Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Colonizing Everest

Posted April 23rd, 2014 by Lesley Hazleton

The use of “native guides” might seem a peculiarly nineteenth-century mode of exploration. Not so. In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary would never have been the first to climb Everest if he hadn’t in fact been the second — hard on the heels of Sherpa Tenzing, without whom he’d never have made it. And so it still goes. Some 600 people now summit Everest each year, but most are not westerners paying up to $100,000 for the privilege. They’re Nepalese sherpas, “at least” thirteen of whom were killed in an avalanche last week. And those huge sums don’t go to them, but to the mountaineering outfits that hire them at minimal wage to do the dirty dangerous stuff and ease the way for their wealthy clients.

That’s two underpaid, heavily-laden sherpas per overpaid, lightly-laden westerner. Sound familiar? Since I’m more of a desert rat than an icepick-and-piton type, I think instantly of another climb much boasted of, as in Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad, which includes his account of an 1867 trip to Egypt:

Twain-622

 

and this photo from 1870:

pyramids

 

Heave ho, my hearties.  Anyone for a spot of post-colonialism?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: colonialism | Tagged: Tags: avalanche, climbing, Egypt, Everest, Mark Twain, pyramids, sherpas, strike | 10 Comments
  1. fatmakalkan says:
    April 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    You are absolutely right! I felt very sorry for the guides that lost their life’s . My cousin wanted to go to Napal for one year to write a book. I asked her, why Napal? She said coast of living is so cheep that her savings will be sufficient to took one year off from her work. Minimum wage is there must be way less than here. May be a dollar or less. So they were really underpaid for the one of the most dangerous job on the planet.

  2. pah says:
    April 24, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Extremely sad about the Sherpas….They are backbone of all mountaineering expeditions…It is surely true that Sherpa Tensing reached the summit first, and possibly Hilary recognized that.
    It is not the first instance of subjugation nor the last, unfortunately, as also was the case When Matthew Henson, who was black, went unrecognized for almost 100 years after he reach the North Pole footsteps in front of Peary
    Onward and Upward, Lesley!

  3. muslimischerlesekreis says:
    April 24, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Reblogged this on Muslimischer Lesekreis.

  4. nuzhat says:
    April 25, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    the “colonising” spills on to many other areas in India, Lesley.
    the anger/ frustration/helplesslessness of the rest of us
    ‘privileged’ class, makes us feel shameful for not pursuing/demanding “accountability” on the exploiters part.
    this malaise is still a long way from being reduced, leave alone eradicated. Sad.
    nuzhat.

  5. Ross says:
    April 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    Edmund Hillary committed his life to doing whatever he could for the Sherpas. His family continues that tradition. I don’t know whether the Sherpa’s conditions of living were a revelation or already known to him before the expedition. A very decent man and a rare hero with feet of something more sturdy than clay.
    http://www.peterhillary.com/giving-back/

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 26, 2014 at 10:58 am

      “Feet of something more sturdy than clay” — I like that.

  6. pah says:
    April 26, 2014 at 6:55 am

    yes, true again, Hilary devoted his life to the Sherpas….he was an honourably man, who worked tirelessly to alleviate suffering.

  7. Linda Armstrong says:
    May 5, 2014 at 3:24 am

    When I was in Kenya 10 years ago, in the Masai Mara, I paid 200GB pounds to take a hot air balloon flight. Several of the Masai were employed to help fill the balloon and follow in a 4×4 to our landing point, and setting up our champagne breakfast. There was only 1 white guy in the team – the pilot. At the breakfast we were asked to put tips into a box for the crew. Now why, out of 8 x 200 pounds, were the crew not paid a living wage? Unfortunately I was too shy to ask. Watching the expats in Nairobi, and the way they treated their “servants” was also an eye opener.

  8. pah says:
    May 6, 2014 at 7:11 am

    yes, and ad infinitum……..likewise on a cruise ship.

    where are u Leslie….? need some of your enthusiasm

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 6, 2014 at 9:10 am

      sorry to have gone quiet(ish), but am working on a book.

“Do Arab Men Hate Women?”

Posted February 27th, 2014 by Lesley Hazleton

Two excellent minds — liberal activist and journalist Mona Eltahawy and Huffington Post UK political editor Mehdi Hasan — went head to head at the Oxford Union on whether, per the provocative headline of Eltahawy’s article in Foreign Policy Magazine, Arab men hate women.

Go to it, accidental theologists!  But…

Please view the whole video before you comment.  Let’s get beyond knee-jerk reactions.  It’s true that it’s a long video, but if you don’t consider the whole issue important enough to merit 47 minutes of your time, I hereby suggest you forfeit the right to comment.

–

[youtube=http://youtu.be/T9UqlEmKhnk]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam, Middle East, women | Tagged: Tags: Egypt, Foreign Policy, Mehdi Hasan, Mona Eltahawy, Oxford Union, Saudi Arabia, sexism, Tunisia, Yemen | 15 Comments
  1. Stephen Victor says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    I appreciate you for posting this video. Thank you!

    I am heartened with the fact that Mona Eltahawy is providing counterbalancing forces to the forces of misogyny in our world. And I applaud how she is doing this. Her provocative essay title landed her this interview. As a result, more of us have become informed. Well done!

    I see the issues of gender inequality as pandemic. Even though Ms Eltahawy spoke of this, her focus, in the context of this interview, was primarily the Muslim world. Good for her!

    To me misogyny is in our DNA whether we are women or men – girls or boys. Misogyny is in the atmosphere we breath. In the water we drink.

    Most compassionately intelligent aware and caring woman or girls, boy or men would be horrified to know that they behave, in subtle or not so subtle misogynist ways. If we are at all representative of our respective cultures, we cannot not do this. We perpetuate misogyny unwittingly and without intent. I see myself and Mehdi Hasan in this group as well.

    This is why your post, Mona’s work and Mehdi’s interview, and this video are so vitally important. We need to educate ourselves. We can no longer afford our ignorance. We need take on the disciplined personal responsibility and being wholly mindful – open-heartedly mindful:
    • in the reconstruction of our personal worldview – our personal cosmologies
    • of the states of being we embody
    • to consciously choose mental working models that genuinely work – that are just
    • in how and where we deploy our attention
    • of our thoughts, convictions and beliefs;
    • in our communicating and the actions we take.

    If we respect life…if we espouse justice…freedom…if we value gender-based relationships, whatever one’s orientation…if we purport to revere love, human dignity, beauty, and the innocence and lightness of being – we can no longer act in accord with a worldview that hates freedoms for any life-form, let alone girls or women. We must take a stand and change ourselves. This is not about others. This is about each of us individually.

    Those who subjugate others are themselves subjugated by this very act. Misogyny has colonized us all.

    Life cannot hate life. Yet we persist in acting as though we do. The great divide is between those with the capacity to intentionally and willfully injure another, and those who, though they can, and do injure others, do so as a consequence of unhealed injuries – never volitionally! We can change this. This is our responsibility.

    What possibly could be more important in our lives?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm

      Thank you, Stephen — beautifully put.

      • Stephen Victor says:
        February 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

        You are welcome… there is one more bit I believe relevant: Might it be worth considering that those who are reluctant to acknowledge the existence of witting and unwitting misogyny in our world are really reluctant to change themselves? If one allows oneself to see what is – one cannot help but be changed…and as such one must think and act differently…

  2. Lesley Hazleton says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    And here’s another thoughtful — and more critical — response from my friend Tarek Dawoud here in Seattle.

    On my Facebook page, he suggested this video of a Deen Institute conference called “Can Muslims Escape Misogyny?”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leyJaLCf8ks
    and commented as follows:

    “Much more thoughtful and realistic, a lot less about “provoking” and “grabbing headlines” and a lot more about breaking down the areas where misogyny appears and offering solutions/alternatives.

    “As for this conversation, I watched the full video a few days ago. The main problem with it is of course that it’s completely unscientific and lacking in methodology. So, when one presents an argument “Arab Men hate women” one would need to present evidence based on some social studies that shows that Arab male attitudes towards women are particularly negative compared to others. Or perhaps even (God forbid) survey the women in question. Instead, she opts for the unscientific approaches of tokenization and over-generalization. She picks a bad act that happens in 1% of rural families to depict “an Arab male attitude towards women in this country” and then spreads that across to all other countries too, even those that do not have it. And then, without trying to understand the socio-economic reasons behind the bad act (say rural families marrying their daughters young to rich men from the gulf), she totally explains it away with hate/scorn for women. In addition, as the student cleverly asked her (and she dodged), she is committing the age-old colonialist crime of advocating for freedom, but only freedom she likes. She knows what is best for all Arab women, they don’t.

    “This is not scientific or helpful. She’ll neither get support from scientists, social workers or social leaders. In my opinion, this is 60s style feminist “controversial writing” only done in 2014 when not many like that style any more.

    “I assume she’s good intentioned and wants to bring about true reform, but I feel she copped out… She took the easy route of citing a few studies about the prevalence of female discrimination issues, made an outrageous claim out of it, published it in a high profile paper and thus has “sparked the debate.” I don’t see the solutions to the real issues she raises coming out of circus like debates and half-baked research.”

  3. Lesley Hazleton says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    And here’s my Facebook reply to Tarek:
    “Thanks (I think — I posted a 47-minute video, and you responded with a five-and-half-hour one!). But the Deen Institute conference looks excellent, and I will watch it — just give me time.
    “Meanwhile, does Mona Eltahawy generalize? Yes. Is she angry? Of course — and she says so. Is she being deliberately provocative? Again, yes. Has she sparked the debate? As she herself acknowledges, citing the work of writers such as Leila Ahmed and Fatima Mernissi, the debate has been going on for some time and has still a long way to go. What then?
    “I think what Eltahawy has done is bring the debate far more into the open. By publishing in Foreign Policy magazine, she’s demanding that both men and women, liberal and conservative, pay attention. And by bringing her well-known energy and passion to bear, she’s helping reframe it not as a ‘Muslim issue,’ nor even (despite the title) as an Arab one, but as a human- and civil-rights issue.
    “My main criticism: that she didn’t widen her argument to what is happening with women in many countries in central Africa, where rape (most notoriously and viciously in Congo) has become a weapon of war.”

  4. Madhav says:
    March 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    I do believe that religion in misused by people who seek power and would do by any means to do so. Oppression is the key word.

    Women oppression :- 50 % of the population sorted out… Ticked off.

    Caste system: Another 75% (assuming 4 Castes) of the left over 50% done… Ticked off…

    That leaves just 12.5% of the population to sort out…..

    Then go on to Say above so and so age….. That would cuts say another 50% of the 12.5%… Ticked off……

    That now leaves only 6.5% of the original population to dominate…

    Financial Oppression: Eliminate about 5 numbers… That leaves only .5% against domination……

    It is a Legal system that is needed to prevent Oppression……

    I am indeed lucky to be in a part of the world that represents a much better future for mankind. The UAE.

  5. Hande Harmanci says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Dear Leslie, thank you for introducing me to Mona. We need more women like her. I will be following her from now on.

  6. Ross says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:06 am

    I do agree with those perceiving a generalised approach from Ms Eltawahy, but worry about her opening the door to dyed in the wool bigots. For instance I would hesitate to post a link to her lecture on Twitter for fear of the vitriol that I’m sure would ensue.

    Anecdotally, what I see of interpersonal relationships among Muslim men and women in Australia, where they are a minority, is that “generally” speaking they are loving and respectful, which I suspect to be the case in US.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 5, 2014 at 9:12 am

      Ross — Most of the response to this has come on my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/lesley.hazleton), where I re-posted this on the same date. Maybe because people feel Facebook is more of a communal venture, instead of something ‘mine.’ If you go there, you’ll find not only a remarkable lack of vitriol, but an in-depth discussion both for and against. I realize this is partly a reflection of whose friend requests I respond to, but I also think that it’s possible to be overly cautious, anticipating negative feedback that doesn’t necessarily happen. Perhaps this is a conversation that the vast majority of Muslim men and women are ready to have.

  7. Niloufer Gupta says:
    March 14, 2014 at 6:27 am

    I watched the debate ,mehdi hassan and mona elthawy- as i listened ,my mind went to the country that is mine- india.her anger is well placed and i feel that ,we in india ,need what she is aspiring for- a n equality in reality and not in abstract- that equality in reality needs grass roots education ,in every way.

  8. Lesley Hazleton says:
    April 17, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    A month later, here’s “Pro-Feminists and Metrosexuals: the New Arab Men of the Millennial Generation,” a counter-argument from Khaleb Diab:
    http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/metrosexuals-millennial-generation.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  9. Lesley Hazleton says:
    April 18, 2014 at 8:32 am

    And also a month later, Ziad Asali on how men must play their part in the struggle for women’s rights in Arab countries: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ziad-j-asali-md/men-must-play-their-part_b_5172728.html
    Looks like Mona Eltahawy has done what she aimed to do: start a real conversation.

  10. Omer says:
    May 12, 2014 at 5:41 am

    I recommend readers see the website of Professor Asma Barlas.

    Of course much of the discrimination against the female gender has nothing to do with Islam but is of Middle Eastern culture and history.

    Afterall, during Prophet Muhammad’s time, there were some crazy contemporaries who would bury their baby girls alive! So evil to kill innocent babies and moreover in such a painfully cruel way.

    But there is still some discrimination against the female gender that is supported by clerics…usually the subset of clerics that is less educated clerics whose smarter older siblings were sent by their parents to be physicians and engineers but told them to be clerics since they did not do as well in their exams.

    Even with the issue of the clerics which is to some extent across most of the clerics, please see the excellent talks and papers by Professor Barlas…. she shows that it is paternalistic biased reading of Islamic texts that leads to such issues and not a correct reading of the Qur’an itself.

    http://www.asmabarlas.com/talks.html

  11. سالم says:
    July 22, 2014 at 10:56 pm

    “Do Americans Men Hate Women?”
    Every minute American women get murder and rape in the U.S..
    Most killer in the U.S. are choosing women.
    American women are treated like sex objects.

  12. sam says:
    May 20, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    Do arabs hate women ? no, and we don’t care what you think ? and if we do….be it, let’s see what are you gonna do about it

American Influence?

Posted October 26th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

rohdeThe road to hell may be paved with good intentions, as the saying goes, but there’s a lot of understandable suspicion out there about exactly how good American intentions even are when it comes to the Middle East.  That’s the theme of David Rohde’s book ‘Beyond War:  Reimagining American Influence in the Middle East.’

The first step I’d suggest:  do some major reimagining of images, and forget Orientalist stereotypes like the camel-rider on  the cover.  The second step:  question the whole concept of influence.

The Catholic weekly America asked me to review the book, and here’s what I wrote:

When the Egyptian military seized power in June, American pundits instantly rushed to preach about democracy.  This took some hubris considering that two recent American elections – 2000 and 2004 – are still considered by many to be of questionable legality, and that redistricting is rapidly ensuring the minority status of Democratic strongholds throughout the south.

Is the US even in a position to preach democracy?  Especially since as with national elections, so too with foreign policy:  democracy is subject to money, and how it’s spent.

This is the hard-headed reality behind two-time Pulitzer prize-winner and former Taliban captive David Rohde’s new book, which focuses on how the US government spends money abroad, specifically in the Middle East.  It’s an argument for small-scale economic rather than large-scale military aid, and as such is immensely welcome in principle. The question is how to do it in practice.

