Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
23rd February 2007
Central Hall, Westminster,
London
[Opening Dua]

People have been here a long time, we lost some people, they just either had to go and catch the tube, or they had something on the tube they wanted to watch or something, I don’t know.

I wanted to make a few remarks. First of all, I want to address a few issues that I think are important and perhaps not for most of the people in the room, but for other people and I would like you to convey this to the other people. There are people that have been talking about the work that is being done by Fuad Nahdi, by Abdul-Rehman, by Fareena and by the other groups that have been involved in this effort; that this is a government propaganda; that these are stooges of the government of England. I’m sure some of you have heard some of these things, so I want to say a few things about them.

First of all, there’s a verse in the Qur’an that is very interesting to me, and probably to most of you, [verse in Arabic] ‘If people incline towards reconciliation, incline with them’ Wa tawakal alAllah ‘and trust in God’ inahu Huwa Samiul Aleem. [Arabic verse] When they want to incline towards peace, you incline towards peace; and if they want to deceive you, if there’s some hidden ulterior motive, God is enough for you. Don’t worry about that, that’s not your concern. Peace is so precious, that anybody who reaches out for peace, you should reach out with them for peace.

And there is another thing I want to say about this government – who do you think this government is? They are called civil servants. Who do you think pays their money? Where do you think this money is from that the government has? It’s from the pockets of the British people, who pay taxes. There are 2 million Muslims in this country paying taxes; they don’t want a little refund?

No seriously, I mean, I’m just amazed at this. Abu Hanifah said, [Arabic] The wealth of the non-Muslims, if they want to give it to you, it is permissible to take it.

Now, I’m going to be honest with you – I did not want to come here. I was in California; my wife is a brilliant cook. Really. There’s no hotel food that compares to her food. It’s not why I married her, she learnt to cook after I married her; but she’s a brilliant cook. Her food is very good. It’s nourishing, I feel good when I eat her food. And she cooks it with love. You can’t get that in a restaurant. I can taste the anxiety in their food, I can taste the anger of the cook. My cells feel it.

And I also have really good tea. I come to England, I buy the tea and I take it back. I have a big supply. My tea is much better than the tea they give at any hotel I’ve ever stayed at in England. I learned how to make tea from Abdul Adheem Sanders, excellent tea-maker. If anybody has ever had his tea, they’ll know what I mean.

So, why leave the comfort of my home? Because my Shaykh, Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, asked me to. He said this is an important thing, so come. So I came. I’m tired, and whenever I get tired I become more open, because my defences are down.

I’m going to tell you some true things. I used to not like the English people. Seriously, I thought they were cynical. You know, the English people, the way they roll their eyes, there’s a certain way; there’s a smirk that comes on their mouths when you say something. Really very subtle things that you notice about the English. You know there’s a cynicism that’s particularly Anglo-Saxon in its nature and it’s really interesting. But I’ll tell you something – I have come to love these people, and for a number of reasons. I want to talk about this because it’s very important for all of you who are living here. This country is an amazing country. It has done many wrongs, and we could bring an Irish person here tonight and they could talk for hours about what this country has done wrong. We could bring Welsh people, they might not be as eloquent as the Irishmen, but they could also talk for several hours about what the English have done to them. And, you could bring some of my tribe, from Scotland, really, you could bring some of them down, and they could give you with a nice brogue, they’ll let you know what the English did. From Edward Longshanks on, or even before that. They’ll tell you about the English. But each one of these people has been challenged to learn to live with the English. Really. The Scots are very civil; some of them want independence, quite a number of them, but how are they going about gaining that independence? They are not blowing up things. They have other ways of doing it. The Welsh de-evolution, it’s been a long time. They say the Welsh are the Irish who couldn’t swim. You know it’s been a long time since the Welsh have been occupied. Much longer than Palestine. But the Welsh are a gentle people. I love the Welsh and I love the Irish. But it’s taken me a while to really appreciate the subtleties of these different cultures.

