Three Cups of Tea - A Critical Review

Three Cups of Tea - A Critical Review

By Ali A.

Different readers must have read “Three Cups of Tea” (2006) with varied emphasis and with different take-away lessons. The variation in their readings was probably informed by their educational, professional, geographic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, also their knowledge of the Pak and Afghan geographies and cultures, and, further, their understanding of current American involvement in these regions, its motives and history.

But, not all readings of this book are equal and not all facts and lessons from the book are worth taking. No doubt the book presents a remarkable story of courage and compassion. The purpose here is not to question those values. Nor to deny the personal struggles of the main character, Greg Mortenson, as depicted (and constructed) in the book. It is to scrutinize the cultural discourse – and solution – of 'development' and 'humanitarian intervention' offered in it. A New York Times bestseller that was subsequently published in two condensed versions for kids between 4 and 8 and 8 and 13 in the year 2009 and a required reading not just for school kids and social work majors in many US schools but also for senior commanding officers in the US military (according to the book’s official website), “Three Cups of Tea” has sort of become a canon for policy makers, social workers, and school teachers in many institutions. The availability of this book and its condensed editions in both original and cheap, pirated formats in bookstores of many South Asian cities indicates its widening popularity (or, at least, the potential for that). That makes it even more critical to carefully analyze the narrative and message of this book.

A particularly insightful approach to engage with this book is to examine its underlying normative assumptions and politics against the backdrop of the ‘cultural discourse’ that is being utilized to justify ongoing American hegemonic expansionism. This critical engagement is very relevant to how our humanitarian activists, policy makers, and general concerned audience, including you and I, understand these regions and peoples. It is also relevant for the kind of measures we adopt for 'solving' the regions' problems, deciding what is the 'right' thing to do, who should do it, and how.

Colonial Humanitarianism

First, the book never questions the idea of "humanitarian" intervention by an imperial power like the US, but only debates the method of such an intervention: That any such military intervention should be accompanied by humanitarian re-construction efforts, which (supposedly) would be a good thing for the local people and for American security interests (see p. 294). There is no reflection on Washington's past record of military interventions and its outcomes in this argument, and no appraisal of US motives and geo-strategic interests in the region. However, before any other question, the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions should be interrogated: What gives a country – especially a country like the US with a terrible track record of militarism and human rights violation – the right to violate sovereignty of other countries in the name of 'spreading democracy' and 'humanitarian interventions'?

Moreover, toward explaining the cause of extremism and 'terror', the book conveniently mutes the messy political history of the region-s. Perhaps because that history would point to the pivotal role that CIA, ISI, and Saudis played in creating the menace of terrorism and extremism. And, that would complicate the overly simplistic analysis of "terror" presented in the book. However, in any analysis of ‘terror’ in the Pak and Afghan regions, what should not be forgotten is that the Cold War was not fought in America or Europe but in regions like Pakistan and Afghanistan which are still paying the price of that war. In their efforts to combat Soviets, the US and its allies heavily funded and nurtured the most extremists of the militants in the region, because, as Mahmood Mamdani points out in his book "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim", they thought that fanatics fight harder. The US wanted to give Soviets their own Vietnam. The policy of using right wing religious organizations to combat socialist-nationalist impulses and movements was already a long-established US strategy in the Middle East before it was applied to the Afghan case.

Quoting a scholar from Pakistan, Mamdani also describes how a radical school curriculum was developed in an American university that was then taught to the children in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan, particularly in the NWFP (now known as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) and the FATA regions. The same children then would be recruited for fighting against the Soviets. The Taliban are just the second generation of those extremist militants that the CIA, ISI, and Saudis nurtured together, spending more than six billion dollars and providing sophisticated weapons and training. Without understanding this history and the influence of external powers, one cannot understand the causes of terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Furthermore, it should be made clear that the American interventions in these (and other) regions of the world are themselves a kind of terrorism which continues to breed more terror and violence in reaction.

“Three Cups of Tea” simply ignores this long history and continuing interests of regional and global powers. Instead, in its highly a-historical and a-political narrative, the roots of the problem are smoothly traced back to 'internal' causes within Muslim societies: the problem with competing interpretations of Islam and with local socio-economic and cultural conditions, in particular, illiteracy. The silence on the role of 'external' political factors allows the narrative of this book to present 'our' involvement as only humanitarian and benevolent: 'We have nothing to do with their mess; we only want to help them fix their mess. Because we are able to do it, therefore, we should do it, in good faith'.

As the book pampers the blissful ignorance of Americans – the primary target audience of the book – of the imperial and exploitative policies of their government, it also appeals to, and reinforces, a false sense of self-righteous philanthropy in them. However, not philanthropy, but social justice should be the idiom of American interaction with the rest of the world. The difference the second approach makes is huge, because it induces an attitude of humility and guilt as it also induces a critical political awareness.

What Americans need to understand is that their affluence, luxury, extravagant "way of life", apathy toward politics are all directly linked to wars and exploitation of people and resources by their government in other parts of the world (and in their own country too). And each American, especially those directly benefiting from the imperial exploitations, is morally responsible for the actions of the American government-s. The place to start any humanitarian effort is to put a stop on their own government's military adventurism as well as economic and cultural exploitations in other parts of the world. What needs to be understood is that anti-Americanism in most parts of the world is not a result of "ignorance" but of direct experience with the consequences of American exploitation. Without considering and addressing the political causes, trying to change 'culture' through education in Muslims societies won't be much effective. On the contrary, such culture-centered understandings of the issue have at times contributed to the propaganda and justification of Washington’s hegemonic expansionism (See Lila Abu-Lughod’s and Saba Mahmood and Charles Hirschkind’s articles cited below).

Saving Muslims from themselves

Building on that last point, before Americans could help other people they should seriously reflect on their own biases and normative assumptions. The narrative in "Three Cups of Tea" never seriously reflects on how colonial-istic and arrogant it is to try 'changing cultures' of other people, through military means or ‘soft’ humanitarian efforts, to what 'WE' consider is 'right' for them. To save those people, to civilize them, to help them progress, isn’t this old colonial discourse of 'white man's burden' in a new guise?

"Three Cups of Tea" mentions in the passing another book "Ancient Futures" but never really connects the moral of that book to its own overriding message, especially the message presented in its second half. From the brief mention of that book in "Three Cups of Tea", "Ancient Futures" appears to suggest that there can be multiple ways to be modern, and indigenous people and cultures do not necessarily need to follow the West-European and American route-s to becoming modern. In fact, their definition of 'progress' and 'modern' may be very different from 'ours'. This moral lesson was shared in "Three Cups of Tea", but it never had any significant impact on its grand narrative or message, which remained couched in the idioms of "backward vs. modern", "conservative vs. progressive", "fundamentalist vs. tolerant". At various point in the book one gets the impression that the farther one gets from one's tradition and 'conservativeness' and becomes ‘like us', in thoughts and actions, the more "modern" one seems to become. Such measures of ‘progress’ and ‘achievement’ are especially apparent in the aspirations and changes reflected in the characters of Jahan, Aslam, and Tahira by the author-s for their ‘Western’ audience (See pages 195, 204, 299-303, 312).