As Rohde writes, “Washington’s archaic foreign policy apparatus” and its weakened civilian agencies mean that “in the decades since the end of the Cold War, the ability of the White House, State Department, and Congress to devise and carry out sophisticated political and development efforts overseas has withered.”

Whether Rohde is aware of it or not, the problem might be encapsulated in the subtitle of his own book, which assumes not only the existence of American influence, but also its necessity. Many of his sources are well-informed and palpably frustrated employees of the Agency for International Development (USAID) who are basically in conflict with both the State Department and Congress.  Yet the stated goals of USAID are clear:  they include providing “economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the US.” [my italics].

For all the talk about the need for humanitarian aid and intervention (most recently in Syria), the reality is purely political.  What’s presented as humanitarian aid is always a matter of foreign policy.  And American foreign policy is still intensely focused on George W. Bush’s GWOT – the “global war on terror.”

The principle is that US aid should act as a stabilizing force against militant Islamic extremism.  But the very idea of the US as a stabilizing force has been thoroughly undermined by the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the best-considered foreign aid has now been rendered suspect in many parts of the Middle East, especially when there’s “a widespread perception of the American government as a finely tuned, nefarious machine, not an unwieldy cacophony of viewpoints,” and when authoritarian control fosters an intense rumor mill, with conspiracy theories rampant (most recently, for instance, Malala Yousufzai as a CIA plant, or American-backed ‘Zionists’ as the instigators of the new regime in Egypt).  In Egypt in particular, Rohde notes, “Washington faces an extraordinary public-policy conundrum.  Decades of support for Mubarak will not be forgotten overnight.”

Rohde details the conundrum in a series of country-by-country chapters, some intensively well-reported (particularly on civilian contractors’ takeover of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and on the use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others (on Turkey, Libya, and Tunisia) seem more perfunctory by comparison.  But in the light of the June military coup, the chapter on American dollars-for-peace financing and the Egyptian army’s vast business empire is particularly fascinating and uncomfortably prescient.

Oddly, though, there is no chapter on Israel, the largest recipient of American aid.  This seems to me tantamount to ignoring the elephant in the room, since the intense investment in an Israel that seems willing only to prolong and intensify the conflict with Palestine undermines US efforts elsewhere in the region.  In fact you could make a pretty strong argument that American support of Israel, driven by domestic electoral politics, runs directly counter to its own foreign policy interests.  Inevitably, the US is perceived elsewhere in the Middle East as at least tolerating if not encouraging Israel’s land grab in the Palestinian territories;  if its funds do not literally finance the expansionist project, they certainly free up funds that do.

Even assuming the best American intentions, then, they’re all too often interpreted as the worst.  But what exactly are those best intentions?

At root, this book is, or could have been, about America’s perception of itself.  Are we the world’s greatest do-gooders, distributing our largesse (and our arms) where most urgently needed?  Or are we acting to secure a blinkered and out-dated conception of our own interests?

Either way, as Rohde wrote in a New York Times op-ed back in May, “We should stop thinking we can transform societies overnight…  Nations must transform themselves.  We should scale back our ambitions and concentrate on long-term economics.”  His economic recommendations are accordingly small-scale (sometimes to the level of pathos, as in his enthusiasm for an Egyptian version of ‘The Apprentice’).  Yet his emphasis on entrepreneurship may actually undercut his argument that trying to force Western models on other countries will backfire.  And this is the argument that matters.

Like Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, says Rohde, American officials need to listen rather than try to muscle their way in, whether economically or militarily.  A little respect, that is.   Preach less, listen more.  That may not be much of a “reimagining,” but it’s the really important message of this book.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: 'America' magazine, 'Beyond War', Afghanistan, David Rohde, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, USAID | 2 Comments
  1. fatmakalkan says:
    October 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I agree with you Lesley. In reality after Eygptian over throw of Moursi next one was Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Turkey has much older democracy than Israel in Middle East but it is not in the interest of west to have strong Turkey with strong leader. West wants Soudi type regimes that will obey. Gezi park demonstrations at Istanbul in reality was an unsuccessful cue attempt of west. Thanks God it was unsuccessful. It would destabilize Turkey politically and economically and make Turkey again slave of west. Why West and Israil gov. Wants to get rid of Erdogan? Is he radical Islamist? No. Is he planing to bring sharia law back to Turkey ? No. If Turkey was a Christian state they would allow it to became another France or Germany but it is Muslim state very mellow understanding of Islam no treat to anybody but still even that much of Islam is not OK. There fore Turkey must remain as a third world country for western Judeo- Christian politicians.

  2. Jerry M says:
    October 28, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I can understand why the author left Israel out. I may not like our policy in Israel but it is a very different problem than what is happening in the Muslim world. In the case of the Obama administration, I don’t think they have a clue as to what they want to accomplish. Their lack of real preparation has led to them to keeping the mistakes of the Bush administration in effect long after they have left town. For example the spying on Germany has been going on for 10 years.

    Obama is a good administrator when he has a clear goal, but without ideas and without good advisors he is only a little better than an amateur.

Sign Here, Syria (and Israel, and Egypt)

Posted September 9th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

In the whole debate on whether to deploy a missile strike against Syria for the use of sarin gas, my mind has been (appropriately?) like the many-handed Hindu goddess of darkness and death, Kali.

— On the one hand, what exactly would a US missile strike achieve, especially since President Obama has so carefully described it as limited in scope and intent?

— But then am I really so callous as to say we should not move when chemical weapons are deployed, especially against sleeping civilians?

— Then again, the level of the debate has sickened me (all the talk about maintaining America’s credibility, for example, as though that were more important that what’s actually happening in Syria — or the talk about how we can’t let Assad “get away with it,” as though he were merely a schoolboy who’d broken the rules).

— But does that really mean we just sit back and do nothing?

— Though that’s exactly what we’ve been doing as an average of 5,000 Syrians have been killed each month.

— But is military action really the only option?

—  And isn’t the idea of a surgical strike another of those military oxymorons created for armchair warriors thrilling to missile-mounted cameras as though war were a video game?

—  And shouldn’t the US have intervened to prevent chemical weapons being used, instead of as a gesture of disapproval after their use?

All this, and I haven’t even gotten to the question of who would actually gain from such a strike.  And without even mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and…

Kali needs more than eight hands.

But today’s diplomatic developments seem to me immensely hopeful.

All I know at this moment is what you do:  Russia has publicly proposed that Syria give up its stockpiles of chemical weapons.  And since Russia has so openly supported the Assad regime (and been a major supplier of the ingredients for those weapons), and since Assad has so publicly claimed his regime did not use chemical weapons (all evidence to the contrary), the demand that he give them up to avoid a US-led missile strike may be an excellent example of his bluff being expertly called.

So I have a modest proposal that might sweeten the deal — for all of the Middle East.  It’s as follows:

Seven countries have held out on the international treaty against the use and manufacture of chemical weapons, aka the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Those countries are Syria, Israel, Egypt, Angola, Myanmar, South Sudan, and North Korea.  (Two of these — Israel and Myanmar — have signed, but so far, have not yet ratified it.)

So if we’re really serious about banning chemical weapons, and if we’re really serious about the search for some nascent form of Middle East peace (two big ‘ifs,’ but bear with me), we should demand not only that Syria give up its chemical weapons and sign and ratify the treaty, but that at least Israel and Egypt both step up to the plate too.

We should seize the moment and say “Sign here, Mssrs Assad, Netanyahu, and Sisi.”

And we should do it right now.  Before we forget about chemical weapons until the next time they’re used.  Before we leave Assad to keep killing Syrians with conventional weapons.  And before the American public again retreats into its normal state of apathy about anything that happens in countries where the majority are not apple-pie white and Christian.

At least let something good come out of all this horror.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics, war | Tagged: Tags: chemical weapons, Egypt, Israel, Russia, Syria, treaty, United States | 6 Comments
  1. Irene says:
    September 9, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Thanks Lesley!!!!! This is the best I have read and heard on this topic so far. I am with you. Completely.

  2. Dora Hasen says:
    September 9, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    By jove, I think you have got it! The time is definitely now and I appreciate your truthful comment about American public.

  3. nuzhat fakih says:
    September 10, 2013 at 12:01 am

    how TRUE Lesley……on every word said here….oh, what a disgruntled feel it is, to be a helpless observer to this insolent crime being flaunted for the rest of humanity to see…..misguidedly in the name of religion or politics or power.
    Our hearts and prayers remain with each innocent sufferer of this holocaust.
    had been waiting for your comment on this issue from you, and was expectedly rewarded with these enlightened views.

    Nuzhat.

  4. Chad says:
    September 10, 2013 at 4:31 am

    Me Like!

  5. Lesley Hazleton says:
    September 11, 2013 at 10:37 am

    But how? Per today’s NYT, finding let alone destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal may be all but impossible:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Disarmament.html?hp

  6. Adil Rasheed says:
    September 19, 2013 at 7:00 am

    Lezley, I would like to bring to your kind attention that it is not only Sisi, Netanyahu and Assad who need to sign and ratify the treaty but even the US and Russia should be told to observe the CWC which required them to destroy their stockpile of chemical weapons before a final deadline required by the CWC, which elapsed in April 2012. So much for those who like drawing red lines.

Morsi’s Anti-Semitism

Posted January 16th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

I wish I could say that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s anti-Semitism surprised me half as much as it seemed to surprise The New York Times.  (“Egyptians should nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred” for Jews and Zionists, Morsi declared in a videotaped speech three years ago. “They have been fanning the flames of civil strife wherever they were throughout history. They are hostile by nature.”)

But the rampant use of anti-Semitic imagery in political rhetoric both in Egypt and in other Muslim countries (“apes,” “pigs,” “bloodsuckers,” said Morsi) is hardly news.  It comes right out of the convoluted paranoia of The Protocols of the Elders of the Zion, which far too many Egyptians still take for fact instead of the fictional fake it was long ago proved to be.  What concerns me is how it seeps into even the best-intentioned minds, in far less obvious but nonetheless insidious ways.

Consider, for instance, an exchange like this one, which I seem to have had a number of times over the past several years:

— “What do the Jews think they’re doing in Gaza?”

— “The Jews?  All Jews?  Which Jews?”

— “The Israelis, of course.”

— “Which Israelis?”

— “Well, the Israeli government.”

— “So why do you not say ‘the Israeli government’ instead of ‘the Jews’?”

This is what you might call the low-level shadow of anti-Semitism.  My interlocutors (I love/hate that word) would never dream of using Morsi’s inflammatory language of hatred.  They’re liberal and moderate American Muslims (some are believing mosque-goers, others self-described agnostics or atheists).  And yet even they are not always immune to that conflation of politics and ethnicity, of Israeli policy and Jewishness.

Each time such an exchange occurs, there’s a pause in the conversation — a moment of discomfort as my interlocutor (that word again!) realizes what I’m responding to.  And then comes a nod of acknowledgement, one that takes considerable courage, since none of us appreciate being called to account.  Call it a small moment of sanity.

I recognize this because it’s mirrored in Israel, where talk of “the Arabs” — a generalization as bad as “the Jews” — veers more and more not just into outright racism, but into a kind of gleeful pride in that racism, as shown in David Remnick’s long piece on “Israel’s new religious right” in the current New Yorker.

Israeli politicians have taken to presenting themselves as defenders of “the Jewish people,” regularly using “Jew” as a synonym for “Israeli,” even though — or because — over 20% of Israeli citizens are Muslim or Christian Arabs.  They do this deliberately, of course, just as the Morsi-type anti-Semitic rhetoric is deliberate.  The emotional resonance of “Jew” is deeper and far older than that of “Israeli,” and thus far more useful as a carrier of both covert and overt pride and prejudice.

As a Jew I find this political claim to represent me both insulting and obnoxious.  Like an increasing number of American Jews, I’m appalled by the policies of the Netanyahu government (let alone those of its predecessors), and at the development of what has clearly become an apartheid regime.  I deeply resent being lumped together with the Netanyahus of this world — and I equally deeply resent the attempt by the Netanyahus of this world to lump themselves in with me and define my Jewishness.  How dare they?  And how dare Morsi?

I’d ask “have they no shame?” but the answer is obvious.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, Judaism, Middle East, sanity, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: anti-Semitism, David Remnick, Egypt, Israel, Morsi, Netanyahu, racism | 9 Comments
  1. Sani says:
    January 16, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    I am surprised that Egyptian President Morsi is described as antisemite. Morsi too is a semite. Anti-semetism according to history tracks originated from the Christians who claimed that the Jews killed Jesus one of their brethen […] Your accusation means that you are acclaiming President Morsi as a non follower of Muhammad Rasulullah […]

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      January 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Antisemitism needs to be called out, not excused. The same, I might remind you, goes for Islamophobia.
      The case for antisemitism as anti-Islamic could indeed be persuasively made, and needs to be made far more, by Muslims. Instead, too many argue precisely the opposite.

      • Muhammad Siddique says:
        February 14, 2013 at 5:36 am

        Lesley, I quote your words.
        “The case for antisemitism as anti-Islamic could indeed be persuasively made, and needs to be made far more, by Muslims. Instead, too many argue precisely the opposite.”
        I am a Muslim, but I cannot agree more with you on this. Islam does not advocate hatred for Jews as a people. The Prophet’s many interactions with the Jews of Madinah prove the opposite. For Muslims the father of Jews, Israel (Jacob) and their leader Moses are beloved figures. The quarrel that arose between sections of the latter days Jews and Muslims in Madinah is not a racial one, but a political issue. Today, if the democrats and republicans don’t see eye to eye, does it mean there is hatred between them?. Today’s Muslims’ view of Jews has become conditioned by the actions of the State of Israel.

        Muhammad Siddique

  2. Sarah says:
    January 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Lesley, I have been in similar discussions from an early age. I always try to redirect the speaker: “You mean zionist, don’t you?” or, “you mean Israeli, don’t you?” There is no political correctness movement or enlightenment in the Middle East to help people un-learn their bigotry.

    A generation ago, Jews, Muslims and Christian Arabs lived together throughout the middle east. Many went to mixed schools and had friends of other religions. Now, this is restricted, even where the different groups co-exist. It is a tremendous loss. It is so much easier to paint people with a broad brush when you don’t actually know them.

  3. Hakan from Turkey says:
    January 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    You ask “which Jews” but I think it is not correct to turn a blind eye on the sentiments of the mainstream citizen of Israel. It is well documented that the Jewish people living in Israel see the Arabs inferior. I also remember reading in the news that the Israeli drafted soldiers (which means regular people, not professional killing machines) wearing t-shirts with visuals that implies they delightfully killed Arabs, or Israeli school children writing massages on bomb shells that they know will explode in a village in Palestine.

    Years of violence poisoned everybody in that unfortunate corner of the middle east. I hope they get back to their senses soon.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      January 17, 2013 at 11:10 am

      You might want to read my post again and examine your own thinking, Hakan. “The Jewish people living in Israel see the Arabs as inferior,” you say. Really? Not some, not even many, but all of them? Thanks for denying the existence of, among others, Israeli liberal activists and reporters, without whose work we would know little of what’s happening in the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, you repeat apocryphal tales from unsubtantiated sources — basically, urban legends based in prejudice. Years of violence have poisoned many people, true. But not “everybody.”

