Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Hijab at Institutes of Higher Education and Universities


By Seyed Ziad





We Muslims are very smart at creating problems and running from pillar to post to find solutions.Now take the case of Hijab.Why on earth are we making the wearing of modest dress a uniform like think in the Universities and other institutes of Higher studies? Among all the students in the Universties, only the Muslim girls are compelled to wear a uniform like dress(Abayas, and that too black ones),



by their seniors during the freshers ragging days.And the poor girls think that this is Quranic injunction to wear as they are told by bigotted siniors, aligned to this or that Dawah organisation, who make these exercises to recruit new members to their highly profitable enteprises from among the gulible undergraduates.




Is it not better that the choice of Hijab and colour of their dresses be given to students themselves? What does it matter if the students wear an array of colours of their choice to the Universities?



First and fore most we must realise that this showing of pseudo-discipline among the students that prompts the other communities become jealous and envious of the Muslim students.


If we go about in a business as usual fashion, no one is going to make note of this and create a fuss about Hijab or beard for that matter, in the Universities. So it is better that we look inward as well and try to find a comprehensive solution to
this ill adviced dress code imposed on the poor(Literally and metaphorically) souls, by the self righteous Da’ees.Please don’t try to blame the other(Racist Buddhists and Hindus) when the mistake is ours.

Some sample Modest dresses for women availabl around the world


















"The philosophy of the Islamic ‘covering’ depends on several things. Some of them are psychological and some relate to the home and the family. Others have sociological roots and some of them relate to raising the dignity of a woman and preventing her debasement.The modest dress in Islam is rooted in a more general and basic issue. That is, Islamic precepts aim at limiting all kinds of sexual enjoyment to the family and the marital environment within the bounds of marriage so that society is only a place for work and activity. It is opposite of the Western system of the present era which mixes work with sexual enjoyment. Islam separates these two environments completely."

Ayatullah Shaheed Mutahhari

Ummah suffering from information overload and misinformation toxicity


Iqbal Siddiqui, Perspectives

The new year is traditionally a time when people reflect on their situations in life, as well as contemplating the possibilities of the year to come. This new year in the Gregorian calendar coincides (more or less) with a new year, 1432, in the Hijri calendar; Muharram 1 fell on December 7, 2010. That got me thinking back to the Hijrah centenary 32 years ago — Muharram 1, 1400ah fell on November 21, 1979ce — which was, perchance, one of the first major Islamic landmarks that I was aware of as a youth. In the mid-1970s, the commemoration of the Hijrah centenary was planned to be a major project for the Muslim Institute in its early years, before the Islamic Revolution in Iran radically changed the political environment of the time and took the full attention of its founder and director, the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui (1931–1996).

For many in the Islamic movement, reflections on the first three decades of the 15th century AH revolve around the impact of the Islamic Revolution, the inspiration it provided to Islamic activists and movements everywhere, and the reaction it provoked from the hegemonic west. This is a subject I have written about a great deal over the years, not least as editor of Crescent from 1998–2008. Here I want to think about a slightly different aspect of the last 30 years; the changes in the information environment in which Crescent International has operated since it was converted from a local community paper in Toronto to a “newsmagazine of the global Islamic movement” under the editorship of Zafar Bangash and the guidance of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui as a response to the political and historical situation created by the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Many people may struggle to remember or imagine it now, in the age of email, Youtube, Wikipedia and the global networking facilitated by Web 2.0, but that was a time when newspapers, magazines, books and personal contact through meetings and lectures were the main ways of disseminating information. Personal computers, the internet and satellite television were stuff of science fiction; international travel and even telephone communication were still expensive and unusual. Audio and video communication was still new and remarkable; the distribution of Imam Khomeini’s speeches in Iran on audio cassettes was a radical new political strategy that was regarded as a crucial factor in the Revolution. Wherever one lived, the world was a bigger, stranger place; news consisted of mainstream newspapers that covered only major stories, and brief news programs on local or national radio and television every evening, rather than the multitude of global or international 24-hour news channels that we now have. As a result, many foreign countries really were little more than names, representing alien places and peoples on which it was difficult to get any information at all.

Indeed, the key difference from that time to this can be understood precisely in terms of information: where now we are bombarded with “news” the whole time, and the problem is identifying the useful and significant from the mass of unwanted and useless “noise” or “stuff” — a situation that has become known as “information overload” — in those days, people who were interested in any topic had to go and find out about it for themselves, going to libraries or organizations, looking for special interest publications, piecing together the big picture from the scraps they could glean from the few sources available to them.

Information professionals have long since recognised this change in their working environment. They used to be experts at finding information for people who needed it but didn't know where to look. Now they have to be experts in filtering the information, providing what is useful and worthwhile for people overwhelmed by a glut of data and unable to navigate their way through it. Information scientists talk of kayaks and canoes — informationists used to put valuable bits and pieces together to craft kayaks that were secure, seaworthy and safe. Now they make canoes — picking a tree from the forest, chopping it down, stripping away all the unnecessary parts, hollowing out the trunk to leave only what is needed for what is often a crude but adequate boat.

