Egypt’s Mufti has denounced a vote to ban new minarets in Switzerland on Sunday as an 'insult' to Muslims across the world. Since when have Muslims needed the minaret to validate their faith?
When Muhammad entered the city of Medina, amongst the first task that he set out to do was to construct his abode and subsequently a mosque adjacent to it. The mosque was a simple open-air building made with mud walls and palm trunks. Its most distinguishable feature was a simple platform where Muhammad taught the contents of the Quran to his followers. When the time for prayer came, Bilal Al-Habshee simply stood at a corner and recited his call to the faithful. There were no opulent domes nor were there any fancy minarets at which he stood. It was an austere structure indeed. But from this simple mosque, Muslims rose to become a formidable force in the Arabian Peninsula within the short space of Muhammad’s rule.
A mosque is primarily a space to contemplate and remember God. Beyond that, it serves as a place of learning and forging social cohesion within the community. The Arabic word for mosque, ‘masjid’, literally translates to mean a place where one prostrates oneself. But today, the mosque has grown beyond its original intention as a place of prayer and learning.
In areas where Muslim populations are a minority, the mosque now serves as a bastion to validate their existence. Grand domes and imposing minarets are looked upon proudly as conspicuous symbols that Muslims have established themselves as a tangible and permanent feature of the landscape. Despite the fact that Muhammad had once warned his followers against opulence when constructing places of worship, Muslim communities are largely not abating in building them grander and taller. A search on Google for “grand masjid” turns up about a million images of magnificent mosques all over the world, including Europe and America - when the phrase should rightly be an oxymoron.
The proposed law to ban the construction of minarets may have been seen as an attempt to halt any existing Muslim ambition in building similar grand mosques on Swiss soil. But the referendum signals a deeper anxiety towards Muslim in general. As Farhad Afshar, who runs the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland said, “Most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote”. He added that “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community” in Switzerland.
It seems that we have forgotten that Muslims were never accepted as a religious community during the days when the very first verse of the Quran was revealed. Muhammad and his family tolerated persecution for years under the pagan tribes of Mecca when he began preaching the values of Islam. Muhammad did not gain converts through asserting their right to practice, nor did they have the impulsive need to be accepted as a religious community. All Muhammad and the Muslims did was to demonstrate the values of Islam by exemplifying themselves according to the values of the Quran, all from a humble, minaret-less mosque.
Perhaps Muslims should use the federal ban on minarets to reflect upon themselves on why the referendum was overwhelmingly approved in the Switzerland canton despite the country having a reputation as a refuge for tolerance. Has anti-Islam anxiety reached a point where lawmakers are left with no choice but to accept a grotesquely discriminatory proposal? Was the referendum done in retaliation against Muslims resistance towards integration? Had Muslims in Europe lived the life of Muhammad, who exemplified tolerance and acceptance towards people of all religions, would the “native occident” be less derogatory towards them?
There are presently 150 mosques in Switzerland, only 2 of which have minarets. The referendum only seeks to ban the construction of minarets, not the construction of mosques and Muslims are still free to practise their faith. The minaret, originally intended as a spire to spread the call to prayer, has largely lost its function with the advent of more efficient broadcasting technologies. Muslims have to stop clamouring on to outmoded symbols such as the minaret to validate the existence of their faith.
The worse thing Muslims can do now is to over react to this ban in the style of the Danish cartoon protests. This will only seal the perception that Europeans have towards Muslims as intolerable bigots who will scream with a placard at any given opportunity.
The writer is a student enrolled in the Bachelor of Islamic Revealed Knowledge at the International Islamic University & doing the Master of Science (Strategic Studies) at the Nanyang Technological University
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Let the Mullahs Go Nuke
The way to peace in the Middle East may lie in facilitating Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran seems to make a lot of people upset. Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel paid a visit to the US and told Congress that Iran's nuclear program is “against the interests of the German people”. President Obama, despite his promises of cautious diplomacy, has repeatedly warned the regime against acquiring a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile the Israeli's are not discounting the option of a military strike against what it sees as a threat to its national security.
The international reaction towards Iranian nuclear effort is understandable. This is after all a country headed by a president who had once proclaimed his wish to see Israel “wiped of the map”. Anyone who has seen images of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would certainly agree with the wisdom that a nuclear-armed Iran is not exactly a desirable element towards achieving peace in the Middle East.