      • Hakan fron Turkey says:
        January 17, 2013 at 1:29 pm

        Of course no society on earth is monolithic. I actually used the term “mainstream”. I don’t blame all the Israelis. I thought I made that clear enough.

        Let me give you an example to make what I argue easier to understand. Do you think is it logical to claim that only the Nazis are to blame for the shoah? Or the German people, who elected them knowing what Hitler was up to, are also guilty? Of course there were good Germans too, some even committed suicide instead of being a part of that society. But we can absolutely say there was a serious problem with the “majority” of the German society at that time.

        Just like that, are we to blame Sharon, Netenyahu or Liberman alone, or the people who elect them and let them govern Israeli too?

        To repeat, I am not anti- anything and condemn Morsi’s statement.. I just say if people blame the “Israeli people” for what’s going on there, we need to stop and think if there is a truth in that statement, instead of fending them off by saying only the government is to blame.. We need to see the problem to correct it. Of course you know all of these better than me, I just wanted to remind.

        P.S. They are not urban legends, but documented realities:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2009/03/racist-and-sexist-military-shirts-show-the-fruits-of-israeli-militarism.html

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-military-condemns-soldiers-shocking-tshirts-1651333.html

        http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/07/israeli-children-sign-their-missiles_18.html

        just a couple links.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          January 17, 2013 at 1:53 pm

          I stand (and sit) corrected. Poisonous thinking spreads — and we all need to stand against it, wherever it is. In Israel, in Egypt, in the US, in Turkey, anywhere. Glad you’re on board.

  4. ThinkWorth says:
    January 17, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    Only an agnostic can be even-handed. I do appreciate your piece. I watched your recent video defending Prophet Mohamed before large audience under the title Muhammad, you and me. Keep up your good work. But surely, I am no agnostic.

The Real Muslim Rage

Posted September 23rd, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Oh what a bandwagon that noxious little anti-Islamic video has set in motion.  There seems to be no end of people eager to hop on it for personal and political gain, no matter how many lives it costs.

There’s Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, reeling from backlash against his support of Bashar al-Assad’s ongoing massacre of Syrian civilians.  What a perfect opportunity to deflect criticism by calling for more and larger protests — not against the Syrian regime, but against America, in the name of “defending the Prophet.” Except that’s not what he’s doing. To cite the headline of Nick Kristof’s NYT column today, he’s exploiting the Prophet.

There’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she of the soft voice and the compelling back story, who just can’t stop talking about what she calls “the Muslim mentality.” (Pop quiz:  if someone who generalizes about a stereotyped “Jewish mentality” is an anti-Semite, what’s someone who generalizes about a stereotyped “Muslim mentality”?  Click here if you don’t know.)  Hirsi Ali told her story yet again in Newsweek‘s “Muslim Rage” issue (to which the best answer was the often hilarious #MuslimRage meme on Twitter).  Strange to think that the rapidly failing Newsweek was once a reputable publication.

There’s the sophomoric French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose idea of cutting-edge humor is cartoons of politicians with their pants down around the ankles.  This week they ran similar cartoons of Muhammad in order to inject some life into their plumetting circulation by creating controversy.  Oh, and as a beacon of free speech, of course.

There’s Pakistan’s Minister of Railways — the man responsible for the system’s chronic debt, constant strikes, and devastating crashes. What better way to distract people from his total failure than to make himself out to be a “defender of Islam” by offering a $100,000 bounty for the life of the director of that inane video?  There’s nothing quite like incitement to murder to cover up your own corruption.

There’s more — there’s always more of such people, including of course the miserable little bigots who made the video in the first place —  but that’ll do for now. Because none of this reflects the real Muslim rage:  the palpable outrage not only at the killing of Ambassador Stevens, but also at the blatant attempt of Islamic extremists (and their Islamophobic counterparts) to hijack Islam.

Listen, for instance, to Egyptian activist Mahmoud Salem, aka Sandmonkey, who was one of the voices of 2011’s “Arab spring” in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.  Violent protests over the video are “more damaging to Islam’s reputation than a thousand so-called ‘Islam-attacking’ films,” he writes, and calls on Egyptians to condemn Islamic fundamentalists as “a bunch of shrill, patriarchal, misogynistic, violent extremists who are using Islam as a cover” for political ambition.

Twitter is spilling over with similar protests and disgust from Muslims all over the world at the way the “defenders of Islam” are destroying it from within.  And this disgust was acted on in Benghazi on Friday when 50,000 Libyans marched to demand the disarming of the extremist militias suspected of attacking the US consular buildings, then stormed the headquarters of two of the biggest militias and forced them out of town.  Two other Islamist militias instantly disbanded.  Yes, if you unite, you can face down the thugs, even well-armed ones.  This, of course, is not something you’ll see on the cover of Newsweek.

As Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, and with especial pain, Syrians know, the “Arab spring” is not a matter of a single season.  The moniker itself is a product of Western media shorthand, of the desire to label a “story” and assign it a neat, self-contained timeline.  But this was no mere story for the people living it.  It was and still is the beginning of a long process.  But one that once begun, cannot be undone.

All over the Middle East, real voices are making themselves heard, unmediated by government control whether in the name of “security” or of an extremist travesty of Islam.

And this is surely the real manifestation of that much abused principle:  freedom of expression.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, Middle East, sanity | Tagged: Tags: anti-Islam video, Arab spring, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Benghazi, Charlie Hebdo, Egypt, Hassan Nasrallah, Libya, militias, Newsweek, outrage, Pakistan, Sandmonkey, Syria, Tunisia | 14 Comments
  1. anon says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    when CNN uses Ambassador Stevens diary—“free-speech” goes out the window. Anything embarrassing to the U.S. government or military and there is no free-speech—-anything insulting to Muslims—and “free-speech” suddenly becomes important to Americans!!!!

    By the way—Muslim-minority countries are also allowing protests in their countries—seems “anti-americanism” isn’t confined to Muslim-Majority countries alone……

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 23, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      Stealing and using anyone’s private diary sounds Murdoch-sleazy to me. Can’t see that it has anything to do with free speech. And as for “allowing” protests, doesn’t that word “allowing” tell you something?

      • anon says:
        September 29, 2012 at 2:13 am

        “sound Murdoch-sleazy to me”—that is exactly my point—Americans may “claim” free-speech”—but it DOES have boundaries—some things are just not acceptable—because they are “sleezy” or unpatriotic, or….etc……There were U.S. muslim students who were arrested because they protested a speech by Israeli ambassador, there was a Judge who banned hateful protests at funerals of American soldiers……

        people in different parts of the world have sensibilities that may be different from an American criteria—for example, in some countries in Asia—speech defaming the monarchy is against the law…..We have to be able to respect each others differences……….Non-Americans need to understand that America has its own criteria—and Americans need to understand that non-Americans also have their own criteria…..

        “Allowing protests”—yes, for much of the rest of the world “freedoms” are still very much a “work-in-progress”—even in the democracies of Asia.

        (by the way—I do agree that moderate/mainstream muslims MUST counter the narrow, extremist ideology that encourages violence)

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          September 29, 2012 at 10:44 am

          You get the difference, though, between what’s acceptable and what’s legal in the US. Expressions of antisemitism and racism are legal, but no longer acceptable in the mainstream. I’m convinced that this will happen too with Islamophobia — i.e. it will be marginalized. The hard thing is that it takes time, and as you say, understanding that we all need to speak out against extremist ideologies and hatred on all sides. Freedom of expression is a terrifically tough concept to get one’s mind around — I still have great difficulty with it, and sometimes find myself raging against the American Civil Liberties Union. But I send my check to the ACLU nonetheless, because next time round, it could be me whose freedom of expression is being threatened.

  2. naveed says:
    September 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    You have correctly pointed out people who have cashed in on ‘muslim rage’ but these are not the real reasons for the rage. From one who is enraged: May I give the real reason for my rage? The American support to its stooges in Muslim countries, the mechanisms of regime change in Muslim countries and the American occupation of Muslim countries are the reasons for ‘Muslim Rage’

  3. Emad Yawer says:
    September 25, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    If the US and Europe so keen on free speech, whay I can not USE the Swastica, WHY I can not critisize ANY jew, jewish thing or deny the Holocost took place, WHY there is so many restrictions on what they call “HATE” , but it is all different against Islam?????????

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 10:28 am

      I don’t know where you live, but the fact is that in most of the world, you can. And in many parts of the Middle East, antisemitic cartoons, images etc are common in school textbooks and newspapers. As I’ve written here before, antisemitism and Islamophobia are mirror images — actually, twinned images — which makes it all the more miserably absurd when there are Muslims who are antisemitic, and Jews who are Islamophobic.

  4. Sohail Kizilbash says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Look Guys, lets us not be naive and banal. USA is THE superpower and she has to do a lot of things to maintain that status. If you don’t like it, you can lump it. Having said that, I don’t know of any other country where people are more free and freedom comes at a price. I totally agree with a Muslim who appeared on the TV a few day ago who said that the best country to practice Islam, is the USA.

    • Naveed says:
      September 30, 2012 at 10:51 am

      You are right USA is THE superpower. Dont forget that not too long ago Britain and then USSR were superpowers. Dont lose sight of the fact that in less than five years China will be a Superpower. Scientific and technological development can neither be halted nor contained sooner or later small countries and even stateless groups will accquire yet to be invented weapons of mass destruction. The survival of mankind depends on realizing that there can be no prosperity without peace and there can be no peace without justice.

      • Sohail Kizilbash says:
        September 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm

        Absolutely no argument there, Naveed. The seeds of destruction are embedded in the fabric of an empire. All empires, until now, have degenerated into dictatorships, arrogance, conceit, intolerance, superiority complex and gone into a comfort zone, bringing about their demise. Hopefully this will not happen to the USA as it adapts to changing times. See the change from a slave owning society, to a country where a half black is President. Now people proudly declare that they have native blood. One has to live in the USA and read history to see the change. The self critical nature of the Americans is one of their biggest strength.That is just my humble opinion.

        • naveed says:
          October 1, 2012 at 4:35 am

          Very well written Sohail. I had the privilege of living and working in USA as an alien resident for several years. I whole heartedly agree that America is a great country; the vast majority of Americans are forthright, honest and fair-minded people. We in the third world owe America and Europe a huge debt of gratitude for the benefits of science and technology. Unfortunately Americans are themselves the victims of a foreign policy influenced by lobbies whose allegiance lies outside its shores. For the sake of people of America and the people of the world. For the sake of peace on earth, we can only hope and pray that the future leaders of America will be great people like Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, people who would base their decisions on principles of right and wrong rather than on opinion polls, oil money and directives of foreign lobbies. Kissinger said “ Real politick not a moralistic approach to foreign policy would best serve American interests” ( perhaps he really meant Israeli interests ) Americans are being led by neo-cons and evangelists who base their foreign policy on biblical prophesies.

          • Sohail Kizilbash says:
            October 1, 2012 at 7:36 am

            Alas. Sometimes the tail wags the dog.

  5. Sohail Kizilbash says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    By the way Lesley, if you are on the FB you might enjoy the comments on my recent posts on this issue.

  6. irfan says:
    October 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    .hope the peaceful message will get more support

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Blasphemy-in-Islam-The-Quran-does-not-prescribe-punishment-for-abusing-the-Prophet/articleshow/16631496.cms

Could That Video Be Self-Defeating?

Posted September 15th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Could that pernicious video have ended up working against itself?  Could this be the tipping point for both Islamophobia and its mirror image, militant “Islamist” extremism?  Is this where both are revealed for the ugly con game they really are?

Perhaps the one good thing about the video is that it is so upfront in its ugliness.  It’s no longer just you and I saying it;  it’s also the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, whose anger was palpable:  “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”

Now we know who made the video:  a convicted con man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, indicted on multiple charges of bank fraud and check-kiting.  And he may indeed end up back in jail, since by posting his work to the Internet he violated the terms of his probation.  That’s little consolation, of course, for the multiple deaths he’s caused — at least a dozen so far.  And none at all for those who don’t understand that the principle of freedom of speech, no matter how hard it is to accept, applies to all. Under a different administration, the same principle by which they demand that he be jailed could then be turned around and applied to them.

But we know more.  We know that the protests against the video have been used and manipulated by Al Qaeda and Salafi types, who manipulated the sincere outrage and insult of protestors to further their own political agenda and try to destabilize newly elected governments.  In the process, they also furthered the agenda of their Islamophobic blood brothers, providing graphic images of Muslims doing everything Islamophobes expect — rioting, burning, killing.  But for the first time, all countries involved seem to have clearly recognized this and given voice to it, perhaps none more perfectly than Hillary Clinton: “”The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob.”

We know that Twitter is alive with condemnations of the violence from Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians, and more.  Mainstream Muslims, both religious and secular, will no longer tolerate being intimidated into silence by those who claim to speak in their name for a violent, extremist travesty of Islam.  They are speaking out in unprecedented volume and numbers.

And we know this:  the new governments of Libya and Yemen instantly condemned the violence and apologized for the death of Ambassador Stevens.  In the words of the president of the Libyan National Congress, it was “an apology to the United States and the Arab people, if not the whole world, for what happened.  We together with the United States government are on the same side, standing in a united front in the face of these murderous outlaws.”  Residents of Tripoli and Benghazi staged demonstrations to condemn the attack on the Benghazi consulate and to express their sorrow at the death of Stevens, who was widely admired for his support of the revolution that ousted Qaddafi.

Even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt finally realized that this was not a matter of defending Islam against outside enemies, but of defending it against its own worst enemies on the inside.

All this, it seems to me, is new.  As is the reaction of the US administration, led by Obama and Clinton — calm, measured, determined, and in the spirit of Ambassador Stevens himself,  the opposite of the heavy-handed American imperialism of the past.  Imagine if this had happened under Bush, or under Romney, and shudder at how they would have reacted.

Could it be, finally, that more and more people are getting it?  That both the Islamists and the Islamophobes are losing?  That sanity, however high the cost in lives, might actually prevail?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, Middle East, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: Al Qaeda, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Islamophobia, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Nakoula, Obama, Salafis, Tunisia, Twitter, Yemen, YouTube video | 9 Comments
  1. Yafiah Katherine says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    It’s so refreshing to read such a clear-headed account of the situation. I’ve been feeling so down-hearted throughout this awful mess and I hope too that it will become clearer to everyone how Islamophobes and extreme Islamists are mirror-images of each other. But surely there is a line between freedom of speech and hate speech that incites to violence? I’ve been so frustrated at the BBC reporting on ‘a video that Muslims find insensitive’ instead of saying loud and clear that it’s totally unacceptable as much as the manipulation of the protests is totally unacceptable. I’m tweeting your post and sharing it on FB. Thank you.

  2. Sandra Peters says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Lesley,

    Thank You for such an excellent perspective of how the world is reacting to the video. Violence and destruction are not the answer. “Calm, measured, determined, and in the spirit of Ambassador Stevens himself” as you so wrote will prevail.

  3. burhan says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Lesley hazleton, Im your biggest fan and I wish I could ever come to the same intelligence level as you one day! Burhan Adhami

  4. Herman says:
    September 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Amazing,
    In Egypt they televise a series based on the fictitious Protocols of the elders of Zion, in Iran a conference is held regarding the non happening of the Holocaust, Christians are murdered all over Muslim Africa and Egypt and you are blaming everything on Al Quaeda.
    You are kidding right?

