Preaching Moderate Islam and Becoming a TV Star

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Ahmad al-Shugairi, host of a TV show on religious themes, with students at his cafe in Jidda.

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1388725200&en=88916c7b7e022b36&ei=5124’;}
function getShareURL() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/world/middleeast/03preacher.html’);
}
function getShareHeadline() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘Preaching Moderate Islam and Becoming a TV Star’);
}
function getShareDescription() {

return encodeURIComponent(‘The religion-themed shows of a new generation of “satellite sheiks” have helped fuel a religious revival in the Arab world.’);
}
function getShareKeywords() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘Islam,Islam,Television,Children and Youth,Arabs,Saudi Arabia,Ahmad al- Shugairi’);
}
function getShareSection() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘world’);
}
function getShareSectionDisplay() {

return encodeURIComponent(‘Generation Faithful’);
}
function getShareSubSection() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘middleeast’);
}
function getShareByline() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘By ROBERT F. WORTH’);
}
function getSharePubdate() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘January 3, 2009’);
}

<!–
function submitCCCForm(){
PopUp = window.open(”, ‘_Icon’,’location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes’);
this.document.cccform.submit();
}
// –>

• comments (110)
• Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• Share
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink

writePost();new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/world/middleeast/03preacher.html if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia — As Ahmad al-Shugairi took the stage, dressed in a flowing white gown and headdress, he clutched a microphone and told his audience that he had no religious training or titles: “I am not a sheik.”

Skip to next paragraph

Related

mm.DI = true;
mm.LI = false;
mm.AH = “Robert F. Worth on a new generation of television preachers in the Muslim world.”;
mm.AS = “20090103_PREACHER_AUDIO”;
mm.AD = “402”;
mm.AU = “http://graphics8.nytimes.com/podcasts/2009/01/02/02worldview.mp3”;
mm.IU = “”;
writePlayer();

Robert F. Worth on a new generation of television preachers in the Muslim world.

var so = new SWFObject(“http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/multimedia/swfs/multiloader.swf”, “p897512”, “100%”, “25”, “8”, “#FFFFFF”);
so.addVariable(“mp3″,”http://graphics8.nytimes.com/podcasts/2009/01/02/02worldview.mp3”)
so.addVariable(“duration”,”402″)
so.addVariable(“contentPath”,”http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/multimedia/INLINE_PLAYER/NYTInline.swf”)
so.addParam(“allowScriptAccess”, “always”);
so.write(“p897512”);

Generation Faithful

Crossing Cultures

This is the last in a series of 11 articles examining the lives of the young across the Muslim world at a time of religious revival.

Previous Articles in the Series »

Enlarge This Image

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

The Saudi preacher Ahmad al-Shugairi leading his staff in prayer during a break from work on his show “Khawater.” It runs daily during Ramadan.

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();

But over the next two hours, he worked the crowd as masterfully as any preacher, drawing rounds of uproarious laughter and, as he recalled the Prophet Muhammad’s death, silent tears. He spoke against sectarianism. He made pleas for women to be treated as equals. He talked about his own life — his seven wild years in California, his divorce, his children — and gently satirized Arab mores.

When he finished, the packed concert hall erupted in a wild standing ovation. Members of his entourage soon bundled him through the thick crowd of admirers to a back door, where they rushed through the darkness to a waiting car.

“Elvis has left the building,” Mr. Shugairi joked, in English, as he relaxed into his seat.

Mr. Shugairi is a rising star in a new generation of “satellite sheiks” whose religion-themed television shows have helped fuel a religious revival across the Arab world. Over the past decade, the number of satellite channels devoted exclusively to religion has risen from 1 to more than 30, and religious programming on general interest stations, like the one that features Mr. Shugairi’s show, has soared. Mr. Shugairi and others like him have succeeded by appealing to a young audience that is hungry for religious identity but deeply alienated from both politics and the traditional religious establishment, especially in the fundamentalist forms now common in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

In part, that is a matter of style: a handsome, athletically built 35-year-old, Mr. Shugairi effortlessly mixes deep religious commitment with hip, playful humor. He earned an M.B.A. during his California years, and he sometimes refers to Islam as “an excellent product that needs better packaging.”

But his message of sincere religious moderation is tremendously powerful here. For young Arabs, he offers a way to reconcile a world painfully divided between East and West, pleasure and duty, the rigor of the mosque and the baffling freedoms of the Internet.

“He makes us attached to religion — sometimes with our modern life we get detached,” said Imma al-Khalidi, a 25-year-old Saudi who burst into tears when Mr. Shugairi, uneasy with his rock-star departure from the auditorium, returned to the hall to chat with a group of black-clad and veiled young women. There was an audible intake of breath as the women saw him emerge. A few bold ones walked forward, but most hung back, seemingly stunned.

“Before, we used to see only men behind a desk, like judges,” Ms. Khalidi said.