And so I really want to say, there’s two ways that you can live in your life; one is the way of husn dhann – having a good opinion; and the other way is the way of su’a dhann. Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah doesn’t tolerate ghiba; it’s one of the things that I love about his majlis. You can’t say anything about anybody, even people that you should say things about, he won’t let you say anything about them. Years ago, we were at a gathering and somebody mentioned something about Jamaludin al Afghani, who died a long time ago, two centuries ago. So somebody said something and Shaykh Abdullah said something I have never forgotten. He said [Arabic] ‘Have a good opinion of the dead, we’ve tried having bad opinions, we’ve tested it as a way of being in the world.’ Our Prophet, Salallahu alayhi wa sallam, had the best of opinions. Whenever the Quraish reached out for him, he reached out for them. Mu’awiyah (we know in the Arabic tradition they call it Sh’ar Mu’awiyah, the hair of Mu’awiyah) is one of the most brilliant politicians in human history. He is a case study. The leadership secrets of Mu’awiyah would be a bestseller. Mu’awiyah said. ‘If there was a hair of a relationship between me and somebody else, if he pulled on it, I would release; if he would release, I would pull. A hair of relationship; just to keep that opening there, that potential.’

You should be thankful to have people like Mockbul Ali inside the Foreign Office. I have a good opinion of that young man. He’s a bright young man and has good intentions. He’s there representing your community. You live here, you pay taxes, this is your government. This is not Rawalpindi; this is not Karachi; this is not Cairo. This is not some funny place off in the middle of the Muslim world where if you say anything against the government, suddenly you’re in chains, being dragged away. No. This is a country that you are citizens of; [Arabic verse] ‘I swear by this land and you are a lawful citizen of this land.’

You are citizens; this is not subjection; you are not subjects. The British are citizens and subjects, but this is something superficial. The Queen can’t just arbitrarily send you off to the prison. We should be wary of some of these laws being passed as they are against the essential nature of this country, and we have to remind the English – ‘You are the people of the Magna Carta; you are the people of Habeas Corpus; this is your tradition – you gave this to the western world. You are the people of John Locke and you are the people of John Wesley, who this glorious hall is named after, one of the greatest reformers in western civilisation, who worked with William Wilberforce.’

I want to tell you about William Wilberforce. This was a man, who from the early twenties was with a group in Clapham. One day, 132 black Africans were thrown overboard on a ship called the Zong. It was a slave ship coming from West Africa to the Americas. It was an English ship. 132 black people were thrown into the ocean and drowned, and this was considered legal by the laws of the land. This group of young people, who still had that spark of hope, recognised how despicable this act was, how unacceptable this act was, and they started a small group of abolitionists, to end the slave trade. At a time when almost every single Member of Parliament was supported by the slave lobby. Things haven’t changed all that much. But Wilberforce did not give up. He worked day and night – he was an incredible connector; he connected with people all over the country, got people to sign things and he brought these in as a Member of Parliament. He worked with beautiful people like Hannah Moore.

Several years ago I suggested to the Muslim women in this country to start up a Hannah Moore Benevolence Society, because you should know Hannah Moore. You should know who Hannah Moore is. She’s a beautiful Englishwoman. She was stunningly beautiful in her looks. When she came to London, she took everybody by storm. She was a playwright, she was a literary figure, she was a poetess, she was all of these things, but in the end she had a spiritual conversion and she became one of the staunchest anti-slavery spokespeople in this country. She started night schooling – one of her greatest contributions.

This is England to me. England is not the tyranny of Ireland; that’s the worst of human nature that you find in any civilisation. That’s not England to me. England to me is these incredible ideals embodied by people like Florence Nightingale. I love Florence Nightingale. I have studied and read all of her works. I told my wife – you’re the only woman I know who is jealous of a woman who died over a hundred years ago. I fell in love with Florence Nightingale. Florence Nightingale said England needs to go to the Sufis. She wrote this in her book. She said England needs to go to the Sufis. Florence Nightingale entered the Sultan Hassan Mosque, where Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa gives the khutbah, and she said for the first time, she found what she was looking for. She said, I never found this in the churches of England. She said, I found equality, and that there was a place for women in this religion.

You know, they chased her out with a stick, and yet, she said, I don’t blame them. She went to Al-Azhar, she was struck by the spirituality, and she says in her diary, ‘I’ve heard in my heart something telling me turn to Mecca, face Mecca, face Mecca, all of humanity is one, we are all under One God, and there is salvation for all of us. I kept hearing in my heart there is no God but God, believe in the One true God.’

She was a Unitarian, she was not a Trinitarian. This is Florence Nightingale, one of the great icons of the British people. This was a woman who was given a Qilada, this extraordinary medal by the Sultan Abdul Majid of the Ottoman Empire because she came and served the Turkish soldiers that were victims of the Crimean War as well as she served the British soldiers, because she didn’t differentiate between people. This is England to me. This is the England I want to see. This is the England I want to remind these people of, who they are. They’ve forgotten who they are. These are the people of the great reforms of the western civilisation, and we of all people should be reminding them. We share these things with you. You’ve forgotten who you are like we’ve forgotten who we are. This is the age of senility. We’re all in spiritual dementia. This is the old age, the dotage of humanity, and we need reminders. We’ve got collective Alzheimer’s Disease, and some of us have “sometimer’s” disease – we forget and then we remember. This is England to me, and it flows in my blood; I have ancestors from this land, this is my qawm. Ya qawmee – this is what every prophet (saw) said to his people, Oh my people. They weren’t following his way, they were fighting and they were opposing him. Ya qawmee, [Arabic] He didn’t say [Arabic]. ‘No you’re wrong, I want good for you [Arabic] I just want to help, as much as I’m able to.’ This is our teaching, to go out and to engage these people.

I was on an airplane, and this man came up to me, and he said, ‘Brother, I love your work!’ I said, “Masha’Allah, thank you so much.” He said, “No, no, really, its just so amazing what you did, it’s incredible…Let me ask you one question.” I said sure, and he said “Why did you give up singing?” So after I sang him a few bars of Peace Train, one of my favourite songs, I told him I lost my voice. No, I said that’s Yusuf Islam! We have the same name. There’s three Yusufs tonight, it’s Yusuf muka’ab, Yusuf to the third power.
_____________

But I want to end with a story about one of my favourite people. Who can tell me, and not from the Ulema, who can tell me who Sayyidina Umar’s favourite poet is. People say “Sayyidina Umar liked poetry?! Didn’t he just listen to the Qur’an?” The favourite poet of Umar ibn al Khattab was Zuhair ibn Abi Sulma. Who is Zuhair ibn Abi Sulma? He is the father of Ka’ab ibn Zuhair, the man who wrote the Burda (The Poem of the Cloak). He is also the father of Ka’ab’s younger brother who became Muslim before Ka’ab. Zuhair did not meet the Prophet, he died one year before. But I want to tell you a little bit about why Zuhair wrote his mu’alaqa and I want to use this as a metaphor for what we need to do.

The Arabs call something ayam al arab. Ayam al arab are the days of the Arabs. That’s why Allah changed ayam al arab to ayamillah. [Arabic] because the Arabs had their days, Allah has His days. The days of the Arabs were momentous things that happened to them, they say [Arabic], they used to write their history in their poetry.

There was a war called harb ud Dahis. You know who Dahis is? It’s amazing we know his name. Dahis was a horse. It’s called the War of Dahis, the Horse. And Dahis was owned by a man named Zuhair ibn Uqais al Absi. He had a friend who was from the Dhibyan tribe – Hudaifa bin Malik, who had a horse called Ghabra. Now, Hudaifa was very jealous of Dahis, the horse of Zuhair, so he asked him to race. So the two horses, they decided they’d race a hundred arrow shots – they shoot one time, two times, for a hundred times and then they race. Well, the horses started out, and Ghabra was winning, but once it got into the heavy sand, Dahis took the lead. There was a group of Dhibyanites who were hiding in ambush, and they ambushed Dahis and stopped him from winning the race, so Ghabra won. So what was the bet? A hundred camels. So Hudaifa said “Give me a hundred camels because you lost.” And then the Abs people said “No, we saw the ambush, he didn’t lose. You lost; you cheated, give us a hundred camels.” They kept on and on and on.

Finally, Zuhair ibn Qais got so angry, he killed the brother of Hudaifa. He threw a spear at him and killed him. That started the war between ‘Abs and Dhibyan. You know how long that war lasted? Forty years – over a stupid horse race.

Much later – after many many people were killed from ghatafan, to the point where you know what Zuhair ibn Qais ended up doing? He went to Oman, became a Christian and spent the last days of his life weeping over the war he started. Because he said he could never look at anybody from his tribe, because he had caused so much suffering and bloodshed amongst these people.

