Sufi for the Foodie: The Spiritual Origins of Coffee

Taking a break from politics, I'm thinking about food for the soul. Literally. Superluminal posted a Sufi Cookbook online listing not only recipes, but poetry, parables and interesting historical and spiritual facts concerning, well, food! One of his more interesting essays is on the origins of coffee.

I will repost the text here, although do follow the link above for the beautiful images included in the essay:

Coffee: The Wine of Islam

Most modern coffee-drinkers are probably unaware of coffee's heritage in the Sufi orders of Southern Arabia. Members of the Shadhiliyya order are said to have spread coffee-drinking throughout the Islamic world sometime between the 13th and 15th centuries CE. A Shadhiliyya shaikh was introduced to coffee-drinking in Ethiopia, where the native highland bush, its fruit and the beverage made from it were known as bun. It is possible, though uncertain, that this Sufi was Abu'l Hasan 'Ali ibn Umar, who resided for a time at the court of Sadaddin II, a sultan of Southern Ethiopia. 'Ali ibn Umar subsequently returned to the Yemen with the knowledge that the berries were not only edible, but promoted wakefulness. To this day the shaikh is regarded as the patron saint of coffee-growers, coffee-house proprietors and coffee-drinkers, and in Algeria coffee is sometimes called shadhiliyye in his honor. 

The beverage became known as qahwa — a term formerly applied to wine — and ultimately, to Europeans, as "The Wine of Islam." It became popular among the Sufis to boil up the grounds and drink the brew to help them stay awake during their night dhikr. (Roasting the beans was a later improvement developed by the Persians.)

The Shadhili Abu Bakr ibn Abd'Allah al-'Aydarus was impressed enough by its effects that he composed a qasida (poem) in honor of the drink. Coffee-drinkers even coined their own term for the euphoria it produced — marqaha. The mystic and theologian Shaikh ibn Isma'il Ba Alawi of Al-Shihr stated that the use of coffee, when imbibed with prayerful intent and devotion, could lead to the experience of qahwa ma'nawiyya ("the ideal qahwa") and qahwat al-Sufiyya, interchangeable terms defined as "the enjoyment which the people of God feel in beholding the hidden mysteries and attaining the wonderful disclosures and the great revelations."

The Shadiliyya dervishes were active in the world; it is said that Shaikh Abul Hasan ash-Shadhili, the founder of the order, was reluctant to take on a student who did not already have a profession. It soon became apparent that coffee's benefits could be extended to the workday and the local economy as well. The southern Arabian climate was ideal for coffee cultivation, and the ports of Yemen, particularly the port of Mocha, became the world's primary exporters of coffee.

Coffee's use spread to Mecca, where, according to an early Arab historian,

...it was drunk in the Sacred Mosque itself, so that there was scarcely a dhikr or mawlid where coffee was not present. (Jaziri)

By way of pilgrims, traders, students and travelers, coffee spread throughout the Islamic world. Al-Azhar became an early center of coffee-drinking, and a certain amount of ceremony began to surround it. One 16th century writer describes dervish meetings in Cairo:

They drank coffee every Monday and Friday eve, putting it in a large vessel made of red clay. Their leader ladled it out with a small dipper and gave it to them to drink, passing it to the right, while they recited one of their usual formulas, mostly "La illaha il'Allah..." (Ibn 'Abd al-Ghaffar)

Another early Yemeni Sufi devotional ritual involved coffee-drinking accompanied by recitation of a ratib, the invocation 116 times of the divine name Ya Qawi, "O Possessor of All Strength!" — a prayerful and witty juxtaposition of sound and sense.

Over time, coffee even acquired an angelic reputation: according to one Persian legend, it was first served to a sleepy Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel. In another story, King Solomon was said to have entered a town whose inhabitants were suffering a mysterious disease; on Gabriel's command, he prepared a brew of roasted coffee beans, and thereby cured the townspeople.

By the early 16th century CE coffee-drinking moved to the secular sphere, and a new institution evolved which transformed social life throughout the Islamic world. Coffee-houses supplied more than beans — they had the needed equipment, the expertise to prepare the brew, and a convivial milieu in which to enjoy it. Ahmet Pasha, the governor of Egypt during the late 16th century CE, actually built coffeehouses as a public works project, thereby garnering great political popularity. In the mid-seventeenth century two Syrian businessmen, Hakm and Shams, introduced coffee to Istanbul, established the city's first coffeehouses, made a fortune in the process, and established a new and profitable arena of economic activity. Evliya Efendi wrote of the coffee-merchants of Constantinople:

The Merchants of coffee are three hundred men and shops. They are great and rich merchants, protected by Shaikh Shadhili, who was girded by Weis-ul-karani with the Prophet's leave. (Evliya Efendi)

Throughout the first few centuries of its history in the Islamic world, coffee's popularity engendered great controversy. Many were suspicious of the effects of caffeine and the gatherings in which it was consumed — they seemed debauched to some and subversive to others. Coffeehouses competed with mosques for attendance, and as unsupervised gathering places for wits and learned men, provided spawning grounds for sedition. The wags of Istanbul jokingly called the coffeehouses mekteb-i 'irfan, "schools of knowledge." Efforts were launched, and persisted for at least a hundred years, to declare coffee an intoxicant forbidden by Islamic law.

...As to the coffee it is an innovation, which curtails sleep and the generating power in man. Coffee-houses are houses of confusion. Coffee has been by law declared illicit in the great collections of fetwas (legal injunctions) wherein every thing that is burnt is declared to be illegal food. (Evliya Efendi)

During Ramadan in 1539 CE Cairo's coffeehouses were raided and closed, although only for a few days. Soon after coffeehouses achieved popularity in Constantinople, Sultan Murat IV closed them all; they were to remain dark until the last part of the century. But as soon as the Sultan's edict went into effect, the coffeehouse patrons, their money and their social life, went elsewhere:

In Brussa there are seventy five coffeehouses frequented by the most elegant and learned of the inhabitants. All coffeehouses, particularly those near the great mosque, abound with men skilled in a thousand arts... These became famous only since those of Constantinople were closed by the express command of Sultan Murat IV. (Evliya Efendi)

The moralists fought a losing battle, for they were opposed by well-educated coffee-drinkers from the highest ranks of the religious and political hierarchy who did not look fondly upon innovative legal prohibitions. The "tavern without wine" offered a respectable gathering place for men to socialize and entertain away from home. Business was especially brisk during Ramadan, when proprietors made extra efforts to draw crowds with storytellers and puppet shows.

Despite coffee's eventual secularization, the fondness for it in Sufi circles and the motives for its use were not lost. Helveti dervishes were among those who enthusiastically drank coffee to promote the stamina needed for extended dhikr ceremonies and retreats. Once coffee was readily available throughout the Ottoman Empire, it became a fixture of daily life in the Helveti dergahs, and a legend was born that linked the beneficial effects of a miraculous spring to a morning cup of brew:

Mosslahuddin Mergez, the head of the Dervishes Khalveti... once said to his fakirs, "I heard here underneath the ground a voice saying: "O Sheikh! I am a spring of reddish water imprisoned in this place for seven thousand years, and am destined to come to the surface of the earth by thy endeavor as a remedy against fever. Endeavor then to release me from my subterraneous prison." Upon this speech all his fakirs began to dig a well with him, and forth rushed a sweet water of a reddish color, which if drank in the morning with coffee, is a proved remedy against fever, known all over the world by the name of the Ajasma of Mergez. (Evliya Efendi)

In Persia, coffeehouses evolved into hotbeds of lasciviousness and political dispute soon after they were introduced. Shah Abbas I responded to this situation by installing a mullah in the leading Isfahan establishment; he would arrive early in the morning, hold forth on topics of religion, history, law and poetry, then encourage those assembled there to be off to their work. A pious ambience was thereby promoted, an example was set for other coffeehouses, and a potentially volatile social milieu was somewhat controlled. Poets and mystics occasionally took up permanent residence; for example, Molla Ghorur of Shiraz settled in Isfahan in his old age and established himself at a coffeehouse, which soon became a gathering place for those seeking spiritual guidance.

The 17th Century French traveler Jean Chardin gave a lively description of the Persian coffeehouse scene:

People engage in conversation, for it is there that news is communicated and where those interested in politics criticize the government in all freedom and without being fearful, since the government does not heed what the people say. Innocent games... resembling checkers, hopscotch, and chess, are played. In addition, mollas, dervishes, and poets take turns telling stories in verse or in prose. The narrations by the mollas and the dervishes are moral lessons, like our sermons, but it is not considered scandalous not to pay attention to them. No one is forced to give up his game or his conversation because of it. A molla will stand up in the middle, or at one end of the qahveh-khaneh, and begin to preach in a loud voice, or a dervish enters all of a sudden, and chastises the assembled on the vanity of the world and its material goods. It often happens that two or three people talk at the same time, one on one side, the other on the opposite, and sometimes one will be a preacher and the other a storyteller. (Jean Chardin)

In private valises, coffee reached Venice in 1615, Marseilles in 1644, and London in 1651; but it did not make its official debut into European high society until 1669, when it was introduced to Parisians by the Turkish ambassador, Suleyman Mustapha Koca. By the end of the century coffee was fashionable throughout Europe, and its cultivation and use subsequently spread to North and South America. Wherever it has been introduced it has become a symbol of hospitality and a vehicle of sociability. The current resurgence in popularity of the coffeehouse is undoubtedly a response to the aggressive marketing efforts of coffee producers and enterprising restaurateurs. It may also contain a longing for the sort of companionship the Shadhiliyya dervishes enjoyed six hundred years ago, as they gathered to remember Allah and passed the cup from hand to hand.

TED Talks: Karen Armstrong - Let's Revive The Golden Rule

All religions are paths up the same mountain. At the base they all appear different and distinct, but as one climbs higher and delves deeper it all comes down to the same thing:

"One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him."  

- Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c)

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." 

- Buddha, Dhammapada 

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" 

- Jesus, Matthew 7:12 

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour."