But this “wisdom” may have been proven to be fundamentally flawed by a very important historical precedent often ignored by nuclear pessimists: since the existence of nuclear weapons, there has never been a war between two states that are mutually armed with it.
In the discourse of nuclear proliferation and the imminent destruction that it's supposed to unleash upon the world, people seemed to have forgotten just effectively nuclear deterrence has worked over the past six decades. Ever since the last nuclear weapon was unleashed upon Nagasaki in 1945, mankind has witnessed an unprecedented stretch of peace that has not existed in recent history. It took just 21 years for a second world war to follow the first. The fact that there has never been a third, or a similar catastrophe where millions of lives are lost within a matter of years, may be sufficient testament to the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence in ensuring the peace that we enjoy today.
This prolonged period of peace is largely possible because nuclear weapons have changed the dynamics of international diplomacy. Professor Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor at UC Berkley and prominent scholar of international relations, calls this phenomenon “dissuasion by deterrence”. The prospect of assured mutual destruction has prevented nuclear armed states from ever escalating a conflict to the brink of a full scale war.
For example, during a brief skirmish in 1999 between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, observers keenly noted how both countries were careful to ensure that the the actions of their military were mellow at most, each country avoiding strikes that would inflict serious damage onto vital infrastructures of the other. Both were aware of what the consequences could be should they fail to exercise restrain in their military operations.
Another case in point for “dissuasion by deterrence” is the 1962 Missile Crisis. President Kennedy took the then unprecedented risk of agreeing to remove all missiles in southern Italy and Turkey in return for the Soviet's agreement to vacate Cuba. Such concessions would not have been possible should either one of these nations had been the unipolar power of its time.
“Dissuasion by deterrence” may have proven its compelling case over the decades. But what about the contemporary personalities we have today? Should we not be worried about the eccentrics demonstrated by heads of state such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il? Surely, putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of a man who wants to wipe an entire country of the map is detrimental towards the well being of mankind?
The fact of the matter is, we have in the past inadvertently trusted nuclear weapons in the hands of personalities that were way more worrisome than demented communists or deranged Persians. Remember, both Chairman Mao of China and Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union once threatened to unleash their nuclear weapons upon the United States at some point of time during the cold war. But as murderous as the comments were, these leaders still had the common sense to realize that no country can walk truly walk away from a nuclear war. As political commentator Jonathan Tepperman observed, “all states are rational at some basic level” no matter how delirious their leaders may seem.
Having argued for peace by nuclear weapons, what then should the international approach be towards the nuclear ambitions of regimes such as North Korea and Iran? The key lies in 3 advancement thrusts: advancement of nuclear forensics, advancement of nuclear expertise and the advancement of a nuclear community.
Advancement of Nuclear Forensics.
Pioneered by Harvard University's Professor Graham Allison, nuclear forensics is an emerging field which allows scientists to trace any nuclear device, detonated or otherwise, back to its owner and manufacturer. No two nuclear weapons are alike and each will have its own unique radioactive signature. The advancement of nuclear forensics will act as an insurance to deter states from selling their nuclear weapons to rogue elements or detonating their nuclear devices via a proxy, knowing that these can very well be traced to its origin, with its originator facing the consequences. Nuclear forensics has consequentially given us the ability to ensure that nuclear states remain responsible for their respective stockpiles. The international community needs to dedicate more political will and resources to the advancement of this field.
Advancement of Nuclear Expertise
Unlike what has been often portrayed in the movies, nuclear weapons are seldom activated by pushing a “red button”. The firing mechanisms for these devices are intricately complex, needing several levels of instituted protocols and procedures before the weapon has the ability to go “live”. Countries such as the United States need to ensure that nuclear technical expertise are inculcated amongst state players to ensure that the worldwide nuclear stockpile continue to retain sophisticated firing mechanisms and procedures to prevent them from falling to rogue elements.
But more importantly, nuclear experts must propagate what Tepperman calls “survivable second strike option”. This is the ability for a nation to bounce back from a nuclear strike and retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal. Once this ability is attained by all nuclear powers, no nation will risk hitting another with a nuclear weapon, knowing that retaliation is inevitable.