So, what happens? There was a man, Al-Harith Al Absi, Harith ibn Awf. This man asked his cousin, Kharijah bin Sinan, “Which tent of the Arabs do you think would not let me marry his daughter?” And she said, “Definitely Aws Atta’i – he would never let you marry his daughter.” So what does he do? This is a typical male problem. He gets on his camel and he heads for this guy’s tent to ask for his daughter. Of all the things he can’t get, that’s the thing he wants – this is a human problem. So he gets there, and this man Aws comes out and says, “Good morning. What are you doing up here, ya Sayyid al Arab?” Al Harith said “I want to marry your daughter.” Aws said “Get the hell out of here.” I mean really, that’s pretty much what he said! This made Al Harith furious and he left.

So what does Aws do? He goes into the house and his wife asks him “What happened, who was that?”

He says “It was Al Harith bin Awf, As Sayyid al Arab.”

“What did he want?”

“He wanted to marry one of my daughters.”

She said, “If he is the Sayyid al Arab, why didn’t you marry on of the daughters to him?”

He said “That’s a good point, it’s just that he caught me off guard and I was angry.”

And she said, “Well go make amends.”

He said, “I can’t. What’s done is done.”

She said, “What do you mean what’s done is done? You mess everything up and then you’re not going to go fix it? Go out there!”

And he says, “What do I say?”

“Just tell him you got him in a bad mood. And tell him to come back and we’ll work things out.”

So he goes, and Al Harith initially is angry, but he comes.

What does Aws do? He says, “I want you to choose one of my daughters. I have three daughters.”

The first one comes out. She says, “I don’t want to marry him.” Remember, Arab women had no rights.

He says, “Why not?”

She says, “ First of all I’m not that good-looking, I’m not his cousin, and he’s going to take me far away and he’ll grow tired of me, divorce me, and then what?”

So he says, “Good point. Bring the second daughter.”

She comes. “I want you to marry this man. What do you say?”

“Look, my first sister is better looking then I am, I don’t have any talents, and I don’t want to go far away from you because who is going to protect me if he gets feisty with me?”

“Good point.”

Finally the hope is on the last daughter, the little one, Buhaysa. She comes in, and he says, “Listen, Al Harith wants to marry you. What do you say?

She said, “ Well, given that I’m the most attractive of my sisters, I’m extremely talented, and I have a most distinguished father, I don’t see how he could refuse me, and then if he treats me badly, God will definitely let him have it!”

So he says great, and they get married. As they’re moving out, they set up a tent next to the house, he goes in to consummate the marriage (that’s a nice word for things people do on their wedding night). So when he gets in there, she says, “What kind of a woman do you take me for? We’re right next to my father and my brothers. Let’s go.” So they ride off and a little way out, he tells his cousin, “Listen you go up ahead, and I’ll catch up with you later.” He stops by the side and sets up the tent. She says, “What kind of woman do you think I am? This is the way people who take women in wars behave! Take me to your home, slaughter sheep, make a big festival!”

He thinks, “This is a high minded woman.” So he takes her and then his cousin says, “Did you do what you wanted to do?” He said no, and explains to him. So they get back, and he does a big festival. When it’s all done, he comes in, “How’s things now?”

She said, “I want to ask you one question. What kind of a man are you? I thought you were a man of honour but I want to ask you one question: How is it that you can delight in women when there are people, Arabs, right now killing each other over a horse race? If you want me as a wife, go out and spread peace amongst these men, and end this bloodshed.”

He goes out and tells his cousin, and the cousin says, “This is a high minded woman, and she will give you great sons, so let us go and do this.” They went out and got the Abs and the Dhibyan to agree that if they were to count all of the dead, whoever had the most killed, these two men would pay 3000 camels from their own wealth – to end this war.

And this is when Zuhair wrote his mu’alaqa in praise of these two men, for what they did. But I think it’s Buhaysa that he should have written a mu’alaqa about, because that is where it has to come from. It’s the women in our homes – they are the one who can change this situation more than anybody else. Our women need to be like Buhaysa and get our men squared away. I really mean that. You are the vicegerents of God.