The contention here is not about building schools or providing other welfare services to people, but who is building them, with what assumptions, and purpose. Furthermore, what kind of education is being given in those schools, imparted with what impressions about indigenous culture and life, and at what cost?

With regards to impressions about indigenous culture and life, “Three Cups of Tea” misleadingly characterizes rural as essentially wild, poor, and ignorant, and therefore inclined on extremism and terror. Quite the contrary, rural areas in Pakistan – especially the places with sustainable living patterns and rich traditions – can't always be considered "poor". If progress is measured with ‘happiness’, ‘peace’, and ‘trust’, and not through extra-complicated life arrangements and material luxuries of urban areas, some of these rural areas may be far richer than their urban neighbors. One should also bear in mind that the rural areas in most of Pakistan have been historically known for their pluralistic cultural environment with emphasis on devotion and diffused religious culture and practices. That is especially true for the Northern Areas with very rich and diverse cultural histories.

To automatically equate “rural” with backwardness and ignorance is quite presumptuous and misleading. And, although the intention in “Three Cups of Tea” was probably to develop a more sympathetic understanding of the focused regions and bring ‘West’ and ‘East’ closer on humanitarian grounds, the narrative has strong resemblances with the colonial-style Orientalist discourse about “other” cultures. That discourse was built on “differences” between “us” and “them”. The “us” in this discourse constructed its self-image in relation to “them” and understood itself as enlightened, civilized, and superior. The other, unfamiliar cultures, in this logic, were seen as barbarian and dangerous, therefore, to be afraid of and to be controlled and civilized (See Edward Said’s insightful works cited below). The “other” in the present narrative is not necessarily the opposite but just behind “us” in the historical march toward progress, and “our” responsibility is to help them catch up.

Given such misleading impressions about the rural – widespread not only among foreigners but also social workers and policy makers from more urban areas of Pakistan – one wonders about the curriculum and teaching that are being given in those schools. What image of their own lands, people, culture, and religion the students studying such curriculum would develop for themselves? And what impact it would have on their self-identity and sense of purpose when the West-European and American historical experiences are taught to them as ‘universal’ and the only route to modernization (or the most successful and natural route to modernization). Such normative assumptions are abundant in the established ‘modern’ school curriculums found in both America and Pakistan. One therefore wonders when the students are taught about Western advancements, are they also informed about colonialism and slavery which were fundamentally part of the same project of Western "enlightenment" and "progress" – not as exceptions but as part of the very logic of "progress" and "civilization" as could be seen in the writings of John Locke and John Stuart Mill who rationalized and justified colonialism as a ‘progressive force’ which would civilize the indigenous people in colonized territories? And, similarly, when the students are enchanted with dreams of Western modernity, are they also allowed to competently and critically reflect on possessive individualism, excessive consumerism, exploitation of environment and people, and secular transformation of religions and traditions, which are all part and parcel of Western ‘Enlightenment’ and capitalist advancements, and to decide if taking the western route to becoming ‘modern’ is really that desirable?

Having spent some time in the Gilgit-Baltistan region recently and seen the outcome of some welfare projects run under similar organizations, including Aga Khan's, I am very concerned about the notions of "development" which detach children from their roots and land, make them lose their identity and self-worth, and about the notions of "progress" which are defined primarily in material-istic terms, that is material well-being of individuals and collectivities, but without serious regard for spiritual and cultural values and goals. It is one thing to adopt boiling practice for drinking water but quite another to start considering your traditional dress as dirty and backward. From this viewpoint, the character of Jahan in the book is quite illustrative of this problem.

Pakistan does need more schools and quality education, but simply constructing schools is not enough. The key is to look into the curriculum and teachers training. What kinds of identities are being constructed in the process of schooling, what role models are being presented, what outlooks of the world and sense of purpose in life are being imparted, and what tastes, desires and values are being constructed?

We need to ask similar question about other development projects in the region: What cost and consequences to people, culture, identities, values, and environment?

Gross Misrepresentations

Apart from problems with normative assumptions in the book, there are gross misrepresentations which require thorough scrutiny. That includes elements of fictions. For example, as one commentator pointed out elsewhere, "Mortenson could not have attended Mother Teresa's funeral in Spring 2000 (pp 233-235) because she died in Autumn 1997" (Nosheen Ali, 2010).

I also have serious doubts about Mortenson's kidnap episode in Waziristan. Those familiar with the geography of the region know very well that the Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) are miles apart from Peshawar and the FATA areas (where “Waziristan” is), and it makes little practical sense to expand the project to that far-away region when Mortenson had not completed even his first school in Korphe, Baltistan (and the book itself admits that the people in Korphe’s neighboring areas desperately wanted schools in their localities). On the same note, consider also the November 1979 issue of Time Magazine covering the Iran hostage crisis that Mortenson finds in his cell and through which he and co-author, David Relin, construct an emotion-filled, deeply touching narrative of fear and hope in the same episode. The story was probably quite inspiring to many American readers, but it is very unlikely for that English-language, 15 years old issue, with a "garish painting of a scowling Ayatollah Khomeini" on the cover, to be found in a cell located somewhere in the remote area of Waziristan. Likewise, the whole episode is filled with holes that were never satisfactorily addressed, leaving too many doubts. The episode, curiously enough, is also devoid of traceable details about “Waziristan”. (One can similarly question his excursions, their nature and purpose, into Afghanistan immediately after the fall of the Taliban regime.)

The Waziristan episode was critical to collapse starkly different geographies, cultures, and political histories into each other to frame Mortenson's tale and message in terms of combating "terrorism". That became possible only by suppressing the rich histories and variations among Northern Areas, Peshawar, FATA, and Afghanistan. Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) have 60-75% Shia population, whereas demographic makeup in the FATA areas is quite the inverse. Northern Areas, furthermore, are ethnically and linguistically much more diverse than the FATA areas. The connection with terror of the Sunni-radical-Taliban kind could not have been made by just discussing the Northern Areas, where Mortenson actually did the majority of his educational and welfare work. How were these regions connected in “Three Cups of Tea” then? Not through showing any parallels between their cultures, political histories, or geographies, but through Mortenson's travel, and through that the readers were given the impression that these starkly different regions can all be understood as one geographic and cultural entity – untamed and dangerous, in desperate need of education and enlightenment.

Perhaps the author-s and publishers wanted to collapse these regions to make their story more marketable considering the hype about terrorism and its sell-ability in America, as Nosheen Ali suggests in her analysis (Nosheen Ali, 2010). Perhaps, they also wanted to make their narrative more relevant and engage with the current war-on-terror discourse seriously and sincerely – but, evidently, uncritically and un-self-reflectively – through their own liberal-humanist diagnosis of the problem: That is, ‘ignorance and backwardness are the root cause of terror in the Muslim world'.