  5. Qaisar Latif says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Well said.

  6. Meera Vijayann says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:34 am

    Thank you for this great read Lesley. Honestly, when I watched the video, I first thought it was absolute nonsense, and was surprised that such rubbish could be taken seriously. In fact, if the movie was indeed to be taken seriously, it was perhaps a good opportunity for the Muslim world to ignore it and refuse to stoop so low by giving it the attention it intended to garner.

    As you rightly said, I am glad too that the Bush government isn’t in power. I shudder to think of what would’ve happened if it were.

  7. Meezan says:
    September 16, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Silver lining to a very very dark cloud.

  8. Tea-mahm says:
    September 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    You go girl! Good piece. Sending love from Istanbul where the call to prayer wakes me in the morning…..

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      Sooooo envious! One day I will make it to Istanbul!

The Virginity Test

Posted June 2nd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Sometimes I wonder what year it is.  2011, or 1911?

Item:  former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s legal team is about to spend at least half a million dollars trying to discredit the immigrant chambermaid who accused him of rape and sexual assault.  Presumably, they’ll try to use her sexual history against her.  After all, she’s a widow with a 15-year-old child.  That is, she’s no virgin.

Item:  the so-called virginity tests forced on women protestors in Cairo by the military.  In fact these were officially sanctioned rape, even if no penetration was involved.  They were a deliberately chosen means of intimidating, humiliating, and attempting to control women.  To say that virginity has nothing to do with political activism is to belabor the point.  It’s not as though those who “passed” the publicly administered “test” were released with the military blessing to go demonstrate in freedom.  It was yet another means of repression.

For those who might think this is a peculiarly Islamic thing, consider that Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, with whom he lived monogamously for 19 years, was twice widowed by the time they married.  And that of the nine women he married after her death, only one was a virgin at marriage (the others were all divorced or widowed).  Since virginity was clearly a non-issue to Muhammad himself, any religious argument for it is hard to make.

As for those virgins in paradise, well, see my TEDx talk for that.

The same applies in Christianity.  Yes, of course I know about the Virgin Mary — I wrote a book about her.  But as I pointed out there, to reduce the concept of virginity to the existence of a biologically useless membrane called the hymen is worse than absurdly literal.  It totally misses out on the grand metaphor of virginity, which existed around the world at the time.  As with a virgin forest, it stood for incredible fecundity, for a surfeit of growth and reproduction, untamed and unfettered.  That is, virginity was the miracle of fertility, and in that respect, the Virgin Mary is the last in a long and once-powerful line of mother goddesses.

So let’s not blame religion.  That’s just the excuse.  Nor such a thing as a “Middle East mentality.”   Because…

Item: as late as the 1970s, British officials were administering virginity tests too.  And again, the purpose was to intimidate women — to deter them from entering the country as immigrant brides (if they weren’t virgins, it seemed, they had to be lying about their reasons for entering the U.K.).   And while we’re talking about Brits, by the way, how weird is it that at that same time, the early 1970s, Richard Branson chose the name Virgin for his enterprises?  Flying the friendly skies?

Perhaps all this means that in forty years’ time, the confusion of virginity with virtue will be as outmoded in Egypt as it now is (Branson excepted) in England.  But then of course it’s not about virtue, and never was.  It’s about the peculiar desire of some men (thank God not all) to control women — their sexuality, their behavior, their freedom of choice.  That is, it’s about not about women as people, but as possessions.

Item:  A commenter on this blog, fulminating against Islam with such blatant racism that I had to bar him as spam, summed up his argument this way:  “We know how to treat our women.”  That “we” evidently referred only to men, specifically to non-Muslim western men who think of women as possessions — “ours” — and as such, to be (mis)treated as “we” see fit.   He was, he made clear, a fundamentalist Christian.

So tell me, what year are we living in?  Scratch the years I gave at the top.  If you go see Werner Herzog’s new movie, Cave of Forgotten Dreams (about the prehistoric paintings on the walls of that cave), you might discover that even Neanderthals had more respect for women than this.  And they lived 35,000 years ago.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, feminism, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Cave of Forgotten Dreams, DSK, Egypt, fertility, Great Britain, Khadija, Muhammad, rape, sexuality, UK, virgin forest, Virgin Mary, virginity tests, Werner Herzog, women | 14 Comments
  1. Hossam says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    As usual you wrote a very well article. It sometimes amazes me how some people quickly forget the past. It is something horrible if it really did happen, a disgrace. I think that guy’s ridiculous excuse “We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” shows how much lack we have in terms of understanding of human rights and what constitutes rape. So we are about 40 years behind, i just hope we start catching up soon.

  2. lavrans says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    As usual, I wonder about how much all of this is the struggle of overcoming “civilization”.

    Of course the Neanderthals treated women better… women were still part of the family. To move into a city requires agriculture and religion. Both of those seem to require hierarchies, and the simplest one is that of sex, followed by color, and then all the other facades that mean so little.

    Of course that’s a bit simplistic. Plenty of bad behavior to go around, but I’m constantly surprised by how much people seem to require someone else to provide them with the rules of composure, of respect, even while the ideal can be pulled from every mouth with very little prompting.

    We all know the myth of respect and virtue. What is it that makes it so enticing to withhold that from as many people as possible and upon such capricious reasoning? Religion itself of course isn’t an excuse- even though many put extra conditions on women and “others”, all of the prophets spend their time treating everyone as equally as possible.

    What turns me from religion and religious people is the awesome ability of the organization of religion to be so consistent in its absolute rejection of the very simple idea that the priests, those who manage the religion, should be bound to act LIKE their phrophets. They don’t seem to have a problem claiming some special connection to their God, but I suppose it’s a lot easier to [i]CLAIM[/i] to be the closest thing to God’s Chosen One on Earth than it is to ACT like the prophet who brought God’s word here.

    BTW- I don’t know how to do italics in this

  3. lavrans says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Oops- didn’t mean to post yet- I don’t know how to do Italics, so the CAPITALS aren’t meant to be shouts, just emphasis…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 3, 2011 at 9:25 am

      I know — WordPress seems to take sadistic delight in forcing commenters to capitalize by denying the use of italics. Awaagh….

  4. chefranden says:
    June 4, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    “So let’s not blame religion. That’s just the excuse. Nor such a thing as a “Middle East mentality.” Because…”

    Yes let’s do blame religion. Where do you suppose the British got the idea that a bride should be a virgin in the first place?

    • sirnassir says:
      June 7, 2011 at 9:06 pm

      Except that numerous societies with vastly different religions, from Buddhist Japan to Muslim Turkey, valued virginity amongst potential brides. This shows that religion isn’t at the root of the issue, since the problem (if that’s what you would like to designate it) crosses religious and cultural boundaries.

  5. Lamiaa says:
    June 10, 2011 at 2:17 am

    you made me cry … thank you

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 10, 2011 at 8:53 am

      Thank you, Lamiaa. Your tears, my privilege. You definitely earn the title Luminous Woman (http://luminouswoman.blogspot.com).

      • Lamiaa says:
        June 12, 2011 at 6:50 am

        🙂 Thanx Lesley..

  6. Ali Zaidi says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:51 am

    “….consider that Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, with whom he lived monogamously for 19 years, was twice widowed by the time they married.”

    According to Shia Islamic literature Khadija never married before marrying the Prophet. So may be it is not justified to claim that Khadija was a two-time widow before she married the Prophet.

    • Ali Zaidi says:
      June 21, 2011 at 9:08 am

      “… is not justified to claim that Khadija was a two-time widow….”

      Oops! Ofcourse you are justified to make this claim but what I meant to say was that it may not be entirely true that Khadija was a two-time widow before marrying the Prophet.

  7. Lamiaa says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    khadija had kids before Muhamed PBUH we all know that and even if she didn’t we all know she was 25 years his senior and women didn’t stay unmarried that long in that community so it is highly probable she was…I wonder when will men de-sexualize their intellects and truly think out side the box. It is thought that ruined the lives of widows and divorced women denying them a second chance at a happy married life.

    • Ali Zaidi says:
      June 22, 2011 at 10:43 am

      My only point is that when you say “..khadija had kids before Muhamed PBUH we all know that….”, it reflects only one version of the Islamic history. There is enough historical literature available on Khadija not being ever married before Muhammad PBUH.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        June 23, 2011 at 6:43 pm

        The earliest Islamic historians all agree that Khadija was twice widowed, but what interests me is this: why does it seem to be so important to you to believe that she was not?

Why Libya?

Posted March 23rd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

It’s kind of absurd that I should even be writing this post, since I know next to nothing about Libya.  But I’m writing it because I have the uncomfortable impression that those policy-makers who urged the current American and European military intervention in Libya – aka instituting a “no-fly zone” (a strange formulation when it involves so much use of fighter jets) — know very little more than I do.

I hope I’m wrong about this.  But hope isn’t much of a substitute for reason when people’s lives are at stake.

Why Libya?  Apparently because it seems safe.  Everyone in the west can agree that Qaddafi is nuts, that his regime sucks, and – most important from their point of view – that they have nothing to lose by intervening.  No strategically important naval base to protect, as in Bahrain.  No major oil supplier to coddle, as in Saudi Arabia.  No “partner” in the struggle against the elusive Al Qaeda, as in Yemen.  No close military ties, as in Egypt.

I can almost imagine the decision-makers thinking “Finally, a chance to prove that we really are on the side of freedom and democracy and all the things we keep talking about but don’t back up with action.  Phew!”

Of course the last time they did that – barging with heavy firepower and astounding ignorance into a country where it seemed clear who was Good and who was Bad – the result was disastrous.  Iraq is still a mess.  Afghanistan, an even worse mess.   But this time, you see, it will be different.  This time, we’ll do it right.  From the air,.  No feet on the ground.  So what if we don’t even know who’s who in Libya?  They hate Qaddafi;  what more could one ask for?

When I was a dreamy adolescent, I used to think that if I could only go round the world with a six-shooter and assassinate the worst dictators, the world would be a better place.  I spent hours deciding which six I would target (some weird English sense of fair play dictated that I could only have six bullets), until I grew up enough to realize that those I killed in my dreams would only be replaced by others, that this was not a matter of individuals, but of systemic social and political problems way beyond my grasp. (As for “solving” violence by violence, I’m glad to say I quickly grew out of that too.)

Now, in 2011, it seems that powerful nations are acting like that naïve adolescent that I once was, the difference being that their choice of target is determined not by dumb idealism, but by strategic realpolitik.  So sorry, Bahrain – we know you’re right in your demand for democracy, but our hands are tied.  Too bad, Egypt – we know the military has no intention of giving up power, but we need them.  You’re on your own, Yemen – who knows if you mightn’t threaten our good Saudi friends next?

But Libya?  Thank god for Qaddafi.  A chance to prove how good we are, at last…

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, no-fly zone, Qaddafi, Saudi Arabia, Yemen | 29 Comments
  1. Hossam says:
    March 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @Lesley
    well i can see how many people think this way, and i can see this is happening in the west and here too (i am egyptian) but i think it’s important to note that only Gadhaffi was so vocal in his intent to kill opposition figures, no other country you mentioned did that. Also it’s important to note that this was a UN resolution and not america trying to “export democracy”
    as for why america is taking a leading role, america is the world’s leader in terms of military, but of course we can argue you don’t really need that much strength to bomb libya.
    this is my opinion and i think that america already knows that it is risking its reputation just by interfering, no matter what the outcome is

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Hossam — just one two-bomb example of what can go wrong, from the NYT’s Elisabeth Bumiller yesterday on the rescue of a US pilot who ejected over eastern Libya when his plane malfunctioned:

      “A Marine Corps officer said that two Harrier attack jets dropped two 500-pound bombs during the rescue of the pilot, about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday local time (about 7:30 p.m. Monday E.D.T.). The officer said that the grounded pilot, who was in contact with rescue crews in the air, asked for the bombs to be dropped as a precaution before the crews landed to pick him up.

      “My understanding is he asked for the ordnance to be delivered between where he was located and where he saw people coming towards him,” the officer said, adding that the pilot evidently made the request “to keep what he thought was a force closing in on him from closing in on him.”

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:03 am

        That is scary of course. Of course there is a lot that can go wrong.
        I have to admit i am not looking from an american perspective, but from an arab perspective or an anti-gadaffi perspective, what other solution can be done to stop him from killing his people?

  2. Chad Tabba says:
    March 23, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    While we wish international politics and relationships were based purely on human ideals, unfortunately it is based on specific interests. We do that on a personal level too. A sibling or friend’s mistake always seems less bad than someone else’s. Don’t u think?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      Am not sure it isn’t somehow worse — like we feel more responsible if it’s someone close to us or someone we identify with in any way.

      What do others think?

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:07 am

        i am not sure i am following the relation of this to the topic, but i will take this chance to say something i want to say.
        i agree with Lesley 100% on that it feels worse when someone somehow related to you does a mistake or something “wrong”
        i feel that particularly when i see a fellow Muslim commit a terrorist act or call for a terrorist act, i feel somehow responsible (even though i’m not) and i feel it somehow damages my image
        especially when that person does that terrorist act in the name of my religion

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 24, 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Hossam I agree with what you are saying. What I meant was that international politics are built on interests. USA will be less critical of a dictator who is an ally than one who is not (and so the different standard in treating the “uprisings” in Libya compared to Bahrain or Yemen.) what it shows u is that politicians twist the talk and spew morals, but ultimately every country’s leaders will do what they perceive as in their country’s interest. There is more to gain in supporting a change in oil rich Libya than there is in supporting change in any sub-Saharan poor African country. Which is sad. Who will fend for those people? Who will fend for Palestinians? Who will fend for every oppressed people in the world who don’t have oil or who are oppressed by an ally of superpower countries. I hope I’m not too long with this reply?!

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm

          Chad — No way is this too long!

  3. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 23, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Spot on.

  4. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:11 am

    @ Hossam — Nick Kristof agrees w/ your first comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1 Still not sure I do. Am torn both ways.

  5. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:12 am

    @Chad, @Hossam, @Lynn — Yes, some of us feel responsible, even though we know we aren’t personally, and find ourselves immensely frustrated and angry that someone who declares themselves part of our “we” should commit terrorism. But then there are others who are seduced into that declared “we,” maybe even only half-willingly, and get caught up in rationalizations to cover up that uneasy feeling of wrong, even evil, done in their name. They end up justifying the unjustifiable in the name of the “we.”

    Dangerous words, “we” and “they.”

