Zaytun, Sasa, Jaffa, Haifa, Deyr Yasin and many more Palestinian village were all the sights of Israeli butchering, and are now the sights of prosperous Israeli towns.
All that is strenuously denied by the Israeli Government. To this day they absolve themselves of any responsibility in creating the refugee crisis. They have also banned the teaching of the Nakbah in all Israeli schools. Interesting that. The Nazis too banned teaching things which damaged their twisted philosophy.
Now lets consider the claims that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map”.
This statement was apparently made by Ahmadinejad at a conference in 2005. It has been (wrongly) translated as “Our dear Imam (Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine.”
Firstly, linguistics aside, Ahmadinejad's phrase was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini, just like the Pope quoted how the Qur’an was a load of nonsense. The Western media played the linguistics game then, but seems to avoid it in this case.
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad),” - Clearly much less provocative.
Professor Dossa puts an end to the controversy by concluding that “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—“wipe Israel off the map” —suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.”
Never mind starting a war, Ahmadinejad is also on the record on a number of occasions as explicitly ruling out war or attacks on Israel. In 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you... there won't be any war in the future,” he said. This was reported by the BBC.
When asked if he had issues with Jews, he replied that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.
Now lets compare that to Israel. Here are a list of quotes of what Israel’s leaders have to say of the Palestinians.
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” (Ben Gurion, first Israeli PM)
“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.” (Begin, former PM)
“The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it.” (Rabbi Ginsburg)
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” (Ben Gurion)
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” (Golda Meir former PM)
Combine all that hatred with the clear evidence that Israel is preparing for a unilateral strike on Iran, as seen by its very ostentatious movement of warships, practising of bombing drills, and leaked documents. They have a track record of unilaterally attacking other countries too. Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon all count themselves as victims of “pre-emptive” strikes. Naked, unbridled aggression in other words. Its clear who the real Nuclear bully in the Middle East is.
Over the last ten years Israel has instigated countless attacks, and a number of Wars. They have a long track record of violence. Compare that with Iran. How many wars has Iran been involved in, in the last ten years? How many international law statutes has Iran violated as compared to Israel?
The evidence is clear, and yet the Western media coverage continues to smear Iran is the aggressor, and portray Israel and the West as the victims. They still level the old character assassination arguments that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite and denies Israel’s right to exist, and that the US’s opinion is second only to God’s.
Well I’ve just enunciated the opposition view to all that, its up to you what you believe now.
Ibrahim Khan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)