Yunus vs. Osama

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/10-2006/Article-20061016-5144ebb3-c0a8-10ed-0055-76e2120ec0b4/story.html

Between the Owner of 'Grameen' and Bin Laden
Jamil Ziabi Al-Hayat - 16/10/06//

There is a difference between an investor and a destroyer, a bomber and a constructor, between those who respect human rights and preserve human integrity, and those who kill innocent people cold-bloodedly, spreading fear, panic and poverty among human beings, causing people to lose sleep, and destroying their lands. I thought about these dissimilarities when the Bangladeshi Muslim Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the founder of the 'Grameen Bank', established to help the poor, in an effort to bring civilizations, religions and human beings closer to one another, so that they can live in peace. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is what Osama bin Laden does. He is still hiding from one cave to another, planning how to blow up, destroy and kill; he has introduced the idea of suicide bombers, has founded a terrorist organization, and he does not differentiate between killing a child, a widow, or an elderly.

The World Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually to those whose work contributes to the achievement of world peace and coexistence. This year, it has introduced us to a kind of person who uses his money, ideas and time to help fighting poverty, and assist people, preserve their rights, and protect them. The Bangladeshi banker Yunus has founded the 'Grameen Bank'. This is considered the first bank in Bangladesh to have started operating based on a micro-credit system to help the poor. It provides financial loans to the poorest people, especially women, and charges them with small interests that encourage the poor to take these loans. The objective is for them to be able to set up their businesses and implement their private projects, which move them from the circle of poverty to a state of capability and self-reliance. Yunus is the peaceful person who has utilized his ideas and money to fight poverty, to affirm that eradicating it is an important pivot of achieving global peace and security, and to prevent terrorist organizations from infiltrating into poor families, enlisting their children, pushing them into terrorist arms, and violating world security.

Also, the charity work carried out by the Saudi businessman Muhammad Abdul Latif Jameel is in line with what Yunus is doing. These activities are now widespread among the Saudis and the Arabs through the 'Abdul Latif Jameel's Fund for Community Service' and soft loans, in order to fight poverty, and to set up small projects for those in need, so that they can help themselves and realize their dreams. Many women have turned from simple sellers on a sidewalk into shop owners, and into producers integrated in society!

We can draw a comparison. On the one hand, what al-Qaeda does: it adopts Islam as a slogan, and operates in words and deeds in its name. Its leader is Osama bin Laden, who uses his money and capabilities to beguile youth, and to push them into the folds of terrorism, so that they will eventually explode themselves, kill innocent people, and spread fear and terror. On the other hand, there is what Muhammad Yunus and Muhammad Abdu Latif Jameel are doing with their money and capabilities in order to fight poverty, and to contribute to security, stability and international peace. Pure Islam and the real Prophet's message are represented by what is implemented by Yunus and Adu Latif Jameel, and not by bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and those like them, who devastate the world with corruption and terrorism. Getting the poor out of poverty, rescuing them from the ordeals of time and their difficult lives, giving them hope, a future, well-being and development, making them able to produce, develop, contribute to peace and stability, and do their part in helping other poor: this is the real face of Islam, with no violence or killing innocent people.

What terrorists do increases the number of poor, widows and orphans; spreads fear, terror and poverty; hampers development projects and destroys infrastructure. On the contrary, the award Yunus has obtained is a confirmation that Islam is a religion of peace and security, whereas bin Laden and al-Zawahiri's ideas are the fruit of evil and sick minds.

A proper human being is one who thinks like the owner of Grameen Bank. After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he said he would use the money he received from the award, which is estimated at 1.7 million dollars, to look for more inventive ways to help the poor to dispose of their misery, and to provide them with soft loans. Undoubtedly, world peace and security need more of the likes of Yunus, who are ready to use their money and ideas for the sake of mankind and to help it through social solidarity, and by setting up charity businesses, to which Islam exhorts. On the contrary, there is no need for terrorism, for blowing up people, and turning them into bombs that terrorize mankind, inflame wars everywhere, spread poverty, disease and penury, and widow women and orphan children, like al-Qaeda does.