Mr. Shugairi is not the first of his kind. Amr Khaled, an Egyptian televangelist, began reaching large audiences eight years ago. But the field has expanded greatly, with each new figure creating Internet sites and Facebook groups where tens of thousands of fans trade epiphanies and links to YouTube clips of their favorite preachers.

Mr. Shugairi’s main TV program, “Khawater” (“Thoughts”), could not be more different from the dry lecturing style of so many Muslim clerics. In one episode on literacy, the camera follows Mr. Shugairi as he wanders through Jidda asking people where to find a public library (no one knows). In another, he pokes through a trash bin, pointing to mounds of rotting rice and hummus that could have been donated for the poor. He even sets up “Candid Camera”-style gags, confronting people who pocket a wallet from the pavement and asking them if the Prophet Muhammad would have done the same.

At times, his program resembles an American civics class disguised as religion, complete with lessons on environmental awareness and responsible driving.

Criticized From Both Sides

Inevitably, hard-line clerics dismiss Mr. Shugairi as a lightweight who toadies to the West. From the other side, some liberals lament that Mr. Shugairi and the other satellite sheiks are Islamizing the secular elite of the Arab world.

And while most of these broadcast preachers, including Mr. Shugairi, promote a moderate and inclusive strain of Islam, others do not. There are few controls in the world of satellite television, where virtually anyone can take to the air and preach as he likes on one of hundreds of channels.

Moreover, some observers fear that the growing prevalence of Islam on the airwaves and the Internet could make moderates like Mr. Shugairi steppingstones toward more extreme figures, who are never more than a mouse-click or a channel-surf away.

“There is no one with any real authority, they can say whatever they want to say, and the accessibility of these sheiks is 24/7,” said Hussein Amin, a professor at the American University in Cairo. “That’s why so many who were liberals are now conservatives, and those who were conservatives are now radicals.”

Carolyn Drake for The New York Times

Tajiks gathered in Dushanbe last month to welcome pilgrims returning from Saudi Arabia.
DUSHANBE, Tajikistan — The crowd in the airport parking lot was jubilant despite the cold, with squealing children, busy concession stands and a tangle of idling cars giving the impression of an eager audience before a rock concert.

But it was religion, not rock ’n’ roll, that had drawn so many people: the Tajik families were waiting for their loved ones to land on a flight from Saudi Arabia, where they had taken part in the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca.

This did not use to happen. Tajikistan, a Muslim country north of Afghanistan, used to be part of the Soviet Union. Religion was banned, and any public expression of it, like prayer or making the hajj, was harshly punished.

A resurgence of Islam began here almost immediately after independence, in 1991, but years of civil war kept outward reflections of it, like the hajj, from appearing much.

Now, though, expressions of faith are flowering. At least 5,200 citizens of Tajikistan went on the hajj in 2008, more than 10 times the number who went in 2000, according to this country’s State Committee on Religion. Religious leaders have become important community figures, and Islamic political parties are permitted.

That enthusiasm was thick in the greeting crowd here, one of many that met the more than a dozen hajj flights in December. A woman whose first name is Marhabo, a 25-year-old mother of three, was waiting in the bitter cold with a 40-member extended family, most of them children.

“We’re Muslims,” she said brightly, hugging her small daughter closer to her in the cold. “Now there’s no limiting. Before, there were no mosques. Now there are many.”

It was close to midnight and the children were getting cranky. Marhabo’s sister-in-law bounced her own daughter, Medina, a small girl in a pink snowsuit, who was starting to cry.

There were many Medinas in the crowd, actually, named after another holy city in Saudi Arabia, in a fad that began here after the Soviet collapse.

The group was largely segregated, with women in bright scarves standing in clusters with the children behind the main arrivals area, where the men, some in traditional velvet robes, waited with camcorders to record the moment of arrival.

One old man with a long gray beard said he first made the pilgrimage in 1998. He took a bus that went through Iraq, “before,” his friend pointed out, “George Bush showed up.”

It used to be hard to be a believer here.

A man in his 30s whose first name is Akbar remembered running away from the Soviets when they caught him praying. His teacher ridiculed him for it, leaving him with a distinct dislike for school.

“Everyone was looking at me,” Akbar said. “I felt like a criminal.”

While the Tajiks’ newfound faith is thrilling for some, it has alarmed others, who worry that Islam’s popularity, combined with an economic crisis here, could lead to a surge of fundamentalism or militancy.

More than half the population lives on less than $2 each a day, and the country is currently experiencing a reverse industrialization: 77 percent of its population lives in rural areas, compared with 63 percent in the mid-1980s, said Khojamakhmad Umarov, a professor at the Institute of Economic Studies here.

Now, with migrant Tajik workers, the single largest contributors to the economy, facing an uncertain future in Russia, experts like Muzaffar Olimov worry that religious leaders will gain disproportionate power in society and that with the state education system in collapse, families will turn to religious schools for their children.

“The mullahs will make the weather,” said Mr. Olimov, who is director of Sharq, a research center here. “We have a model: our neighbor Afghanistan.”