- Rabbi Hilel  

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you."

- The Prophet Muhammad (AS), The Farewell Sermon

So forget the need to be right and care, respect, and love all those who cross your path in everything that you do. Karen Armstrong, religious historian, emphasizes the need to revive the Golden Rule among all people all over the world:

Censorship v. Civil Liberties: Thoughts on Internet Freedom and State Security

News concerning WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has been since drowned out by the events currently unfolding in Egypt. Nonetheless, the two issues are interestingly linked through the actions and views of a group of hackers, or 'hacktivists' if you will, known only as 'Anonymous.'

Internet Freedom Fighters, Anonymous, have recently posted a new video on its website urging global protests according to BBC News. The group of hackers, or 'cyber-warriors' as they would rather be called, gained notoriety by supporting Julian Assange and organizing cyber attacks against companies that caved to US government pressure to deny their services and servers to Wikileaks. The group has become so infamous in its support of Wikileaks that the FBI executed search warrants on 40 Anonymous members and is continuing to the raid the homes of its members based in the United States.

The video on the group's blog declares an admirable mission statement loaded with images of freedom of information protesters wearing V for Vendetta's Guy Fawkes masks. The video states the group's agenda:

"We believe that free speech is non-negotiable, the quality of an idea matters more than its authorship, and the radical notion that information should be free. We are done waiting for someone to save us from tyranny and censorship. The Internet needs champions and we will rise. We didn't start this to destroy a cult, we took on a cult to defend free speech. Tens of thousands strong, we lie in wait as the real battle approaches. We are Anonymous and so are you."

The group has taken on some of the most oppressive governments. During the recent Tunisian uprising, Anonymous spearheaded DDoS (Denial of Service) attacks against Tunisian government websites in reaction to the government's actions to block communication between activists. Tunisian hackers reportedly joined the group to coordinate attacks. The group successfully crippled eight Tunisian government sites. The group's Facebook page calls for action in Egypt in lieu of the communication restrictions against protesters: "My fellow Anonymous, the Egyptian government has taken action against it`s people which negates everything we stand for, there for we have decided to take action in the matter.... Operation Egypt/Operation Sekhmet is at hand... Let us Strike like the wind.... swift, unseen and unstoppable!"

Whether members of Anonymous and WikiLeaks are labeled cyber-warriors or cyber-terrorists depends on which side of the debate you are on. Anonymous, while calling for those who support them to join in the cyber fight, always provides a disclaimer that DDoS attacks are against the law in most countries and one can be held liable for participating in such actions. Having said that, however, Anonymous' fight on behalf of freedom of speech and information in Tunisia and more recently Egypt is praiseworthy. Without doubt, the group is a thorn on the side of any government that wishes to control the flow and framing of information, whether via the Internet or other media such as publications, radio, or TV. In the United States, the issue of WikiLeaks and Anonymous' role in defending the whistle-blowing medium is tacked as a problem of 'national security.'

Civil liberties is a sticky subject when considering the Internet from a democratic government perspective especially in regards the blurry lines between what constitutes a criminal action versus freedom of expression. In dictatorial or oppressive regimes it's much easier to draw the line between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys.' In countries such as the United States, Britain, or any government which espouses and protects the rights of its people, freedom of information debates enter a legal gray zone. If an information medium is being used to encourage violence, hatred, racism, misogyny or teach people how to build dirty bombs that could essentially be a serious problem. One of the stranger cases on the matter has been the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) defense of NAMBLA (The National Man-Boy Love Association) where American conservatives accused the ACLU of encouraging pedophilia. The ACLU has since issued a statement concerning its defense of freedom of expression for unpopular organisations.

The ACLU stated:

"The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

Philosophically one could argue that total freedom of information could reasonably be dangerous to society. Are there things people should not know? Is the concept of 'forbidden knowledge' still salient where the Internet proves to be an outlet where one can find literally anything from the high ideals of civil society groups speaking out against dictators and holding forums of political debate to the most degrading items such as criminal child pornography rings or spaces for organized crime to profit through fraud, illegal gambling, or sex trafficking? I certainly don't have the answers to these questions, but there are very good arguments to be made in regards to certain information needing to be regulated or watched by law enforcement if that information results in harming people where the protection of people is a government responsibility.

In the late 18th century, the American Founding Fathers came together and reflected on the moral and ethical questions concerning the foundation of government. They chose to establish a democracy based on values which were formulated during the French Enlightenment with a nod to their own forebears who left 'divine' monarchies for the new world in order to have freedom of religion. They founded a government on the premise that all men, and later women, were equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are what cannot be surrendered by the citizen to the sovereign as defined by Francis Hutcheson in 1725.  The right of private judgment, for example, is inalienable.

Many political philosophers have debated the premises on which American democracy is based. For example, concepts like "freedom" and "rights" and "equality" are entirely taken for granted by the majority of people. Everything human culture and society has come up with historically from the laws and regulations of government to the rituals and practice of religion is the result of collective imagination. This makes any political philosopher at once aware of the fragility of any established order but also of the opportunity to commit great acts of change in societies that people suffered under oppressive circumstances.