"Moralism" Gone Awry

Yet another idiot from Islamic "moral" squad whose tongue runs much faster than his mind. The guy indeed deserves a Nobel Prize of religious nuttery. With nitwits like him in charge of the "moral" health of Ummah, one can only wring one's hands in despair. The silver lining is that Muslim community has rightly taken this loose cannon to task for his "moralism" and made him seek "voluntary retirement". Seems not all is dark at the end of the tunnel!

Taking the Fight to the Taliban

This is the 2nd part of the Elizabeth Rubin's article about the resurgence of Taliban in Pakistan. No doubt high handedness of "counter-insurgency" operations is also feeding to the popularity of Taliban's cause - however- this is just a part of the explanation. It seems unlikely that without substantial support from "abroad" (read: Pakistan), Taliban would be able to regroup and sustain themselves after their ouster from Kabul.

Excerpts from the article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29taliban.html?pagewanted=print

Later, when I met a Taliban commander in Pakistan, he told me that they knew the Americans listened to their radios, so that the five daily prayers were often used as code to signal anything from "I've run out of food" to "Ambush them."

The next afternoon, we flew by helicopter to Andar, a nearby village. I sat in the fields with a former teacher named Anwarjan. The governor had appointed him district chief for all of Day Chopan, but Anwarjan could barely travel. The entire province, he said, was Taliban. Still, he was busy with Shields getting hundreds of kids to school in the central town. He had convinced the parents that Pakistan wants their children to stay wild and uneducated. "I have 300 students now," he said. "They're changed. They are polite, greet people, treat their mothers well. One man can change a generation."

But his efforts, he said, were being undermined by the constant incursions of Taliiban from Pakistan. "The leader of Day Chopan, Mullah Kahar, lives in Quetta," in Pakistan, Anwarjan said. "All the heads are there. So why don't you do anything?"

U.S. intelligence knows the same thing. As Seth Jones, an analyst with Rand, told The New York Times earlier this year, Pakistani intelligence agents are advising the Taliban about coalition plans and tactical operations and provide housing, support and security for Taliban leaders. Sturek told me that the U.S. is well aware that the Taliban heads are in Quetta. On one side, he said, most U.S. policy makers argue that the Pakistanis are our friends. On the other side are those, including some in the military, who say, "Let's just drive into Quetta."

Grand Strategy to Unite Ummah

That would be one truly remarkable achievement in its entire history - if on one fine day, OIC is able to foster unity among Ummah on a critical matter like this. At least, there should be no discord among the believers when to have a holiday. :)

cheers,
Umar
===================================================

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\29\story_29-10-2006_pg1_3

OIC for Eid on one day worldwide

JEDDAH: The head of the Organisation of Islamic Conference on Saturday deplored the way Islamic countries mark Eidul Fitr on different days, AFP reported. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said in a statement that Eid on different days illustrated the disunity of Muslims and suggested that scientific methods should be used the synchronise the Islamic calendar. “The disparity of dates for celebrating Eidul Fitr in Islamic countries ... is deplorable, when science, and especially astronomy, has reached high levels of development and precision,” he said. According to Ihsanoglu, celebration of religious festivals on the same day is supposed to “unify the sentiments and positions of Muslims”, while it now reflected their disunity and disparity of positions. He called on Islamic religious and official institutions to cooperate with the OIC to harmonise the astronomical calculations which determine the time of the new moon. Staff report adds: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Saturday directed the Ministry of Religious Affairs to review moon-sighting procedures so that the entire country would in the future be able to celebrate Eid on the same day. The prime minister directed the ministry to consult all those involved in the process to evolve a mechanism that would be acceptable to all sections of society across the country. He also directed the ministry to hold consultations with the OIC to ensure that any new mechanism would be transparent, workable and participatory in nature and to submit a follow-up report to him within 30 days.

Worldview Quiz

Interesting quiz:

http://www.commongood.org/worldview_quiz.htm

I landed up in the top right corner, in the company of Carl Sagan. :)

My score: 7 regarding science/non-science, and 8 regarding values & humankind.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan: Obituary

Lot of unanswered questions! These are the things about which the common Pakistanis will never know perhaps-- and which which will keep reinforcing the ammunition of conspiracy theorists. From today's

The clash of civilizations is really one of emotions

By Dominique Moisi
Monday, March 27, 2006

Throughout the "war on terror," the notion of a "clash of civilizations"between Islam and the West has usually been dismissed as politically incorrect and intellectually wrong headed. Instead, the most common interpretation has been that the world has entered a new era characterized by conflict "within" a particular civilization, namelyIslam, with fundamentalist Muslims as much at war against moderates from within their own religious community as against the West.