Extremism is here to stay folks. This is the most extreme society, and I’m talking about the whole globe right now. We’re in the most extreme conditions in human history. We’ve got extreme eating. When I grew up, small was like this, medium was like that, and large…..Now, that’s medium! That’s extreme eating. I used to eat with 10 people around a plate. And now people are walking around, unable to control themselves anymore. They are having to take out Victorian seats in the theatres of England because the American fat behinds can’t fit in them anymore. This is our reality – we’re extreme. We’re eating extreme.

Look at the extreme sports in this country. You know what Sky Television says? It says ‘If your religion is football, then worship with us.’ They call us idiots because our community kill people over what somebody said about the Prophet (saw) and yet they kill each other because some football team beat another football team.

There are sufaha everywhere, but really, what is more stupid, to kill over a stupid football game or to kill because the greatest person in your life has been desecrated, denigrated? They’re both wrong, but don’t call our people fools and not call your own people fools. This is extremism at its worst. Look at the pornography that they have, the denigration of these poor women. You know, the word in Arabic for oppression is related to the word for prostitute, because prostitutes are the most oppressed human beings on the planet. And there’s sexual slavery all over this planet. Some of the biggest downloads in the Muslim world, on Google, according to their own statistics, is pornography.

What’s happened to people? Really – think about this. We’re in extreme conditions. We need the abolition from our nafs. The Arabs say, [Arabic] The free man is a slave as long as he desires other than God, and the slave is a free man as long as he is content. This is real abolition. This is what William Wilberforce is about – his movement needs to be resurrected, but we need liberation from our own egos.

Jazakumallahu Khairan. It has been an honour. I love you, I love this country. I want to see good for this country. Really. And this Government – there’s much to say about the bad things of this government, and you know my criticism. I’m against the war in Iraq. I want the war to end. I want these British troops home. I don’t want them over there. I don’t want the American troops over there. I am against this – I have always been against it. Really, I am completely against it, on both sides – they’re both unacceptable. It’s terrorism on both sides. They’re both terroristic conditions. You’re terrorising people in their homes, using cluster bombs in Lebanon. Really, this is terrorism, and it needs to be condemned as terrorism. And I condemn it. We all condemn it. So we need to recognise that.

But this Government has much good in it, and our teachers teach us, [Arabic] If you’re in a blessing, watch out, you better guard it, because once you lose it, it’s gone, and disobedience is what causes it to be lost. And the Arabs say that Allah (Most High), He said that, [Arabic] A ni’m, if you don’t recognise them, [Arabic] Losing your blessings is what teaches you your blessings, so before you lose them, count your blessings. [Arabic]

Jazakumallahu khairan. Wasalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson at Cambridge University on 12th October 2008. This presentation is brought to you by The Radical Middle Way Initiative and the Cambridge University Islamic Society.

You can also listen and watch this lecture online.

Al-Salam ‘alaykum.

[Opening du’a]

Prince Qazi is my hero as well, but Mufti Mustafa Ceric has been my hero for a longer time. May Allah protect him and all of us, and continue him in his leadership. To me he is an example to all of us of the kind of leadership that we need, which is real wisdom and steadfastness, in the way of enormous challenges.

We need not just knowledge, but we need this to be able to develop this prophetic character of being able to hold our heads up in dignity but in a humble way, not in an arrogant way. This is the prophetic way, and this is what we see in him and in other leaders who have been such examples for us and have allowed us to move forward and grow in the face of enormous challenges in recent years.

Muslims have always been highly adaptable to diverse situations, which is why Islam is a world religion and not just an Arabian religion. It’s why Muslims have been able to live in all climates and cultures, adopt and adapt, all different language groups, and to make them sacred languages by infusing them with the spirit of the Qur’an. So we need to be able to understand what is needed for our time, and since I’ve had the opportunity to serve the Muslim Community in North America, I’ve had to learn many things that I never thought I would have to learn about. And one of those things is how people receive messages, and what it does to them psychologically, even physiologically, because psychological events have a physiological impact on the brain.