American politicians and administration officials eye WikiLeaks and groups such as Anonymous warily. Rep. Ron Paul's defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor this past December calls for common sense. The WikiLeaks controversy may well be less about national security than the fear of certain politicians being made to look bad for talking badly behind each other's backs and for backing failed foreign policies such as supporting certain dictators.

In an eloquent five minute speech before Congress, Rep. Paul provided a heavy dose of common sense in regards to the WikiLeaks controversy and on behalf of freedom of information. He cited significant precedents in U.S. history where those who disseminated leaked information or whistle-blowed against ineffective or amoral foreign policies were hailed as public heroes:

"The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history. Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars."

Groups such as WikiLeaks and Anonymous are not out to destroy Western governments or to purposely threaten the security of people but instead desire to provide a space for political transparency and public accountability. Of course, this is not good for some politicians and those who have credibility to lose as a result of bad foreign policies or embassy badmouthing and these are the one's most staunchly against these groups. WikiLeaks members have been careful to redact any information that could potentially threaten the lives of military sources. Journalists working at bureaus around the world have also taken upon themselves similar ethical responsibilities weighing the consequences of any information they would potentially publish.

The label 'terrorist' has been bandied around without much thought. If we're going to label anyone a 'cyber terrorist' then consider those with actual intent to harm people. Although I sympathize with a government's need to regulate information, especially military intelligence, on the basis of national security, I question the WikiLeaks and Anonymous witch hunts.

Academics Pen An Open Letter to President Obama

Prominent academics from the fields of politics, history, and US foreign policy have come together to write the following open letter to President Barack Obama in support of the protests in Egypt and calling for a revision of U.S. foreign policy more in line with its democratic ideals and values:

http://www.accuracy.org/an-open-letter-to-president-barack-obama/ 

Please repost or 'retweet' this letter! Make some noise.

The Lessons of the Arab Revolutions (or Why Corrupt Dictators Can't Win in the Long Run)

I've always been a believer in karma, the concept that every action has a consequence even if it's not seen immediately, that what goes around comes around. The more I delve into history and observe current events the more I am becoming convinced there's also such thing as political karma and political leaders always reap the consequences of their actions, whether they serve their people well or whether they are self-serving.

The recent revolution in Tunisia which ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the massive uprising in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak, as well as the protests warming up in Yemen, Jordan, and potentially Syria were all inspired by the sacrifice of a man in despair. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire which became an act of political revolt at the state of his country wracked by rising food prices, unemployment, censorship and political repression. His sacrifice has inspired millions to have the courage to stand up against oppression and corruption resulting in a revolution in Tunisia. Against all odds collective action for social justice was incited by the sacrifice of this man who is an allegory for the despair of all those living under corrupt dictatorships. Bouazizi became a martyr for a greater political cause in the Arab world, one that is far too familiar for those living under regimes similar to Ben Ali's. 

The prerequisites to be a dictator is delusion, a certain dose of megalomania and control issues. These regimes masqueraded as democracies with their de facto dictators censoring, detaining, torturing, or outright murdering their political opposition. Social media, whether newspapers, books, or the Internet remained under varying levels of control from mere restrictions such as censorship to total blackouts. Opposition leaders who escaped with their lives have spent or are currently spending years in exile from their homelands. It is no secret that these strongmen ruled by force and repression. Moreover, through corrupt practices these dictators have stolen millions of state dollars into their own bank accounts, into the coffers of their closest henchmen, and even bought certain loyalties through sheer bribery. 

Unfortunately for the United States, these authoritarian regimes now facing potential ousters have been long-standing strategic allies in the region. While some American politicians and conservative media enjoy pointing a finger at China for supporting corrupt dictators for economic advantage in Africa, perhaps the United States should look to cleaning up their own backyard in regards to the foreign policy status quo in the Middle East. While U.S. policy makers and their PR staff paint our country as the 'beacon of democracy' for the world, American foreign policy-making has been a mixed bag of stumbles, stupidities, and outright hypocrisy since the end of World War II. This is in part a consequence of historical changes at the turn of the century: Wilsonian idealism versus balance of power politics, the ideal of collective security versus national sovereignty and self-determination, and finally, among the academic schools of thought and divisive American party lines, liberalism pitted against realism.   

A student of politics would regard the status quo as the norm. After all, Machiavelli wrote that it's better to be feared than loved and realists would argue that political realities call for political expediency. 'Of course, everyone is essentially greedy and self-serving so it's inevitable all countries will work solely for its own interests and dictators will be self-serving,' quips the cynical realist. No one learns from history, after all, regardless that we are told to. The greatest empires have been destroyed due to their greed, taking for granted their military and economic power and over-stretching it, a belief in invincibility, and willful blindness toward the greater human realities of the people beneath their reigns. The harshest dictators have fallen either by threatening too many outside their borders with aggression or by revolutionary reaction from within against their stifling oppression. Political karma in action.