Thirty years ago, Crescent was a rare source of an Islamic perspective that was otherwise almost impossible for Muslims to find. To this day, we meet people around the world who remember Crescent in the 1980s and 1990s as a crucial element (often alongside the ideas of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui and the work of the Muslim Institute) shaping their Islamic outlook and identity, whether they were students in Western universities, young people growing up in Muslim communities in Western countries, or journalists and Islamic activists in Muslim countries. But for the Ummah, as for the rest of the world, the information environment has changed. Where once intelligent, educated, politically aware young people yearned for and sought out a global Islamic perspective, to put against an international news discourse dominated by the complacent and comfortable west, now they are bombarded with competing voices claiming to represent “true Islam”, from pacifist and pro-western think-tanks supported by western and Muslim states and promoted as voices of reason and moderation, to the shrill, simplistic, confrontational, often sectarian voices of groups that promise easy answers to the problems facing the Ummah, but have no real understanding of Islam, history, society or the world we live in. And as usual in any shouting match, those with the loudest voices are heard most, particularly if they present only easy slogans and soundbites, while the voices of those who present reasoned, balanced and intellectual arguments are overwhelmed, missed or ignored by all but a discerning few.

For many confronting the hegemonic discourse of the west 20–30 years ago, the internet offered the promise of new and effective ways to spread their ideas, reach new audiences and knit the Ummah together into a global community of politically aware Muslims. And that has been achieved, to a point. But the unfortunate reality is that any such progress has been more than balanced by the exploitation of the internet and associated technologies by the powers that be to spread their own poisonous agendas, and to manipulate the world to their own ends, not least by promoting disorder where pro-western stability is not an option. The result is that Muslims now suffer not only from the systemic problems of information overload, but also from what we may call misinformation toxicity, the effects of which are seriously damaging the Ummah; and, in my judgement, more than reversing any benefits the Islamic movement may have gained from the potential promised by the new media.

What we now have, therefore, is what we may characterise as “information chaos” in place of the west-dominated order that previously prevailed. And while chaos and disorder may offer opportunities for all, including the weak and oppressed, it is always the strong and powerful who are best positioned to exploit those opportunities, assert their positions, defend their interests and emerge the stronger.

This is not a situation that is reversible. The information and communication technologies that have created this situation are here to stay. For the Islamic movement and those within it who are striving to offer voices of intelligent, balanced, principled reason, instead of succumbing to the temptations to join the cacophony in the chaos, the challenge now is to find ways of overcoming these problems and to achieve our objectives despite them. The promise and potential heralded by the Islamic Revolution and the Hijrah centenary over thirty years ago remain undimmed; it is just harder for their champions to effectively articulate them, and harder for others to see them. That is the challenge facing us all for the new year and the decades to come.


Iqbal Siddiqui is a former editor of Crescent International (1998–2008).

Monday, January 03, 2011

Looking at the future through the past



Reflctions – Zafar Bangash

Journalists, it is said, write the first draft of history. Given the manner in which the once honourable profession of journalism has been subverted into a propaganda tool of the Western corporate elite, it is a totally undeserved compliment. Today, journalists act little more than mouthpieces for the latest policy prescriptions of the ruling class, regardless of how destructive it may be for the rest of humanity, or indeed its own populations.

Some examples will clarify this point. Iran is accused by the West of making a nuclear bomb. Without examining the allegation or providing proof, the Western media simply parrot this nonsensical assertion. Iranian President Ahmedinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” is another oft-repeated allegation. He has never said any such thing but that has not prevented Western television talking heads and pompous newspaper columnists from repeating it ad nauseum. Even if Israel were wiped off the map, would the sky fall or the world come to an end? There is no Soviet Union today; Yugoslavia has disappeared. So what? What has been wiped off the face of the earth is Palestine and this is what the Zionists and supporters of this colonial settler entity do not want the rest of the world to know.

Moving beyond Western journalists’ hypocritical rantings, we want to venture into the realm of future gazing. We make no claims — big or small — to know the future but we take our job and profession seriously, hence this attempt to honestly analyze current trends to make an educated guess.

The US’s claim to being the sole superpower is no longer accepted even by diehard American firsters. True, it still wields enormous destructive power but that is no mark of greatness. The US does not hold the attraction it once did nor is it feared as widely. In addition to the Zionists even the South Koreans now thumb their noses at the Americans. The sole superpower is dead.

History shows that the balance of power doctrine works best in global politics. Competing centres of power emerge to challenge claimants to the sole leadership role. The US may have been unchallenged for a decade (1991–2001) but then it blundered into two wars that have sapped not only its energies but also drained its economy. While there may not be military alliances openly challenging the US, several economic and political blocs now exist as competing centres of power. There is the Brazil, India, China and Russia (BRIC) economic grouping that trade in each other’s currency bypassing the dollar. There is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that brings Russia, China and the Central Asian Republics into a powerful bloc with others poised to join.



What is most interesting is the unofficial alliance between Turkey, Iran, Syria, Hizbullah/Lebanon and Hamas/Palestine. Turkey’s philosophy of zero conflict with all neighbours articulated by its able foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has paid handsome dividends. Turkey has lifted visa requirements for citizens of neighbouring countries. Massive foreign investment has also flowed in.

After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, this new development offers the best hope for the future of Muslims. It does not mean the US and its allies, especially the Zionists will give up their mischief-making but Islamic Iran and Turkey have shown what good neighbourly behaviour can achieve.



There are also other developments on the horizon. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are destined for major shake-ups. Their aging rulers already have one foot in the grave. Who will succeed them is a tantalizing question but what is certain is both countries can expect periods of turbulence leading to declining US influence in the region. It cannot, however, be ruled out that some military officer — a colonel or general — may already have been groomed by the US to take over in one or both countries. He may even espouse anti-western rhetoric to gain public acceptance but changes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia will certainly diminish US influence in the most important region.

It is for Muslims, especially the Islamic movement to decide the kind of future they want. To secure an honourable existence in this unfair world, a clear understanding of the current global reality is an essential prerequisite. Pious hopes or banking on one’s enemies good behaviour will not achieve the desired results. The global arena has opened up with US military defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and its consequent economic decline. If Muslims do not fill this vacuum, others will. The choice is ours.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought