Pope Visits Turkey, Makes Things Worse?

The pope has gone to Turkey. The coverage of his trip has been annoying, to say the least. Perhaps the most annoying pope-related news item I have seen is the current cover of Time magazine:

The cover depicts a seemingly-humble, gentle, and peaceful pope - note that his head is bowed. He seems to be facing "Islam." As if Turkey were representative of "Islam," and as if there is such a thing as "Islam"! I mean, there are a million Islams and probably a million Turkeys too. Think of how it would sound if the Iranian press had covered Ahmedinejad's recent visit to the US as a visit to "Christendom." That's how absurd this terminology is.

Note also that the pope is "confronting" Islam - suggesting that Islam is a bad child that needs to be scolded, or maybe given a time-out in the corner or something. Bad Islam! No dessert for you!

And last but not least, the pope is confronting Islam with a crucifix in his hand, with the figure of Jesus leading the way. Now, let's be generous here and say this was probably an unconscious choice on the part of the artist. But surely the image passed the perusal of an editor or two, who should have been smarter and should have pulled the image of something that conjured up the ghost of, oh I don't know, the crusades???!!?! Surely someone at Time realized that this image would capture perfectly the posture that Western (Christian?) leaders have been explicitly adopting for at least the last 5 years, which is one of aggression and bigotry. And yet it went to press. Ugh.

Let's not be surprised when we realize that this visit only manages to make things worse.

Zoheb is Back, Baby!

Who can forget the bubble-gum pop of Nazia and Zoheb Hassan? The infectious melodies, the goofy lyrics, the fresh-faced and "cool" appeal of the musical siblings... It all takes me back to a time when I was much, much, much younger and much, much, much less cynical. Nazia passed away a few years ago after a battle with lung cancer (and a painful and abusive marriage). She'd been living in the UK. In 2002, Nazia was posthumously awarded the Pakistan Pride of Performance Award. Her family has created a charitable foundation in her memory. Here's a short but touching tribute to her.

I had no idea what had happened to Zoheb until recently, when I saw that he had released a new album called Kismat. It's apparently a huge hit in Pakistan - over 50,000 sold - and now he is hoping to launch the album in India (where the real money is).

Rightwing Rhetoric Alike?

I always find it fascinating when I see the similarities between the rightwing in different places. I know it shouldn't be surprising, but it is still often curious how such different cultures and contexts will produce the same kind of conservative and extremist forces. I recently saw two news items in the Pakistani press that reminded me of this, because of their usage of rhetoric that is often deployed by the US rightwing (source: Daily Times, November 20).

The first is the response of the mullahs to the passage of the incredibly anemic "Women Protection Bill." Only by the most conservative measures can this bill be seen as an advance for women in Pakistan, although if someone held a gun to my head, I would admit that it is slightly better than the current Hudood laws. But the mullahs are so outraged by even this extremely modest change in the law that they have vowed to take action. Their first act?

Creating a "body for defence of Hudood laws."

If that sounds familiar to those conversant with US politics, that's because it channels the same twisted spirit as the absurd "defense of marriage laws." In both cases, the rightwing portrays itself as somehow under attack or under siege, when in fact, the institutions they are purporting to defend are in absolutely no danger of ever being harmed. The irony in Pakistan is that the new Women Protection Bill has preserved much of the old Hudood law, in civil form. And of course the Hudood laws STILL exist! They haven't been repealed, as they should have been (of course, they should never have been put into place to begin with, but that would take us back to the ghost of dictators-past). Among the things that is upsetting the mullahs is the change in age of consent for women to 16 (not puberty as before). Lovely, aren't they?

The second news item that startled me with its analogous rhetoric was a statement by the banker-turned-Musharraf's-stooge, I mean, prime-minister, Shaukat Aziz. Commenting on the situation in Afghanistan at a joint press conference with Tony "lap dog" Blair, Aziz said:

"Cut and run is no way to resolve the issue."

That, of course, mimics the teasing taunt tossed by Republicans at Democrats in the most recent midterm-election cycle. So, just as the Bush administration refuses to recognize that its presence in Iraq is immoral, so does the Musharraf government refuse to give up its hegemonic designs on Afghanistan. Haven't we Pakistanis done enough already to destroy that country? Haven't we, directly and indirectly, guaranteed that Afghanistan will never prosper? (And by "never," I mean at least a century, which equals never to people who live there now.)