The strategic conclusion derived from such an analysis was clear, ambitious, and easily summarized: democratization. If the absence of democracy in the Islamic world was the problem, then bringing democracyto the Greater Middle East would be the solution, and it was the historical duty of the United States, as the most powerful and moral nation, to bring about that necessary change. The status quo was untenable. Implementing democracy, with or without regime change, was the only alternative to chaos and the rise of fundamentalism.

Today, Iraq may be on the verge of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.Iran under a new and more radical president is moving irresistibly towards possessing a nuclear capacity. A free electoral process brought Hamas to power in Palestine, and the unfortunate episode of the Danish newspaper cartoons illustrated the almost combustible nature of relations between Islam and the West.

All of these developments are paving the way to new interpretations. Rather than a "clash of civilizations," we might instead be faced by multiple layers of conflict, which interact with each other in ways that increase global instability.

Indeed, it appears that the world is witnessing a triple conflict. There is a clash within Islam, which, if the violence in Iraq spreads to neighboring countries, risks causing regional destabilization. There is also a clash that is best described not as being between Islam and the West, but between the secularized world and a growing religious one. At an even deeper and atavistic level, there is an emotional clash between a culture of fear and a culture of humiliation.

It would be a gross oversimplification to speak, as some are doing, of a clash between civilization and barbarism. In reality, we are confrontedwith a widening divide over the role of religion, which runs between the West (with the U.S. being a complicated exception) and much of the rest of the world (the most notable exception being China), but particularly the Islamic world.

The divide reflects how religion defines an individual's identity within a society. At a time when religion is becoming increasingly important elsewhere, we Europeans have largely forgotten our (violent and intolerant) religious past, and we have difficulty understanding the role that religion can play in other peoples' daily lives.

In some ways, "they" are our own buried past and, with a combination of ignorance, prejudice, and, above all, fear, "we" are afraid that "they"could define our future. We live in a secular world, where free speech can easily turn into insensitive and irresponsible mockery, while others see religion as their supreme goal, if not their last hope. They have tried everything, from nationalism to regionalism, from communism to capitalism. Since everything has failed, why not give God a chance?

Globalization may not have created these layers of conflicts, but it has accelerated them by making the differences more visible and palpable. In our globalized age, we have lost the privilege--and, paradoxically, the virtue - of ignorance. We all see how others feel and react, but without the minimal historical and cultural tools necessary to decipher those reactions. Globalization has paved the way to a world dominated by the dictatorship of emotions - and of ignorance.

This clash of emotions is exacerbated in the case of Islam. In the Arab world, in particular, Islam is dominated by a culture of humiliation felt by the people and nations that consider themselves the main losers,the worst victims, of a new and unjust international system. From that standpoint, the Israel-Palestine conflict is exemplary. It has become an obsession.

It is not so much that Arabs and Muslims really care about the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Islamic world left the Palestinians without real support for decades. In reality, for them the conflict has come to symbolize the anachronistic perpetuation of an unfair colonial order, to represent their political malaise, and to embody the perceived impossibility of their being masters of their destiny.

In the eyes of the Arabs (and some other Muslims), Israel's strength and resilience is a direct consequence of their own weakness, divisions, and corruption. The majority of Arabs may not support Al-Qaeda, but they do not oppose it with all their heart. Instead, there is the temptation to regard Osama bin Laden as a violent Robin Hood, whose actions, while impossible to condone officially, have helped to regain a sense of Arab pride and dignity.

Here, perhaps, is the real clash of civilizations: the emotional conflict between the European culture of fear and the Muslim, particularly Arab, culture of humiliation. It would be dangerous to underestimate the depth of so wide an emotional divide; recognizing its existence is the first step toward overcoming it. But that will be difficult, for transcending the emotional clash of civilizations presupposes an opening to the "other" that neither side may yet be ready to undertake.

Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI), is currently a professor at theCollege of Europe in Natolin in Warsaw. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate(www.project-syndicate.org)

Despotism is Never Absolute

I came across this excerpt from Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution by Albert Venn Dicey (1835-1922) . It raises an interesting point about the limitations on a despot's exercise of power.