It's time that the world transcends the divisive camps of liberalism and realism with a more holistic approach to politics and governing: moral realism. Political power should not be construed as a zero-sum game but as a responsibility with certain obligations in wielding it. Political leaders, whether in democracies or not, should cease viewing their role as an elitist right for ego validation but as a position where they must serve and protect the people residing within their borders in the best way possible and foster peace and prosperity for those outside their borders as well if they want national prosperity. 

The best metaphorical analogy for moral realism can be rooted in the ancient Chinese concept of the mandate of heaven, a philosophical concept concerning the legitimacy of rulers: "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best." While in today's world we no longer believe in divine right, ideally a political leader's legitimacy should be based on his conduct toward his people, his ability and willingness to serve them and his disposition at being just and wise and balanced in his or her actions.

Whether this concept is applied or not, political karma exists and those who do follow a path of moral realism are far better off than those who truly believe it's better to be feared. In the long-run, corrupt and self-serving dictators can't win. Eventually, they'll reap their political karma. Similarly, nations that support dictators need to reconsider and weigh the consequences of that support because it's a short-term plan for the long-term problem of protecting their own interests. The day politicians realize that the interests, prosperity, and peace of others are in their own interests will be the day the world becomes a better place to live.

In the meantime, the mandate to rule has been withdrawn from the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and all those who believe repression and torture are the order of the day and who, in sheer self-deception and perhaps denial sincerely believe they are supported and loved by millions. In Cairo, one National Democratic Party (NDP) spokesman told an Al Jazeera correspondent amid anti-Mubarak protests:

NDP Spokesman: "Millions of Egyptians want the president to stay." 

Al Jaazeera Correspondent: "Where are they?"

As one friend put succintly, concerning these dictators and their cronies: 'Muppets taking the piss.'

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) Defends Wikileaks

Rep. Ron Paul gives the House a dose of common sense:

Women's Rights in Iraq: Before and After Saddam

As a follow-up to a previous post concerning the status of women in Iraq, in particular the issue of the prevalence of sex trafficking of refugees and rape victims, I would like to write a bit concerning the context of women's rights in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion, the deterioration of their rights under the current Iraqi government, and increased discrimination and even targeted killings women in Iraq face today. One can tie the changing rights of women not simply to changes in political ideology and government, but also to the stricter interpretation of Islam more conservative elements of different sects in Iraq who are trying to push their agenda to limit womens' freedom of expression, education, civic participation, employment, and enforce conservative dress codes.

A certain myth has been circulating that women's rights under Saddam Hussein were greater than what's currently happening in Iraq today and this generalisation is often taken for granted. In reality, women's rights under Saddam had a mixed track record and was based primarily on political and economic expediency. According to a report by Codepink Women for Peace:

Although a great deal of policy and law continued to women’s advantage when Saddam Hussein became president, his voracious appetite for dictatorial power over the entire population could not but undermine women’s gains. Women, like men, were jailed, tortured, raped, and murdered. To extract information from dissidents, suspected dissidents, and opposition members abroad, Hussein was fond of sending them video tapes showing their female relatives raped by members of the secret police. The war with Iran subjected Iraqis not only to the deprivations of war but also to gross human rights violations inflicted by their own government. Women were targets for rape and sex trafficking because of their relationship to male oppositionist activists; thousands of women, children and men were expelled because of their actual or alleged Iranian descent; tens of thousands of Kurds disappeared, and the Iraqi government used chemical weapons against thousands of Kurds.

In 1959, Iraq passed a Personal Status Law whereby Sha'ria courts were replaced by government-run 'personal status' courts that passed judgment based on then-new codified state law.  These laws restricted child marriage, banned forced marriages, restricted polygamy, curtailed men's prerogatives in divorce, expanded women’s rights in divorce, extended child custody to mothers, and improved inheritance rights for women (Heinrich Böll Foundation). The Heinrich Böll Foundation notes: "It remains one of the most liberal laws in the Arab world with respect to women’s rights. Moreover, by eliminating the differential treatment of Sunnis and Shiites under the law, it does not differentiate between the various religious communities and thus sustains social and communal coexistence."

The Iraqi Provisional Constitution of 1970 guaranteed equal rights to women and, according to Human Rights Watch, other laws specifically ensured women's rights to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. The new post-Saddam constitution ratified in 2005 guarantees the same equal rights to women, however, a significant problem exists in Article 2 where "First: Islam is the official religion and foundation for legislation. (a) No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam. (b) No law may be enacted that contradicts the principals of democracy. (c) No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms as stipulated in this Constitution" (Global Justice Project: Iraq).

The problem with this specific article is that interpretations of Islam run the gamut from liberal to conservative, from metaphorical to literal. Additionally, who speaks for Islam? Unlike, for example Catholicism, where a hierarchical religious body exists to hand down judgments on interpretations for moral codes of behavior and religious issues no such unified hierarchy exists in Islam given the division of views by various sects. It would be like attempting to unite various sects of Christianity that originally broke off from the papacy and having them agree to moral regulations concerning, say, marriage for the priesthood or the issue of making women priests. To make Islam the "foundation for legislation" was a huge constitutional mishap, especially in regards to the norms (and potentially laws) regulating the behavior of women in society. Sections B and C of the Constitution appear to have been remedial points to the Article, however, since the ratification of the 2005 constitution the original 1959 Personal Status laws which granted women a lot more legal guarantees than they would have normally had in an Islamic society are now in jeopardy.