Advancement of Nuclear Community
“Dissuasion by Deterrence” can effectively work only if every nation in the world knows for sure exactly who the nuclear powers are. While there already exists an intergovernmental forum for nuclear powers in the form of the IAEA, the platform has systematically excluded by proxy, states that it deems to be unsuitable to be nuclear armed. A truly inclusive platform for the international community of nuclear powers will not only encourage the proliferation of nuclear know-how, but more importantly eradicate mistrust among states and discourage the possibility of clandestine armaments.
It will be tough to pitch the above measures to the international audience, let alone muster the political will to even consider them. The attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has taken up much time and resources but few have actually pondered the truth with regards to the role that nuclear deterrence has played in ensuring the peace we have today. A nuclear-armed Iran could actually spark the regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will be needed to bring about an equilibrium of peace in the region. Should our leaders still not acknowledge this, we may find ourselves in the future in yet another unnecessary war.
The writer is a student enrolled in the Bachelor of Islamic Revealed Knowledge at the International Islamic University & doing the Master of Science (Strategic Studies) at the Nanyang Technological University
The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran seems to make a lot of people upset. Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel paid a visit to the US and told Congress that Iran's nuclear program is “against the interests of the German people”. President Obama, despite his promises of cautious diplomacy, has repeatedly warned the regime against acquiring a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile the Israeli's are not discounting the option of a military strike against what it sees as a threat to its national security.
The international reaction towards Iranian nuclear effort is understandable. This is after all a country headed by a president who had once proclaimed his wish to see Israel “wiped of the map”. Anyone who has seen images of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would certainly agree with the wisdom that a nuclear-armed Iran is not exactly a desirable element towards achieving peace in the Middle East.
But this “wisdom” may have been proven to be fundamentally flawed by a very important historical precedent often ignored by nuclear pessimists: since the existence of nuclear weapons, there has never been a war between two states that are mutually armed with it.
In the discourse of nuclear proliferation and the imminent destruction that it's supposed to unleash upon the world, people seemed to have forgotten just effectively nuclear deterrence has worked over the past six decades. Ever since the last nuclear weapon was unleashed upon Nagasaki in 1945, mankind has witnessed an unprecedented stretch of peace that has not existed in recent history. It took just 21 years for a second world war to follow the first. The fact that there has never been a third, or a similar catastrophe where millions of lives are lost within a matter of years, may be sufficient testament to the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence in ensuring the peace that we enjoy today.
This prolonged period of peace is largely possible because nuclear weapons have changed the dynamics of international diplomacy. Professor Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor at UC Berkley and prominent scholar of international relations, calls this phenomenon “dissuasion by deterrence”. The prospect of assured mutual destruction has prevented nuclear armed states from ever escalating a conflict to the brink of a full scale war.
For example, during a brief skirmish in 1999 between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, observers keenly noted how both countries were careful to ensure that the the actions of their military were mellow at most, each country avoiding strikes that would inflict serious damage onto vital infrastructures of the other. Both were aware of what the consequences could be should they fail to exercise restrain in their military operations.
Another case in point for “dissuasion by deterrence” is the 1962 Missile Crisis. President Kennedy took the then unprecedented risk of agreeing to remove all missiles in southern Italy and Turkey in return for the Soviet's agreement to vacate Cuba. Such concessions would not have been possible should either one of these nations had been the unipolar power of its time.
“Dissuasion by deterrence” may have proven its compelling case over the decades. But what about the contemporary personalities we have today? Should we not be worried about the eccentrics demonstrated by heads of state such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il? Surely, putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of a man who wants to wipe an entire country of the map is detrimental towards the well being of mankind?
The fact of the matter is, we have in the past inadvertently trusted nuclear weapons in the hands of personalities that were way more worrisome than demented communists or deranged Persians. Remember, both Chairman Mao of China and Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union once threatened to unleash their nuclear weapons upon the United States at some point of time during the cold war. But as murderous as the comments were, these leaders still had the common sense to realize that no country can walk truly walk away from a nuclear war. As political commentator Jonathan Tepperman observed, “all states are rational at some basic level” no matter how delirious their leaders may seem.
Having argued for peace by nuclear weapons, what then should the international approach be towards the nuclear ambitions of regimes such as North Korea and Iran? The key lies in 3 advancement thrusts: advancement of nuclear forensics, advancement of nuclear expertise and the advancement of a nuclear community.