    • hossam says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      @Lesley
      yes, “us” and “them or “we” and “they” are dangerous words and dangerous thoughts, unfortunately i think that ultimately the majority of people think in terms of us and them, of course the definition of us and them may be different, for example in Egypt when a Muslim talks with another Muslim or Christian with another Christian about religion in Egypt, the us and them is Christian or Muslim, yet when a Muslim and Christian here are talking about US intervention then it’s the West vs. East or whites vs. Arabs.
      I Think the same can apply for example when you have a stereotypical American neoconservative and right winger talk about Muslim immigration to USA (i may be way off with this one but would like to hear what you think)

      About US intervention in Libya, i just thought of an interesting question, what would have people thought if the US had Vetoed the UN resolution?
      I would’ve been baffled, i would’ve thought it is for a reason beyond my knowledge. I also think that many people here (probably the same who object to the intervention) would have thought and said that America really is evil, not only is it not helping, but is preventing other countries from helping.
      what do others here think? sorry for long comment

  6. Ammar says:
    March 24, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Good point Lesley. All the Khalifa, Malik, King they are same in killing people. its not matter which one killed more,
    khalifa of Bahrain Oppressed people Bahrain,
    Malik of Saudi Oppressed people Bahrain and Saudi,
    Malik of Qatar Oppressed people of Bahrain (and maybe his people in near Future),
    in Yemen and Egypt and Libya as well.
    But the problem of Libya as I believe:
    1- Gaddafi: (as you pointed Nuts) 🙂
    2- its an American plan: to stop revolutions in other countries, by showing the people of Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and … if you want democracy this will happen to you as well, not easy(fast) like Tunisia. (Scar them)
    Is evident that America its not happy with revolutions (new Middle East) in these countries (but revolutions in Iran absolutely happy!!!).
    American Plan make revolution longer and to take more time, and this plan have very good Benefits for them like: A: people of world please forget Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen …. oh and what about new politic happening in Egypt right now, most of concentration is on Libya(Miserable people, like football ball). B: Israel Killing people of Gaza, did you see the body of cut baby only few month of age? (excellent time for Killing). C: time to think, Transfer Weapons (selling), …..
    But as all we know it will be revolutions and victory is with Nation will. [….]
    Why we have Religion, Why Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them all) [….] We have god and one day this world will end and we are front of our Almighty God with empty hand or ….

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      Ammar — I seriously doubt that things are as conspiratorial as you seem to imply. I think those who urged intervention in Libya were deeply frustrated at having been held back from doing more to support protest in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and more, and so perhaps over-compensated re Libya.

      My concern is that good intentions without good information can create bad unforeseen consequences.

      • Ammar says:
        March 25, 2011 at 7:44 am

        dont doubt Lesley, this is politic.
        I like your blog, thanks

  7. Shishir says:
    March 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Ms. Hazleton, I’ve decided to become a regular commenter :-).

    People in power don’t like to lose power, those not in power want to gain power, other people in power tend to support people in power for they derive benefits out of that support, they withdraw that support only when they see another center for power emerging.

    None of this has any thing to do with freedom, democracy etc etc. If US realizes a pro-US entity may gain power why mustn’t it support it, it is just the instinct of self preservation, every organism has it.
    Similarly if they realize anti-US entity gaining power
    they’d use whatever means permitted to ensure it doesn’t come to power.

    Isn’t that all that is there to any political situation? It is interesting to note in all major revolutions – when did businesses start financing the revolutionaries that tells a lot about when the revolution or any movement really gained critical mass required for potential success.

    Bombing Libya is less about freedom chest thumping and more about gaining a potential foothold with a favorable regime which you help install 🙂

  8. Helen Wenley says:
    March 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    I understand that Gaddafi is nuts and he threatened to kill his people. However I feel very uncomfortable with what is happening. The Americans have the reputation of being stumble bums and as its been pointed out, their track record is not the best. I feel very sad for the people of Libya that the situation has escalated.

  9. AJ says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Lez you are beauty…right on spot.
    your words satisfied the feelings of many.
    I will add character of new Bully France joining the ranks of Britains….Angela Markel lagging behind probably saved for better evil project until then she should play half willing doll of the puppet master
    Since Things started in Tunis and Egypt and then other nations…uneasy feelings were always there wheres the name of Al-Qaida why its not poped up yet…what happened to Bullys…are they sleeping.
    Nay they were working …working hard.
    Al-Qaida is old trick…now more reasonably theatrical approach is adopted.
    [….]
    They kill to save. What difference would it make if few thousands or few hundred thousands of Libyans are killed…still millions would be left…only few hundreds needed to pump oil to France and other civilized countries where human life is as expensive as oil.
    I wish Libyans understand it sooner than later.

  10. hossam says:
    March 25, 2011 at 6:55 am

    @Lesley
    i love this blog!
    you know, i talked with my wise friend today about US interests and Libya intervention, and he pointed out something interesting; he told me “don’t forget the word interests is very broad” it can be something like a Military base (which US does not have any in Africa), can be oil, can be even preventing China’s possible future foothold, etc…
    So i think there is always self interest when it comes to States, but i like to think that there is a little bit of humanitarian side to it too, i hope.
    I guess what I’m saying is that definitely there is US interest involved, but that doesn’t mean that it is exclusively US interests in mind, or even if it is, but in that situation it will also bring humanitarian interests to the Libyan people, whether on purpose or not, if nothing goes wrong as you pointed out Lesley

  11. A.S says:
    March 25, 2011 at 7:38 am

    The history of the mankind shows that many atrocious oppressors try to hide their unhumane deeds under the veil of persuading justice-seeking slogans, they also seek protection under the rubric of fighting against corruption and unsecurity.

  12. Chad Tabba says:
    March 25, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I have neutral feelings about international intervention. I will know how I feel about it after we see the results! LOL

    I do wonder and hope that this is some form of “Renessaince” happening in the Middle East after 300-400 years of “dark ages”. Or maybe its just wishful thinking. I think people have started to lose interest in the “palestinian-israeli conflict”. Maybe people have started to realize that you only gain respect in the world by growing economocally, through education, through freedom. You don’t get what u ask for just because its “right”. People are looking at their own financial situations and freedom and realizing they need to stand up for their rights. I hope….

  13. Lana says:
    March 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I sure hope what you are saying is true … i pray it has nothing to do with the oil … we don’t need another occupation … i pray for the best

    thank you … I LOVE your blog

  14. A.S says:
    March 26, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul says the goal of NATO-led invasion of Libya is not “liberation of Libyan people,” warning against pursuing any hidden agenda. ….. whats happening in libya!

  15. AJ says:
    March 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @hossam Sir with due respect — The humanitarian interests to the Libyan people is hard to envision. We can forget but history always record.
    Look at Afghanistan and Iraq…trillion $ wars. Had we spent 10 billion each on infra structure, we could have won the hearts of people. more than 10 years of occupation…we had plenty of time resources and expertese to build roads and schools and industrial network plus railway tracks…that had generated jobs and created a middle class in Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan has upper ruling class and tribal leaders AND down trodden lowest class which is 80% of population…they eat and feed their family the day when they can find work on daily wages…they sleep with empty stomach the day when their labour is not required.
    Whats the worth of 20 bil in 10 years in a multi-trillion dollar war…… that could have given them reasonable means to survive respectfully.
    Other means of survival there are to join Taliban which is left wide open and I am sure intentionally. Believing in their sincerity is naive.

  16. Kinopop says:
    March 31, 2011 at 12:20 am

    I’ve recently discovered your blog, and I can only shower you with praise. You are among the few who are so learned without a glaring agenda or bias, who has an honest disposition toward peace and accord among different cultures.
    Your tremendous wealth of knowledge in religious scriptures is enviable.
    Perhaps one of the less mentioned praiseworthy characteristics you have is an unashamed curiosity.
    I mean this as no insult when I say that you appear to be beginning a long journey of learning about the true nature behind political and economic incentives in that region. All I will say about it is that there should be no shred of doubt that the US’s involvement in Libya is far from “humanitarian.”
    A great resource for thorough analyses by well-intended academic political ‘demystifiers’ is counterpunch.org, among a few other sites.
    On a side note, I respect your opinion a lot, and I was wondering if you have any familiarity with ourbeacon.com and/or Dr Shabbir Ahmed’s interpretation. If so, I’d like to know what you think of it.

  17. AJ says:
    March 31, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Dr. Shabbir […] is a strong advocate of Quran alone…. Prophet’s prime job was to explain Quran… He thinks all Quran explained by Prophet is within Quran.
    When Quran says “For believers the best example is life style of Prophet”…he thinks all life style of Prophet is enshrined in Quran.
    He is against Prophet’s traditions [….]

    [By way of explanation: AJ is talking here about the hadith — later reports of Muhammad’s life and practice — and the ongoing argument within Islam as to how much emphasis to place on them and how reliable they are. For AJ, they are ultra-reliable and an essential part of Islamic belief; for Shabbir, not. — LH]

  18. Remittance Girl says:
    April 1, 2011 at 1:48 am

    Ms. Hazelton, I want to applaud you for your wonderful blog, for your wonderful work. I agree with your opinion about Libya completely.

    The West has a phenomenally bad record in helping people to embrace democracy in the past 40 years. I understand why protesters in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen want the West to intervene, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t give us permission to do so. We have example after example of how we ‘intervene’ wrong, no matter how noble or ignoble our intentions. We don’t leave places better off than we found them. It’s seems easy to make a bargain with the devil when you’re in pain, but you’ll pay for it later. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan.

  19. Eddie says:
    April 11, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Dear Ms. Hazelton,

    I don’t have to fully agree with you to extend my fulliest respect! You are a very inspiring person and humanity can never thank you enough for making us think on many levels, I really believe this does make the world a better place, ultimately.
    I was very sorry to find that someone is using your name as a You Tube Channel, promoting zero tolerance in additions to other spcial poisons you actually warn of.

    Good luck, and wishing you peaceful productive times.

    Sincerely,

    Eddie

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 11, 2011 at 10:00 am

      Thanks Eddie — and yes, several fake Lesley Hazleton videos on YouTube, and YouTube stunningly unresponsive to complaints. So much for their ‘community standards.’

That Colossal Wreck

Posted March 16th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Replying to an email from a friend just now, I quoted a line from Percy Bysshe Shelley‘s “Ozymandias,’ written in response to a giant sculpture of a pharoah’s head lying on its side at Luxor, Egypt. Then as I thought of the whole poem, I began to get chills up and down my spine. So with nuclear disaster in Japan uppermost in all our minds, here it is:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert… Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far way.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: ecology, existence, technology | Tagged: Tags: Egypt, Japan, Luxor, nuclear disaster, Ozymandias, Shelley | 3 Comments
  1. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 16, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    Stunned. Thank you for sharing that.

  2. lavrans says:
    March 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Not just Japan, but it also makes me think of the most recent person who took up the title “King of Kings”, now embroiled… I wonder if he’ll have as good an epitaph?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm

      Lovely that you got it. Thanks, L.

The 50-Minute Video

Posted March 12th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

I know you probably don’t have time for this long a video, but for the record, here’s my February 19 keynote speech at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI — on fundamentalism, stereotyping, and (with suitably Jewish agnostic chutzpah) religion, as well as on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the effect they may have on American attitudes toward Islam.

The occasion, at the largest Shia mosque in America, was the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad.   The still shot has a somewhat disturbingly preacher look to it, so please tell me I’m not preaching, just talking…

(The sound comes in fully after about 45 seconds.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: After the Prophet, Bahrain, Deuteronomy, Egypt, gospels, highlighter version, Islamophobia, Kaddish, Karbala, Libya, Nick Kristof, nutshell syndrome, Peter King, Quran, Roger Cohen, St Paul, stereotypes, Tariq Ramadan, terrorism, Tunisia, Yemen, zealotry | 49 Comments
  1. Meezan says:
    March 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Being a Muslim, I have read my share of prophet Mohammad’s (s.a.w.w)biographies and siras but I have to say one of my favorite parts of his life was revealed to me recently by Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time”. When the prophet was 19-20 years old (can’t remember exactly) he liked a girl and wanted to marry her but his uncle suggested that he was not in a good financial position to support a wife. This is not much, I know but that revealed a very human side of the prophet to me. I saw him as a flesh and blood person rather than an ever illuminating, floating in the air, long haired, blue eyed guy, and hence putting everything in a new perspective. His teachings now seemed like really good advice rather than an order. His religion a very flexible and tolerant way of life rather than something you have to have to follow.

    Your words are as always, enlightening.

  2. yusong says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    fantastic, you are a noble female, i admire you very much.

    • Shishir says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:43 am

      “a noble female” now what is that supposed to mean?

  3. Jonathan Omer-Man says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Congratulations! This is wonderful. And aren’t our similar interests dramatically divergent…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

      Or maybe they go round in a huge circle and turn out to be convergent…

  4. Aijaz says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Bravery is going against the the tide.
    and Lesley has it

  5. Chad Tabba says:
    March 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Wonderful talk Lesley, it brought to mind a couple of ideas I’m thinking of:
    First: Truly, religion’s goal, and the reason religions were formed, was to support the innate striving to be human, to be closer to the ideals of humanity. Thats how and why Sufism seems to be (at least in my mind) in many aspects more similar to buddhism than literal Islam. While Sufism in itself has imperfections as well, I have felt closer to much of what it says (and gnostic christianity) than literal religious belief. The idea that religion and faith comes from the heart, that religion is not about dogma, but about treating others as you would be treated, about forgiveness, and about love (general love not necessarily romantic love). Funny that I would be agnostic and gnostic simultaneously.

    Second: a question/note. I am saddened by the literalist/extremist interpretation of the holy books in general. The holy books have enough subtleness to allow some people to highlight specific words and twist them to support their ideas and take sentences out of context. Why did they have to be so subtle that the average person may be sucked into that literalism? That is my biggest problem with religion; more than trying to believe in a supreme creator, it’s the idea that it takes a higher level of understanding and “brain power” to understand what religion wants us to do. Whats the use if a bigger percentage of people are going to take it wrong and use it to kill each other? Why couldn’t the creator be more clear to lessen the sadness and suffering in the world. Why allow millions to be killed in his/her name? Would love to hear what u think about these 2 points.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Quran was revealed in single shot on Lailatul Qadr…then it was re-revealed in 23 years with cause and effects and circumstances to make sure people can not misinterperet its verses. The idea that Quran was re-revealed further strengthened that Prophet was warned not to haste but to wait for revelations [….]

      But still we have history and collections of traditions to help us understand the background of revelations in their true spirit. The key to understand Quran is 3:7, which Lesley has pointed out. She is not only eloquent but on the right track. It’s possible she already know more Quran than many of us, she understand the difference between Reader’s Digest and Holy Quran. Sometimes I feel not sure to guide her to some Quranic lead. Chances are she is already there.

      Metaphors are not there to mislead but we can not conceive them in their true interpretations. Tahir ul-Qadri has given a beautiful interpretation on “Judgment Day is near” He says no one knows when is Judgment day but for every individual his judgment day is his death day and tha’ts very near. [….] Metaphor does not mean that we doubt the reality of that day…reality of that Day is literal, nature of that day is allegorical. [….]

      Imam Ali said “You will never know truth and follow the right way unless you know the person who has abandoned it.”

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

        @Aijaz

        If I am not wrong you are Muslim, so I apologize beforehand for possible offense that my remarks may cause you.
        a) It is wrong to believe that Quran was revealed at one go and Mohammed was refrained from making it known at once. There is no real evidence of the fact, an equally plausible explanation is that it was “revealed” as Mohammed was in a position to understand it.
        b) It is also wrong to assume divinity of Quran, it is work of a man for it shows all that is concern of man nothing more nothing less.
        c) The reason why people interpret Quran differently is because Quran is not like a mathematical treatise and hence is ambiguous. The writer of Quran was limited in his/her knowledge because it was limited by what was known at the time. If a religion originates today it will suffer the same limitations perhaps 1600 yrs later.
        d) There can not be just one true religion, if it is can it be demonstrated it is so, unfortunately every holy book claims it and Quran claims it more than others perhaps.