The overly simplistic-and-generalized depiction of ‘rural as wild, poor, and ignorant in Pakistan inclined on extremism’ was also instrumental for the author-s to make the case for their kind of solution: ‘Build schools before madrassas gets them’. The subtext of this solution is that secular education would turn students into ‘modern’ Muslims (read: “Good Muslims”, defined as modern, progressive, tolerant, pro-West) and remove their misunderstandings and ignorance about America (because to have those “misunderstandings” is wrong and characteristics of “Bad Muslims”, defined in the dominant cultural discourse as backward, fundamentalists, violent, and anti-West.).

Toward conclusion, ignorance no doubt has created a lot of injustice in the world and no region is spared from its evils. For concerned Americans perhaps the most optimal place to start combating ignorance is America itself. But, simply opening more schools in America won’t do it. Because celebrating “Columbus Day” as “discovery of America” but not as colonial exploitation of civilizations which already existed in the Americas, and observing “Thanksgiving” as the national holiday but without contemplating on the historic injustice done to Native Americans, and slaves and indentured servants for that matter, will continue to reinforce that blissful ignorance and false self-righteousness in Americans. “Columbus Day” and “Thanksgiving” are just two among many instances of distorted elements in the established (dominant) curriculum and teaching practices. What we need is a substantial transformation of the established curriculum taught in the schools – and in the content of other popular sources, like TV, movies, novels, magazines, from which people learn history and construct their imaginations and identities. And, not philanthropy or false national pride, but a deep concern for social justice for everyone and a self-reflective and sincere understanding of other cultures should be the guiding principles for developing that curriculum.

For further readings on this line of argument, see:

"Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?"
http://www.smi.uib.no/seminars/Pensum/Abu-Lughod.pdf

“Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency.” By Charles Hirschkind and Saba Mahmood http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190136/

Particularly, on problems with the binary of “Good Muslim vs. Bad Muslim”, see
"Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: Cracking the Media Code"
http://www.islamicinsights.com/news/opinion/good-muslim-bad-muslim-cracking-the-media-code.html

See also, Nosheen Ali’s excellent analysis of this book,
Ali, Nosheen. 2010. "Books vs Bombs? Humanitarian development and the narrative of terror in Northern Pakistan", Third World Quarterly, 31: 4, 541 — 559

Edward Said’s works, particularly, “Orientialism”, “Culture and Imperialism”, and “Covering Islam”, deal directly with some of themes discussed in this review.

Ali A. is doctoral student in Social Sciences. He can be reached at alismails786@gmail.com. Other versions of this article appeared in IslamicInsights and InkPaperMosaic


------
[Edit Aug 6, 2010]

Further comments based on readers' responses from a discussion in a public forum:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me try to address them one by one:

**** Wrote: "Mr. Ali, with your assertion that, “…the book presents a remarkable story of courage and compassion. The point is not to question those values. It is to scrutinize the ideas (and solution) of ‘development’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ offered in this book…” you are precisely undermining its message. I will also add that since this book is a novel, and not some study on the Afghanistan/Pakistan problem, it should not be criticized with the criteria that you use. Nevertheless, I will try to show that even with your pre-established criteria for judging the book, the book is still a great read."

1. In case you missed it, the book is written in the style of a realistic biography and partly as ethnography. Read the Harry Potter series instead if it is just courage and compassion that you are looking for and if that is your only criteria for judging the worth of this book. This book deals with some serious issues and the representation of the regions and solutions that it offers has some severe implications. And for that reason its narrative should be seriously engaged. “Three Cups of Tea” has sort of become a canon for policy makers, social workers, and school teachers in many institutions.

**** Wrote: "You accurately depict the US as an “imperial power” that does not have a stellar record when it comes to humanitarianism. Then you ask: “What gives a country – especially a country like the US with a terrible track record of militarism and human rights violation – the right to violate sovereignty of other countries in the name of ‘spreading democracy’ and ‘humanitarian interventions’?”

My answer:

The US does not have the right at all, but it has a duty to act in this unique case. Why? The US is ultimately responsible for the “mess” that continues to grow in that region. ... Therefore, since the US was one of the main actors in creating the problem, it is obliged to “fix” it too!"

2. No doubt, the US has created a mess in the Afghan-Pak regions. Good that we are on the same page on this point. What you also need to realize is that the current US presence in those regions is not out of altruism and benevolence. Furthermore, the continuing presence is actually exacerbating the political conditions there. For example, in Pakistan, we did not have any suicide bombers before 9/11, now we export them! Thanks to Bush and Musharraf’s anti-terrorism policies! In the case of Afghanistan, you may want to read on the phenomenon of “neo-Taliban” in Afghanistan (see, for e.g., Tariq Ali’s column cited below), who were not trained in the traditional madaaris of the 1980s but are from common Afghan people who have joined resurgent militant elements only after the American invasion, in reaction to continuous American bombardment and other misadventures in their country. What you also need to realize is that American intervention in these regions are themselves a kind of terrorism, which continues to breed more terror and violence in reaction.

**** wrote, "You claim that there is “…silence on the role of external ‘factors’….” in the book. This is false, because the book explicitly mentions the various external factors that I stated above. Specifically, Mortenson says it was the CIA which made “…Stinger missiles and the training to fire them effectively available to mujahedeen leaders battling America’s Cold War enemy here, leaders like Osama Bin Laden.”"

3. Of course, a few external factors have been ‘mentioned’ in the book, but never considered in the diagnosis of the main problem. The stinger missiles that you name were mentioned only in the passing and in inconsequential terms (see pgs. 213 and 217). And, if you look at the narrative carefully, even after ‘mentioning’ the external factors, the logic or cause of terrorism is basically traced back to the INTERNAL factors in the book: Conflict in interpretation of religion; the “good” and “bad” Muslims in that region; and, above all, illiteracy (as illustrated in the title of one of its chapters: “the enemy is ignorance”).

Once again, contrary to the book’s message, anti-Americanism in most parts of the world is not a result of “ignorance” but of direct experience with the consequences of American exploitation.

4. On the issue of false sense of self-righteousness, my basic contention is about the idiom of American engagement: philanthropy vs. social justice. The book does complicate the narrative of American engagement to some extent, but, as I argue in the review, the basic idiom remains the same. The courage and compassion that you find very inspiring in this book also feed into this idiom. I have made this point already in the review – so, won’t repeat that here. For further elaboration, you may want to read Lila Abu-Lughod’s and Saba Mahmood’s articles (cited below). You may also want to look at the politics of “Good vs. Bad Muslims”, which is part of that cultural idiom and discourse (See the article cited below).

5. Again, the subtext of Mortenson's solution is that secular education would turn students into ‘modern’ Muslims (read: “Good Muslims”, defined as modern, progressive, tolerant, pro-West) and remove their misunderstandings and ignorance about America (because to have those “misunderstandings” is wrong and characteristics of “Bad Muslims”, defined in the dominant cultural discourse as backward, fundamentalists, violent, and anti-West.). This subtext contradicts your claim that Mortenson’s solution is just about building schools and the curriculum choice is on the locals. For without the modern, secular curriculum that is by default the established curriculum in Pakistan, with all its faults, how is a school any different from a madressa. It’s the curriculum that makes all the difference and that is the key factor in Mortenson’s solution, even if he does not speak about that in open terms.

6. *** wrote, “The book proposes education and books as the solution, not wars and weapons. (With all due respect, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for depicting Mr. Mortenson in such a negative way for there are few people in the world who dedicate their entire lives in helping other human beings and bridging gaps between cultures. These are the people of action, not words.)”

At some points in the book, I agree with you, one does get the impression that the character Mortenson (as depicted in the book) opposes the American war-s and proposes books in place of wars. However, on pg. 294, Mortenson explicitly states that he supported “the war in Afghanistan” . He further says on the same page, “I believed in it because I believed we were serious when we said we planned to rebuild Afghanistan. I’m here [in Afghanistan] because I know that military victory is only the first phase of winning the war on terror and I’m afraid we’re not willing to take the next steps.” So, Ms. ****, if you look at his message closely, he is basically asking for a well-rounded strategy for war on terror, in which books should follow bombs in any post-war reconstruction efforts. In other words, ‘development’ should be part of US war strategy.

7. On the point about imposing normative assumption, as I suggest earlier, despite mention of some self-reflective works (like “Ancient Futures”), the grand narrative of the book remains couched in the tropes of “backward vs. modern”, “conservative vs. progressive”, “fundamentalist vs. tolerant”, in a new-Orientalist kind of narrative. As I suggest earlier, at various point in the book one gets the impression that the farther one gets from one’s tradition and ‘conservativeness’ and becomes ‘like us’, in thoughts and actions, the more “modern” one seems to become. Such MEASURES of ‘progress’ and ‘achievement’ are especially apparent in the aspirations and changes reflected in the characters of Jahan and Tahira by the author-s. Read closely the pages 195, 299-303, and 312.

For example, when Jahan says, “I couldn’t take my eyes off all the foreign ladies…They seemed so dignified. Whenever I’d seen people from downside before, I’d run away, ashamed of my dirty clothes.” (p. 195)

Or, when the book describes Tahira’s aspirations with these words: “Tahira, wearing a spotless white headscarf and sandals that wouldn’t have been practical in the mountains, told Mortenson that once she graduate, she planned to return to Korphe and teach alongside her father, Master Hussein. “I’ve had this chance,” she said. “Now when we go upside, all the people look at us, at our clothes, and think we are fashionable ladies. I think every girl of the Braldu deserves the chance to come downside at least once. Then their life will change. I think the greatest service I can perform is to go back and insure that this happens for all of them.” (p.312)

***, you may be seeing Jahan or Tahira as mere individuals who are asserting their personal aspirations. I am seeing their views as part of a pattern. It would take too much space to get in the debate of what’s wrong or right with this pattern and based on what perspective. Now, I am not saying all of these problems can be traced back to the curriculum being taught in those schools. The argument I presented is not just about what’s in the content but also what’s not in it and therefore what becomes the default presumption and bias. In that regard, in the review I hinted at some observations from my experience in the region and talk with people there. See the point about Western Enlightenment.

Furthermore, when I talked to people, I find that their aspirations and experiences of educational development and consequences are much more nuanced and multi-faceted than what was flatly and romantically presented in “Three Cups of Tea”. To give you just one example from a workshop that I conducted a couple of weeks ago in an area close to Gilgit, in which I emphasized on taking a comprehensive and cultural-sensitive approach to educational development, one community worker shared a concern that a single-minded emphasis on female education has created a disbalance in some places where you now have about 90% female literacy rate but very low male literacy rate. Now there aren’t good marriage proposals for these girls, many of whom end up in relationships that are less than satisfying to them. He connected that to the increasing number of suicide cases among educated females in a particular community. The observation, no doubt, requires further research into the causes and here I only present that as just a question to problematize the single-minded emphasis on female education advocated in “Three Cups of Tea”.

The observation also raises a number of other related questions here. The approach shared in the book is ‘ask people what they want and help them to get that’. You see that careful, contextual approach in the first few cases in the book, but then building-schools becomes the one-solution-for-all-problems for the rest of the places, especially in the second half of the book, with a focused emphasis on female education. We see no dialogue or critical exchange that should be the key ingredient of his advocated approach. Instead, the book relies on a very simplistic, if not misleading, diagnosis of local cultures and their problems (as I argue in my review) and advocates its single-minded solution to a problem (Wahhabi-Taliban style terrorism) that does not exist in the Northern Areas. That contradicts the approach that the book advocated at the beginning.

Community workers from the area shared a variety of experiences and approaches in their comments in my workshop, which were not always in agreement with each other, but they presented a quite complex picture of ground realities and needs. I wish Mortenson had continued the approach he advocates in principle, because that would have allowed us to see the variety of social factors and solutions that may be available. Next, and this might sound contradictory to the previous observation, but it could be argued that common people may not always know what may be best for them; more specifically, what may be the consequence of a certain educational development approach. To simply rely on their wishes may be too naive, and at times, irresponsible. I distinguish common people from the experienced community workers and that should resolve that apparent contradiction.

At times, especially in the second half of Mortenson’s book, I also felt that we see characters (not always professionals or experienced community workers) that speak exactly what he wanted to hear, expressing ideas and aspirations in a flat, almost romantic fashion for the Western readers about what needs to be done. This is probably due to the single-handed, decontextualized, anti-terror rhetoric and approach in the later half of the book, and perhaps also due to the construction of narrative by the two authors under the influence of the cultural discourse and in view of increasing the appeal of their narrative.


More Articles:

“Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-Insurgency.” By Charles Hirschkind and Saba Mahmood http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190136/

Tariq Ali on Neo-Taliban: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174977/tariq_ali_has_the_u_s_invasion_of_pakistan_begun_

----
[Edit December 1, 2010: In another forum where this review was published, a person named Ghulam Parvi posted the following]

"GM. Parvi (Ghulam Parvi in three cups of tea). #

10.24.2010 10:56

Dear Ali and Friends. I am Ghulam Parvi for whom Greg Mortenson praised in his book three cups of tea.I know him, I worked him, I taught him, I helped him morally, physically and financially. Before publishing the book, when Greg showed me draft book, I told Greg and David that they have included many false stories and quite wrong picture of local culture and religion and law, Greg promised and committed that he will not included those false stories, but they published. Every reader should know that I was the translator to David Oliver Relien, when Greg brought David to Baltistan to polish the stories of three cups of tea. I am the eye witness to say that David and Greg has included false stories.

He proved himself to be a dishonest and false story teller. He and David has made the book interesting, with fictitious stories. When he says himself, what and how his humanitarian services mixes with Saudi Arab, Iran, Kuwait, Religious conflict, Wahabism, Taliban, etc. etc. He has shown him as Hero, while he has not mentioned great services of the local people, local organizations and groups.

Does the American Readers believe over the stories? Without confirmation. Strange. Do not the publisher of America need permission to publish ones reference, who is defamed. Are the American writers, publishers and humanitarian workers like American Army, who blamed Iraq for having mass destruction weapons, attacked Iraq against the will of UNO, and then later committed that there were no weapon of mass destruction and the report of their CIA was baseless."

