Some Random Thoughts

as-salaamu ‘alaikum

Today I picked up some surveys for a really noble project that I initially didn’t ever plan to join.  The idea is to create a free health clinic for everyone in Cambridge, and I am trying to gather survey responses from shelters in the Central Square area.

Reading through the dozen responses I have so far, I find myself thinking about the individuals who completed the surveys.  Despite good spelling and an education, each of these individuals are in really difficult situations that have forced them to end up at a shelter.  I know so little about these people and their needs that I don’t really understand how one comes to the position where a shelter seems like the best sanctuary.  I feel so ignorant.  Several of the responses said that they were very dissatisfied with free health care and, for example, were not able to see a dentist for several months despite continuous pain.  This, in the city of Mass General, Harvard Medical, Beth Israel… ?

There is so much wealth in this city/state/country and yet there’s still so much suffering.  Why is man so eternally ungrateful for what God has given him?  Why do we turn a blind eye to those who need th most help in society, while we spend so frivolously?

How can those of us who are concerned help to increase awareness by creating a welfare ethic in society?  I know it is human nature to help someone in need — I am convinced we all have an innate desire to be charitable — but in contemporary society where we don’t know each others names and rarely ask about one anothe, how is it possible?

as-salaamu ‘alaikum

 Well, I am a little disappointed that I don’t seem to have anything to talk about other than movies from the Arab and Muslim world, but I happened to watch two interesting films in the last few weeks that address gender in Muslim/Afghan society: Baran and Osama.

Both films are about Afghan women who are forced to dress as men in order to find work when their families are left with no other source of income. They do this for dramatically different reasons and in very different societies. Baran takes place in Iran, while Osama takes place in Afghanistan during Taliban rule. Between the two, I liked Baran a lot more, mostly because the characters have much more personality than those in Osama.

 Also, the director from Osama brilliantly manages to depict religious men as perverts, which was just disturbing and not at all what I consider entertainment. Osama’s director also seems to (justifiably) have an axe to grind with the religious leaders of his homeland, which leads to a storyline that is just depressing for a Muslim. The result is certainly important cinema, but its difficult to stomach statutory rape, cruel and unusual punishment and total gender-apartheid (all in the name of Islam) in one film.

Baran is essentially a love story, with all the wonderful modesty, innocence and simplicity that comes with Iranian cinema. Basically, a young Afghan refugee girl in Iran is forced to work at a construction site as a man after her father suffers a work-related injury and is bed-ridden. Unlike Osama, Baran does not explicitly address why a girl would have to pose as a man in order to find work. It is simply assumed that only men can work at construction sites, which is certainly usually the case across the world. Those unfamiliar with Afghan culture are not subjected to a dramatic and painful rant about how much it sucks to be a woman in a destitute, conservative Muslim refugee community. Baran, posing as Rahmat (a boy), is merely trying to fill the position of her father at the male-only construction site. The daughter in Osama works because her mother and grandmother are barred from working under the Taliban. She went to work for her family’s survival, even though her mother is a doctor. Later in Baran, there are scenes that show women working at hard labor as women, which helps those without context to understand that women can certainly work in Iran. Anyway, I am tired of writing…

I feel like I’m just recounting the films. I’ll write again if there’s anything to say.

 Basically I’d recommend Baran to everyone and Osama to those who have a familiarity with the history of Afghanistan in order to see this rendition of life under the Taliban. Osama is particuarly depressing for Muslims because it jam-packs all the bad things that could happen to a family in the name of Islam during the Taliban into one feature-length film… so be forewarned!

After reading an article about Kerry’s upcoming speech in which he’ll identify the important differences between him and GW Bush on Iraq and the War on Terror, I visited both campaign websites

www.johnkerry.com

www.georgewbush.com

The GW Bush website is incredibly negative!  It currently has pictures of Kerry, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Michael Moore and some other liberals that conservatives love to hate in strange emphatic positions.  It is really upsetting to then go on and to read that the Bush-Cheney campaign is complaining that they have been outspent by the Kerry-Edwards campaign with a 2 to 1 ratio for negative campaigning.  Their very home page tears Kerry apart agressively for flip-flopping and “remaking” himself.

The flashy text that reads “Kerry’s extreme makeover” makes the site look literally like a tabloid magazine.  Honestly, when I went to it I thought it was a parody site.

I am not saying this as a resident of Kerry’s home state, or someone living in ultra-liberal Cambridge.  I am saying this as someone who just visited both websites and saw some really nice photos on the Kerry-Edwards campaign talking about the future and a new America.

Go to them, and see for yourself.  The contrast is really striking!

as-salaamu `alaikum

Like pretty much everyone else in the city of Boston (or at least Cambridge), I’ve spent the last week talking about the Democratic National Convention.  Since I’m against talking about my political views on this site, I’m just going to stick to the more interesting stuff — all the madness surrounding the convention.

First, so many of my friends and acquaintances who work in downtown Boston have mentioned how they considered leaving town for the convention.  Employers have encouraged their employees to work in other offices or at home, apparently.  But all this running makes no sense to me – Boston looks great.

For this one splendid week, construction in this city has slowed or even come to a complete halt.  I’ve really appreciated reading positive articles in the Globe about last-minute labor contract deals struck by the Mayor, and about Boston’s eagerness to host the conference.