Let me give you a tip, Shauky (pronounced "Shock-key" if you're Punjabi): nothing good can ever come out of Pakistan's military adventure in Afghanistan. Not for Afghans, not for Pakistanis, and not even for the Pakistani military and people like you who continue to enable the military to reign supreme. Yes, "cut and run is no way to resolve the issue" - instead, we should be taking the military's budget, giving Afghanistan reparations out of that (in addition to the much bigger reparations that should come from the US), take what's left over, and give it to the Bangladeshis. (Well, in actuality, Bangladesh has first dibs on those reparations, but you get the idea.) Disband the whole damn military. That might be a start to resolving the issue. "Staying the course" is not.

Mujhse Dosti Karoge? NAHIN!

The image of the American seems to be that of an open and friendly person - but us immigrant types have always known better, right? Well, that image is taking a bit of a beating. According to a survey commissioned by the Discover America Partnership (a group composed mostly of hospitality industry firms), the US is now perceived as the least friendly country in the world to visit. The US was ranked the worst in terms of its visa policies and immigration procedures (39%), although fikar not, the #2 spot went to the Middle East/Subcontinental Asia (16%). A majority of respondents - 54% - viewed US immigration officials as "rude."

Iran Fingerprints Americans

Falling within the category of heavily-symbolic-
but-ultimately-totally-irrelevant-yet-thoroughly-satisfying is this news item from Iran. The Iranians have decided to reciprocate current US border control procedures, which is to fingerprint all visitors coming into the US - of course, best-friend countries such as the UK and Israel and well-behaved nations such as pretty much all rich and/or white countries are exempt from this requirement.

Of course that means that Iran is very much included in this list of countries. Not only is it a predominantly-Muslim country, but it also occupies extra-special status as a member of the absurdly-named "axis of evil." Now the Iranians have decided to put American visitors to Iran under the same procedure that Iranians are subject to when entering the US:

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament, in a tit-for-tat measure, passed a bill on Sunday obliging the government to fingerprint US citizens entering the Islamic Republic, state radio reported.
The proposal, backed by 135 votes to 26, also requires a complete security check on every American who enters Iran. The bill now goes to the hardline Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog body, before becoming law. (source: Reuters)

Interestingly, President Ahmedinejad opposed the bill, apparently because he did not want to send a hostile signal to American visitors (and Westerners say he's irrational). Iran joins Brazil in reciprocating the draconian border control measures that the US places upon visitors who look like us.

Quranic Ringtones Un-Islamic

Sometimes there's a news item that perfectly captures the insanity of the religious fanatics. The maulvis at Deoband in India - the same people who brought you the Imrana affair - have weighed in on another weighty social matter: mobile phone ringtones. Turns out that a popular trend among some Muslim youth is to use Quranic ringtones on their mobile phones. I don't know who these youth are, and I have never heard such a ringtone myself, and a quick look at the Ufone and Mobilink websites didn't yield any such Quranic ringtones. But these ringtones must be widespread enough for the Deobandis to weigh in on the issue. One might guess that the clerics would like the idea of even young hipsters with mobile phones turning to the Quran for their ringtone needs. But one would guess wrong.

And what do they have to say? Their verdict is that the Quranic ringtones are un-Islamic (source: The Daily Times):

Clerics at the Darul Uloom seminary in the northern Indian town of Deoband issued an edict banning the use of holy Quran verses or Muslim call to prayers as ringtones, saying doing so violates Islamic law.

Their logic? Apparently, Quranic verses are not meant for entertainment purposes. In addition, what is really problematic for our mullah friends is that a person may answer their phone without letting the entire ringtone play, thus cutting short the verse. Explains Mufti Badrul Hasan:

One should hear the complete verse of the holy Quran with a pious mind and in silence. If it is used as a ringtone, a person is bound to switch on the mobile, thus truncating the verse halfway ... This is an un-Islamic act.

When I shared the news item with lahorimunda, he replied that "every system has the seeds of its own destruction." I certainly hope so, but I'm really beginning to wonder if these people are too stupid and incompetent to even pull off their own destruction.

Cleric Sets Himself on Fire

From Germany comes news that a cleric has set himself on fire. I'm embarrassed to say that when I first saw the headline, I assumed it was yet another instance of a mullah displaying his idiocy, and yet another instance of the Western media distorting the image of Muslims by picking on the one idiot mullah who sets himself on fire.

Then I read the story. Turns out it was a Christian cleric who set himself on fire. Apparently he was so incensed (heh) by the "spread of Islam" that he immolated himself yesterday, a day that is celebrated in some parts of Germany as a recognition of the Protestant Reformation. So here's more proof: they're ALL crazy.