Aaj Bazar Main Pa-bajola Chalo - Faiz

چشم نم جانِ شوریدہ کافی نہیں
تہمتِ عشق پوشیدہ کافی نہيں
آج بازار میں پابجولاں چلو

دست افشاں چلو مست و رقصاں چلو
خاک برسر چلو خوں بداماں چلو
راہ تکتا ہے سب شہرِ جاناں چلو

حاکمِ شہر بھی مجمعِ عام بھی
تیرِ الزام بھی سنگِ د شنام بھی
صبحِ ناشاد بھی روزِ ناکام بھی

ان کا دمساز اپنے سوا کون ہے
شہرِ جاناں میں اب با صفا کون ہے
دستِ قاتل کے شایاں رہا کون ہے

رخت دل باندھ لو دل فگارو چلو
پھر ہمِیں قتل ہو آئیں یارو چلو

Translation

The tearful eyes, the distressed soul are not enough
The accusation of love unannounced is not enough
Today, let us walk through bazaar with feet in chains

With hands spread, walk entranced and bedazzled
With ashes on head, blood on garb
Walk, as the whole city of the beloved has turned out to watch

Walk past the city’s ruler, general spectators
Past the arrows of accusation, stones of abuse
Past the morning of sorrow, day of failure

Who else beside us is intimate with them
Who now in our beloved’s city is still untainted
Who now is worthy of executioner’s hand

Pick up the burden of heart, let us go, heartbroken ones
Let us offer ourselves, once again, for execution

(translator unknown)

Whose "Human Rights"?

This is from Talal Asad's book "Formation of the Secular" (2003). In it, he critically engages with the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum's 'Human Capabilities' approach to human rights.

Asad's critique problematizes the normative assumptions of (this version of) liberal "Human Rights" discourse, as well as dissects its political utility.

"The self-owning “human”

I said earlier that the Universal Declaration does not define “the human” in “human rights” other than (tautologically) as the subject of human rights that were once theorized as natural rights. But what kind of human does human rights recognize in practice?

Those who formulate and implement Western policies often assume that there is a natural fit between the legal culture of “human rights” and the wider culture of “Western norms.” This includes particular attitudes to the human body and to pain. In Chapter 3 I mentioned some post-Enlightenment views about measures of suffering that allowed imprisonment to be represented as humane as opposed to flogging. Here I want to pursue a slightly different point: attitudes to the body indicated by such moral preferences – why, for example, confinement, even solitary confinement, is an acceptable form of punishment while any punitive practice that directly impinges on the body is not.

High value is clearly given to the integrity of the body – which explains in part the particular horror in Euro-America at the widespread custom of female genital mutilation in some African regions. I say “in part” because there is no comparable sense of horror at the custom of male genital mutilation. The latter is, of course, a quite familiar practice in the Judeo-Christian West and the former is not. But there is more to it than that. There is the belief that female circumcision, unlike the male variety, interferes with the sexual pleasure of the women. The enjoyment of sexual intercourse is a valued part of being human; anything that interferes with that enjoyment is in some powerful sense inhuman. [31] It therefore becomes a matter of a human right and its violation. So there is here both an interference with the subject’s ability to experience “full” sexual pleasure. The human being owns his or her body and has the inalienable right to enjoy it.

In an impressive series of publications Martha Nussbaum has reopened the old question of human nature through the Aristotelian idea of human capabilities that she recognizes can also be linked to the concept of human rights. Her basic idea is that a list can be compiled of central human functional capabilities (for example, “Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and do these things in a ‘truly human’ way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing self-expressive works and events of one’s own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth” [Nussabum, pp. 78-79]). The universal character of these capabilities, according to Nussbaum, can be found in the Rawlsian idea of “overlapping consensus,” which I have discussed briefly in connection with Taylor’s use of it in the Introduction. “By ‘overlapping consensus’ I mean what John Rawls means,” she writes, “that people may sign on to this conception, without accepting any particular metaphysical view of the world, any particular comprehensive or ethical view, or even any particular view of the person or of human nature.” And yet, Nussbaum’s idea of universal capabilities does express the emerging idea of “the human” in it. A subject possessing bodily integrity, able to freely express himself or herself, and entitled to choose for herself or himself what to believe and how to behave is not simply a “freestanding moral core of a political conception” to which people sign on. It is itself a thick account of what being human is – and one that underpins human rights.

As a view of human nature it follows that where these capabilities are not being exercised due to obstacles, their removal will allow humans either to exercise them spontaneously (and to rank them), or to freely choose not to do so. However, humans will have to be taught what good capabilities are and how to exercise them, and to be prevented from exercising vices that harm others. After all, humans are also capable of cruelty, greed, arrogance, treachery – indeed there is scarcely anything they are not capable of. So part from being able to identify vices and their harmful social effects, someone must have the power to identify “obstacles,” to remove them, and also to ensure – by force if necessary – that vices are not restored. That sovereign power is a human capability too, but not one that everyone may freely exercise simply on that account. When invested in the state, that juridical power becomes a precondition for the flourishing of human capabilities. According to Nussbaum, that state must, of course, be one committed to universal values. As such it would not only secure the same rights for all its citizens, but also their ability to experience the emotions of love, grief, justified anger – and even their ability to “use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and to do these things in a ‘truly human’ way.” One difficulty here is that the secular state now becomes the definer of “the truly human,” and although Nussbaum attempts to distinguish between capability and functioning, assigning only the definition of the former to the state, it is not always possible to distinguish between them.

There are other well-known problems with this view that may be noted in passing. First, the ability to choose freely whether or not to exercise a capability sometimes encounters a contradiction: because certain choices are irrevocable, they themselves may constitute insurmountable obstacles to further choices (as an illiterate one cannot make an informed choice regarding literacy unless one has experienced it, but having become literate one cannot then change one’s mind). Second, it is a notorious fact that human capabilities – and the conditions in which they are realized – are subject to conflicting interpretations. When “human capabilities” are legally enshrined the business of interpreting them is the privilege of judicial authorities and technical experts, and politics proper is excluded. In brief, it becomes a matter of domination rather than negotiation.

Who - in a world of nation-states - has the authority to interpret and the power to promote the conditions that facilitate human rights, and "the human" they sustain? At a meeting two years ago the U.S. Trade Representative negotiating China's entry into the World Trade Organization causally observed in response to a journalist's question that "democratic political reform and greater adherence to human rights are certainly encouraged by an opening to the West and Western norms." What might these norms be when viewed as styles of life relating to specific kinds of subjectivity?