"The internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the nature of the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance with his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which he lives, including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the society to which he belongs. The Sultan could not, if he would, change the religion of the Mohammedan world, but even if he could do so, it is in the very highest degree improbable that the head of Mohammedanism should wish to overthrow the religion of Mohammed; the internal check on the exercise of the Sultan's power is at least as strong as the external limitation. People sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or that reform? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a revolutionist."

I guess some of my "pinko" American friends would love to extend the analogy to Bush and GOP. I replaced "Sultan" with Musharaff and "Muhammadenism" with "Pakistan Army".. and tried reading the passage. Chilling read. :)

In the Land of Taliban


A well-researched article about the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan's "double game" in this episode of "Great Game".


=======================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22afghanistan.html?pagewanted=all

In many ways, Pakistani policy is already looking beyond both Karzai and the Americans; they believe it is prudent to imagine a future with neither. That future will be shaped by the past: the past with India, the past with the Soviet Union, the past with America. For Pakistan’s hard-liners, at least, the obvious choice was to take their assets off the shelf and restart the jihad.

Living through the best of times


This one from a very good American friend of mine, who is probably the most multi-faceted person I've ever come across in my life!


================================================

In many ways, I consider myself to be among the most fortunate, not because of any particular achievement or accummulation, but because I lived through a unique era, partly because of the circumstances of the times, and partly because of an era of my own choosing -- neither of which will be available to subsequent generations.

The US population in the year of my birth, 1926, was about 112 million. Last Tuesday, the US population passed 300 million. By the time my oldest great granddaughter reaches middle age, the US population will have increased by another 25%, much of it concentrated in the already over crowded coastal areas of major economic activity.

I survived the greatest war in history. It is unlikely that there will be many survivors from any future war of equal scope. I homesteaded in Alaska under the Homestead Act of 1862 when open land was free for the taking. Free land is no longer available. I participated in valuable open access commercial fisheries. Such access is now sharply restricted. I attended the university when tuition was within the reach of almost any student. In the past 40 years (since my graduation) university tuition has incresed from $450/year to nearly #20,000/year, effectively dividing the US population between two permanent economic classes.

The global outlook is even less alluring. The resolution of Bush's foolish Iraqi adventure is all too clear. We are caught in the gears of a global energy quagmire that is, for all practical purposes, insoluable. We can neither leave Iraq, nor can we stay.

The global consequences, should we withdraw, could be almost incalcuable. It is quite possible that when we leave, the sectarian conflict now gaining strength in Iraq will quickly involve Iranian Shia support, and just as quickly, Syrian and Saudi irregulars will provide a counterforce in support of the Sunni position.

It's not hard to imagine that the entire region might become embroiled in a conflict that could lead the world into a major energy crisis resulting in an international economic collapse!

That's the reality of the 21st century. Not a place I want to be.That's why I think I lived during the best of times.

Silencing "Islamophobes"

Having gone through a couple of writings of Robert Spencer and other "Islamophobes" of the ilk, I can fairly say that one can't argue against them without declaring a vast body of early Islamic rulings as tentative and subject to change. A debate on "religion of peace - for all the people and all the times" ground is bound to backfire. One can rightly make a point that he is deliberately overblowing the religious aspect of Islamist terrorism - while overlooking the political factors underpinning it. However, doing that would be a rebuttal of Spencer's political opportunism, not the "defense of Islam" - as desired by Ummah. To make matter worse, "Ummah" is more likely to unleash fatwa brigade at the poor "defender of Islam" who dared to declare the "eternal and universal" teachings of Islam as changeable.

Re pitting Zakir Naik against Spencer, I wonder if Mr. Naik defended jihad in the way he has "defended" polygamy, who is going to end up as a laughing stock is anybody's guess. Take a look at this sermon. Speaks volume about the retarded mindset of the good doctor.

Reminds me of the Bollywood song, "Naik Naheen, Khal Naik Hoon Mein". LOL

Islam's Charlies Angels in Action

Who says veil is impediment to women emancipation and empowerment!

Who says mullahs don't have sense of humor!

Watch out the video of graduation ceremony of Iranian policewomen training course..


http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=599


Amazons in chadors! Islam's Charlies Angels in Action.