But Tajik society is still strongly Soviet. New Year’s, a holiday celebrated in Soviet times with a decorated tree and presents, is still cherished, even in observant Muslim families.

“It’s not a Muslim holiday, but we like it,” Marhabo said, her small daughter reciting poetry she had learned in school for the occasion.

Marhabo talked about the meal they would have when they arrived at their home — a baked sheep. The government recently issued a rule forbidding families to spend too much money on weddings and other celebrations, a directive she said they were observing.

The plane from Saudi Arabia finally arrived. People threw candies, as if at a wedding, when they met their loved ones. Marhabo’s father, in a long white robe and a traditional hat, strode regally into their midst. He was met with an explosion of kisses.

(updated below – Update II – Update III)

This Rasmussen Reports poll — the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza — strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America’s political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally “are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip” (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

It’s not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders — from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals — are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they’re expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.

Much more notable is the fact that Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party’s leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

Equally noteworthy is that the factional breakdown regarding Israel-Gaza mirrors quite closely the factional alliances that arose with regard to the Iraq War. Just as was true with Iraq, one finds vigorous pro-war sentiment among the Dick Cheney/National Review/neoconservative/hard-core-GOP crowd, joined (as was true for Iraq) by some American liberals who typically oppose that faction yet eagerly join with them when it comes to Israel. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world — Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership — opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail. The parties with the superior military might (the U.S. and Israel) dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant. Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same (just as those who opposed the Iraq War were demonized as being “pro-Saddam,” those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now “pro-Hamas”).

Substantively, there are certainly meaningful differences between the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Israeli attack on Gaza (most notably the fact that Hamas really does shoot rockets into Israel and has killed Israeli civilians and Israel really is blockading and occupying Palestinian land, whereas Iraq did not attack and could not attack the U.S. as the U.S. was sanctioning them and controlling their airspace). But the underlying logic of both wars are far more similar than different: military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless. It’s therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines. What’s actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lockstep consensus among America’s political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S.’s own attack on Iraq (at least a few Democratic Congressional leaders opposed the war on Iraq, unlike for Israel’s bombing of Gaza, where they virtually all unequivocally support it).

* * * * *

Ultimately, what is most notable about the “debate” in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel’s security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it’s often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.

Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It’s the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, it’s American bombs that — with the whole world watching — are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it’s the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.

For those reasons, the pervasive opposition and anger around the world from the Israeli assault on Gaza is not only directed to Israel but — quite rationally and understandably — to America as well. Virtually the entire world, other than large segments of the American public, see Israeli actions as American actions. The attack on Gaza thus harms not only Israel’s reputation and credibility, but America’s reputation and credibility as well.

And for what? Even for those Americans who, for whatever their reasons, want endlessly to fixate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who care deeply and passionately about whether the Israelis or the Palestinians control this or that West Bank hill or village and want to spend the rest of their days arguing about who did what to whom in 1948 and 1967, what possible interests do Americans generally have in any of that, sufficient to involve ourselves so directly and vigorously on one side, and thereby subject ourselves to the significant costs — financial, reputational, diplomatic and security — from doing so?

It’s one thing to argue that Israel is being both wise and just by bombing the densely populated Gaza Strip. It’s another thing entirely to argue that the U.S. should use all of its resources to support Israel as it does so. Those are two entirely separate questions. Arguments insisting that the Gaza attack is good and right for Israel don’t mean that they are good and right for the U.S. Yet unstinting, unquestioning American support for whatever Israel does is just tacitly assumed in most of these discussions. The core assumption is that if it can be established that this is the right thing for Israel to do, then it must be the right thing for the U.S. to support it. The notion that the two countries may have separate interests — that this may be good for Israel to do but not for the U.S. to support — is the one issue that, above all else, may never be examined.

The “change” that many anticipate (or, more accurately, hope) that Obama will bring about is often invoked as a substance-free mantra, a feel-good political slogan. But to the extent it means anything specific, at the very least it has to entail that there will be a substantial shift in how America is perceived in the world, the role that we in fact play, the civil-liberties-erosions and militarized culture that inevitably arise from endlessly involving ourselves in numerous, hate-fueled military conflicts around the world. Our blind support for Israel, our eagerness to make all of its disputes our own disputes, our refusal to acknowledge any divergence of interests between us and that other country, our active impeding rather than facilitating of diplomatic resolutions between it and its neighbors are major impediments to any meaningful progress in those areas.

UPDATE: One related point: I have little appreciation for those who believe, one way or the other, that they can reliably predict what Obama is going to do — either on this issue or others. That requires a clairvoyance which I believe people lack.

Some argue that Obama has filled key positions with politicians who have a history of virtually absolute support for Israeli actions — Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel — because Obama intends to continue, more or less, the Bush policy of blind support for Israel. Others argue the opposite: that those appointments are necessary to vest the Obama administration with the credibility to take a more active role in pushing the Israelis to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, and that in particular, Clinton would not have left her Senate seat unless she believed she could finish Bill Clinton’s work and obtain for herself the legacy-building accomplishment of forging an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians (this morning’s NYT hints at that scenario).