Advancement of Nuclear Forensics.
Pioneered by Harvard University's Professor Graham Allison, nuclear forensics is an emerging field which allows scientists to trace any nuclear device, detonated or otherwise, back to its owner and manufacturer. No two nuclear weapons are alike and each will have its own unique radioactive signature. The advancement of nuclear forensics will act as an insurance to deter states from selling their nuclear weapons to rogue elements or detonating their nuclear devices via a proxy, knowing that these can very well be traced to its origin, with its originator facing the consequences. Nuclear forensics has consequentially given us the ability to ensure that nuclear states remain responsible for their respective stockpiles. The international community needs to dedicate more political will and resources to the advancement of this field.
Advancement of Nuclear Expertise
Unlike what has been often portrayed in the movies, nuclear weapons are seldom activated by pushing a “red button”. The firing mechanisms for these devices are intricately complex, needing several levels of instituted protocols and procedures before the weapon has the ability to go “live”. Countries such as the United States need to ensure that nuclear technical expertise are inculcated amongst state players to ensure that the worldwide nuclear stockpile continue to retain sophisticated firing mechanisms and procedures to prevent them from falling to rogue elements.
But more importantly, nuclear experts must propagate what Tepperman calls “survivable second strike option”. This is the ability for a nation to bounce back from a nuclear strike and retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal. Once this ability is attained by all nuclear powers, no nation will risk hitting another with a nuclear weapon, knowing that retaliation is inevitable.
Advancement of Nuclear Community
“Dissuasion by Deterrence” can effectively work only if every nation in the world knows for sure exactly who the nuclear powers are. While there already exists an intergovernmental forum for nuclear powers in the form of the IAEA, the platform has systematically excluded by proxy, states that it deems to be unsuitable to be nuclear armed. A truly inclusive platform for the international community of nuclear powers will not only encourage the proliferation of nuclear know-how, but more importantly eradicate mistrust among states and discourage the possibility of clandestine armaments.
It will be tough to pitch the above measures to the international audience, let alone muster the political will to even consider them. The attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has taken up much time and resources but few have actually pondered the truth with regards to the role that nuclear deterrence has played in ensuring the peace we have today. A nuclear-armed Iran could actually spark the regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will be needed to bring about an equilibrium of peace in the region. Should our leaders still not acknowledge this, we may find ourselves in the future in yet another unnecessary war.
The writer is a student enrolled in the Bachelor of Islamic Revealed Knowledge at the International Islamic University & doing the Master of Science (Strategic Studies) at the Nanyang Technological University
Saturday, November 7, 2009
A Crime to Contextualize
Is it really necessary to frame an offender in religious tints whenever the atrocity is being perpetrated by a Muslim?
A US Army psychiatrist gunned down 13 people at a Texas military base last Thursday. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who is currently fighting of his life in intensive care after he was suppressed by return fire, was due to be deployed in Afghanistan. He was reportedly opposed to this deployment. The sudden loss of innocent life anywhere by anyone is a tragedy and our heart goes out to relatives of the victims at Fort Hood.
But what appears to be more tragic is the manner in which our media have jumped on the opportunity to immediately contextualize the perpetrator based on his ethnicity and his religion. Major Nidal is an American-born Muslim with parents of Palestinian heritage. When news of this senseless massacre broke, headlines everywhere screamed “Muslim Soldier Kills 13 in Mass Shooting at Fort Hood”. These headlines include the one that was broadcast by Mediacorp's Channel 5 and Channel News Asia on the 6th November 2009.
These seemingly tacit headlines may not seem like much to the undiscerning reader. But a quarter of humanity cannot help but wonder, why is a person's religion not mentioned in the headline except for when the perpetrator is a Muslim? After all, when 44-year old Sergeant John M. Russel went on a shooting spree and killed 5 of his fellow soldiers at a US Army base in Baghdad not so long ago in an eerily similar misdemeanor, the same treatment on his religion and ethnic heritage was not given. Why did our headlines not scream “Christian Soldier Kills 5 in Mass Shooting at Camp Liberty”?