In the Line of the Fire

Don't begrudge Mush and his publisher any cent. Get the book from here. :)

http://www.4shared.com/file/4569219/1e616d26

Genetic Capitalism: Next Sequel of Evolution

Making long-term predictions is a safe bet: if they turn out to be true, one will be hailed as a genius till kingdom come, otherwise, one won't be alive to be taken to task for that. :)

According to the crystal ball of Dr. Curry of London School of Economics, in coming 100,000 years, human species is headed towards a “genetic capitalism” where it will be split into two sub-species of genetic “haves” and “have-nots”.

Meanwhile, humans will surpass in intelligence, health and longevity for the next 1000 years. Men will evolve squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises - that's definitely a welcome development :).

Not to be outdone, women will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, glossy hair, among other - but most significantly - pert breasts. :)

Alas, it will take about 1000 years for Dr. Curry's vision of "brave new world" to be realized. Many a slip between the cup and the lip!

Fast internet: An Outpost of Western Imperialism


Another outpost of Western imperialism has been demolished in Iran! Long Live Ayatollahs.



====================================================

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1924637,00.html
Iran bans fast internet to cut west's influence
· Service providers told to restrict online speeds
· Opponents say move will hamper country's progress
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday October 18, 2006The Guardian

Iran's Islamic government has opened a new front in its drive to stifle domestic political dissent and combat the influence of western culture - by banning high-speed internet links.
In a blow to the country's estimated 5 million internet users, service providers have been told to restrict online speeds to 128 kilobytes a second and been forbidden from offering fast broadband packages. The move by Iran's telecommunications regulator will make it more difficult to download foreign music, films and television programmes, which the authorities blame for undermining Islamic culture among the younger generation. It will also impede efforts by political opposition groups to organise by uploading information on to the net.

The order follows a purge on illegal satellite dishes, which millions of Iranians use to clandestinely watch western television. Police have seized thousands of dishes in recent months.
The latest step has drawn condemnation from MPs, internet service companies and academics, who say it will hamper Iran's progress. "Every country in the world is moving towards modernisation and a major element of this is high-speed internet access," said Ramazan-ali Sedeghzadeh, chairman of the parliamentary telecommunications committee. "The country needs it for development and access to contemporary science."

Iran has not responded to a western incentive package that includes the offer of state-of-the-art internet technology in return for the suspension of a key part of the country's nuclear programme.

A petition branding the high-speed ban as "backward and unprincipled" bearing more than 1,000 signatures is to be sent to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Scores of websites and blogs are censored using hi-tech US-made filtering equipment. Iran filters more websites than any other country apart from China. High-speed links can be used with anti-filtering devices to access filtered sites.

The telecoms regulator declined to explain the decision but said it was taken by "a collection of policy-makers". However, Etemad, a pro-reformist newspaper, suggested it was part of an official campaign to stem a western "cultural invasion".

"Unpleasant whispers are saying that the motivations behind the scenes are the same as those involved in the purging of satellite dishes," the paper wrote.

Parastoo Dokoohaki, a prominent Iranian blogger, said the move was designed to foil the government's opponents. "If you want to announce a gathering in advance, you won't see it mentioned on official websites and newspapers would announce it too late. Therefore, you upload it anonymously and put the information out. Banning high-speed links would limit that facility. Despite having the telecoms facilities, fibre-optic technology and internet infrastructure, the authorities want us to be undeveloped."

The crackdown comes in an atmosphere of increasing restrictions on the media. Last week, Mr Ahmadinejad launched a fierce attack on the head of the state broadcasting organisation, IRIB, which he blamed for stoking public fears about inflation. Iran's leading reformist newspaper, Shargh, was also closed last month.

Culture-less Religiosity


Dr. Manzur Ejaz has raised a pertinent issue. I wonder if this "culture-less" religioisty is the prime reason that makes Paksitanis, especially Punjabis and Urdu-speaking, more susceptible to radical Islam, compared to Muslims to other nationalities.


Umar

====================================================

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\18\story_18-10-2006_pg3_3

The question of one’s heritage becomes much more complex when one rears children on an alien land. That is why the entire graying generation of Pakistani expatriates worries about the future of their next generation on a foreign land, in an alien culture. They dread that the future generations will become strangers to their culture and their heritage.