In a recent article on American global power, Ignacio Ramonet, chief editor of Le Monde Deiplomatique, recounts the scale of U.S. military, diplomatic, economic, and technological hegemony, and then goes on to ask why - given the liberal democratic ideology of equality and autonomy - there isn't more criticism of it? I quote his elegant answer in full:

"No doubt because US hegemony also embraces culture and ideology. It has long been the home of many fine, universally respected intellectuals and creative artists in every field, who are quite rightly admired by one and all. Its mastery extends to the symbolic level, lending it what Max Weber calls "charismatic domination". The US has taken control of the vocabulary, concepts and meaning of many fields. We have to formulate the problems it invents in the words it offers. [The article at Le Monde's website currently has the following sentence instead: "It obliges us to formulate problems of its own invention with the words it offers". Italics supplied by Asad. He also combined the paragraphs together.] It provides the codes to decipher enigmas it created in the first place. In fact, it has set up any number of research centres and think-tanks for this very purpose, employing thousands of analysts and experts. These eminent bodies produce reports on legal, social and economic issues with a perspective that supports the ideal of the free market, the world of business and the global economy. Their lavishly funded work attracts endless media attention and is broadcast the world over... Wielding the might of information and technology, the US thus establishes, with the passive complicity of the people it dominates, what may be seen as affable oppression or delightful despotism. And this is all the more effective as its control of the culture industries lets it capture our imagination. The US uses its admirable know-how to people our dreams with crowds of media heroes, Trojan horses despatched by their master to invade our brains. Only 1% of the films shown in the US are foreign productions, while Hollywood floods the world with its wares. And close behind come television series, cartoons, videos and comics, not to mention fashion, urban development and food. The faithful gather to worship the new icons in malls - temples raised to the glory of all forms of consumption. All over the world these centres of shopping fever promote the same way of life, in a whirl of logos, stars, songs, idols, brands, gadgets, posters and celebrations (like the extraordinary spread of Halloween in France). All this is accompanied by the seductive rhetoric of freedom of choice and consumer liberty, hammered home by obsessive, omnipresent advertising (annual advertising expenditure in the US exceeds $200bn) that has as much to do with symbols as with the goods themselves. Marketing has become so sophisticated that it aims to sell not just a brandname or social sign, but an identity. All based on the principle that having is being... The American empire has become a master of symbols and seduction. Offering unlimited leisure and endless distraction, its hypnotic charm enters our minds and instills ideas that were not ours. America no longer seeks our submission by force, but by incantation. It has no need to issue orders, for we have given our consent. No need for threats, as it bets on our thirst for pleasure."

I do not present this statement as decisive evidence of what is going on in the world. Its interest lies in the explanation it offers of how, by having "to formulate the problems [America] invents in the words [America] offers," global society adapts to a stronger, more modern language - in which the equal rights to pleasure can be articulated as America's project of secular redemption. [38] Ramonet's recognition that the desire to do as one pleases (to do what pleases one) evoked by marketing discourse is familiar enough - the normalization of consuming desires is a banal feature of contemporary capitalist society often noted by both supporters and critics. Familiar, too, is his suggestion that the human being assumed in modern market culture is an autonomous individual who seeks pleasure and avoids pain. For just as electoral democracy postulates the equivalence of citizens (each of whom counts as one and only one) within any given party, so market strategies assume the equivalence of buyers (each of whom counts as one) within any given niche. In both cases the choosing subject is a statistical object to be targeted, added to or separated from other individuals. It is this that explains the U.S. Trade Representative's claim that greater adherence to human rights is encouraged by the acquisition of "Western (that is, American) norms" in place of older ones, just as the opening up of free trade with the West and the blossoming of a market society will reinforce human rights.

My thought is not that this claim is arrogant, or otherwise morally tainted, but that it may be true. "Cultures" are indeed fragmented and interdependent, as critics never tire of reminding us. But cultures are also unequally displaced practices. Whether cultural displacement is a means of ensuring political domination or merely its effect, whether it is a necessary stage in the growth of universal humanity or an instance of cultural takeover, is not the point here. What I want to stress is that cultures may be conceived not only in visual terms ("clearly bounded," "interlaced," "fragmented," and so forth) but also in terms of the temporalities of power by which - rightly or wrongly - practices constituting particular forms of life are displaced, outlawed, and penalized, and by which conditions are created for the cultivation of different kinds of human. Resentment on the part of the weak about being treated cruelly by the powerful is generally a spontaneous human reaction, but learning to see certain practices as insupportable that were not previously viewed as such, and organizing social opposition to them, are steps in the reconstruction of the human.

In an interdependent modern world, "traditional cultures" do not spontaneously grow or develop into "modern cultures," People are pushed, seduced, coerced, or persuaded into trying to change themselves into something else, something that allows them to be redeemed. It may not be possible to stop this process; it may be a wonderful thing that the process takes place as it does because people really are redeemed through it. I do not argue for or against such directed changes here. I merely emphasize that they are not possible without the exercise of political power that often presents itself as a force for redeeming "humanity" from "traditional cultures." Or - and this comes down in the end to the same thing - as the force for reclaiming rights that belong inalienably to man in a state of nature.

In the seventeenth century, so John Pocock proposed, the self was beginning to be seen as contingent. The anxiety that that provoked was the context in which Locke's political appeal to natural rights acquired added plausibility. Legal discourses for defining the person gain added weight. In an essay on flexible capitalism at the close of the twentieth century, Richard Sennett has argued that the highly unstable conditions of work in America are making a coherent narrative of the self - and therefore realization of "character" - increasingly difficult. It is possible (although this is not Sennett's argument) that this new stage in the growing anxiety about the private self is not unconnected to the increasing insistence on the redemptive quality of human rights at a global level. When the secularist ideological order separating public politics from private belief is seen to crumble, the new terrain is occupied by a discourse of human rights taht can be taken as either sacred or profane. Canovan's appeal to myth to defend the liberal project of human rights (see Chapter 1), King's appeal to universal brotherhood and human dignity under God, the U.S. government's global project to free both belief and property, and Nussbaum's celebration of the capabilities of the sovereign human are all variations of this discourse."

(Talal Asad 2003: 148-155)

[31] "Martha Nussbaum cites "opportunities for sexual satisfaction" as an aspect of "Bodily Integrity," listed as one of the "central human functional capabilities" in her influential Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 78. The assumption that "opportunities for sexual satisfaction" can be clearly identified and legally protected is intriguing".

[38] "But as the post-9/11 "war on terrorism" demonstrates, the United States does not simply seduce its opponents with pleasure. It is prepared to use devastating force. The war against Afghanistan was presented by the American media not only as the pursuit of terrorists but as as the liberation of Afghan women..."

Note: Please see the book for all footnotes.

Handala: 'keep that spirit of resistance alive'

A friend forwarded the following description with this image:

Naji al-Ali, the creator of the Handala cartoon, once wrote of his famous creation:

"His name is Handala and he has promised the people that he will remain true to himself. I drew him as a child who is not beautiful; his hair is like the hair of a hedgehog who uses his thorns as a weapon. Handala is not a fat, happy, relaxed, or pampered child. He is barefooted like the refugee camp children, and he is an icon that protects me from making mistakes. Even though he is rough, he smells of amber. His hands are clasped behind his back as a sign of rejection at a time when solutions are presented to us the American way."

62 years, but not many more insha'allah. Let's hope Handala can be retired very soon!