As an aside, I am not critiquing Islam as a backwards religion. When Muhammad first recited the Quran in the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century AD what the Quran provided was considered revolutionary, radical, and far ahead of its time. Consider that Muhammad provided rights to women that never existed before, made female infanticide a sin, provided divorced women with maintenance, widows and children with protections, and declared that men and women are equal before God. What I am critiquing is making any religion the foundation for state legislation for the reason that what religious texts provide as moral and social guidance are in danger of skewed or politically-interested interpretation depending on who is making and interpreting the law. I am not in contention with the following point: Muhammad was a feminist. The feminism of the 7th century AD, however, is not the feminism of 21st century. Moreover, depending on how enlightened or literalist Sha'ria judges will be, what sect, region, or the varying levels of conservatism in different communities in Iraq, matters for women could take a downturn since judgments and interpretations of religious law are unlikely to be consistent across the country. Faced with more conservative judges women could meet obstacles going to the courts to get judgments in their favour.

Today, women in Iraq currently are constantly under threat of being targeted for killings, rape, or kidnappings to be sold into sex trafficking rings. An article by CNN published in 2007 states:

According to a United Nations report, the kidnapping, rape and murder of women is on the rise. Honor killings, or the killing of a woman who brought perceived dishonor to her family, is up also. Women -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- are warned to adhere to the strict dress code, the United Nations said.

"You go to the Baghdad morgue, and you find a big number of women who are headless; they have been beheaded, they have been tortured and killed, and this is usually the case in honor killing," [Iraqi feminist Yanar] Mohammed said. "Nobody can speak about democracy if women are being killed for honor." She added that the current laws in Iraq do not punish the men who carry out honor killings.

More conservative and ignorant elements in Iraqi society are also lending to violence against women to enforce 'morality.' CNN published another article in 2008 highlighting that in Basra 79 women were targeted for killings due to violations of Islamic teachings.

One glance through the police file is enough to understand the consequences. Basra's police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf, flips through the file, pointing to one unsolved case after another.

"I think so far, we have been unable to tackle this problem properly," he says. "There are many motives for these crimes and parties involved in killing women, by strangling, beheading, chopping off their hands, legs, heads."

"When I came to Basra a year ago," he says, "two women were killed in front of their kids. Their blood was flowing in front of their kids, they were crying. Another woman was killed in front of her 6-year-old son, another in front of her 11-year-old child, and yet another who was pregnant."

The killers enforcing their own version of Islamic justice are rarely caught, while women live in fear.

Boldly splattered in red paint just outside the main downtown market, a chilling sign reads: "We warn against not wearing a headscarf and wearing makeup. Those who do not abide by this will be punished. God is our witness, we have notified you."

The attacks on the women of Basra have intensified since British forces withdrew to their base at the airport back in September, police say. Iraqi security forces took over after British troops pulled back, but are heavily infiltrated by militias.

And tracking the perpetrators of these crimes is nearly impossible, Khalaf says, adding that he doesn't have control of the thousands of policemen and officers.

BBC News went on to label the situation for women in Iraq as a 'National Crisis.' More recently, Al-Jazeera reported that women's rights in Iraq are 'in danger', and detailed the daily struggle women faced to protect themselves from violence, especially the most vulnerable being those whose husbands were arrested by occupation forces: "...many women also fled their homes because their husbands were arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel. A household without a male figure became far more vulnerable since 2003. Women sought refuge with relatives and failing to do so fled to Syria or Jordan." In Syria and Jordan, these women having no alternative work become the victims of local pimps and faced with the shame of their reality are unable to return home lest they may become victims of honor killings due to cultural pressures if their families are conservative.

Of course, time will tell how women's rights in Iraq will unfold. High levels of insecurity and instability throughout the country is currently making it difficult for women to even organize or consider these issues. However, some women, such as Iraqi feminist Yanar Mohammed, are outspoken in regards to the status of women in Iraq post-US invasion. Mohammed founded the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. As mentioned in a previous blog post, Mohammed's organisation and international women's rights NGO, MADRE, are operating underground safehouses to protect women from sex trafficking and violence in Iraq.

If the status of women is the indicator of a country's political and economic stability, Iraq is doing poorly.   Hopefully, in the future, more women like Mohammed will have the courage to express their views openly, fight for their rights, keep the Personal Status laws in place, and pressure the government into providing women greater protections. The future of Iraq will depend on its women.

The Girl Effect

Having finished reading Half the Sky earlier this year, I've become a great supporter and advocate for the Girl Effect. Half the Sky covers the the concept of the "girl effect" in its introduction. In essence, empowering women and children through the provision of education and healthcare transforms economies, saves lives, and reforms political institutions, cultures, and entire societies. The fight on behalf of women if not just a 'feminist' issue, it is a fight to reduce poverty, fight domestic and political abuses, increase the availability of healthcare to men, women, and children, and prevent disease pandemics through knowledge which is passed down generation to generation. Empowering women and children, girls in particular, is a solution that will impact the world on a grand scale. It will not be easy, it will not be 100 per cent effective all of the time, but over time it will have an impact.