While this agony is shared by all expatriates whether they come from Germany or Timbuktu, I wonder about Pakistanis, particularly Punjabi Muslims and even the Urdu-speaking: what culture would they want their children to imbibe? Is culture merely a function of practicing religious rituals or these groups mistakenly consider these rituals as manifesting culture; do they have anything additional?

When I look at the Arabs or the Indians, even Europeans, I know what kind of a culture they want to transfer to their new generations. They have peculiar musical, artistic and other cultural expressions. However, when I see Pakistanis I don’t see anything else but religious rituals. Their cultural expression begins and ends with Milad Sharifs. And, if religious rituals are all that matters, fundamentalists are doing a good job on the US campuses to enhance the number of breaded young men and hijab-wrapped women. The coming generations of immigrants, who are not willing to accept religious rituals in the name of culture, have nowhere to go but get lost in the American culture. The older generation is clueless and empty of any culture; it has nothing to share with them.

One step forward, two back

Hoodbhoy says it very well.


http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/12/op.htm#1

Musharraf and his generals are determined to stay in power. They will protect the source of their power — the army. They will accommodate those they must — the Americans. They will pander to the mullahs. They will crush those who threaten their power and privilege, and ignore the rest. No price is too high for them. They are the reason why Pakistan fails.

Modernization of Gender Relations


An interesting take on modernization of gender relations in Muslim societies...


Umar

======================================================

How relations between men and women have been 'modernized'
by Tamim al-Barghouti - Special to The Daily Star
The Daily Star, Lebanon
May 25, 2004

ARAB HISTORY AND IDENTITY

It is almost taken for granted among Arabs and foreigners alike that the Arab Islamic culture is one of the most conservative and forbidding in the world when it comes to relations between men and women. Such conservatism, it is often argued, results in a schizophrenic society that lusts for the things it condemns, and condemns the things it lusts for.

In the Western, Orientalist imagination, Muslim women are either ghosts covered from head to toe in black gowns or half naked belly-dancers in the harems of princes and sultans. Joseph-Marie Moiret, a Captain in Napoleon's Egyptian and Palestinian expeditions, described Arab women as ugly, not of the type that would attract a Frenchman's attention, as they walked around in their veils; however, he devoted a few pages of his memoirs to tell the story of a Georgian concubine,well guarded and kept in the palace of a Muslim merchant. Not only does the concubine attract the Frenchman's attention, she becomes his obsession about how woman should look like. Of course, according to Captain Moiret, the woman falls in love, and asks him to take her to France.

The story is most probably a fantasy, added to the book so that itcould have a wider readership among the newly born citizens of romantic French nationalism. The Captain wrote that he used to meet the gorgeous concubine every day because her master contracted him to teach her French. In a time when only blind old men were allowed toteach concubines, and only little boys were allowed to serve them,the Captain's story becomes less than credible. Yet it is still very telling. The exotic belly dancer that the European invader invents is crying to be liberated. Just as the Egyptian nation, as opposed to the Islamic Umma, was a Napoleonic invention to make the Turks and Mamlouks look like invaders and the French as liberators. And just like the early liberal nationalisms in the Middle East, what was a European image of the 18th and 19th centuries became a historical reality in the 20th.

The economic realities of the so-called modernization process in theArab world achieved little more than establishing long-term dependencies and institutionalized poverty. This economic change created its own socio-ethical superstructure. Unlike what many people think, the forbidding nature of the relations between men and womenin modern Arab societies, and the consequent schizophrenic phenomenon of condemning what we long for, is not the product of Islam; rather,it is the product of modernization. In Islam, the act of marriage has been as simple as making and breaking relationships between boyfriends and girlfriends; the only difference is that it is documented and announced. Since marriage in the Christian tradition is a holy bond - and in most sects, unbreakable - having relations outside marriage was seen in Europe as just another triumph of the secular over the ecclesiastical. Such a differentiation did not exist in pre-colonial Arab Islamic societies.