I personally find the latter theory marginally more persuasive, but there is simply no way to know until Obama is inaugurated. Whatever else is true, the more domestic political pressure is exerted demanding that the U.S. play a more even-handed and constructive role in facilitating a diplomatic resolution, the more likely it is that this will happen.

UPDATE II: Donna Edwards, the newly elected, netroots-supported Democratic Congresswoman from Maryland, who removed the standard establishment Democratic incumbent Al Wynn from office this year, has the following to say about Israel/Gaza:

I am deeply disturbed by this week’s escalation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip, as I have been by the ongoing rocket fire into southern Israel. To support Israel and to ease the humanitarian crisis facing the people of Gaza, the United States must work actively for an immediate ceasefire that ends the violence, stops the rockets, and removes the blockade of Gaza.

That’s much further than most national Democrats have been willing to go. And it illustrates that primary challenges can — slowly but meaningfully — change the face of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE III: An abridged version of this post was published in today’s Chicago Sun-Times, here.

The letter has been signed off by Rabbi Moshe Dov Beck, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, Rabbi Meir Hirsh and Rabbi Ahron Cohen.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovi WeissImage source: Frummer Than Thou

Below are excerpts of the letter addressed to Dr. Mamoud Al-Zahar:

“We speak to you as the voice and the messengers of true Jewry — the Jewish people, true to the Almighty’s Torah, from around the world. Although we are limited in the means of expressing our deepest and true feelings, by the barriers of words, nevertheless, the Jewish people humbly offer to you and all of Gaza and the entire Palestine, a few words, to attempt to convey our deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy that we all feel for you, in this present tragic and traumatic time.

Great pain and sorrow has engulfed us by the tragic news of what has befallen you and your family, by the senseless murder of your dear son, Hussam and prior to this calamity, your other precious possession, your other son, Khaled.

We have not the words to console you, but our prayers are to the great Almighty, to console and comfort you and yours, upon this great tragedy. Amen…..

…True Jews around the world, of course including in the entire Palestine, never have and with the help of the Almighty, never will accept the ideology of Zionism and never will recognize the realization of its heretical plan, the state of “Israel”.

Our sole bond is with the Almighty and His Torah. Our sage’s state that we are required to emulate the Almighty, “just as the Almighty is compassionate, so are we to be compassionate.”

We always have and always will, with the help of the Almighty, remain unaffiliated and estranged from this aberration and the will of Satan, “Zionism and the state of Israel”….

…In the Torah it states, that transgressing against the Almighty, will not be successful. This state of “Israel”, according to the Almighty’s Torah, must and will eventually end.

Let us all pray and beseech Him, to bring about the total, peaceful and speedy dismantlement of this illegitimate state soon in our days. With the Almighty’s benevolence, may He make this happen, without any further pain or suffering. Amen….

…We implore you to convey the message to the people in Gaza and Palestine, that there are untold thousands of Jews worldwide and in Palestine who stand with you and who entirely oppose Zionism and the state of “Israel” and bear no responsibility for the actions of the Zionists. Educate your people that when you meet Jewish people, do not consider them your enemy. We all serve the one God.

Once again, we constantly pray — worry and hope for you all.

May we merit to see soon in our days, the total, speedy and peaceful dismantlement of the state of “Israel”. (Source: Neturei Karta)
Posted by Kashmiri Nomad at 18:53:00
Labels: Israel , Jews , Terrorism
Anonymous says:
Yesterday, 5:49:17 AM
“The truth of the matter is that until the 19th century, religious Jews, even those who wanted the establishment of a Jewish State, were opposed to such a State being established in the Holy Land.

Then the secular Jew Hertzl came along and convinced non-religious Jews and later even many religious Jews that Zionism–the establishment of a Jewish State in the Holy Land–was the way forward.

After World War II, Western nations, hoping to assuage their guilt over their inaction or even complicity in the Shoa, made it possible for Hertzl’s secular, “political Zionism” to be imposed on the people of the Holy Land.

Sixty years later, this blasphemy before the Face of Hashem continues to poison the Holy Land. The modern State of Israel is NOT Zion, is not the land to which Moses led the Hebrew Children. The secular government of modern Israel is usurper. It has no validity in the sight of the Almighty. The throne of King David is vacant and will remain so until the Messiah comes.

The radical settler movement claims to base their policies on the Torah are bogus. They twist and pervert true Judaism. Some of their Rabbis justify the massacre of innocents in Gaza by trying to invoke collective guilt.

The only times in the past when it was Hashem’s will that entire collectivities were to be destroyed, the Almighty himself acted directly or he sent a Prophet to reveal his commandment.

The savagery now being wrought by the Israeli Defense Forces is NOT a act of Hashem; it is a blasphemy and a violation of the Torah.

