How do we Lest to Forget...If we never knew?

Can you adopt a country's history if it isn't your birth or ancestral background?

When you become a citizen of a country, do you absorb its triumphs and tragedies? Does your new country's commemorations become yours?

ANZAC day is something of a sacred day for Australians.  Thousands wake up at dawn on the 25th of April to listen to the solemn, heart wrenching tones of the Last Post, to honour the fallen soldiers of yesteryear and to thank those who continue to dedicate themselves to the defence of our nation.

To be honest though, ANZAC is probably something that holds mixed meaning to those who, like my family, migrated to Australia and do not necessarily have the shared history.

Gallipoli, for example, is a huge part of the ANZAC legend. Yet that campaign was fought against the Ottoman Empire, and many of those troops were  Muslims from Turkey. How does someone, born as a Muslim in Turkey but who grew up in Australia, reconcile that?  Closer to home, how does someone who arrived to Australia perhaps as an Afghan or Iraqi refugee, fleeing from a war in which Australian troops took some part in... how does someone like that be a part of the fabric of the ANZAC story?

This can be construed as treacherous talk, definitely.   War and conflict are hugely emotive issues and often form part of a national identity.  It isn't treacherous though; it is so important that we as Australians get it right.  I am a lowly civilian, I have no history (Alhamdulilah) of war or conflict of any kind to relate to (my family are engineers through and through, and everyone needs engineers!) so can't claim to know the way things should be commemorated or in any way intend to warp the import of the history.  This isn't intended to be sacrilegious, but an opportunity to start a conversation.

I am passionately Australian and to share in what is a huge part of the Australian identity is a must.

So how to relate to and reconcile the history? How do I, as a migrant Australian Muslim, find my value and space in the ANZAC legend?

I look at it as a human.

Often, there is no one truth, nobody who is 'right'...only those 'left' standing.

So rather than dehumanise any 'side' by seeing them as the enemy, I think of our shared history as humans.  I see ANZAC day as an opportunity to commemorate those who chose to give their lives up for a purpose larger than their own.  I chose to pray for, my heart aches for, young lives lost, missed connections, misunderstandings.  For troops who became friends on no-mans-land in downtime only to realise these were the people they were then to kill.  For young people today who go away to fight for something they care about, whether it be a country or a tribe or a even their religious freedom - who am I to judge what is worth fighting for? For those who come back with PTSD and suffer even longer, that sacrifice perhaps less appreciated...

For if ANZAC is about bravery, mateship, fighting for what's right... well we all have our own manifestations of that.  Yes, for many it is about slouch hats and medals, but sitting alongside that surely it is about recognising our humanity as Australians and being grateful for a greater sacrifice.

We do adopt a country's history when we choose to call it our home, because history is part of a nation's identity.  It is what it is. Although we may not remember it, it is our duties to make sure we do not forget.

We humans too often forget the lessons of our past...

***

Edit @ 5:30pm 25th April 2014: 'Turkey' was replaced with 'Ottoman Empire' to reflect the true nature of the conflict.

Speech: IQ^2 Debate (BBC World)

 

On the 7th of November, I had the honour of debating with the likes of Julian Burnside, Uthman Badar and Thomas Keneally on a pretty interesting topic: whether God and His Prophets should be protected against insult.

I was pretty nervous and excited about the affair, as can be seen in blog posts here prior to the event.

The debated was screened on BBC World to an audience of about 70 million on the last weekend of November, and you can check out the video here.

This is the transcript of the speech...

***

God / The All-Compassionate / The All-Merciful / The Source of Peace / The Creator / The Maker of Order / The Shaper of Beauty The Forgiving / The Knowing of All…

And then we have us.  Flawed, fallible, full of passion and fire, and so very…human.

How can we deign to think that we – the creatures that we are – should protect God from insult?

Good evening ladies and gentlemen

The topic we have before us today is ‘that God and His Prophets should be protected against insult’.