I challenge everyone to support the campaign, either through advocacy, spreading the word, donations or involvement in campaigns that strive to empower women and children. Read Half the Sky for more details about what you can do to contribute to the 'girl effect.'

The Case of the Missing Prince

On January 19, 2010 , The London Review of Books (LRB) Blog published a post concerning the disappearance of Prince Bandar bin Sultan from the public eye. To the foreign policy jocks out there, Prince Bandar, former Saudi Ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005, was known to be the infamous wheeler and dealer in the beltway having hopped into his career through the arms trade back in the 1970s. A shrewd and influential diplomat, respected by some and reviled by others, his career came into the spotlight with the BAE Al-Yamamah Scandal.

Bandar resigned from his ambassadorship in June of 2005 for "personal reasons." He returned to Saudi Arabia weeks prior to the death of King Fahd. Foreign affairs commentators speculate that the prince sought to position himself in the new government where his father, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, became the new crown prince.

LRB notes that the last official sighting of Bandar in public was in December 2008. LRB listed the following speculations following Prince Bandar's vanishing act:

• "Iranian media reported that Bandar had been put under house arrest, allegedly for plotting a coup to try and ensure the Kingdom would continue under the rule of the Sudairi branch of the Al Saud family. But Iran isn’t the most reliable source."
• "Others say that Bandar is depressed or has been ordered by King Abdullah to keep a low profile because he meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king’s approval."
• "According to Saudi opposition sources, Bandar is now in Dhaban Prison, in north west Jeddah, a high security jail where terrorist suspects and political opposition figures are held. Bandar is said to be in a special wing where the other prisoners are four senior generals: one from the army, one from the royal guard, one from the national guard and one from internal security. Bandar’s lawyer in the US denies he is in prison and says he has been seen out and about recently, although he wouldn’t divulge when, where or even in which country."

LRB added that in September 2009, when Prince Bandar's "position as head of the Kingdom’s National Security Council was renewed for another four years, he didn’t appear in public to profess his allegiance to the king, as is customary. No official explanation was forthcoming." Moreover, LRB notes that the former Saudi ambassador has not made any of his usual appearances since 2008.

A recent blog post by Le Figaro's journalist, Georges Malbrunot, claims that the prince's disappearance was in lieu of health problems. According to Malbrunot's post published on June 18, 2010, Prince Bandar was treated in Paris for a spine problem and is recovering in Morocco. Malbrunot cynically added: "One thing is for sure: his star has faded in the circles of power in Riyadh."

The Rally to Restore Sanity

For anyone who hasn't yet heard, Jon Stewart is hosting The Rally to Restore Sanity on the Washington Mall on Saturday, October 30, 2010.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Additionally, Stephen Colbert is hosting his own mock rally on the mall, The March to Keep Fear Alive, on the same day:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
March to Keep Fear Alive Announcement
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

The rallies, meant to be satirical, have gotten an overwhelming amount of response. Where the organizers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report expected only a show of 25,000 people when applying for permits if the rallies' facebook pages are any reflection of what the real turnout will be over 100,000 plan to attend.

For two comedians to have inspired so much turnout says a lot about general American public opinion, both sarcastic and cynical, for our own societies. mainstream media and political processes.

The Arab-Jewish dating divide: thoughts on relationships, ethnic identity, and pluralism

Earlier this year, a story came out of Israel of a Palestinian man accused of "rape by deception" after having consensual sex with a woman who believed him to be a Jew. According to different news reports the man denied misrepresenting himself. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison in a plea bargain.

The story appears to have come down to a classic case of he-said/she-said:

According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where [Saber] Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left. When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault. Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement. Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish. The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.

Remember, the Palestinian man denied misrepresenting himself as a Jew; he is currently appealing the sentence. One of the judges on the case, Tzvi Segal, asserted somewhat ridiculously: "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."


I would contend with Segal: In that case if a man lies to a woman about loving her and she sleeps with him and he leaves her after is that rape by deception? If a man lies about his profession or misrepresents his income to get women to sleep with him is that also rape by deception? If the man promises the moon and the stars to bed a woman and doesn't deliver can a woman bring that to court as rape by deception?

I don't know the exact details of the case, what evidence was offered or if there was any evidence presented. My opinion is this entire case is moot and should have been dismissed. The politics of the case, the bias through which the judges were ruling on it was the fact that the man in question was Arab and the woman Jewish and therefore a "victim." If these judges lived up to the standard of justice that the philosophy of law required of them they should have been blind to the ethnic identities of both parties and ruled according to the facts of the case which to any outside viewer is clearly absurd. The ruling concerned itself more with symbolic politics than with any ounce of common sense.