Our Father Abraham held himself to a very high standard. He feared that he might have killed innocent people during the wars he waged (described in Genesis 14). According to midrash Tanhuma:

“Abraham excoriated himself mercilessly saying, ‘Perhaps among those whom I have killed there were some righteous men…’ (Tanhuma 3:14 on Gen. 15:1 )

The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing is encapsulated in the prohibition towards the end of the Torah:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

This moral and religious norm appears elsewhere, in the Tanakh. For example, the prophet Ezekiel warns that:

“The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the rigor the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself alone.” (Ezekial 18:20)

‘Sanctuary’ exhibits the brilliant variety of clothing from the Muslim world
By Sebastian Smee
Globe Staff / January 2, 2009

PROVIDENCE – White, because it signifies modesty, humility, and piety, is what Muslim pilgrims wear to Mecca. White has nothing to hide. “The best of your clothes are white,” said the Prophet Mohammed (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam).

SARTORIAL SANCTUARY: Clothing and Tradition in the Eastern Islamic World At: Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence, through April 26. 401-454-6500, www.risdmuseum.org

But if this suggests to you that a show about clothing traditions across the Islamic world might be a sterile and colorless affair, think again. For over the centuries, Muslims have also embraced a counter-tradition that accommodates various amounts of pomp and ostentation. “When God bestows benefaction upon one of his servants,” says the best-known expression of this tradition, “He wishes the physical sign of that benefaction to be visible on him.”

In a small but eloquent display at the Rhode Island School of Design Museum, “Sartorial Sanctuary: Clothing and Tradition in the Eastern Islamic World” examines both the restraint and the sumptuousness of customary Islamic dress.

The exhibition, organized by assistant curator of textiles and costumes Kate Irvin, begins and ends with two stereotypical items of clothing. The first, which kicks off the half of the exhibition devoted to men’s clothing, is a red-and-white checked headcloth, of the kind lately associated with the slur “towelhead.”

Worn all over the Arabian peninsula, it’s a style of headwear that predates Islam: The red and white pattern is an abstraction of Mesopotamian motifs for fishing nets and wheat, while the “agal,” or rope, used to keep the cloth in place evolved from camel hobbles used by the Bedouins. It may be ubiquitous now, but it only replaced the turban as the dominant form of Arab headdress in the mid-19th century, and for reasons more to do with national identity than religion.

Ending the section devoted to women, meanwhile, is a full-length dress overlaid by a face-covering veil that extends to the waist. It was bought in Afghanistan shortly before the Taliban came to power. Designed to cover as much of the body and face as possible, it is typical of the outfits many Westerners perceive as grossly repressive to women.

How strange, then, that the outfit is in a shade of purple that would put a Roman cardinal to shame, and that the dress is pleated in a way that Issey Miyake might admire.

It turns out that these two garments were bought in 1977 at the Kabul Intercontinental Hotel by Dr. John N. Loomis, who donated them to the RISD Museum. Loomis estimates that 90 to 95 percent of the women he saw in Kabul that year were heavily veiled and that, of these, most wore black, brown, and beige. However, about a quarter of them wore bright colors such as this, and many of the garments were fancily pleated.

The contentious veil, it turns out, was originally an item of dress imported from India or Persia, and was long associated with the prerogatives of the urban upper class (veils require more fabric, and more fabric means more expense). Ever since, veils have been alternately enforced on religious grounds or freely chosen. What this outfit makes possible to see is why a woman might choose it.

What I love about Islamic design, in clothes as in textiles, is the combination of sumptuousness and restraint. The best of it seems to hold the two opposing impulses in perfect equilibrium, so that even as we feel seduced by extravagant materials or rhapsodic ornamentation, we feel conscious of a withholding impulse, or a concern for harmony that suggests a kind of spiritual restraint.

One marvels to learn, for instance, that even as great industries producing some of the world’s finest, most luxurious textiles developed in the Muslim world in the centuries after Mohammed’s death, curbs continued to be imposed by custom: Silk, for instance, in some cultures, could be worn and displayed but should not touch the skin.

Likewise, it is fascinating to learn that it could take months to collect enough camel hair for the expensive man’s cloak, or “bisht,” on display here. And yet, apart from its subtle gold trim, the garment is plainest brown and completely devoid of fuss.

One ravishing display case contains three cloaks from far-apart cultures, each connected by the ancient trade route known as the Silk Road. One is Syrian, another is from Morocco, and the third is from India. All are in modest shades of white or cream but decorated with arabesques, palmettes, and other vegetable patterns, mostly in glittering gold brocade. The effect is of a continuous beauty, at once uncentralized and infinite, that possesses a spiritual dimension for anyone willing to see it.

Several items here are simply among the most beautiful items of clothing I have seen. (Interestingly, most of them – but not all – were designed to be worn by men.) One is a 19th-century man’s robe from Kashmir. The fabric is brown goat hair, but it is embroidered with an evenly distributed field of flowers of astonishing variety and resplendent color.