Tom Keneally and I effectively are arguing against this hypothesis.  From a definitional point of view, the topic is understood as follows:

‘God’, in monotheistic religions, is taken to mean ‘the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being’.

The word is also sometimes used for emphasis to express a particular emotion, such as “God, what happened here?!” although that is not always approved by everybody.

‘Prophet’ is ‘a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God’.

‘Should’ is used to indicate obligation or duty.

‘Protect’ is to keep safe from harm or injury.

‘Insult’, in its noun form, is a disrespectful or scornful remark.

***

There are a couple of interesting questions that this topic raises.

What (or who) deserves our protection, as individuals and as society?  Should we be protected only from things that will harm or things that have the potential to cause harm?

On the other hand when it comes to insult it must be asked: Is freedom, or freedom of speech absolute?  It clearly isn’t, as the existence of laws, rules and regulations mean that there are levels of restrictions on what we can and cannot express.

What is the difference between freedom of speech and expression, and the allowance for insult or incitement of hatred? What is the difference between the two? If freedoms are not actually absolute but do come with restrictions, what limits do we have? Who upholds these limits?  How does freedom fit around the concepts of responsibility and society?

***

Tom and I will be tackling this topic from different perspectives.

I will address three arguments.

Firstly, I will posit that God, as a supreme being, does not require the protection of mere humans to protect Him from any harm or injury.  Where the damage is being inflicted is on the followers, and so protection, if any, is more about the practitioners of the religion.  Furthermore, if God is known to be above insult, then what is the anger really about? It is there something else going on?

Secondly, I will argue that freedom of expression is important to sustain a functioning, thriving, growing society and that said freedom is protected within religions.  This does however, come with important caveats if we are to live in a functioning civilisation.

Thirdly, I will wrap up by addressing violence as a response to insult.  This is unequivocally unacceptable, although perhaps unfortunately, understandable.  I will humbly suggest that the end does not justify the means, and that in any response to insult, the best examples should be followed.

Tom will then continue by talking about how the concepts of blasphemy and sacrilege, and punishments for them, are not viable in a ‘free speech’ society and how mutual respect is the only ultimate guarantee of respect for God and the Prophets.

***

The concept of ‘protection’ brings to mind a dynamic whereby the strong protect the weak and those with power protect the powerless.  Do we honestly think that we can protect God and His Prophets? For the insult to be incitement to hatred and beyond, the recipient would be harmed by it.  God and His Prophets are surely above our mere words…

So what is going on here then, beneath the anger at an insult?

When people stand against insult, mockery and derision of God and His Prophets it is unlikely due to the fact that they think the words will cause harm or injury directly.  It is more likely a reflection of the pain they have felt due to what they love and revere being treated with contempt and ridicule.

Mockery and derision are manifestations of a disrespect and a lack of sensitivity.  God and His Prophets shouldn’t necessarily be ‘protected’ themselves, rather, we should focus as a society on respecting people, as we are the ones who feel the pain and hurt.  If we are to live in a civilised society, a level of respect towards what others deem sacred is critical.

There is also the added factor of where the insult is coming from and its intent.  Reactions in the Muslim community, for example, that may seem disproportionate may be exacerbated by what some regard as worsening attitude towards Muslims by, dare I say it, the West.  That frustration may manifest itself in a grievance towards free speech.

What is it we are trying to achieve? If it is a civilised society where we all respect one another’s sacred beliefs, is the any protection truly going to be the key or will it be a band aid forcing attitudes underground?

***

My second point touches on the universal concept of freedoms, and more specifically, freedom of speech and expression.

It’s a freedom that cannot be understated, and it is enshrined in the Universal declaration of Human rights, in article 19.  It is why we are able to be here and I am able to have this debate.

There is danger is presenting religion and free speech as mutually exclusive, as incompatible.  Without freedom of expression, which is a bedrock of democracy, open discussion of ideas becomes difficult.