In the context of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic communities , insinuations of this sort does little to add to the value of the story. If there is little evidence the killings at Fort Hood and Camp Liberty were done in the name of the respective religions, then what is the value of predicating a person's religion and ethnicity into the headline of the story? Muslim soldiers are fast becoming part of the landscape not only in the US Army, but the armies of many other western countries as well. A person's religious affiliation is a not a suitable attribute to be made a novelty of, especially so in the backdrop of a violent shooting spree that has the potential to inflame deep-seated ethnic and religious resentments.
The relationship between Islam and Christianity have had an uneasy past and will continue to do so in the near future as conflicts around the world take on an overtly religious tone. Unnecessary provocations such as these do not help in convincing Muslim communities that they are not being deliberately targeted as part of a subtle right-wing agenda. It also threatens to negate all the effort we have made towards enlightening the masses on religious harmony and the true nature of Islam.
Media channels such as Channel 5 and Channel News Asia should have known better, especially since they are serving the needs of a significant Muslim population in Singapore, then to fall into the temptation of pointless religious predications. For all the nation-building efforts it has espoused in the past, this display of religious insensitivity has left us very much surprised.
The manner in which Major Nidal's crime has been framed have sadly put America's Muslims on yet another defensive stance. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have issued a statement in condemning the act and warning Muslims to protect themselves against any violence from the American people. But the real damage has already been done-on the perception of Muslims towards our media.
The writer is a student enrolled in the Bachelor of Islamic Revealed Knowledge at the International Islamic University & doing the Master of Science (Strategic Studies) at the Nanyang Technological University.
A US Army psychiatrist gunned down 13 people at a Texas military base last Thursday. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who is currently fighting of his life in intensive care after he was suppressed by return fire, was due to be deployed in Afghanistan. He was reportedly opposed to this deployment. The sudden loss of innocent life anywhere by anyone is a tragedy and our heart goes out to relatives of the victims at Fort Hood.
But what appears to be more tragic is the manner in which our media have jumped on the opportunity to immediately contextualize the perpetrator based on his ethnicity and his religion. Major Nidal is an American-born Muslim with parents of Palestinian heritage. When news of this senseless massacre broke, headlines everywhere screamed “Muslim Soldier Kills 13 in Mass Shooting at Fort Hood”. These headlines include the one that was broadcast by Mediacorp's Channel 5 and Channel News Asia on the 6th November 2009.
These seemingly tacit headlines may not seem like much to the undiscerning reader. But a quarter of humanity cannot help but wonder, why is a person's religion not mentioned in the headline except for when the perpetrator is a Muslim? After all, when 44-year old Sergeant John M. Russel went on a shooting spree and killed 5 of his fellow soldiers at a US Army base in Baghdad not so long ago in an eerily similar misdemeanor, the same treatment on his religion and ethnic heritage was not given. Why did our headlines not scream “Christian Soldier Kills 5 in Mass Shooting at Camp Liberty”?
In the context of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic communities , insinuations of this sort does little to add to the value of the story. If there is little evidence the killings at Fort Hood and Camp Liberty were done in the name of the respective religions, then what is the value of predicating a person's religion and ethnicity into the headline of the story? Muslim soldiers are fast becoming part of the landscape not only in the US Army, but the armies of many other western countries as well. A person's religious affiliation is a not a suitable attribute to be made a novelty of, especially so in the backdrop of a violent shooting spree that has the potential to inflame deep-seated ethnic and religious resentments.
The relationship between Islam and Christianity have had an uneasy past and will continue to do so in the near future as conflicts around the world take on an overtly religious tone. Unnecessary provocations such as these do not help in convincing Muslim communities that they are not being deliberately targeted as part of a subtle right-wing agenda. It also threatens to negate all the effort we have made towards enlightening the masses on religious harmony and the true nature of Islam.
Media channels such as Channel 5 and Channel News Asia should have known better, especially since they are serving the needs of a significant Muslim population in Singapore, then to fall into the temptation of pointless religious predications. For all the nation-building efforts it has espoused in the past, this display of religious insensitivity has left us very much surprised.
The manner in which Major Nidal's crime has been framed have sadly put America's Muslims on yet another defensive stance. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have issued a statement in condemning the act and warning Muslims to protect themselves against any violence from the American people. But the real damage has already been done-on the perception of Muslims towards our media.
The writer is a student enrolled in the Bachelor of Islamic Revealed Knowledge at the International Islamic University & doing the Master of Science (Strategic Studies) at the Nanyang Technological University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