Bringing Islam to Our Campuses

Bringing Islam to Our Campuses
Ali A., IslamicInsights, April 19, 2010
Source

Allow me to start with a few inter-related questions. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word "Shia"? Is it a specific color? Is it a certain "Shia" practice, or tradition, or occasion? Is it some experience you had while growing up? Is it a picture of some iconic "Shia" figure, or some symbol? Perhaps, it may be something totally different. Now, think about what comes to your mind when you hear the word "Muslim"? Is it the same color? How is this image similar or different from the one you have for "Shia"? Similarly, think about the words "Jewish", "Hindu", and "Buddhist".

These questions are meant to draw your attention to a basic anthropological observation. The more visible and ritualistic aspects of a religious tradition – symbols, celebrations, practices, people – usually become the medium through which most followers develop their understanding of the religion itself. These aspects may also become the primary markers of identity for the followers themselves and in the eyes of the outsiders. Traditions, practices, and other outer aspects are a very useful medium to convey deeper religious meanings and also to preserve them. They appeal to multiple levels of human faculties – physical, emotional, rational, spiritual. The problem occurs – and speaking from an Islamic perspective and focusing only on Islam here – when in the minds of the followers the visible and ritualistic aspects become all what Islam is supposed to be, and the followers do not realize their deeper meanings and social implications. Islam, in other words, becomes merely ritualistic or superficial.

A Self-Transformative Approach

The ritualistic Islam is just one among many other kinds of Islam-s out there. Whatever the kind of Islam we understand and practice is what we will bring to our on-campus activism. However, our understandings may or may not be in line with the true essence of Islam. That uncertainty alone is enough reason to warrant, in the first step of any outreach efforts, a careful reconsideration of our Islamic understanding. That brings me to a major point of this piece. Our outreach efforts should be oriented toward a sincere and constant reevaluation and development of our Islamic understanding, and through that process we should define the kind of outreach projects and activities we want to do as organizations or movements.

That reevaluation cannot happen simply by listening to monologues; that further development of Islamic understanding cannot happen if we just think about 'educating others'. They require a different approach, in particular, a discursive space for self-reflective, critical, and constructive engagement. That is what we first need to build within our organizations. Without a constant reevaluation of our Islamic understanding, the choices we make about activities, speakers, and outreach strategies and content may all just reinforce our previously held beliefs.

Having such a discursive space would also allow us to evaluate our activities and strategies on a regular basis. For evaluating the effectiveness of any of our activities, a critical measure should be to see if the members themselves have learnt from that experience. This is a critical element of, what is named here as, the Self-Transformative Approach. Promoting awareness of Islam should not be like teaching physics. I may or may not believe in Quantum Mechanics or String Theory, but I can still teach them in my classes. Islam should not be treated that way. Islam, as I have understood so far, is about "believing" and "doing" and their inseparable connection, but more than that it is a way of "being". It is a journey of self-transformation. Our outreach efforts should also be part of that journey, but they should not become the end in themselves.

Organizing outreach activities – congregational prayers, Du'a Kumail on Thursdays, tabling for promoting Islamic awareness, lecture events, etc. – in themselves cannot be the criterion of our effectiveness and success. Instead, what we gain from those experiences – in terms of increasing our spirituality and social awareness – is how we should evaluate their impact, along with other indicators. (As I write these words, I should ask myself: how does this activity relate to my own journey?) I strongly believe that as we do Islamic outreach with this approach, or method, transforming ourselves and building an environment of sincere learning and activism, we will inevitably impact others around us.

Expanding Our Horizons

A critical factor in this self-transformative approach is the scope of the perspective with which we understand Islam and do Islamic activism. I may lead a discussion on Hajj where I may just focus on the DOs and DONOTs of specific rituals and the places to visit in Mecca and Medina, or I may also delve into the deeper meanings of each and every ritual obligation of Hajj, from declaring the Niyyat (intention) and Tawaf (circumambulation) of Kaaba to the mandatory stay in Arafat and Sacrifice. Similarly, I may read Du'a Kumail and its translation every Thursday evening with friends, yet not reflect on its meaning or relevance. Or, I may also ponder over that one beautiful point toward the end of Du'a Kumail, asking God to turn all of my activities, during day and night, into a constant remembrance of God, and based on that standard define and evaluate my activities, values, career choices, and goals of life. When I organize a food drive, I may just satisfy myself by feeding the poor. Or, I may also take the next step and realize that Islam's socially conscious teachings demand that I ask why the poor is poor and what could be done about various forms of economic and social exploitations which lie at the roots of widespread hunger and poverty. All these examples are meant to elaborate the same point: our perspectives or levels of understanding of Islam have a direct impact on the scope of our activities; hence, the need for constant re-evaluation and expansion of our horizons.

For that reason, it is absolutely essential that we educate ourselves in scholarly literature on religious and contemporary issues. And, just knowing them is not enough. We also need to see what principles and inspirations we can derive from them that could guide our activities. In short, we need to develop an informed perspective (or perspectives) for all of our activities. The "Save Darfur" movement provides a useful illustration, and warning, in this regard. Without doubt tragic injustices occurred in Sudan and needed our immediate attention. A large number of ordinary participants across North America supported the "Save Darfur" movement out of their genuine concerns, humanitarian and religious, but they did not know that the organizers of the movement were intentionally pushing their hideous agenda behind this cause. Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University has documented the politics of that agenda in detail in his book Saviors and Survivors. In short, as Alan Kuperman summarized in his op-ed in the New York Times (May 31, 2006), instead of helping the cause, the "Save Darfur" movement actually "poured fuel on the fire". It is unfortunate that, still unaware of the organizers' agenda, a majority of ordinary participants continue to support that movement.

An informed understanding of issues and surrounding politics, therefore, is absolutely essential for all activities and causes that we take up on our campuses. In order to build that informed perspective, I emphasize again the need to develop a discursive space for critical dialogue among ourselves and also with scholars – from campus and outside – where we can define and evaluate our principles, strategies, alternatives, and short and long term goals. More examples of issues about which we need to observe similar care include the efforts to promote a positive image of Islam in Euro-American societies, defending pro-justice causes like that of supporting the Palestine cause, talking about gender issues, and presenting various moral and philosophical positions in the name of Islam.

It is quite natural to have doubts and unresolved questions during the college years. Students come across a range of conflicting ideas and questions in their classes, particularly those in social sciences and humanities. Those ideas directly impact their thoughts, outlooks, values, identities, lifestyles, and goals of life. It is very important that our gatherings provide a positive environment to engage those doubts and questions and use those occasions as opportunities for sharing and learning knowledge. Such gatherings, similarly, can help participants reevaluate their culturally constructed ideas of taste, desire, beauty, identity, and aspirations in life, all of which also impact their understanding and practice of Islam.

For example, the discussions and other activities may draw their attention to individual consumer choices and their connection to exploitation of people, cultures, and environment in their own country and other parts of the world. Such activities may also help them to realize the connection between, for example, "perfect body" images in their favorite Disney movies, TV shows, teen magazines, and advertisements and teen's low self-esteem and materialistic attitudes, and, also, how these adverse effects could be countered by re-defining our standards of beauty and adopting simplicity and modesty. The activities may also examine the distorted histories that are taught in classrooms, in different on-campus events, and promoted through celebrations and holidays like Columbus Day, and their connection to reinforcing racism and historical injustices. I feel that such discussions would inevitably have a self-transformative effect on all participants, including the organizers, broadening their understanding of what Islam is about and also its relevance to society. Islamic Insights contains a range of excellent topics and material to engage with in our campus activities. See also an excellent list of discussion topics compiled by SIA Chai-Chats.

We should also encourage our members and participants to gain necessary skills, knowledge, and experiences to advance their understanding, such as, learning relevant languages, studying Islamic and contemporary thought and history from multiple perspectives, and traveling abroad to explore different cultures and meet peoples.

Toward Building A Movement

Any on-campus organization, movement, or community that seeks to promote Islamic awareness cannot be built by just a one-day event or a few events each year. That community has to be developed through regular interactions and purposeful activities among organizers, members, and general participants. The regular activities can give them a sense of belonging, a conducive environment for spiritual and intellectual nourishment, a consistent impetus for social activism and striving for self-improvement, and life-long fraternity and learning opportunity through sustained communication and activism after graduation. We need people who are not only highly educated in different fields but who also have informed perspectives, sincere concerns, and positive identities, in short, those who are on the journey of transforming their "beings". In that process, they will inevitably influence the professional areas and communities that they will join after graduation. Promoting these qualities should be one of the major tasks of our on-campus Islamic activism, and as I have argued in this piece, building that discursive space with a friendly and constructive culture can do a lot of service in this regard.

Based on the above discussion, I hope we can see that doing Islamic activism should not be treated like joining just any other cultural or social organization on campus. Islamic activism demands a constant self-evaluation. Any attempt to change our surrounding has to start from within ourselves; the personal is directly connected to the social. And, our activism should be guided by an informed understanding of Islam and contemporary issues.

A practical concern emerges when we try to establish that conducive culture in our organizations: Start with changing hearts or disciplining actions based on Islamic teachings? A frequent issue that comes up in this debate is that of Hijab. Should we have Hijab as a requirement of membership and participation in our activities; at official forums should we allow members who dress modestly but do not cover themselves in formal Hijab to represent the Islamic cause of our organization; about a policy that asks, as the minimal requirement, not formal Hijab but just adherence to "modesty" (for both males and females), what may be its impact on the overall culture and direction of the organization? I cannot get into the details of this particular issue and the broader debate here, but if I may briefly share my perspective, the two directions do not need to be contradictory or mutually exclusive, and the emphasis on one direction or another can vary with contexts. In the university environment and in many other settings, however, I am inclined to approach Islamic activism with an emphasis on the first direction, not as an instrumental choice or strategy but as an appropriate approach to encourage individual perspective-building and meaningful self-transformation. I take this position with the realization that the outcome of this method may not always turn out to be what I consider is the best action or policy. This last point is further elaborated in the following section.

An Ethics of Engagement

Please consider this discussion as only a prologue, an opening of the discussion on this important topic. I do not directly address the related challenges here. Challenges like how to handle ideological and political differences, how to balance theory and practice in our activities, how to reconcile multiplicity of perspectives and the need for unity in actions, how to engage with non-member Muslims and non-Muslims on campus, how to work with other organizations for common causes without compromising our principles, how to build coordination with other Islamic organizations in different universities, and so on. I must admit that these are difficult questions. But at the same time I believe that these challenges should not undermine the objective need and importance of having that self-reflective, discursive space in our organizations.

Toward addressing some of those challenges it may help if instead of unpacking and confronting each and every challenge through rational discourse we start by reflecting on the method, or the ethics of engagement, for building the said discursive space. The method proposed here is oriented in a form of practice – not just rational dialogue – guided by the core teachings of Islam. It is to embark on the journey of self-transformation and in that process tackle those challenges with humility, sincerity, willingness to learn and share, and putting into practice what we learn and believe. There are risks involved in this attempt too. Among other things, this ethics of engagement would be seen as advancing a particular perspective, at the expense of others and excluding those who do not necessarily subscribe to its standards; this ethics is also a perspective after all. That is a valid question, and one of the challenges for any attempt to theorize our activism.

In engaging with that challenge, I would submit that the propositions presented in this article – or proposal – are meant less as a perspective with specified utopian ends or destination and more as a perspective that tries to outline a process of discovery through self-transformation. These propositions are based on a few principles, or (pre)requisites, which I believe are at the core of Islam, and they are what I propose as that ethics of engagement. Let me explicitly outline those principles so you can evaluate them in your discussions and through practice. The first is spirituality; the second is developing a critical social consciousness and striving for social justice and other humanitarian causes; and the third involves attitudes of sincerity, humility, devotion to learning, and willingness to sacrifice.

As I understand, all of these principles have strong rational and spiritual basis. The first is a universal goal in the teachings of all Abrahamic religious traditions, and, arguably, could be found in other prominent religions too, and may even appeal to those who consider themselves 'spiritual but not religious'. Perhaps the most direct statement of this goal in the Islamic tradition could be found in Sura Ash-Shams (Qur'an 91: 1-10). To purify and develop our "beings" and rise above the 'material' in the quest of limitless transcendental realities is a very common realization and pursuit among sages and saints all throughout history. Spirituality also has deep implications for our "worldly" lives and our assessment of social problems, and for the same reason, it should be part of a perspective for social change – as in adopting spirituality as a lifestyle emphasizing simplicity and modesty to resist hyper-consumerism and materialism. The second principle also has deep resonance in the essential teachings of many major religions. Furthermore, it is a shared principle among many pro-justice, environmental, and humanitarian movements – basically, among all those who, irrespective of their religious or non-religious affiliations, are concerned about miserable conditions of humanity today and realize that there are structural and cultural causes responsible for these miseries. The third principle should be self-evident from the teachings of many major religions and from experience. (The comparisons here are meant to point out the wider applicability and universality of these principles and not to advocate a philosophy of religious pluralism that hinges on moral and cultural relativism. I think that much should be obvious from the very nature of the above principles and the overall discussion in this article.)

If we could all agree upon this minimum standard, as the common denominator, and build from there the culture of our organizations and the scope of our activities, I believe we could address many problems and challenges that we face in our activism. One of the outcome of this (usually gradual) process of transformation of "beings", or consciousness, is that it would align our individual predispositions with each other. The logic of our working together would then transcend from the bond of "agreement on particular issues" or "agree to disagree" to the much stronger bond of sharing common goals and principles and supporting each other in our respective journeys, with humility and sincerity. At the same time, we should not expect that this creative process or practice will always result in a unanimously agreed upon perspective or policy on specific issues.

I hope that the points presented in this proposal contribute to theorizing the method and direction of our on-campus Islamic activisms, from defining and evaluating our strategies and activities to making alliances with other organizations for common causes. The discussed approach and their underlying principles favor a discursive and self-transformative process to encourage meaningful perspective-building and activism, and at the same time, they acknowledge the need for some ground rules and boundaries, in order to address, if in part, the problems of endless arguments, lack of direction, and doing activism without understanding. I hope student activists find this proposal helpful toward building meaningful Islamic movements on university campuses and beyond.