However, if an insult comes with an intent to incite hatred then it moves out of the realm of simple freedom of speech.   I would argue that incitement to hatred is a different beast altogether.  That’s not an insult, it is a vindictive act driven by altogether sinister motivations.

Freedom of expression comes with a level of personal responsibility.  We are all individually responsible for our intentions, choices, sayings and actions in the community that we live in.

There shouldn’t be a need for protection because individuals who practice free speech should bear the responsibilities of their expression.

***

With that, I come to my third point.

I believe we should follow the examples of those who lived their lives with virtue.  It may not be surprising to find that such figures, such as the Prophet Mohammed, did not demand protection from insult.

On the contrary, he was insulted and abused often in his life.

He never responded to these events with violence.  In fact, he often did the opposite.

There is one particular example that I enjoy.

God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet after what we shall call a particularly bad day.

'Muhammad! Allah (The Glorified and the Exalted) has heard what your people have said to you. I am the Angel of the Mountains and my Lord has sent me to you to carry out your orders. What do you want now to be done? If you like I may crush them between the two mountains encircling the city of Makka.

The Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) replied with this:

(I do not want their destruction) I am still hopeful …

So those who have used violence in order to ‘protect’ the Prophet cannot say they were following the example of the very man they model their life on.

***

Ultimately, ladies and gentlemen, God and the Prophets are surely above our insults.  They, if you will, transcend the limitations of humanity and the mere concept of us being able to protect them is irrational.

Furthermore, the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression are extremely important to a functioning democracy, so that ideas can be exchanged and built upon. It should always be remembered though that with the right to freedoms does come some level of personal responsibility.

Moreover, violence is an unacceptable form of protection in any situation, particularly when it comes to religion and spirituality. So even in the face of insult, which may be hurtful and derogatory, we would do well to respond in the best way possible, not only in the interests of civilisation but in the interests of showing the best sides of what faith can provide.

***

16:125 Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best…

Reflection

Check out my reflections on the event here!

What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Airing of the IQ Squared debate on BBC World!

 

You may remember a little while ago my mentioning the debate whether "God and His Prophets should be protected against insult" that I was being a part of.

I got an email a few days ago informing me that it will be shown four times globally on BBC World News this weekend (OMG!) at the following times (GMT).

Times in GMT are as follows:

30th November   09.10, 20.10 1st December    02.10, 15.10

The estimated audience will be 70-80 million.

Slap it in your diaries yo and tell me what you think!

I will be posting the video and transcript of my speech shortly after it is broadcast.

Khair inshallah!!!

Cheers,

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Should God and His Prophets be protected against insult?

Well, in three weeks time in front of a live audience and a BBC viewership of 70 million, I will be arguing against the hypothesis that God and His Prophets should be protected against insult at the Intelligence Sqaured Debate in Sydney on the 7th of November.

To be honest, it is a slighty scary prospect, mostly because...

1. This is a pretty nuanced issue, and can be pretty well misconstrued;

2. I imagine many in the Muslim community feel that in fact God and His Prophets should be protected against insult and will see my taking this position as an insult to Islam (!)

3. It is probably the largest audience I have had the humbling honour of speaking to!!!

At the end of the day, I am no Islamic scholar and speak about this issue as purely an interested individual and a Muslim woman who feels a sense of shame every time there are riots and people are killed because of a set of cartoons or an amateur video.  We should be better than this!

I feel I should mention that my taking this position does not mean I do not feel that Allah and his beloved Prophet Mohammed (SAW) are not sacred and revered.  This is about our actions in this world rather than debating the sanctity of who we worship per se...

Alas! I am getting ahead of myself.  I am working on my angle at the moment, and would love to hear your thoughts on the matter... what do YOU think?

Maybe you can watch it?

Hypocrisy of the Hierarchy: "Islam" vs "Islamists"

Below is an excerpt from the blog of an activist currently in Sudan in reference to the NCP, the nation’s ruling party. He raises a poignant point; highlighting the Sudanese government's use of religion to justify their actions while simultaneously flying in the face of everything the religion stands for.