Dating across cultural, racial and religious divides is still a touchy subject even in the most modern countries. I don't mean to pick on Israel specifically, but given the political nature of Jewish identity, that of individual and state, it makes it an interesting case on the interracial dating divide. In that the character of the state identifies itself as Jewish; that the apparent "demographic threat" of low Israeli birthrates places pressure on the government to give Jewish women incentives to start families; that in essence woman is constructed as being symbolic of the nation and its future: relationships between Arab men and Jewish women are taboo not simply for political and religious reasons but on symbolically national-cultural grounds.

In a community in Nazareth, a special team has been established by the local authority to prevent Arab-Jewish dating relationships and "rescue" women from Arab men. Other privately-funded groups have also sprung up for the same purpose. This is a radical intervention of local government and very conservative communities in the private lives of individuals. A 2007 poll claimed that nearly half of Israeli-Jews believed that interracial relationships amounted to "national treason." As of today, there is no such thing as civil marriage in Israel, the status quo being that marriage is relegated to the individual religious communities. There are no provisions for gay marriage or interfaith marriages.

As an aside, I don't think early political philosophers foresaw democracies based on the cultural character of the nation, that culture would define the state or that public policy, or even justice, would be meted out and informed through a cultural lens and the problems it would engender. Where individual identity, taken collectively, defines these governments often any claims to minority protections are marginalized or even ignored in the face of bias or even blatant racism. There's a wide gap between what's in the law books and what happens in practice due to social and cultural norms.

I question anyone's interference in the private lives of individuals, especially in matters of love and marriage. The desperate necessity to preserve identity at the expense of humanness or greater interaction between different groups is willful ignorance at worse and paranoia at best. Anyone who claims that ethnic identity is eradicated due to intermarriage or "miscegenation" also fails to appreciate the complexity of individual identity and the fact that identities can be transformed and multiple identities acknowledged and that's not necessarily a negative thing. Perhaps global conflicts would be readily resolved through the establishment of more pluralist institutions so that petty conflicts which arise over something as absurd as dating or intermarriage don't have to be the reflection of the general absurdity of greater political conflicts.

Christians are losing their religion

Reverend Terry Jones should be ashamed to call himself a Christian.  Recent news is that the lunatic reverend is planning to commemorate September 11th by organizing a public Quran burning. That the Florida religious leader even labels his organization the Dove World Outreach Center speaks to a massive ounce of irony. Clearly, to the deluded reverend the virtues of "faith, hope, and love" or the maxims "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love thy neighbour as you would love thyself" don't quite strike a chord with him. The reverend seems to believe that one should answer hatred with more hatred. If this is his way to commemorate a day Americans lost their lives in an act of hateful senseless violence, I find it to be a selfish display on the lowest wrung of disrespect not only for those who died in that tragedy but those who are in the process of becoming casualties in acts of hateful and senseless violence. The reverend clearly doesn't care to engender peace or understanding. And this, dear friends, is what I despise about blind fundamentalism.

Sure, some will argue that this is a First Amendment issue. I am a great fan of the First Amendment, but I'm not particularly tolerant of any action that espouses hatred and blatant racism against anyone else. The freedom of speech and assembly, however, supercedes my opinion in this matter as David Hudson Jr. writes concerning First Amendment issues:

The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. [...] The KKK's right to assemble peaceably was secured by the famous 1977 case of National Socialist Party v. Skokie, in which the American Civil Liberties Union successfully argued that the First Amendment prohibited officials of Skokie, Ill., from banning a march by the National Socialist Party. Skokie is a Chicago suburb that is home to many Holocaust survivors. One federal judge reasoned that "it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear."

Having that said, however, doesn't mean it's a good idea for a bunch of lunatics to burn a holy book if for nothing else than to be provocative. A few weeks ago, an act of arson was committed against a Tennessee mosque. If Christians of any denomination believe that inciting hatred by publicly disrespecting another group because of the actions of an extreme few is a "Christian thing to do" then they really ought to reexamine the values of their own religion. Jesus would not have burned the Quran. Jesus would not have espoused such acts of hatred. And if any Christians claim he would, then I'll snap back that in that case Jesus could not have really been the son of God. Hypocrisy is a disgusting habit.

I am not particularly sympathetic to dogmatic religion in general. I am sympathetic that entire cultures, ideas, and histories were borne of religion (whether good or bad) and that the fundamental precepts of religion teach love, respect, and charity for all as the highest virtues a human can amount to in order to build a sense of community and foster peace. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity lay claim to that bedrock teaching of love and compassion. That to identify with others in empathy and understanding is the most godly of traits. What many of the leaders of these religions have done, however, is highjacked a spiritual reading of holy books to justify wholly unspiritual actions. Be they terrorists who kill civilians or lunatic reverends, like our choice subject, who burn the holy books of others.

Moreover, I dislike people who burn books. Knowledge and the human imagination are to be respected even if we deem it forbidden or antithesis to our own views. In which case, if our lunatic reverend feels obliged to carry out his senseless act of hatred with the First Amendment to back him up, I feel obliged to fight back and point out that his actions are not only un-Christian but terribly un-American.

I hope one day he'll see the light.