So neuroscience has shown, for example, that when people look at images of someone from their group – a group that they identify with – and that means their ethnic group or their national group – a group that they consider to be ‘their people,’ that when people look at those images they experience that event. That perception is experienced as a trauma, as a psychological trauma. It leaves an impact in the brain. When we perceive things, neurological connections are formed, new connections in the brain are formed. So it’s not just a thought or a memory, as people would have thought in medieval times: that we have images floating around in our brains that can simply be flushed out. But it leaves a real, material, impact on our brain.

What’s important about that? What’s important is that in a world in which we are flooded with images – and traumatic images – we are being changed as human beings, by what we are seeing. And that the flood of negative images, the flood of traumatic images of people being blown up, of people being abused, of people being tortured, is traumatising us in a real way that has caused us as human beings to be unhealthy, and unstable, unless we have a way of dealing with this. Unless we have a way of taking this event and responding to it in a healthy way that forms a healthy brain and a healthy personality. Its why people who are highly compassionate in their close relationships feel compelled to in fact respond in often a very violent way and even transcend their own limits of ethics and morality, in order to protect those they perceive to be their group members, because of this experience of trauma. So we need to really understand what’s happening with human beings in our age, in this age when you are flooded with these negative images in order to respond appropriately.

I’ve spent many years speaking to people about Islam, public groups, audiences, church groups, civic groups, large and small gatherings of people, and what I’ve noticed over the past decade is that, let’s say within the last four or five years, responses to what I have to say have changed. So I would say that ten years ago, non Muslims were generally open to learning. They would acknowledge that they didn’t know anything about Islam or that they knew very little, that they didn’t know Muslims, and so they were open to hearing what we had to say – who we were, how we perceived ourselves and how we defined ourselves. In the last four or five years that has changed.

What I find is that the audiences I speak to have already established a perception of what a Muslim is, what Islam is, and are now very sceptical of what I have to say. I’ve had people stand up in the audience – so imagine this- an ordinary person saying ‘but what you don’t understand about Islam, or what you don’t know about Muslims is this,’ so they are claiming knowledge of Muslims, a knowledge that trumps my knowledge (a knowledge of a professor, a knowledge of someone who’s a leader of a Muslim organisation, who has this experience). And it’s not simply an act of arrogance – they really do believe they have knowledge of Muslims in Islam. So what’s happened? And here again we have to understand how the Muslim mind works.
_______________
There’s something called the ‘anchoring affect’ which is that the first time you hear a piece of information about a new concept or event, that forms the category or the de facto position in your mind with respect to that event or that piece of information. So that anchors the information in your brain and afterwards, everything you hear about that subject will be weighed, measured or compared against that initial piece of information. And so if new information comes in, people will either treat it sceptically, they can change their mind but it takes more work, or they can reject it because it conflicts with what they have already learnt.

So what we’re dealing with now with regard to non-Muslims and their relationship to Islam, is not a blank slate, they are not simply ignorant to Islam – what our scholars would call ‘jahl baseet’ – but they have this complex ignorance, meaning that they think they know. And as I said, it’s not a question simply of arrogance, but we all as human beings, as people that process knowledge in this way, are susceptible to the same thing. With other pieces of information, with new events, people, we also do the same thing. So how can we deal with this? How can we deal with people who have been traumatised by very violent events, who see a continuing reaffirmation of their fear, because of the continuing flood of traumatic images of who they consider to be their people being harmed? And then people who already have in their minds, this information anchored, about what Islam and Muslims are. So how do we deal with them?

But we need to first understand that this is their state of mind, and extend some compassion to them, acknowledging that. Because it’s a state of mind that is fear and that is easily manipulated. So we need to have compassion for people, but also then, with wisdom, guide them to a new understanding. So first – and this is why we constantly find non-Muslims waiting at the end of a two-hour talk about general Islam, to ask one question which is, ‘why have Muslims not denounced terrorism? Why are they not louder about the voices of the extremists?’ and then of course all of us are very frustrated because we do this all the time. We say that we’ve denounced violence and acts of terrorism all the time, but of course that information doesn’t stick in the way that the bad information does. Those images are not traumatic. A benign image is not traumatic so it does not affect the human brain in the same way. It doesn’t stick. You may see a piece of information in which it says that Muslims met, and they spoke and they talked about what we have in common, but you read it and then it’s gone. It’s more of an ephemeral event.