Another is a recent version of one of Uzbekistan’s most famous and distinctive products, the “chapan,” a quilted man’s robe made from fabric that is tie-dyed before weaving (the technique is called “ikat”), creating blurry, bleeding-edged patterns. The robe here was made in 2000 by Yulnara Atanaazarova. It is dominated by two hues: an ethereal purple and a flaxen yellow, complementaries that are lent luster by localized outbreaks of turquoise, red, and hot pink.

Muslims have a saying: “Lilah al-baqi,” or “what remains belongs to God.” Visible beauty, in other words, has the right to be extolled, but only to the extent that it reveals its own fragility, its transience. The only permanent reality, or “baqa,” is invisible.

This belief, so fundamental to Islamic aesthetics, helps to explain why many Muslim expressions of beauty have an ephemeral quality. They feel playful or weightless, as if relieved of gravity, in all its senses. They often find their most beautiful expression in forms that are similarly ephemeral – in carpets and silks that can be folded up and put away, or in clothes, which may be worn one day and tossed in a chest the next.

That said, if I owned the 19th-century Egyptian woman’s robe, or “yelek,” on display here I would do my utmost to keep it on permanent display. This long, slim outfit bearing evidence of Ottoman influence (the Ottomans conquered Egypt in 1517) is embroidered with red, blue, and gold silk flowers arranged in taut, vertical columns and looks, to me, unbelievably suave.

What I love about Islamic design, in clothes as in textiles, is the combination of sumptuousness and restraint. The best of it seems to hold the two opposing impulses in perfect equilibrium, so that even as we feel seduced by extravagant materials or rhapsodic ornamentation, we feel conscious of a withholding impulse, or a concern for harmony that suggests a kind of spiritual restraint.
Discuss
COMMENTS (0)

SARTORIAL SANCTUARY: Clothing and Tradition in the Eastern Islamic World At: Rhode Island School of Design Museum, Providence, through April 26. 401-454-6500, www.risdmuseum.org

One marvels to learn, for instance, that even as great industries producing some of the world’s finest, most luxurious textiles developed in the Muslim world in the centuries after Mohammed’s death, curbs continued to be imposed by custom: Silk, for instance, in some cultures, could be worn and displayed but should not touch the skin.

Likewise, it is fascinating to learn that it could take months to collect enough camel hair for the expensive man’s cloak, or “bisht,” on display here. And yet, apart from its subtle gold trim, the garment is plainest brown and completely devoid of fuss.

One ravishing display case contains three cloaks from far-apart cultures, each connected by the ancient trade route known as the Silk Road. One is Syrian, another is from Morocco, and the third is from India. All are in modest shades of white or cream but decorated with arabesques, palmettes, and other vegetable patterns, mostly in glittering gold brocade. The effect is of a continuous beauty, at once uncentralized and infinite, that possesses a spiritual dimension for anyone willing to see it.

Several items here are simply among the most beautiful items of clothing I have seen. (Interestingly, most of them – but not all – were designed to be worn by men.) One is a 19th-century man’s robe from Kashmir. The fabric is brown goat hair, but it is embroidered with an evenly distributed field of flowers of astonishing variety and resplendent color.

Another is a recent version of one of Uzbekistan’s most famous and distinctive products, the “chapan,” a quilted man’s robe made from fabric that is tie-dyed before weaving (the technique is called “ikat”), creating blurry, bleeding-edged patterns. The robe here was made in 2000 by Yulnara Atanaazarova. It is dominated by two hues: an ethereal purple and a flaxen yellow, complementaries that are lent luster by localized outbreaks of turquoise, red, and hot pink.

Muslims have a saying: “Lilah al-baqi,” or “what remains belongs to God.” Visible beauty, in other words, has the right to be extolled, but only to the extent that it reveals its own fragility, its transience. The only permanent reality, or “baqa,” is invisible.

This belief, so fundamental to Islamic aesthetics, helps to explain why many Muslim expressions of beauty have an ephemeral quality. They feel playful or weightless, as if relieved of gravity, in all its senses. They often find their most beautiful expression in forms that are similarly ephemeral – in carpets and silks that can be folded up and put away, or in clothes, which may be worn one day and tossed in a chest the next.

That said, if I owned the 19th-century Egyptian woman’s robe, or “yelek,” on display here I would do my utmost to keep it on permanent display. This long, slim outfit bearing evidence of Ottoman influence (the Ottomans conquered Egypt in 1517) is embroidered with red, blue, and gold silk flowers arranged in taut, vertical columns and looks, to me, unbelievably suave.