Islamic marriage is not a holy bond, rather, it is contract. It only requires the acceptance of the bride and the groom, and the presence of two witnesses. Any number of conditions could be added to the contract. The woman, for example, can set any condition from statingthat her husband will not have the right to marry another woman, to stating that he cannot wear certain clothes and vice versa. The man has to pay a certain amount of money to the woman in case of divorce,but that amount, as is the case with any contract, is negotiated.Once that issue is settled, divorce becomes as easy as saying the word. Throughout the pre-colonial era, men and woman used to get married, divorced and remarried frequently; relations between men and women were a social reality rather than an obsession.

With modernization, Islamic marriage started to look more and morelike Catholic marriage. While modernity presented Arab societies with a lot of needs, it provided them with very few means to meet them. As in Europe, large families could not be sustained anymore. But unlike Europe, which was wealthy enough to sustain extra-marital relations, the Arab world could not. The institution of the single-parent family could not be economically sustained by the society, where it took at least two people working - indoors or outdoors - to raise a child. Marriage became a set of rituals intended to make it the most difficult step in a youth's life, and one almost impossible to repeat.

As the economic consequences of dependency - namely poverty - grewharsher, men and women had to wait more before they were able to have enough money to get married. And, since the society could not, as mentioned above, bear the cost of pre- or extra-marital relations,delaying marriage meant delaying any form of physical interaction with the other sex. This of course, created all kinds of schizophrenic views of women among men, and vice versa. Again, like the nation-state and other products of the colonial era, Arabs had no choice but to retain the form, rather than the essence. Just as some Arab states are hollow of any meaning of independence, many Arab marriages are hollow of the meaning of love and compassion. Even in the most intimate area of human life, the colonial legacy left its finger prints.

Tamim al-Barghouti is a Palestinian poet. He writes a regular feature for The Daily Star

Enlightenment: Post-Modernist Version

There goes the "post-modernist" version of Enlightenment! "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" sacrificed at the altar of political expedience.

French legislators are bent on making the denial of Armenian genocide a penal offence. Voltaire must be rolling in his grave!

To the people who are for banning "offensive"speech, I'd say they should lead by example. Their speech is offensive to me.

"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. " ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Wikipedia founder plans rival

By Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: October 16 2006 22:08 Last updated: October 16 2006 22:08

One of the founders of Wikipedia is days away from launching a rival to the collaborative internet encyclopaedia, in an attempt to bring a more orderly approach to organising knowledge online.

Wikipedia – which is available to be written and edited by anyone on the internet – is one of the most visible successes of mass collaboration on the web, with many of its 1.4m articles appearing high in search results.

However, its openness has also drawn charges of unreliability and left it vulnerable to disputes between people with opposing views, particularly on politically sensitive topics.

The latest venture from Larry Sanger, who helped create Wikipedia in 2001, is intended to bring more order to this creative chaos by drawing on traditional measures of authority. Though still open to submissions from anyone, the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as a group of volunteer “constables”, charged with keeping the peace between warring interests.

Accusing Wikipedia of failing to control its writers and editors, he said: “The latest articles don't represent a consensus view – they tend to become what the most persistent ‘posters’ say.”
Mr Sanger said he had financial backing from an unidentified foundation for his new venture, while a web hosting company was providing its services free. He said he became frustrated with Wikipedia's failure to build expertise into its editing process and left after its first year.
Since then, the encyclopedia's other founder, Jimmy Wales, has taken some steps to bring more order to the Wikipedia approach, although he has avoided using authority figures such as editors.

Asked in an e-mail exchange how such disagreements should be resolved, Mr Wales replied: “With strong support for individual rights, and respect for reason.” His e-mail went on: “It is the fundamental responsibility of every individual to- think-, to- judge-, to-decide-. We must never abdicate that responsibility, not to the collective, not to Britannica, not to Wikipedia, not to anyone.”

Mr Sanger said volunteers would be able to become editors of his encyclopedia, called Citizendium, if they can show “minimum levels of qualification, based on real-world measures.”
This would be an “imperfect but effective” test based on “degrees, professional society memberships, things like that”.

Citizendium will be open “within the next few days” to a limited number of invited editors and members of the public who apply, and will be made generally available by the end of the year, said Mr Sanger.

It is likely to take Citizendium some time to prove whether it can create a better online encyclopedia. It will begin by simply taking over all of the existing entries from Wikipedia, then start the laborious job of having them filtered by expert editors – a job Mr Sanger called “a clean-out of the Augean stables”.

(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html)