So these statements that we’ve been making, and as Shaykh Ceric said, in our various capacities all these statements and events and documents, they didn’t stick with people. And they were still under the impression that most Muslims were complicit in the statements and extreme actions of those other Muslims. This is why it was important to have a message – a positive, accurate and truthful message – that stuck in people’s minds. We needed a message that would stay there, and lodge in the brain and be able to dislodge the previous information that was anchored there, and therefore one of the reasons why this message is very important. Because it’s a message that sticks. Because it’s written in a way, it’s been presented in a way, which sticks with people. It could easily have been another message; it could have come from other quarters. It’s not necessarily that the precise way this has been written, or the exact numbers of scholars or individuals who signed onto this was the perfect mix. But it’s the one that performs the job the best, and because of that, it’s one that we should all adopt and promote.

The more people that speak about it with its trademark name (I don’t know if its trademark, it should be if not), we should speak about it over and over and over and use a common word, talk about a common word. Because then we will have a message that will stick with people and that will be able to dislodge these former misconceptions. So that’s important. And this is part of strategy in teaching and in giving information. And this is something that Muslims have always understood, that it’s not just about the message, but the form of the message.

Allah subhana wa ta’ala revealed the Qur’an in a beautiful form. It’s not just the information that’s given by Allah subhana wa ta’ala, but it’s the form that the Qur’an was revealed in that made it stick with the people. It is of course God’s word, God’s word revealed in a form that is perfectly receptable to human beings. So we need to understand that the medium, as Marshal McLewin said, is the message. So we need to grab onto to it for that.

I don’t want to take up too much time, so let me say a few other things about the common word.
________________
I think it was also important psychologically for Muslims that show that Muslims can exercise leadership. We’ve been in a defensive position for a long time. And this is not just problematic, not just in terms of psychologically and emotionally draining where we are always having to defend ourselves, but it also shows our lack of setting aside our proper role among humanity, which is that Allah subhana wa ta’ala sent us the message of Islam to be leaders, to be moral and ethical leaders. And we haven’t played that role.

So the fact that this came from the Muslim Community, not simply as a response to the Pope (because it would have been easy just to respond), but as a new way, a new form of engagement, is very important. Because it’s a reminder to ourselves of our role we need to play on this Earth. And let me say now, that now that it’s clear that we’ve done this, we need to continue to implement it and carry it forward; we should start getting in the habit of being moral and ethical leaders.

If we look at the global economic crisis that’s happening for example, we see that Muslims have not been leaders, and looking at issues of economic justice. Although there have been some very outstanding individuals, in terms of the global economy, we have been followers, which is why a number of Muslim countries will now be dragged down as the United States is drowning the drowning man is pulling down others with him. But here’s an opportunity for Muslims to stand up forward again with leadership; Islamic finance is based on justice and equality and shared risk which is the opposite of financial principles that have dragged the whole world down into this economic crisis. I hope that Muslims will once again rise (Muslims other than myself – this is not my area of expertise but it’s the area of expertise for many others) to the occasion, and show some leadership and say ‘look, there is a better way.’ And the better way is one in which excessive consumption is something that we shun. We want people to improve their quality of life, but in a way that is fair, just and allows people to live in a community mercifully and that also does not do enormous damage to the Earth.

Finally I would like to say, that I cannot but echo more strongly what Shaykh Mustafa Ceric says about the obligation on your part to implement this message. It’s one of the most satisfying things I’ve seen in the last year is the way that in America Christian groups and local communities have responded to this. What’s interesting to me is that across the United States there have been many communities – small churches that have reached out to Muslims in their neighbourhood – wanting to have interfaith engagement. Kind, compassionate and ordinary people, who out of this innate sense of compassion for other human beings reached out to Muslims because they felt that – and saw – that Muslims were under attack and did this as a gesture of kindness and neighbourliness, from their understanding of what a Christian should be. But in response to that intuitive and spontaneous gesture of outrage, there were ideologues in both communities – both in the Muslim Community and Christian Community – who tried to prevent this natural kindness and neighbourliness and compassion from coming together, who said you can’t work or you shouldn’t speak with those people because they’re utterly unlike us.