        Now it is possible that I am wrong about some things, and if I am okay. I’ll learn something.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

        Aijaz — It really is time to cool it, and to find some way to acknowledge that you are human, that you do not have a stranglehold on “the truth.” There are many ways to approach this whole matter, and the ways others choose may be as valid and as well-intentioned as yours, no matter how different. As the Quran says, “you have your way, and I have mine.” Mine, as should be clear on this blog, is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that it’s precisely this absolutist idea that causes so much conflict. I think it would be far more productive and respectful if you reflected a lot more and judged a lot less.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:35 am

      Chad — Simultaneously gnostic and agnostic makes sense to me. In fact I sometimes call myself a gnostic agnostic — and some day, will have to figure out more precisely what I mean by that. You may be ahead of me there.

      But doesn’t your second point kind of undermine the first? It seems to assume the existence of an omnipotent creator with a will — that is, a conventional idea of God. Me, I’m really not into the whole idea of religion or of God ‘wanting’ us to do anything. The idea of a “purpose-driven life” is horribly mechanistic to me, leaving no room for what we were talking about earlier: for mystery, for poetry, for music.

      Sacred texts are really only sacred because human beings have made them so — either because they see them as prescriptions for how to behave, or because they find in them inspiration or an invitation to transcend their own limitations. (Well, and a vast range of possibilities between those two, but you get my point).

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm

        Oh, I agree Lesley. There is a contradiction. My second note was simply me just showing that even if I played devil’s advocate (pun intended) on behalf of literalists, I still couldnt excuse how some extremists act and “misquote” scriptures.

  6. Aijaz says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Lesley

    I do not have stranglehold on truth but I am entitled to hold my views as other humans have it here like shishir, and I am not offended by his/her dissent.

    I see nothing wrong with sticking to my views with a belief they are true.
    Humane side is to share my views without offending others.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      @Shshir — You are not wrong I am Muslim. Beauty of any discussion forum is disagreement on issues otherwise its nothing more than exchanging the pleasantries, that may feel good but it serves no purpose. Purpose is served when we understand each other through civilized arguments with logic and common sense.

      I am glad you disagree with my position but unfortunately you did not present your argument instead you posted your opinion and what you believe. [….]

      Isa [Jesus] himself never claimed to have come in the fulfilment of the prophecy about the advent of the promised prophet, nor any other prophet, after him did so, except the Holy Prophet Muhammad al Mustafa.[….] The Christian Church had no alternative but to give currency to the belief in the second advent of Isa. Musa [Moses] and Muhammad were the law-givers, whereas Isa was the follower of the laws preached by Musa.

      Similarities between Muhammad and Musa are many. No two prophets, in historical background, resembled each other more than these two. [….]

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

        @Aijaz — I am glad that you are not offended by my comments. Your argument is that I’ve only stated my opinion. I beg to differ. I have stated my exact position with regards to revealed religions.Be they Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

        Again I apologize if the following offends you. I do not accept the holy books of these religions as the word of God. These religions were created by men, for fulfilling needs of men living in a certain geographical region, living under certain social-economical conditions. The people all had a shared history, hence the similarity and often concurrence in what they say. It is redundant if Bible, Torah or Quran concur with each other or even that they describe same events.

        I live in India, a country with more diversity than the whole of Europe, and it gives me a unique perspective, which is not to say that you may not possess that perspective, leading me to conclude that certain stories will get adopted, absorbed over a long period of time by people so much so that they may even claim ownership of it. I believe that the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so entwined with the history of middle east that to figure what one has borrowed from other would be a difficult exercise. [….]

        I’d say that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were closer to being social reformers than they were “prophets” [….] I can assure you, that if Gandhi, Dr.King, Mandela etc had been born in 500 A.D. they’d have founded major religions too. [….]

  7. Nuno Dias says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    just dropping again by to say: Wonderful 😉

  8. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Lesley, are you a Muslim?…..lets start off with a nice easy one 😉

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      Maybe read the blog. I’m an agnostic Jew. Firmly agnostic. Firmly Jewish.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Sure, But since you submit to a higher Being would mean that you are in a sense a Muslim i.e. one who submits to God. You may not follow the rituals and traditions ascribed to Islam but your principles, I assume, are the one and same and noticeble in your exegesis of the Quran and you can only do that if you have a clean and conscientious heart which the Quran lays as one of its first principles for understanding the Quran.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

          I’m Jewish by birth, identity, and interest, not by belief, which means I really, honestly, do not ‘believe in’ or submit to any higher being, whether upper or lower case. As close as possible to “a clean and conscientious heart” (and mind) sounds good enough. And a glimpse, here and there, of the mystery of existence.
          So please, just let me be me.
          Maybe see here for more: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/18/an-agnostic-manifesto-part-one/
          And here: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/10/the-100th-post-a-non-mission-statement/

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        Why won’t people just let agnostic be agnostic. I just hate it when someone wants you to “pick a side”. I hate when people view agnosticism as weak. Or when someone says “I would respect you more if you were atheist or religious than agnostic”. Why is someone’s personal belief such an issue for everyone to interfere with? I think people miss the idea of what a “jewish agnostic” or “muslim agnostic” means. It means that the person is agnostic from a belief standpoint, but from a birth and family event standpoint, they may follow what their culture has them do. Just like americans celebrate Thanksgiving, I would (as a muslim agnostic) celebrate Ramadan and eid, even though I am agnostic from a god belief standpoint. If someone can’t grasp that concept, how will they grasp the concept of gnostic agnostic?

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm

        Lesley Hazleton, you are you although Agnostic is someone who is doubtful, non comittal to God or not sure whether you are a theist or a non theist, so I was asking. Point made, looking forward to see what you have to say about faith of people who believe in a God.

        Chad Tabba relax , take a deep breath. No one is out to change you or Leslie. Just trying to understand and now I even understand what a gnostic agnostic theist atheist. Who Knew!

  9. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Lesley, whats your take on the following verses:

    Surah 4:34

    Surah 4:157 – 158

    Sorry to put you on the spot but nows your chance to really shine 😉

  10. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Re 4:34, its another of those better-if-you-don’t things. I think what most Muslims think: it may have been acceptable for a man to beat his wife in the seventh century; it sure as hell isn’t today.
    Re 4:157-8: I don’t need to be exonerated of killing Jesus by the Quran any more than I need it from Ratzinger. Though the Quran did beat him to it by 14 centuries.

    • sa says:
      March 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      LOL, oh come’on Lesley. You know when you read the ayah/verse 4:,34 it makes no sense. I mean first you tell your wife off, and if she still does not listen you leave her bed chamber and then if she still does not listen you beat her? How about BEATING a retreat and not BEAT about the bush and say cya! The Reformist Quran by Edip Yuksel explains some of the questionable interpretations.

      and now to 4:157. You know this is where you make friends or enemies. So you are wise not to answer it. There is only one interpretation of this verse and that is that Jesus was not raised into the Heavens nor was he killed on the cross but made to appear so (no doubt by some gall and vinegar) and ultimatley survived. I can and have been called a heretic for making such remarks nay whole schools that profess have. At least in Judaism, I can still be a Jew and not believe in the Prophets. Oh well I will leave this one for someone who wants to challenge it.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

        I think the idea is not trying to interpret specific surahs without knowing the specific context. I don’t understand what “sa” is trying to prove with these questions. Are you trying to give us proof that there are (for lack of a better word) “unsavory” verses in the Koran that may be used out of context (or in context) to be harmful? Lesley is obviously not saying that the Koran is a book from god, but she is just saying that it gets a bad reputation due to a minority of people who take verses out of context and that it is no more violent than other scriptures. I think that for someone who knows the Koran, that point is undisputable. What the Koran says or doesnt say about Jesus (if he existed to start with) is insignificant.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 9:31 pm

        On the contrary @Chad Tabba, that is precisely the point. You have to explore the specific context in order to understand the verse. The problem is that certain verses are intepreted by both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists to advance their own violent agenda as Lesley has pointed out. But I would also argue that traditional Muslim thinking supporting the creation theory is also unfounded in the Quran [….] People then believe that AntiChrist is a one eyed monster running around the Earth and that Jesus will come back and battle it. Some Muslim scholars and clergy believe that a great final battle will take place between good and evil. This type of thinking goes against the ethos of the Quran.

        Also I don’t believe that Lesley is saying that the Quran is violent but rather that God in the Quran discourages violence. I therefore disagree with you that the Quran is violent or promotes violence. As a Muslim, I try not to allow the dynamics of a culture dictate my faith only to then have doubts about a God – but each to their own.

        Finally, all major traditional faiths have prophecized about a future Kalki, Soashoyant, maitreya, Messiah, Jesus, Isa. [….] Over 50% of the worlds population follow a faith tradition that is expecting a savior. If all are waiting then this can only be fulfilled in one person who would unite all peoples and he/she does not have to make a grand entrance by dropping in from the sky. It’s quite possible that this savior comes from the people.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 16, 2011 at 8:39 am

        Seems you misunderstood me sa. In my comments about “what are you trying to prove” I was referring to you not Lesley. I didn’t see the point in bringing up that first surah. I understand Lesley and what she thinks very well, and she expresses many things I think about too, but expresses them in a very interesting way.
        As for the other surah about Jesus, reading many sources has showed my that the whole idea of death and rebirth of a savior born of a Virgin mother etc. (in any form, and regardless of each religion’s details about how it happened) is an idea that was also there in ancient Egypt even before Judaism. Its more about rebirth of the human soul after the person finds and understands his/her deep self. Whether there was an actual Jesus and the details of when and how he may have died and if he will return are irrelevant. We need to understand the idea behind the story.

      • sa says:
        March 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        I was interested to know what her understanding of sura 4:34 was. Just as she explained Sura 2:191 in her speech, which BTW, is also how Islamic scholars have understood these verses to mean.

        Agreed Sura 4:157 is irrelevent to Lesley.

      • hossam says:
        March 27, 2011 at 4:36 am

        @sa
        i am not posting to discuss this but just to make a correction
        4:157-8 says that jesus was not killed and was not crucified and WAS raised by God

      • sa says:
        March 27, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        @hossam, you just did and here is my response.

        No mistake, verse 4:157 does not mean that Jesus was raised in body or soul. It also does not mean that he was slain or crucified but was made to appear as if he was but actually survived.

        5:117 plainly states that Jesus died a natural death.

        3:144 says that all Messengers before Mohammed (SAW) passed away. That would also include the prophet Isa (AS). Abu Bakr, used this verse to convince the companions on the death of the Holy Prophet that he indeed had died just like messengers before him meaning that no one was immortal.

  11. MZ says:
    March 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Hello Lesley,

    It’s your annoying camera-man here. Yes, we finally got it up and working on YouTube. I want to thank you once again for the talk, I heard a lot of good feedback from our community and we really enjoyed it.

    Peace

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Hey MZ — thanks for the work! Am amazed and delighted people are watching it. — L.

  12. Nabi says:
    March 16, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Well said Lesley. I enjoyed every minute, even though it did take me two sessions since last night to watch this. I had started taking notes last night on my wife’s laptop but after finished watching it now i decided no to look at those notes but rather comment on just one thing i picked out today and that is when you said not aiming for a perfect future. I personally in my life would rather think of it as not aiming for a Utopia in life where everyone is a perfect muslim but rather aim more for the perfection of truth and justice in human relations. I personally could care less if a person chooses to pray or have an ‘Islamic’ appearance and all the other bells and whistles that go w/ religion. My main concern is that we don’t do the bad/and wrong against each other rather than enforcing the obligatory practices which indeed are only between an individual and God. The prophet was told he was sent to send glad tidings (for the followers) and warning (for the astray) and not to run peoples lives. and not to yearn when they do not accept the correct path because even then only God guides those who wish to be guided.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      A big ‘Amen’ from the unguided!

      • Nabi says:
        March 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

        I take that ‘unguided’ as sarcasm, because no one is misguided so long as they follow the good that is programed in them. After all isn’t that the object of religion to hone us into following our good instincts?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 16, 2011 at 9:41 am

          Not sarcasm. Irony.

  13. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:00 am

    We love you Lesley, offcource we have time to see your 50 min video.

  14. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Dont forgot people of Bahrain, they in a new Karbala,
    they need help ….. please

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      I wish we could help. It’s a nightmare there right now.

  15. Cosima says:
    March 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Lesley I applaud your efforts. I will always have time to listen to your talks. Your wit and intelligence, thoughtfulness and perceptiveness are a breath of fresh air. Also, I just love your hat 🙂

  16. AJ says:
    March 17, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Thanks Lesley

  17. BF says:
    March 21, 2011 at 3:20 am

    As a muslim – thank you for this vdo. In addition to your excellent insight on Quranic expression and meaning – thank you for your political perspectives.

    Looking at conservatives on both sides of the divide as followers of a similar religion is something I have thought about, but never been able to express as eloquently as you have.

  18. Jesus says:
    March 22, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    [This came in to my spam file, but for the sake of light relief, I couldn’t resist running it. After all, how often do you get email from ‘Jesus@heaven.com’? — Lesley.]

    Jesus was song of God and a Jew, all prophets and even Jesus were Jew, God did not send anybody after Christ…its in word of God!

  19. Sarah Conover says:
    March 28, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Really appreciated the considered talk, Lesley. I like that you opened discourse, rather than shut it down. It wasn’t as if I was left with more questions or answers than before, but I was left with more curiosity. Thank you!

  20. Shahrin says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Hello Ms. Hazleton,

    I just wanted to extend my heartfelt gratitude for this resonating, and insightful speech. I hope you have tailored similar versions to non-Muslim audiences as well; that being said, I also enjoyed your talk on TED.

    Along a similar vein, as a Muslim college student, I have cast some light in interfaith circles with the intent of enlightening and sharing with others about the dynamics of Islam, as well as its very basic tenets that create its backbone.

    With your positive influence, coupled with inspirational scholars such as the late Edward Said and Karen Armstrong, I have lived gained, in light of Ben Zoma’s teachings, wisdom by learning from all people. This is the kind of plurality that I believe Islam embraces, especially for the imagination (as you referred to in this video). The more I have found myself feeding my soul with discourse, and newly processed information coming from a diverse spectrum, the more Muslim I feel, the closer I feel to the beautiful messages of the Qur’an.

    I’ve recently dedicated myself to writing small pieces, essays to properly establish my thoughts in formal, comprehensive order over concepts and tiers of the Qur’an that I happen to intrigue myself with at a particular moment. I hope that as I continue, I may reach a deeper understanding of my faith. Thank you for being an inspiration, and a contributing catalyst on my religious journey.

    Shahrin,

  21. Lana says:
    April 4, 2011 at 5:51 am

    You inspire me … a beautiful talk

  22. Talia says:
    May 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    50 mins! and I thoroughly enjoyed it all. Thank you Lesley! I’m a muslim (the degree of submission or islam, I feel is a very subjective matter but if one has to put a label on it, I think of myself as being quite religious) and that’s why it’s so refreshing to hear someone speak as you do – with the objectivity of the outsider.

    But what I found delightful, in additional to your graceful and inimical style with its wonderful touches of wry humor,was both the empathy and open-mindedness especially as they seem to be rooted in quite a deep well of knowledge which you do not hesitate to divest of its traditional interpretations, and so allow it the flexibility which is its due.