Sebastian Smee can be reached at ssmee@globe.com
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Dr Syed Javed Hussain

Israel has struck Gaza again. This time more than 275 peoples including innocent men, women, and children have been killed. Around 600 people have been injured, a majority of them being in serious condition. Six months old ceasefire between Hamas and Israel , that ended last week, has resulted in the mass murder of innocent Gazans. Israeli propaganda machinery is already working overtime to justify its barbaric act. Israel is very responsive to holocaust which is embedded deep into the psyche of its leaders; hence no amount of human casualties can shake their toughened sensitivities: they remain the wronged party. The myth created around holocaust, which finally benefited Zionists enabling them to create a country in the heart of the lands of Islam, has hardened Israeli leadership to the extent of being diabolical.

In the last six months when there was ceasefire, Israel did not allow any inflow of things that were essential to maintain life and social fabric of society. There were no fuel supplies, essential foodstuff, medicines and surgical tools for hospitals etc. Further, cash starved Gazan administration was not able to repair civil amenities which were destroyed by Israel in its earlier attacks before the ceasefire. Israel never respected the ceasefire agreement and avidly continued with the blockade of Gaza and its policy of collective punishment. All the time while blaming Hamas for the firing of rockets from Gaza, Israel forgets that they are a nation under siege/occupation and under the human right charter of the UN they have the right to fight for their independence. They have become violent now and are firing rockets, even though one may not agree with their tactics, because they have exhausted all political means to end Israeli occupation.

A couple of days ago, Hamas hinted at renewing the ceasefire, however, it did no get any response from Israel . In fact, Israel does not want to deal with an Islamist party. In cahoots with most disgraced American president in its history, George W. Bush, Zionist leaders want to neutralize any Islamist movement/identity on Israeli borders. Earlier they tried to neutralize Hezbollah and failed, since then they have been trying to neutralize Hamas in Gaza. Secular Al-Fatah under Abbass has the same objective. Mutual incrimination of the secular and Islamist elements in Palestine have encouraged Israel to attack Gaza so blatantly, disrespecting all human rights considerations.

Commenting upon Israeli attack and innocent loss of life, Mr. Abbass, has further blamed Hamas for the tragedy as its own policies had brought this on Gazans. It is nothing short of sprinkling salt on fresh wounds. Mr. Abbass expects Hamas to compromise and handover its hard earned leadership role to the most corrupt, ineffective and proven dishonest Al-Fatah, whose overbearing secular posturing have tempted the West as the only viable partner for peace in the Middle East. However, to think that political bickering between two political parties, having the same objective – ending of the occupation, can linger on and do so much damage to internal peace and stability, thereby, providing an excuse to Israel to continue with the occupation as well as do damage to the life, property and peace of the subdued people.

The West as well as intelligentsia within the lands of Islam needs to maintain distinction between Islamists and Extremists, between Freedom fighters and terrorists. They must also be alive to the fact that terrorism is also a tool that is employed by aggressive governments to keep people under control –the State Terrorism. The obvious examples of Islamists as political force defending their rights and serving their people on popular basis are Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine . There are other Islamist political parties in the lands of Islam that are vying for political powers in Muslim societies. However, Islamic societies in general have not favoured them, as these Islamist parties have, at times, failed to distance themselves form Extremists. This is the only cause of their failure. Otherwise Islam in its pristine glory has the most liberal outlook of society. In the Quran God says, “There is no compulsion in Religion.” 3:256 What does it mean? It means everyone is free to spend the life whatever way one wishes to live, only while doing so he should no be a nuisance to others. Islam does not intervene in the personal life of a nonbeliever. Islam does not force itself on other; it only offers its blessings as a service to humanity.

Since September 11, 2001 , the US has done great disservice to humanity by eliminating the distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. The war on terror under George W. Bush, has been the most inhuman, unscrupulous and unprincipled war in human history. It is high time we maintained that distinction if we still have some humanity lift in us. Freedom fighters can’t be equated with terrorists. One fights for independence and glorifies the greatest human value-liberation- with sacred vows and known intentions. The other is a thief who hijacks an ideology and promotes his own personal agenda to glorify himself committing gross human right violations. In this context we need to have different readings of the liberation movements in Kashmir and Palestine . States suppressing them are the roots of evil, not those who are fighting for their birth right.

—The writer is a noted columnist and analyst presently teaching at a foreign university.

The UN Security Council has called for an immediate end to all violence in Gaza after fresh Israeli air strikes against Palestinian targets have brought the death toll to more than 270 people.

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem and Richard Holt
Last Updated: 8:36AM GMT 28 Dec 2008

Palestinian officials said that 271 Palestinians had been killed in 24 hours of Israeli attacks Photo: Reuters

The air strikes are in response to rocket and mortar attacks fire by Palestinian militants against Israel.

After four hours of talks discussions, the council released a statement saying: “The members of the Security Council expressed serious concern at the escalation of the situation in Gaza and called for an immediate halt to all violence.

“The members called on the parties to stop immediately all military activities.”

The statement also called on all parties to address “the serious humanitarian and economic needs in Gaza.”

It urged them to take necessary measures, including the opening of border crossings, to ensure Gaza’s people were supplied with food, fuel and medical treatment.