So our ideology can get in the way of our fitra, our natural kindness, justice and compassion for each other; this natural sense that we do have a connection. That means there needs to be an ideological response, or a theological response, if I can put it in a more positive term. So the common word is very important for that, and for what we’re doing, because look at our leaders – both Muslim and Christian – have said; they’ve affirmed that our outreach to each other is something that is good and that is necessary.

A small community in my neighbourhood, a small community of Franciscans, the Muslim women, and Christian women primarily, had been getting together for coffee and conversation for a number of years. they took this document and the whole community had a receiving/welcoming ceremony for it. It’s a beautiful thing on a very small scale, but in the end, those are the people who are going to protect us, who are going to speak for us, who are our allies, and on a larger scale, in a place like the United States, who are going to vote for those leaders, who are for engaging and dialogue, or who are for conflict and disharmony.

So please, take up the document, take up the challenge, think of all the creative ways you can implement it, and I believe it will continue to be (and we will see over time) even more important than it was in the beginning.

Thank you.

Al-salam ‘alaykum.

Today’s column is presented as a public service for Muslim readers. Call it a list of Things Not To Say If You Are Muslim. The need for such…

By Leonard Pitts Jr
Syndicated columnist
Today’s column is presented as a public service for Muslim readers. Call it a list of Things Not To Say If You Are Muslim.

The need for such a list is illustrated by a New Year’s Day incident at Washington’s Reagan National Airport. An AirTran Airways flight was delayed two hours and a group of nine Muslims — eight family members and a friend — was refused permission to fly after two teenage girls overheard a member of the group say that sitting near the engines would be particularly unsafe in the event of an accident.

The girls told their parents, who told flight attendants. Next thing you know, 104 passengers are cooling their heels as the plane and all its baggage are rechecked by security officials. Even after the plane was cleared to fly and the group — eight of them native-born U.S. citizens — was determined to be no threat, they were still not allowed back on the plane. They wound up paying for seats on another carrier. AirTran initially refused to apologize for the incident, but quickly backtracked.

So there you have No. 1 on the list of Things Not To Say If You Are Muslim: Do not say anything about air safety. Granted, that’s a staple, albeit morbid, topic for skittish fliers the world over, but you are not “the world over.” You are Muslims in America, post Sept. 11. You may not discuss air safety. Not even to say, “For criminy sake, Malik, take your Valium and shut up; flying is perfectly safe.” If you discuss air safety even to defend it, we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

No. 2. Do not use “gee” words. Do not say jeepers, gee-whiz, Jesus or Jehosophat. Someone listening in may think you said “jihad” and we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

No. 3: Do not say jihad. If you do, we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

No. 4: Do not discuss movie history. Eventually, someone will observe that “Ishtar” was one of Hollywood’s all-time biggest bombs. Someone listening in will report that you plan to blow up Hollywood and we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

No. 5: Do not talk sports. Somebody might say, “Boy, I hate the Dolphins.” Then Homeland Security will have to shut down SeaWorld, Shamu will have to be guarded by unsmiling men in sunglasses … and we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

No. 6: Do not discuss the weather. If someone says, “I can’t believe it’s raining again today” and someone else says, “Weatherman says it’s going to be even worse tomorrow,” and then the first someone says, “Any more of this and we’re all going to drown,” someone listening in will report a plot to blow up the levees and flood the town. And we will have to conclude that you are a terrorist.

Indeed, it occurs to me that it might be easier to list the things that are safe for you to talk about, that won’t make some eavesdropper think you an evil, America-hating outsider. There are two things. The first: lawsuits. There is nothing more reflective of American values than suing the so-and-sos who have mistreated and embarrassed you.

Indeed, one of the detained Muslims told The New York Times, “We have not ruled out the possibility of legal action.” It struck just the right tone, saying to skeptical fellow Americans in no uncertain terms: Hey, we are just like you.

The second thing on the list of safe topics: baseball. Yes, I know what I said about sports. Baseball isn’t sports. It’s hot dogs, blue skies, homeruns, Americana at its most iconic.

Besides, it’s OK to say you hate the Yankees. Most people do.

Yes, you may think it pathetic that Americans have become such a skittish, paranoid lot that you can only talk about lawsuits and baseball without arousing suspicion. But look on the bright side:

Spring training begins next month.

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.’s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: lpitts@miamiherald.com

2009, The Miami Herald

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.

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.

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