Far from a moral and legal compass, Shari’a has been nothing but a political tool used by the NCP to consolidate their hold on power. While some naively believed the rhetoric and rallied around ‘the Islamic State’, the majority has known that the regime’s founding ideology has long been perverted by power and greed. In the past, the NCP made an effort, however minimal, to cover up their religious merchandizing, if only as a courtesy. However, when CS gas is fired into a house of worship on specific orders, it seems evident that we are no longer dealing with a regime that can be bothered with even insincere courtesies.

This has been a cause of personal frustration for some time now.

Another example can be found in Timbuktu (yeh, it’s a place), Mali, where a group called the "Ansar Dine", control part of the country and destroy the nation's heritage and history in the name of "Sharia Law".

This band of terrorists has recently turned their guns and fanaticism against the historical shrines that had made the city of Timbuktu a beacon of learning through so many centuries. They have used pick-axes, shovels, hammers and guns to destroy earthen tombs and shrines of local saints in the desert city of Timbuktu, claiming that they are doing so to defend the purity of their faith against idol worship. They are behind the destruction of at least eight Timbuktu mausoleums and several tombs, centuries-old shrines in what is known as the ‘City of 333 Saints’.

***

My frustration is twofold.

Firstly, even though the actions are not aligned with Islamic values and principles, these groups will often claim their actions are in the name of the religion and then rub salt into the wound by denouncing anything or anyone they believe isn’t following Islam.

Secondly, by using Islam as a political tool, these groups taint the name of the religion itself.

Take the example of the the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Akhwan al-Muslimeen, the current Egyptian President’s party.  The organisation started as a religious social organisation, with stated aims to preach Islam.  With power usually comes political agendas however, and the Brotherhood is now one of the largest political movements in the Arab world.  The organisation (the political wing) operates under the banner of Islam, however throughout its history, its actions haven’t always been aligned with Islamic values.

Yet, because the Brotherhood as an organisation has an Islamic mandate, Muslim members and calls itself the “Muslim” Brotherhood, it’s actions are seen as representative of 'what is right under Islam'.

This is unfortunate as there is a difference between Islam and self proclaimed ‘Islamists’, or those who use religion as a mean to a political end.  This is not to say that all political Islamists are bad as such, things are much more nuanced than that. There is simply a difference between Islam and Islamists, and this should be recognised.

It is not the religion that should be judged by the people but the people whom should be judged by the religion.  After all, we are only human, and humans are fallible.  Such is the nature of our humanity.

***

This isn’t Islam’s problem alone, it has happened with Christians, Jews and numerous other religious groups.  Religion is an extremely effective and persuasive political tool, and unfortunately is often used to justify evil and undeniable atrocities.

However, when you look at it…

“Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first.” – The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) [Muslims]

“Love thy neighbor as thyself” – Jesus, quoting the Torah (New Testament) [Christians and Jews]

“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” – Buddha [Buddhists]

It would seems to me that mercy and love are what all religions preach and what we should focus on, regardless of denomination.

***

In all of this, it should be noted that Muslims have been not given a mandate on how to rule a nation.

There are detailed descriptions for many things in Islam, down to the very details of how to wash before you pray, but there is no description for the best “model of government”.

Yes, there is the concept of ‘Sharia’, however Sharia is not a book of law as Western civilisation would have it, rather it is the ‘path’ or the Islamic ‘way of life’ (read further here).

What there isn’t is a ruling on whether Muslims should be right wing, left wing, realist, socialist, communist (though that wouldn’t really work anyway), democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial…

Politics is one of the areas that Islam hasn’t mandated.  What does that tell you?

***

So, what are your thoughts? For me personally, I think religion and politics are different realms and should be kept separate. That is how I will keep it at any rate.

The Innocence of Who?

Update: This post explains a little more of the “Why”… where as the below are more personal thoughts on the matter.

---

Where to begin…

I am sure by now, you have heard about a 13 min film trailer named The Innocence of Muslims that has caused riots, death and violence throughout the world, peaceful Down Under included.