Palestinian officials said that 271 Palestinians had been killed in 24 hours of Israeli attacks in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Since the operation began, one Israeli had been killed by Palestinian rocket fire.

The Security Council meeting was convened at the request of Libya, the only Arab country on the council.

At least 200 Palestinians were killed earlier on Saturday after Israel launched the heaviest air strikes ever seen in the Gaza Strip, hitting scores of targets linked to the militant Islamist movement, Hamas.

The human toll ranks among the highest for a single day in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

This day of bloodshed ended any hope of immediate progress in the peace process.

While Israel had been warning for days of action against Gaza’s militants, the scale and intensity of the attack, code-named Operation Cast Lead, was unexpected.

For the first time, Israel has attacked not just militants ordering or taking part in operations but members of the security forces and any buildings connected with them.

Every known police station, arms store and headquarters building in Gaza, which has been ruled by Hamas since June 2007, was attacked, regardless of whether they were occupied. A passing out ceremony for new police officers was struck, killing around 40 cadets.

Nightmarish scenes were played out through as mangled bodies arrived at hospitals to be collected by grief-stricken relatives. Israeli sources said that 50 targets were struck by 60 jet fighters in the first raid, beginning at around 11.40am. A second wave then attacked militants attempting to retaliate by launching rockets at Israel.

After nightfall, still more air attacks were reported in the south of the Gaza, this time against a metal foundry. But militants fired at least 40 rockets at Israel, including one that hit a house in the town of Netivot, killing one man.

Witnesses said men were killed in the east of Gaza City while they were preparing to fire rockets towards Israel.

Two other Palestinians were wounded in the attack, while another man wounded in an earlier Israeli air strike died of his injuries, according to a medical source.

Locals said that Israeli helicopters also fired missiles late Saturday on four metals factories in the city. Israel says such factories are used to build or store rockets for firing on the Jewish state.

A new Israeli army toll late Saturday said that more than 70 rockets or mortar shells were fired against Israel in response to Saturday’s massive air strikes, killing one and injuring four people.

A Hamas spokesman warned that the militant group would “unleash hell” in response to the strikes.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, warned that air attacks would continue until the threat of militants firing rockets into Israel had been dealt with once and for all. “The operation will go on and be intensified as long as necessary,” said Mr Barak. “The battle will be long and difficult, but the time has come to act and to fight.”

Other Israeli officials made clear the operation was not over and gave warning of continuous attacks.

Nine Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza since it withdrew all settlers and soldiers from the territory in September 2005.

Over the same period, at least 1,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in Gaza, according to figures compiled by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.

Israel’s decision to act came after a six-month truce with Hamas, which ran out on Dec 19.

With a general election due in February, Israel’s leadership did not want to give any appearance of appeasing Hamas. When the rocket fire against Israeli towns resumed, they went for the military option.

A ground invasion was ruled out because of fears of Israeli casualties. The national security cabinet ordered an unprecedented air assault.

Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Fatah leader and president of the Palestinian national authority, who is based not in Gaza but in the West Bank, condemned the assault as “criminal” and called for the international community to intervene.

Gordon Brown expressed “deep concern”, calling on Hamas to stop rocket attacks and Israel to “meet its humanitarian obligations” and “do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties”.

The Prime Minister added: “There is a pre-eminent need for renewal of a comprehensive settlement for the Israel-Palestine dispute in 2009.” Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, called for an immediate ceasefire and urged “everybody to exert maximum restraint”.

Egypt condemned the Israeli raids and opened its border with Gaza to allow casualties to be treated inside its hospitals.

A White House spokesman appeared to place greater blame on Hamas. “Hamas’s continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop,” said Gordon Johndroe. But he added that Israel should “avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza.”

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said he was “deeply alarmed” by Israel’s air attack and appealed “for an immediate halt to all violence”.

Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, pointed to the constant rocket attacks launched by Palestinian militants in Gaza at civilian targets.

“Israeli citizens have been under the threat of daily attack from Gaza for years. Only this week – hundreds of missiles and mortars shells were fired at Israeli civilian communities including the firing of 80 missiles on a single day,” she said.

“Until now, we have shown restraint. But today there is no other option than a military operation. We need to protect our citizens from attack through a military response against the terror infrastructure in Gaza. This is the translation of our basic right to self defence.”

Miss Livni asked for the support of Israel’s allies for an operation she defended as necessary to safeguard civilians against the threat of rocket attacks carried out by Hamas operatives.

“Israel expects the support and understanding of the international community, as it confronts terror, and advances the interest of all those who wish the forces of peace and coexistence to determine the agenda of this region,” she said.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it evacuated all its settlers and dismantled their homes. The government believes this was an essential gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of its commitment to the two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians.

Israel has accused Hamas of squandering its opportunity by allowing rocket attacks to take place from Gaza, especially after its capture of the territory last year.

Thousands of Israelis have fled areas near to Gaza.

Source:

by courtesy & © 2003 Mohamed Khodr

Comments 10 | Recommend 0

Lawn Griffiths, Tribune