    Dare I say that it reaffirms my own beliefs – which I know is not your intent – but there it is, none the less! Again, thanks!

    Talia

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:49 am

      Thanks Talia. True, not my intent, but there’s a gentle irony to it that makes us both smile.

Believing in Peace

Posted February 24th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

“I can’t believe you don’t believe in anything!” someone wrote on this blog a while back, commenting on my agnosticism (actually, she used capital letters and lots of exclamation marks, but I’ll refrain).   And I was a bit shocked by that.  What kind of human being can I claim to be if I don’t believe in anything?  A nihilist?  A god-forsaken creature left to the whims and mercies of fate?    A craven whimpering coward afraid to commit herself?

So in between keeping up with what’s happening in Egypt and Tunisia and Bahrain and Yemen and Jordan and Iraq and Iran and oh-my-god Libya, I’ve been haunted by what she said — and have realized that she placed the stress on the wrong word.  It doesn’t belong on the word ‘anything,’ but on the word before it:  ‘in.’

Of course there are things I believe.  I just don’t generally feel the need to believe in them.  I may well believe that such-and-such a thing is true, though in fact this is much the same thing as saying “I think that…” or the more amorphous “I feel that…”  and I’m trying not to be amorphous here.  And in fact there are some things I do believe in, prime among them the possibility of some seemingly impossible form of peace between Israel and Palestine.

If I look at Israel/Palestine rationally right now, I see no way to a peaceful resolution.   So in the lack of empirical evidence, I have no choice but to fall back on belief – that is, on the conviction that peace is possible, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I’m not being over-idealistic here.   The first step in any thinking about peace is to get rid of all those images of doves fluttering around all over the place and everyone falling on each others’ shoulders in universal brother/sisterhood.  Peace is far more mundane than that.  It’s the absence of war.  It’s people not being killed.  It’s the willingness to live and let live.  And that will do just fine.

There’s no love lost between England and Germany, for instance, but they’re at peace after two utterly devastating wars in the first half of the 20th century.  There’s less than no love lost between Egypt and Israel – in fact it’s safe to say that for the most part, they detest each other —  but that peace treaty, signed by an Egyptian dictator and an Israeli former terrorist, has lasted three decades.  It’s nobody’s ideal of peace, but however uneasily, it’s held, and will likely hold whatever the changes in Egypt – a frigid kind of peace, but peace nonetheless.

But even thinking in terms of pragmatic, undramatic, boring peace, which once seemed as impossible for England and Germany, and for Egypt and Israel, as for Israel and Palestine, I still can’t see it.  Of course this may simply mean that I have a very limited imagination, and so can’t see the forest for the trees.   But to think that something is impossible because I can’t see it is not only an absurd assumption, but also a dangerous one.

What we believe affects how we act.   If we stop believing that Israel/Palestine peace is possible, or even desirable, as the Israeli government seems to have done, then that affects how we act:  we really do make it impossible.  That is, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy of unending conflict.   We act in our own worst interests.

I’d rather be naïve than nihilistic.  So in face of the despair that often overtakes me at the latest news from Gaza or from the West Bank, I have to fall back on belief in the possibility of peace, no matter how seemingly irrational.  After all, if it was rational, it wouldn’t require belief.

One definition of despair is in the inability to imagine oneself into the future.  It is, in a very real sense, a failure of the imagination.  So perhaps this is what belief really is:  an act of imagination.   The astonishing human ability to imagine something into existence, and to act in accordance with that imagination.

That’s what we’ve seen these past few weeks in Tunisia and Egypt and Bahrain (and maybe even in Libya), and that’s what’s been so inspiring about it:  belief transformed into possibility.   Belief not as faith in the divine, but as faith in the human ability to act and to change the future.   Belief, that is, in ourselves.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Bahrain, belief, conflict, Egypt, faith, Gaza, Germany, imagination, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, nihilism, Palestine, peace, Tunisia, West Bank, Yemen | 15 Comments
  1. Sue says:
    February 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Thank you for your distinction between ‘believing’ and ‘believing in’ – I think that’s fabulous.
    Regarding ‘Peace’ – I believe it to be more than just the absence of war – it is a whole other force in itself. It’s people’s determination to live differently and better and to care for each other and their communities, and so much more.
    And perhaps something to think about – it occurs to me that you use the word ‘believe’ (ie. you choose to believe in peace in the Middle East despite all evidence to the contrary) is used in the same sense as others would use the word ‘faith’, eg. I have ‘faith’ that there will be peace in the middle east. I do love words and how we use them, and I do love it when people can string a fabulous sentence together – you do that so well – thank you.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      So glad you pointed put my conflation of ‘belief’ and ‘faith’, Sue — it’s one of those things I was vaguely aware of doing, but hadn’t really paid attention to. Yes, I think there is a difference, but will have to work on figuring it out (it has to do, I think, with intention — a kind of willed decision — but am not sure, so will muse, and write about it at a later date). Thanks for the sharp eye. — L.

  2. Kate McLeod says:
    February 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    What these countries who want to go to war with each other need are football teams. They can take out their aggression in the viewing stands, wear war paint, wave flags–all that.
    Also my new rules about war in the world must be followed: no one under the age of 50 goes to war. I think it’s probably the fastest route to peace.

  3. Sana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    My husband always tells me that what I lack is belief. I give up too easily, hence abandoning any fight in me. My husband is the opposite, if he believes he achieves – and he makes it happen no matter what the odds are. Your article has made me realize how dangerous it is not believe….. its a bit daunting actually. Now comes the hard part – what do i believe? …….

  4. Lynn Rosen says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    There is no point in believing IN war as an inevitable solution. Peace is the default. That is in what I believe.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      Perfectly in-put!

  5. Lana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Thank you 🙂
    i hope u add a “like” button under your posts … sometimes i realy like an article but has nothing else to add 🙂

    best wishes

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Thanks Lana — will poke around and see if I can find out how to do it. — L.

      (Best way to ‘Like’ — click the Facebook button!)

  6. Moes says:
    February 25, 2011 at 9:05 am

    I enjoyed very much your TED talk about Kuran.
    We have a woman a bit like you in France, Annick de Souzenelle (except she’s not an agnostic). She has read the Bible in the languages it was written (she studied years and years to learn Aramean and Hebrew, symbology and theology). If you go back to the source, it’s the best way not to be misguided by translations and interpretations. And her books about the bible explain how deep and beautiful this book is. Far away from the interpretation men have made of it through the centuries, trying to control people out of it. Much more universal than we think it is (not to mention the stupid and childish “creationist” interpretation of it.)
    I guess Kuran is the same. It’s the fragility of beauty, when taken over by gridy and bad intentional people.
    Please continue your struggle for beauty and peace (and excuse my poor english.)
    all the best.

  7. Elisa Sparks says:
    February 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Have you seen the bumper sticker: “Militant agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you”? Virginia Woolf’s father, Leslie Stephens, was famous for his statement of rational agnosticism.

  8. Anneza Akbar says:
    March 1, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Very interesting piece,
    I am curious as to what your view is on the idea of:

    “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice”
    in comparison to:
    “peace is the absence of war”

    Could it be that perhaps “no war” and therefore “peace” could come about after a sense of justice is established?

    of course then the question would arise what would be justice in any specific case?

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts 🙂
    Anneza

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Good question, and a tough one. “Peace and justice” is a much-used phrase, yet how exactly they go hand-in-hand is not clear, at least to me. The core problem being, of course, what we mean by justice. Are we talking justice as harmony, as moral rightness (and if so, whose morality?), as retribution, as equitability, as divine justice (in which case, whose concept of the divine?).

      I do think that any kind of peace, however minimal in concept, does have to involve a sense on both or all sides that nobody is being advantaged to the disadvantage of others. In practice, I think that might well mean that both/all sides will have to feel not that they’ve gotten what they think is right or what they deserve, but that they’ve had to give up a certain amount of what they think is right or what they deserve. In other words, that far from being perfect, peace is an imperfect compromise on all sides. And possible only when everyone is willing, finally, to make those compromises. I know it seems like there should be a “win-win” option, but in fact “lose-lose” may be the only realistic one — and thus, paradoxically, in fact a win-win.

      Have you heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? It’s a central paradigm in conflict resolution, in which the only rational solution is the one in which both sides lose an equal amount. Hard-headed, and worth thinking about. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

  9. Sunny says:
    March 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    War and peace are two sides of the same coin, just as light and darkness are. Just as light cannot exist without darkness, peace cannot exist without war – just as God and Satan cannot exist, atleast in two Abrahamic religions, by themselves. The principle of duality seems to be all-encompassing.

  10. Kathleen says:
    March 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Very though provoking and written – as usual – Leslie. 🙂 I came across a book’s paragraph about an underlying social dynamic (‘bargains with God) that are suppose to guarantee peace (except the world keeps cheating on the bargain by going to war) : During WWI. The protagonist is looking at a stained glass window in a cathedral of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. ‘Behind Abraham was the ram caught in a thicket by his horns and struggling to escape…You could see the fear. Whereas Abraham, if he regretted having to sacrifice his son at all, was certainly hiding it well, and Isaac, bound on a makeshift altar, positively smirked’. …[This represents] ‘the bargain on which all patriarchal societies are founded. If you, who are young and strong, will obey me, who am old and weak, even to the extent of being prepared to sacrifice your life, then in the course of time you will peacefully inherit, and be able to exact the same obedience from your sons. [and this one sacrifice to the gods is enough to appease them, instead of thousands] Only …. [being at war is ] ‘breaking the bargain… all over the inheritors were dying…. while old men, and women of all ages, gathered together and sang hymns. *”Regeneration” by Pat Barker, pg 149 (book 2 of a trilogy based on a Psychologist trying to heal shell shocked solders in England during WWI.) Just an interesting twist on the concept that older men (and women) sit in hallowed-halls and declare war and it’s planning, while the young die to execute the plan. Don’t know that it adds anything to your dialogue on peace but just thought to add it. No comment back needed 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      I totally agree: the Pat Barker trilogy (‘Regeneration,’ ‘Eye in the Door’ and ‘Ghost Road’) is stunning, and perhaps the most sustained and subtle anti-war fiction ever written. — L.

The Antidote to 9/11?

Posted February 16th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

There’s been a ton of punditry about what the Tunisia and Egypt revolutions mean for America, and you can bet there’ll be several tons more.  But I suspect its biggest effect is yet to register, and that is psychological.  Because these two revolutions – achieved through determinedly non-violent action – constitute a radical, positive challenge to the politically manipulated atmosphere of fear and paranoia about Islam.   In fact, as New York Times columnist Roger Cohen put it, 2/11 may be the perfect antidote to 9/11.

Too optimistic?  I think not.  There’s a very good chance that we’re due for a major paradigm shift here in the United States — one that seemed unimaginable just a few weeks ago (and one even a congressman like Peter King, head of the HUAC-like committee due to start ‘examining’ the supposed radicalization of American Muslims (“are you now or have you ever been an American Muslim?”), might have to take into account).

What’s happening all over the Middle East challenges the crude stereotypes of “Arabs = riots.”  Of “Islam = terrorism.”  And above all, of Islam as somehow fundamentally anti-democratic.

These stereotypes run deep.  Think of the scenes shown in the American media from the first week of the Egypt uprising.   A close-up of 200 people prostrated in prayer, excluding the tens of thousands who stood behind them, not praying.   A protestor holding a poster of Mubarak with horns and a Star of David drawn on his forehead – the only one of its kind, it turned out, in the whole square.  Or a few days later,  the replay after replay of Molotov cocktails – “flames lead” being the mantra of TV news – reinforcing the image of rioting Muslims out of control, “the Arab street.”  It was exactly the image Mubarak was aiming for.

Thus the pumping up of the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat by both the Mubarak regime and conservative western pundits, as though the Egyptian protesters were extraordinarily dumb and naïve.  As though they were not highly aware of  how the 1979 Iran revolution was hijacked and perverted.  As though they couldn’t see the fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia or the Hamas regime in Gaza.   As though the Brotherhood itself were unanimously stuck in the 1950s mindset of ideologue Sayyid Qutb.  As though the only way to be Muslim was to be a radical fundamentalist.

Thus the surprise in the west at the sophistication of the Tahriris, when “the Arab street” turned out to include doctors and lawyers and women and IT executives (you could practically hear the astonishment:  “you mean there’s Muslim Google executives?”).

Thus the continually stated fear, stoked by the regime and by conservative pundits, that the protestors would shift from nonviolence to violence – that the nonviolence was merely a cover for some assumed innate propensity to violence.

Thus the slowness to realize that the old anti-West sloganism had been superseded, and that this wasn’t about resentment of the west;  in fact that it was about the very things President Obama had talked about in his speech right there in Cairo in June 2009 – about democracy and freedom.

In short, what we heard and saw in those first few days was the modern version of Orientalism:   The idea that the ‘Orient’ – that is, the Middle East (it should come as no surprise here that the geography is as weird as the idea itself) — is an inherently violent, primitive, medieval kind of place.  Or as right-wing Israeli politicians have been endlessly repeating for decades, “a bad neighborhood.”   And that the responsibility of ‘enlightened’ westerners and despotic leaders alike was to keep these benighted people under control.

But as the uprising went on into the second week, something began to change. Nobody at the blog of Seattle’s alternative newspaper The Stranger, for example, which one would have thought the first to support any kind of uprising, even bothered to comment on it at first.  When they began to, it was with their usual weary stance of pseudo-sophisticated cynicism.   But by the day after Mubarak unleashed his goons in Tahrir Square, when the protestors’ response was to turn out in larger numbers than ever, even The Stranger gave in to excited support.   How not, when millions of people stood up to repression and dictatorship in the full knowledge of what they faced if they failed – arrest, torture, and death?   Would you have such courage?  Such determination?

So here’s what I saw here in the States:   more and more Americans abandoning their unconscious Orientalism in favor of stunned admiration.

And that’s the beginning of something new, the very thing Obama declared twenty months ago in Cairo:  respect.

Finally.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Cairo, Egypt, Google, HUAC, Islamophobia, media images, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Orientalism, Peter King, respect, Roger Cohen, Sayyid Qutb, The Stranger, Tunisia, Wael Ghonim | 10 Comments
  1. Sana says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    There’s hope in the air…. Thanks Egypt!

  2. Lana says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Thanks Lesley … i do wish there is hope …

  3. Mary Sherhart says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Hope is a rare commodity these days. Thank you Egyptian people!

  4. Adila says:
    February 18, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Wonderfully written. Exciting times indeed.

  5. Shishir says:
    March 14, 2011 at 6:41 am

    I am sorry I don’t agree. The long term effects of these revolutions are still not known. It remains to be seen if Muslim Brotherhood will not form a parallel government or at least have extra constitutional authority. It remains to be seen if these countries will demonstrate same eagerness in throwing out religious fundamentalists. It also remains to be seen if a truly secular democratic country would arise out of Egypt.