A big change has been in the subways.  The just look cleaner.  And finally the MBTA decided to post helpful new signs in each subway station to maneuver the area.  The airport has signs welcoming everyone to the city, and Yahoo! had a booth were you could search the internet for free.  (I checked e-mail, of course.)

I just don’t understand why anyone would want to leave the city during this exciting time.  I wish I were involved in the convention simply to be a good host and have a great time showing off the city.

as-salaamu ‘alaikum

So recently I was confronted with the question: why make such a big deal about movies dealing with the Arab and Muslim world?  Aren’t people smart enough to realize that they have been misled by cinema, and aren’t they notoriously suspicious of visual media anyway?

I would disagree –  What propagandists have understood so well since cinema’s earliest days is that cinema is one of the best ways to assimilate people culturally.  Every director and producer has some hand in shaping our opinions or at least our understanding of the world.   The more realistic the film and the less educated the audience, the more influence cinema has.   At worst, it can be a mechanism for “thought control.” All cinema inherently promotes some sort of value system, and informs the way we look at the world.  These concepts, even when posed as fiction, affect the viewer.  Sure, a small segment of cinema is so unrealistic that it will never inform a person’s belief system or worldview.  However, the majority of mass-media, including cinema such as “The Last Samurai” and “Hidalgo” have messages and promote concepts… These concepts are far more influential when the viewership has little knowledge of the subject matter before the film… For instance, who is to say that Riyadh from Hidalgo is wrong when he says that “it is written” that a father must drown his daughter if she “committed lewdness”?  It just gets worse when cinema just amplifies stereotypes…

I recommend a book called “Reel Bad Arabs” by Jack Shaheen that documents the negative portrayal of Arabs (and by extension Muslims) in Hollywood over the last century.

I am looking for a solid defense of why cinema matters… and how it matters… I will get back to this blog soon.  Until next time –

Last Friday night, after attending a Muslim-Jewish shabbat dinner, my roommate and I went and saw “The Last Samurai.”  I posted some thoughts on the Harvard Islamic Society discussion list, and I think they might be appropriate to put here too, with some additional comments that come as a result of the responses I received…

Original message:

—– Original Message —–
Subject: Modernity and Tom Cruise

> assalaamu alaikum
>
> My roommate and I saw “The Last Samurai” tonight.  The film,
> starring Tom Cruise, is about the samurai rebellions during the
> late 19th century Japan.  The samurai, despite swearing allegiance
> to the Emperor, fought fierce battles against the Imperial forces
> in order to preserve traditional Japanese society.  The
> unrelenting modernization program of the Emperor was quickly
> eliminating the very institution of the samurai, as well as basic
> elements of Japanese identity (e.g. social structure, clothing,
> language).
> What does this have to do with HIS-Kalam?
>
> My roommate and I both decided that this film has an important
> commentary on contemporary American society and its relationship
> to the Muslim world.
>
> The film speaks to the effect of American capitalist pursuits on
> traditional societies.  It draws parallels between the senseless
> annihilation of Native Americans in the US and reasoned, gradual
> extermination of samurai culture.  American support for the
> Emperor’s war against the samurai was the result of an
> international arms treaty to provide military support the the
> Japanese as they sought to create a Western-style military.
>
> Again, what does this have to do with Muslims?
>
> This film stirred within me a real sense of regret for the loss
> traditional societies throughout the world.  With an Emperor hell-
> bent on Westernization, Japanese society was at odds with itself
> like many Muslim socities today.  The traditional elements of
> society rebelled because they equated the avid Westernization
> programme with self-colonization and loss of identity.  Scenes of
> samurai in traditional clothing alongside Japanese men in top-hats
> and black American coats reminded me of Karachi today.  When a
> samurai on the street had his sword forcibly removed and hair
> forcibly cut by government soldiers (who were enforcing new laws
> against traditional culture), reminded me of what I’ve read of the
> Shah’s initatives or Turkey/Tunisia’s rule on veiling.
>
> Repeatedly, I thought of how Muslim societies have forsaken their
> religious beliefs in order to be able to participate in the modern
> nation-state order.  Some states have actively sought to dismantle
> the influence of traditional religious beliefs in exchange for
> economic or political benefits from the United States and West in
> general.
> The conservative-militia reminded me of the paramilitary groups
> throughout the Muslim world today.  Like the samurai, many people
> don’t join these groups, yet many, many more harbor strong
> sympathies for them.  Justifiably or not, they are defending an
> older way of life…
>
> Anyway, I am imbued with a mix of nostalgia for an era I have
> never known and regret for the globalization and colonization of
> societies across the world…
>

I am not an apologist for paramilitary groups.  I am not saying that they are justified in what they do or that the way of life that they’re fighting for is entirely analogous to the way of life of the Samurai in the film. 

Something I want to say more clearly, however, is that many of us don’t really think about the enormous impact that the gun had on transforming societies globally.  How else were only a few British able to rule hundreds of millions of Indians so comfortably?  There was a simple time when swords met guns, and obviously in every instance swords lost to the gun… and traditional society was naturally overrun.

Today, things are much more complicated.  The modern paramilitary groups have guns and their ideologies are often thoroughly modern, even if only in the sense that they have blind adherence to old lifestyles and define themselves against anything they perceive as Western.