I had been trying to avoid the clip for peace of mind, but finally relented and looked up the video this morning.

Golly.  I couldn’t watch more than 5 minutes.  Yes, it is offensive, but thousands of Muslims are rioting around the world over such a poorly made production?  Have we sunk so low?

Ah, this is clearly not an issue to be belittled.  The film does insult the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Blessing be Upon Him*) and his followers (and by extension Arabs and Muslims), depicting them as barbarian, savages and really quite Neanderthal…and because we Muslims see the Prophet (PBuH) as the greatest and purest example of a man who ever lived, I can understand why Muslims are insulted by it.

However…

Just because one is insulted does not give one the right to needlessly riot, act violent and kill innocent people.

(and guys, seriously? Getting insulted by a budget film that’s on youtube?  /sigh.  We should have slightly thicker skins).

There are two elements to my frustration here:

1. All the rioting does is further prove and support claims that Muslims are barbaric and backwards.  Yes, we can be insulted, however that does not give us permission to run riot. It makes us seem truly uneducated and ignorant, and makes me embarrassed (Allah Yastur) to call myself a member of the Muslim Ummah**.  How shameful is that?!There are Christian and Jewish based satires on the internet galore, but I don’t remember the last time I saw hordes of angry Jewish or Christian people on the streets.  Why must the Muslim community be the uncivilised one?
2. The second thing is that this shows that Muslims around the world are willing to rise up in anger over a video made by an ignorant and hateful individual, but are not willing to show the same passion and anger towards issues that actually matter and that affect the lives of their fellow Muslims and humans.  Things like:

• The death of hundreds of innocents in Syria and the truly abhorrent acts of the Shabiha (see this and this);
• The millions of asylum seekers around the world that are displaced with no where to go and no place to call home;
• The exploitation of women and children around the world and the disgraceful way in which many are treated in our own Muslim countries;
• The barbaric corruption and torture that occurs again, throughout Muslim nations around the world…

My mother told me as a child to ignore rude people, to brush off insults and to “be the bigger person”.  Those are essentially Islam’s teachings as well – there are many examples of the Prophet (PbuH) being insulted and denigrated, only to have him treat the perpetrators with kindness and mercy.  That is the example that we Muslims are to emulate.  That is what Islam (which comes from the word Salam, meaning PEACE!) is all about.    We are told in the Qura’an:

“Obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and disregard their hurtful talk.” (33:48)

Disregard their hurtful talk!

Did someone miss that line?

If we truly wanted to make our Prophet (PBuH) proud, we would not shame ourselves and our religion in this way.

***

I have to make one thing very clear, so as there is no confusion among Muslims as to what I mean.

Speaking out against the violence is not the same as agreeing with the insult.  Just because I disagree with the violent protests does not mean I have decided to “serve the interests of the West”. 

No.

The world isn’t black and white, and issues are rarely a case of if you are not with us, then you are against us. 

Yes, the video was insulting to the Prophet (PBuH).

But no, this does not give us an excuse to act like uneducated cult-like individuals and wreck havoc.  Why are we, like a weak tempered town buffoon, so quick to anger?

It should instead be a time for us, as Muslims, to live the example of the Prophet (PBuH), to show kindness and understanding in the face of anger and to truly practice the teachings of our peaceful way of life.

"The sad thing is . . . it's a deceptive film, designed to provoke Muslims, which it has unfortunately done. For us to fall into the trap unfortunately shows that we have a long way to go in terms of practising what the prophet taught."  Silma Ihram, The Sydney Morning Herald

---

* Whenever Muslims say the name of the Prophet (PBuH), as a sign of respect we say “Peace and Blessings be upon Him” afterwards, which is why you will see (PBuH) after every mention.  Sometimes (SAW) is used, and that is simply the Arabic version

** Ummah is just the Arabic word for “community” or “group of people”, and when we refer to the Muslim people we refer to the “Muslim Ummah”.