    The evidence from the past suggests that secularism
    and Islam don’t gel. Even with the charter of Medina.
    I believe you are a scholar of Quran, or at least you’ve studied it, I’d suggest you also study the history of Islamic kingdoms and Islamic republics.
    Lets have a look at Iran and Pakistan, these are two
    countries which are “democracies”, but have you ever looked at their blasphemy laws or their constant
    persecution of religious minorities. I wouldn’t say that
    it doesn’t exist in India, and we claim India is a secular democracy (I laugh every time I say that). But at least we are not sponsors of international terrorists, may be because we are poor but yet. I also don’t understand how one can suggest that Islam is
    tolerant especially given that it doesn’t make any distinction between state and religion. If a believer
    and non-believer are not same in the eye of religion
    they can’t be same in the eyes of the state either, under such circumstances if the Islamic forces come to attain majority and it is indeed a distinct possibility in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain etc do you think they’d
    transform these places into true secular democracies ? Do you think the support for Al-Queda or Hamas etc would reduce if pro-Islamic groups came to power?

    Yes, the revolution was by people oppressed, yes it was about respect but what will it end in? Russian revolution was not about socialism or Marxism it was
    about a set of people oppressed – where did it end up ..in Stalin and 50 years of cold war, countless lives lost in Vietnam, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq.

    I am not an Islamophobe, I love what Islam and Islamic culture has done for my country for the world. I just think that time has come for all of us to reexamine these religions (hiduism/islam/christianity/judaism) and their tenets and if required throw them out.

    • hossam says:
      March 19, 2011 at 11:08 am

      @Shishir

      you are right the long the term effects of the egyptian revolution is not yet known, and whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood will “take over” like many people are afraid (noting that they are not running for presidency) but what does that have to do with Islam itself?

      The point is not to judge a religion by what people do;
      Islam is not what Muslim people do
      Judaism is not what Jewish people do
      Christianity is not what Christian people do

      do not judge Islam by what fundamentals or extremist or terrorists do
      do not judge Judaism by what the IDF does and what Israel does
      do not judge Christianity by what George bush did

      Even though i would prefer a secular egyptian state, who’s to say that secularism is a test of a religion?

      there are many states with christianity as a state religion (e.g. Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland) and there are also secular, muslim majority states (e.g. Azerbaijan, Gambia, Kosovo, Mali, Senegal, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan)

      can you let me know what evidence suggests that islam and secularism do not “gel”?

      as for blasphemy laws, they are always controversial, they are still being debated even in highly democratic european countries, some of which do have laws against blasphemy, of course the penalty there is not as tough as in pakistan, but again are we judging a religion based on what is the penalty on blasphemy? i don’t think you can post a cartoon in a german or danish newspaper with of a big nosed man with a star of david on his forehead and his armed wrapped around the world. so where is the freedom then?

      • Shishir says:
        March 24, 2011 at 3:27 pm

        I beg to differ.

        Would you disassociate communism from what Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc did you would not? If you read Marx, and he makes a very interesting read, you’d realize that his communism differs a great deal from what was actually practiced but do you make the difference?

        Religion is what majority of religious people do, nothing more nothing less. Because if you take away that and get down to essential core of it you’d find almost all religions are essentially the same.

        I think secularism is a test of a religion because it tells me whether or not this religion shows signs of growth (not in number of people of that faith but in true growth) in its philosophy via debate via exchange of ideas. I would say my definition of secularism is a secularism of ideas with absolutely no space for public god/religion.

        Why do I say Islam and secularism don’t gel? Well simply because it makes no distinction between borders of state and religion in public/private sphere. If you are going to quote me the charter of medina, I’m going to point to you that Mohammed created it only to ensure he had sufficient force and followers. It was a political treaty, and as such had nothing to do with religion of Islam. You realize it almost immediately when you look at the subsequent 10 years.

        As to your point about blasphemy laws, I don’t think in European country someone is going to issue a fatwa against you if you drew anything ..but in an islamic republic..??

  6. Shishir says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Ms. Hazleton, I am not sure I said anything in my comment which could be construed as offensive, but my comment seems to have been censored/deleted.

    I’ve no issues with that really, I just wish to know what
    is the commenting policy.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:57 am

      First-time commenters need to be approved by me, and I’m deliberately not online 24/7, thus the delay. Re commenting policy: I’m fine with all points of view, no matter if they directly oppose my own, so long as they do not denigrate others. If that happens, I will ask the commenter to stop doing this. If they then do not stop, I will, however unwillingly, deny access.

  7. The Antidote to 9/11? | IslamiCity says:
    September 26, 2012 at 6:39 am

    […] The Accidental Theologist – Lesley […]

Thank You, Egypt!

Posted February 11th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Oh my God…

It’s hard to type through the tears.

Egypt, you did it! Egypt, I love you!

You are celebrating right now.  And so are all of us all over the world who’ve been glued to Al Jazeera‘s livestream and to protesters’ Twitter feeds for the past three weeks in stunned admiration, in anxiety and exhilaration, our hearts in our mouths, humbled by the sheer courage and determination of every single Egyptian who risked imprisonment, torture, and (for over 300 people) death.

Thank you, Egypt.  We needed to be reminded of this.  We needed to see that the desire for freedom and justice cannot be squelched.  That it can prevail against the most horrendous odds.  That it can stand up to guns and tanks, to thugs and torturers.  That the power of ideas is stronger than the power of weapons.  That democracy really is the will of the people.

I have no more idea than anyone else what happens from here on.  No idea if the ‘Supreme Military Council’ really does intend to hand over power to an interim civilian government.

But I do suspect that the generals may not have a choice.   Faced with such huge numbers of protesters —  even if accounts of 20 million Egyptians demonstrating in the streets today were exaggerated, even if it was “only” 10 million —  those numbers are doubling, even tripling, as people flood outside in jubilation.   In the face of such numbers, and such widespread support for genuine, total reform, I very much doubt that the military would even dare try to pull a double-cross.

All that is for the usual pundits, however.  For today, Egyptians celebrate.  And most of the world celebrates with them and for them.   Bravo Tunisia!  Bravo Egypt!  You have given notice to all dictatorial regimes — in the Middle East, and indeed worldwide.   You’ve renewed our faith in our own principles.  You have, literally, encouraged us — filled us with the courage so often lacking in our wavering liberal convictions.

Egyptians, there is only one word for what you have done:  magnificent!

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East | Tagged: Tags: celebration, Egypt, January 25, Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, revolution, Supreme Military Council, Tunisia | 22 Comments
  1. Elisa Sparks says:
    February 11, 2011 at 9:21 am

    One of my friends posted her facebook status today as “walking like an Egyptian.” I want to start a trend of posting status of the Egyptian equivalent of “I too am an Egyptian” Do you have the words?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 11, 2011 at 9:41 am

      ‘Walking like an Egyptian’ does it for me, Elisa. Beautiful.

  2. Labrys says:
    February 11, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Yes, I kept getting up thru the night (as Egyptian morning began) to check news on the computer. I was too worried to sleep, and this morning here…the jubilation in Cairo’s streets is intoxicating.
    Oh, that it stays so uplifting!

  3. Lana says:
    February 11, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    You put it elequantly … I LOVE EGYPT 🙂

  4. Anita says:
    February 11, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    God Bless Egypt

  5. Sana says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Unity is a rarity in this day in age. Im so proud of them… They showed them, they showed the world. Thank you for giving us hope egypt! Definitely walk like an Egyptian! in more than one way…..

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    February 12, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Today, we are all Egyptians.

  7. Meg says:
    February 12, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Shows the power of the internet, of the people, and of the ripple effects of the U.S. and other world superpowers taking a stand against malevolent heads of organizations, countries, etc. (aka, Iraq was poorly done, but it removed Saddam and was huge in leading to this, and in leading to this done so quickly and without huge outlays of armed intervention).

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 12, 2011 at 10:48 am

      Meg — The power of the Internet as an organizing tool, yes. The power of people finding their courage and their voice, most definitely. But the power of the US? I think not. If the US took a stand against dictatorship, this is news to me. Iraq is still a disaster thanks to the US, and the current Egyptian revolution took place entirely without US awareness. In other words, the US is not relevant here. This is about Egypt, not us.

      • Meg says:
        February 12, 2011 at 11:03 am

        Yes, it is about Egypt. But Egypt did not do this alone. As someone deeply involved in Islam, I can attest to the power that the people of the Middle East (and Iraq) now feel, due to the removal of Saddam and having the right to vote. Poorly handled events teach the world how to better handle things the next round. Egypt is the result of the ripple effects of such events (insha’allah, Egypt will be able to ‘right’ its government more quickly than other regions, as it does not have huge damage accompanying an overthrow). Right time, right place, power of the people and the internet … THIS is what “armed forces” and global leaders are, at their best, supposed to do – stand publicly in harm’s way to protect peaceful requests for freedom.

  8. Robert Corbett says:
    February 12, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Hallejuhah! Now for the hard part.

  9. Egyptian and proud says:
    February 12, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    @Elisa
    I too am an Egyptian=”Ana Kaman Masry” for guys
    “Ana Kaman Masrya” for ladies

    and again I’m deeply thankful to u all, wanna c u soon in Egypt 😉
    Today we were celebrating/cleaning & redecorating the square,it’s now spotless 😀

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1706788482899&set=a.1706779082664.88377.1633656741&pid=1526405&id=1633656741

  10. Sunny says:
    February 12, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    Lesley Hazleton,

    Would you have also been equally joyful and supportive of anti-government demonstrators in Iran?

    And why is that Islamic countries – whether a dictatorship or a democracy, cannot have a non-muslim as a head of state? For instance, what will it take for a country like Pakistan to have a situation where a Pakistani Hindu can openly compete for the post of the country’s President? Or is it that an “Islamic democracy” does not allow this situation?

    • dh says:
      February 13, 2011 at 3:02 am

      Dear Sunny,

      There’s never been a Muslim president of India. For starters.

      Please… um… read newspapers and “suchlike”.

  11. Sunny says:
    February 13, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    dh,

    Unless both of us live in different Universes, your statement “for starters” is plain wrong.

    India has had more than one Muslim president. However, for a Pakistani Hindu to even run for the country’s Presidency, we all have to move to a different Universe. Please read my previous comment for reference.

  12. Lavrans says:
    February 16, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Why can’t the US have a Muslim President? Heck, the idea of allowing a Catholic was pretty radical not that long ago.

    Which points to my hope- that the US doesn’t do what it did when Iran had their revolution (that, from my understanding, was hijacked by the fundamentalists; it wasn’t created or supported by them until after it was in swing).

    I hope the current administration supports the demonstrators and their wishes and doesn’t cow to our generals and politicians who will call for the support of some oligarch or “strong man” who only supports US interests.

    Let Egypt be Egypt, and let the Egyptians have what they want and need- not what we desire.

  13. Sunny says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Lavrans,

    “Why cant the US have a muslim president?”. The answer is that there is no constitutional obstacle if an American muslim citizen choose to run for the presidency. However, in most “muslim countries”, a non-muslim cannot run for the president’s office. Pakistan is one example, Iran is another. Malaysia is yet another. A Pakistani Sikh or a Pakistani Christian or a Pakistani Hindu cannot certainly run for the top job, as per the constitution. I wonder if this is a characteristic of an “Islamic democracy” or is it a misinterpretation of Islam?

    There was another word used in the South African context – “Apartheid”. Isnt this the apt term to be used when a country’s constitution uses religion as a basis to disqualify certain people from certain jobs?

  14. Fatima says:
    February 17, 2011 at 8:59 am

    A Muslim country is, by definition, governed under Islam. Having a requirement that the leader be Muslim not only makes perfect sense but is necessary for governing the country according to Islamic practices (you cannot know and value Islam on the level necessary if you are not a practicing Muslim).

    In order to be President of the United States, you have to be born in the U.S. This is for similar reason. People are tied to where they are from, it forms a base for who they are.

    Democracy and Islam are not at odds with one another. While I am not sure of this, it does seem unlikely that there would be a good practicing Muslim as President of the U.S., because he or she would probably have to violate Islam in order to hold the position (given how many laws protect the rights of people to drink, consume non-halal food, etc.).

    If someone does not want to live in a Muslim country, or in a non-Muslim country, then they should move to where they are comfortable. There is no perfect government, only imperfect people trying to establish systems by which to best govern and help other imperfect people.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 17, 2011 at 10:50 am

      Fatima — or maybe it would be better if we simply abandoned the very idea of “a Christian country” or “a Jewish country” or “a Muslim country,” none of which really make sense since “a country” is a national entity, not a religious one. When the US identifies as “a Christian country”, as it did under George W. with his Crusader flag-waving, it loses its founding principles. So too with Israel as “a Jewish country.” And so too with any “Muslim country” where religious law takes precedence over civil rights. It seems to me that the whole issue of whether Islam and democracy are “compatible” is an Islamophobic red herring, since Islam is no more or less “compatible” with democracy than Christianity or Judaism.

      • Fatima says:
        February 17, 2011 at 1:52 pm

        Big Brother need not determine the governmental structure of every country on the planet, need he?! Surely America, the Melting Pot, can value that other governmental systems bring strengths that democracy alone does not.

        America is very new country. When the U.S. system has been tried and true for a few thousand years, then perhaps there will be some well earned confidence in the superiority of this system over all others.

        Democracy (as in the right of people to vote; civil rights; free will; etc.) and Islam do not conflict (nor do Judaism or Christianity conflict with democracy).

        Muhammad gave women the right to vote thousands of years ago. The U.S. only gave that right in 1920.

        I value that there are Muslim countries. I would love to live in one that actually practices my religion, Islam, well. None at this time do. I also value voting, which, as you know, is very in keeping with Islam. The malevolent ruling powers of Islamic countries got there usually with the aid of other countries, for varying reasons of financial gain. These men call themselves Muslim but are not practicing the religion as Allah instructs.

  15. Adel says:
    February 26, 2011 at 8:24 am

    I am, for the first time in my life, happy to be Egyptian, proud, jubilant and hopeful. The road is long and hard, climbing always is. I thank you so much for supporting our cause, and for writing such a wonderful article, through your tears.

    Adel

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 26, 2011 at 9:10 am

      Adel — your comments make my heart feel huge. Thank you.

“Leave, Leave, Leave”

Posted February 7th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

The anthem of the uprising?  This song was recorded in Tahrir Square on Friday, and subtitled and posted over the weekend:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPhj5XnPjaU]

It should come as no surprise, however, that Husni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman are tone deaf.  Human Rights Watch lists 297 confirmed killed since January 28.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Egypt, Mubarak, song, Tahrir Square | 6 Comments
  1. Lana says:
    February 8, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Thanks for sharing … Egyptians are definately creative 🙂 🙂
    My heart aches when i see pictures of those who have been killed … what a shame

  2. Renata says:
    February 10, 2011 at 5:15 am

    Greetings from Brazil! Just luv your blog. Thanks for sharing such interesting infos and opinions. “Accept, appreciate, understand”, what a great challenge!!
    Looking forward to following your posts!
    Renata.

  3. Egyptian and proud says:
    February 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Hey Lesley,
    can’t thank u enough for sharing this on ur blog,
    and thanks for everyone supporting Egypt now, even by his heart 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 10, 2011 at 5:47 pm

      Only someone without a heart could not support this courage.

  4. Mincka says:
    February 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    have you seen this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfX5skKmQMo&feature=player_embedded
    at 1:18 is a strange green horse

    Mincka

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      Am sure it’s led to messianic fantasies of El Khadr, ‘the green one’ (aka Elijah/Ilyis), come to free the people. In fact it looks a digital shadow from earlier taping that day, when thugs rode horses and camels into the crowd of protesters.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Buddhism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback