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."

KARBALA: THE VOICE OF ISLAMIC CONSCIENCE

In his famous speech, On the Plight of the Oppressed People, Dr. Ali Shariati argues that Islam came as a challenge to the oppressive status quo of the time. But, after the death of the Prophet Mohammad (s), Islam suffered distortion and corruption like the messages of the previous Prophets. Islam was used to enslave helpless people for personal interests and glory of tribal dynasties of Ummayads and Abbasids and others. As Shariati puts it, “I saw the swords which were engraved with verses on holy war. I saw the places for worship. I saw those who prayed. I saw the saintly faces who spoke in the name of spiritual leadership, the Caliphs, and the preservation of the Prophet's traditions. Nevertheless, collectively, they took us into slavery!”

A Reason for Hope

Despite this deviation, in this and other writings, Shariati is optimistic that Islam can still emancipate the struggling humanity from the servitude of Pharaohs of the modern age because its universal message has survived not only in the text but also through the exemplary lives and sacrifices of Ali and Fatima, their children Zainab and Hussain, and Prophet’s companions Abu Zarr and Bilal. Below, I look at how the great sacrifice that Imam Hussain and Syeda Zainab gave on the plains of Karbala (Iraq) became the conscience of Islam.

As soon as Yazid assumed the seat of Caliphate after his father’s death, he demanded that Imam Hussain do his bai’at, that is, pay allegiance to him. Yazid was a tyrant, who was personally corrupt and openly mocked Islam. "If this Ummah is to be tried with a shepherd such as Yazid, then farewell to Islam," Imam Hussain declared at this point. Imam Hussain who was the inheritor of the knowledge and piety of the Prophet and the leader of the Ummah, his allegiance would have blurred the distinction between the true Islam and falsehood. Islam would have become a fatalistic ideology serving the rule of the Ummayads. But Imam Hussain’s response to Yazid’s demand for bai’at became the universal message for all the followers of truth and justice, when he said, ‘Someone like me cannot do a bai’at of someone like him’ (‘mujh jesa, yazid jese kii bai’at nahi kar sakta’), and ‘It is better to die on feet than to live on knees’ (‘zillat kii zindagi se izzat kii maut behtar hai’).

In a will Imam Hussain made before departing from Makkah, he declared: “Indeed, I have not risen up to do mischief, neither as an adventurer, nor to cause corruption and tyranny. I have risen up solely to seek the reform of the Ummah of my grandfather. I want to command what is good and stop what is wrong, and (in this) I follow the conduct of my grandfather and my father, Ali ibn Abi Talib.” Imam Hussain was martyred along with more than 70 companions in Karbala on 10th of Muharram (Ashura) in 61 A.H/ 680 C.E.

After Imam Hussain, his sister Syeda Zainab carried forward his message and spoke in the courts of Kufa and Damascus with such courage and eloquence that reminded people of the eloquence and courage of her mother, Fatima, and father, Ali.

Development of a Movement

Imam Hussain’s revolt was the first one of its kind in the Islamic history. It marked a clear distinction between the true Islam and falsehood, and inspired many movements in the later generations against the Umayyads and Abbasids and other tribal dynasties. Imam Hussain’s revolt became the conscience of Islam that challenged any fatalistic justifications for the tyranny of Yazid and his likes for all times and places.

An equally significant influence of this great sacrifice was the development of a cultural movement within Islam. Analytically separate, but in reality, the political and the cultural are the two facets of the same movement. This cultural movement started with the commemorations of the tragedy of Karbala that continue to this day. Each year, in the month of Muharram, hundreds of thousands of followers and admirers of Hussain come together and remember the great sacrifice. They narrate the tragic accounts and engage in public mourning. Imam Hussain’s struggle is recollected as an archetype movement about the eternal struggle of truth against falsehood in which blood triumphed over sword. These commemorations claim to represent an alternative history of Islam following the demise of the Prophet and a commitment to preserve Islam’s true message through recounting the sacrifices of the noble household of the Prophet.

Over the passage of more than a millennium, a discourse has evolved out of this cultural movement, in prose and poetry, oral as well as written forms, and through an array of symbols and images in different colors in different parts of the world. This is the discourse of human conscience, resistance, and universal justice developed by the survivors of Karbala, Shia Imams, historians, poets, mystics, reformers, and devotees among Shias, Sunnis, and even Non Muslims.

Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, the Sufi preacher from South Asia, sees Hussain as the savior of Islam:

Shah ast Hussain, Badshah ast Hussain
Deen ast Hussain, Deen Panah ast Hussain
Sar dad, na dad dast, dar dast-e-yazeed
Haqaa key binaey La ila ast Hussain

Hussain is the Master, Hussain is the King
Hussain is Faith, Hussain is Refuge for the Faith
He gave his head but not his hand in Yazid’s hand
Verily Hussain is the foundation of La’Illah.

Muhammad Ali Jauhar, a Sunni reformer and a central figure in the Khilafat Movement in the first half of the twentieth century sees Hussain’s movement in this light:

Haqq o batil ki hai paikar hameha jari
Jo na batil se daren hain vahi Shi’an-e Hussain

The war between truth and falsehood is eternal
Those who are not frightened by falsehood are the partisans of Hussain

At another place, he presents his inspiration from Karbala in these terms:

Qatl-e Hussain asl men marg-e Yazid hai
Islam zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad

In reality the murder of Hussain is the death of Yazid
Islam is resurrected after every Karbala

Faiz Ahmed Faiz, one of the prominent figures of the Progressive Writers Association (PWA), a literary movement for social justice in South Asia, takes inspiration from Imam Hussain’s sacrifice in these words:

(from a marsiya Faiz wrote)

Jo zulm peh la’nat na kare, aap la’een hai
Jo jabar ka munkir nahi, woh munkire deen hai

He is cursed who imprecates not the oppression
By not negating fatalism/suppression, he negates the religion

Over time these commemoration gatherings have developed some ritualistic aspects that may not be mindful of the underlying purpose of these gatherings. These gatherings nonetheless have retained the message of justice and resistance that serves as a conscience of Islam, and have provided the resource for political resistance against tyrannies in different parts of the world. This should be clear from the symbolic resource that the reformers in South Asia find in the message of Karbala. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 is another example.

These commemorations are much richer than what they appear to the outsiders in media and public observations. Without the underlying meaning, these commemorations would appear as merely a ritualistic street processions. But, for those who understand their purpose and message, these gatherings continue to inspire them and shape their subjectivities and worldview. These commemorations continue to influence the cultural discourse of the Muslim community. It is for this reason that tyrant regimes, like that of Saddam Hussein, wanted to suppress these gatherings. These tyrants, however, always failed due to the devotion and sacrifices of the followers and bearers of this movement over the last 1400 years.

Given its universal character and message, this movement is seen by the followers as the continuation of the struggles of all prophets, from the time of Adam to Mohammad (peace be upon them all). And for the same reason, it is understood as the conscience of all humanity. It is in this light that the mourners recite Ziyarat-e-Waritha (also spelled as, Ziarat-e- Warisa) at the end of each commemoration gathering, in which, with moving sentiments, they describe and testify the greatness of Imam Hussain’s sacrifice for the cause of Allah and make solemn pledge of their support for Imam’s mission:

An excerpt from Ziyarat-e-Waritha:

"Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Adam, the chosen one of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Nuh, the prophet of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Ibrahim, the beloved friend of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Moosa, who received direct communication from Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Muhammad, the beloved friend of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O inheritor of Ali, the commander of the faithful, and beloved of Allah
Peace be upon you,
O son of Muhammad, the chosen,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Ali, the one accepted by Allah,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Fatimah, leader of women in the world,
Peace be upon you,
O son of Khadijah, the great,
Peace be upon you,
O you, the one who will be avenged by Allah, and O son of the one who will be avenged by Allah.
O unique martyr, who was killed mercilessly.
I bear witness that you established the worship of Allah,
And the poor due,
And enjoined man to do good,
And forbade them for doing wrong,
And obeyed Allah and His messenger,
Until death came to you."
------------
Image: Candles lit for Imam Hussain, his household, and companions on "Shame-Ghariban" or "Evening of the Dispossessed". People all over Iran light candles in streets to remember the tragedy of Karbala on the 10th of Muharram.

PAIN IS YOUR BEGINNING...

O' Wanderer!

Pain is your beginning...

If it were not for the pain, life would be so meaningless and absurd. The first pain is that of other hearts that you feel in your own heart. The second pain is the 'wahshat' (vacuum and agony) in your soul.

The first pain realizes the suffering of human beings around you and makes you restless. This pain is also your only attachment to them at the moment. It makes you strive for justice to better their conditions, because relentless striving is the only way you know can ease this pain.

The second pain has made your heart realize that nothing can comfort your soul except the blissful Wine from The Ultimate Reality. You also realize that this pain is as painful as the first one, but it is also different. It is in a way also a fulfillment, involving pleasure; however, this pain can also intensify over time and make the 'wahshat' much worse and tormenting, unless...

O' Wanderer, you realize that pain is an immediate inner experience that does not require any rational proof or repetition for validation. One realizes it immediately when one opens eyes in this world and expresses it through crying - crying is such a universal language of pain, for infants and adults alike. Hence, even if the whole world around you is a fiction, your pain is still real.

Life was never meaningless or absurd to you because there is pain. You felt it right from the very first moment of your presence in this world.

Pain is your beginning...

But, O' Wanderer, know that there also exist other realities and higher stations. Ishq (love) that you only through pain has many more colors which you need to discover. And along with pain, ishq can guide you to your home!

- Your Heart, the Consciousness of your Soul.

MATERIALISM AS ZEITGEIST

What is this 'Matrix', this 'Hegemony' (or ‘dominance without hegemony,’ if you prefer), this 'Totalizing System' of Materialism that I refer to in my previous posts?

The phenomenon of Materialism that I have in mind is the resultant of a particular historical development in the West, which is generally referred to as 'Modernity'. Materialism is one of the defining characteristics of this modernity. Materialism is not just an intellectual mode of thought or a cultural discourse - that's just one component of it. It is rather an all-encompassing phenomenon that functions at the (analytically distinct) levels of structure, culture, and individual instincts, intentions, and actions. Hence, my choice of the broad heuristic terms like 'matrix', 'hegemony', and 'totalizing system'.

Shaheed Mutahhari has given four excellent lectures on the causes of materialistic tendencies in the West (here - I, II, III, IV). Mutahhari makes it clear that these materialistic tendencies are a historical development, and certain political and doctrinal factors led to their rise in the West. That is, it is not just an outcome of a theological or philosophical outlook. Rather, it is a product of multiple causes. This specific history also explains the particular beliefs and attitudes in the West regarding the ‘separation of church and the state’, emphasis on secularism, rational thought, individualism, materialism, and capitalism. Together, these elements constitute the particular 'form' of modernity of the 'West', more specifically, America and Western Europe.

Following Mutahhari's sociological argument, I would add that religion had multiple kinds of roles in the development of materialistic tendencies in the West. Whereas modernity emerged in reaction to the suppresion of free thought and rights by Church dogma, certain religious idioms also played a pioneering role in modernity's construction. The German Sociologist, Max Weber, has in his book "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" compellingly argued that religion (as an institution, as a belief set, and an emotional force, all sociologically speaking) may have been an active force behind the rise of capitalism in the West.

As he describes, in certain Protestant Sects (particularly, Calvinism) materialistic accomplishments and worldly success were seen as a sign of Divine Favor. The pursuit of the materialistic accomplishments was the 'calling' for each person. And it was this calling that provided the impulse for accumulation of wealth and the efficiency and calculation in business dealings. (You see the same rigorous efficiency and calculation in the Protestant missions around the world which generated massive archives of numbers and descriptions for the regions in Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Americas they worked in.) This is of course a very simplified version of Weber's argument. But the point here is that religion, or certain religious understandings, can very well promote materialism in society.

Weber anticipated this development in his description of the “Iron Cage” of the 'disenchanted' future. In this particular book, Weber was mostly concerned about the development of capitalism: how it was shaped by certain religious idioms, and how “the spirit of capitalism” has, in turn, shaped societies and individuals. Weber anticipated an increasingly rationalized (in the Weberian sense) human life in the capitalist society, which he gloomily characterized in terms of an “iron cage” of large-scale, rule-based rational-control. I won’t go into the insightful implications of his argument here, although part of my argument is similar to his: that the force of materialism has become so pervasive today that it is now producing effects similar to that of an “iron cage”.

This is because the religious idioms may have promoted the spirit of materialism, but once materialism became the dominant logic of economics, after the shift from agrarian-feudal to capitalist-market economy, once it became dominant in the cultural discourse and political institutions, it assumed a life of its own, a logic of its own. It became a social force that now shapes the structure, culture, and individual subjectivities, and in turn, gets reproduced in each generation. It has assumed a force so enormous, so pervasive, so encompassing that it has become normal and invisible (see my earlier post, entitled ‘to consume or not to consume).

Hence, I use the German expression ‘Zeitgeist’ to describe it as the ‘spirit’ of our age, which is in a way close to, but not exactly in, the Hegelian sense of alive and active “World Spirit”. I intentionally want to use such a broad conceptual formulation of materialism here. Because, as I argued in an earlier post ('to consume or not to consume'), focusing on particular aspects of materialism, like consumerism, would not help with either understanding or solving the problems resulting from materialism today. Because materialism is so enormous and so pervasive that addressing its particular facets without addressing its deeper linkages to structures, cultures, and human nature would be like attempting to cure the symptoms without addressing the roots. To address that deeper linkages require that we look at materialism in its full enormity, and the solution would require a substantial qualitative transformation into how we engage in our social relations and how we build our societies.

However, it is both beyond the scope of this space and my abilities at the moment to even attempt to do this task. My focus therefore is limited to the sociology of materialism, trying to look at how materialism is affecting our lives and social relations. The questions I examine are: Who are the individuals and institutional actors here, what are their interests and agendas, who is benefitting from its spread, how are people on the receiving end engaging (accomodating or resisting) the increasingly globalized materialism in their lives, coming through capital, media, education, politics and policies?

Implications

One, we need to analyze materialism not just at the individual level where many times the focus is on controlling our low desires (nafsani khawahishaat). But also on the level of cultural discourse (fikri ghulami) where sometimes people may genuinely believe that their religion allows them to live in a certain way. In the case of the 'Protestant Ethic', the religious idioms actually demanded that the followers accumulate wealth in order to be successful in this world and the hereafter. Religion, thus, as an ideology and as an emotional force, can take the followers in different directions depending on the content of the message. Therefore, it is important to analyze the content of the message too. (Analysis of other pertinent issues, like, unity among ourselves, domestic violence, youth issues, also require this multi-level approach in my opinion. As we work on the individual level (on nafsani khawahishaat), we also need to look at the cultural content of already existing discourse in our communities and the conflicting messages we are getting from outside, and compare both of them to the true teachings of Quran and Ahlulbayt. Similarly we also need to look at the structural arrangements in our communities that determine certain roles and possibilities for individuals).

Two, I also want to emphasize that the three levels, the individual, the cultural, and the structural (various institutions), are all independent, causally speaking, and can influence the other levels to promote materialism. A change in the economic structure, for example, like neo-liberal reforms, can also bring about materialism in a society, even though that society may not have gone through the same historically specific experience of Western Modernity. This is the independent causal force that materialism has developed today. The particular history of the Western Modernity has definite implications on the form of materialism in the West, but it may not translate in exactly same terms in other parts of the world; other societies engage with this materialism (corporatization in the name of globalization) in their own ways, informed by their local histories, politics, and cultures.

Three, related to above, we need to understand that materialism cannot affect one level of the society without affecting others. It is not possible for the neo-liberal reforms to take full effect without changing the local culture and subjectivities of the individuals. The changing consumption behavior in Egypt, Turkey, and more recently in Pakistan after the neo-liberal reforms are the examples. Check out “Today’s Consumption in Egypt” by Mona Abaza for an illustration. Materialism in the name of 'development' or 'modernization' thus comes to a society with a multi-level agenda, as also pointed out by Shaheed Baqir Sadr in “Islam and Schools of Economics”. As a side note, I should note here that Shaheed Sadr did not consider “Islamic Economics” to be a “science” of economics; rather, to him it is a set of “ideals” and “values” involving justice and fair distribution of resources that through institutionalization into economy could help building the desired just and tawheedi society. Materialism, likewise, has its own set of values, including an emphasis on competition and profit making which it spreads wherever it goes.

Four, we also need to understand that any movement aimed at resisting this materialism may very well start from changing an individual self. That is, an effective movement would have to first de-construct the hegemony in the mind of the followers, to get a person out of the ‘matrix’ of materialism. So, granted, the first step is always to reform the individual self. But to induce changes in the larger society, the movement would need to have a plan – a plan for all three inter-connected levels that I describe above. This is the question of "What's next?" after we 'reform the individual self'. I would argue that working collectively to build alternative institutions and movements is a required condition of even making that first step to happen for a large number of people, realistically speaking. We need to work on both individual and collective levels simultaneously.

For examples of collective action, we can take ideas from the movements working for saving forests, clean productions, labor rights, conscious-consuming, fair trade, curtailing influence of corporations, movements promoting ideas of sustainability and equity, green-chemistry, renewable energy, and local living economy. The last one is about developing alternative institutions like Consumers' Coops to resist large corporations, to build markets and products that are environment-friendly and honor fair trade and fair wages.

The utility of building such resources and institutions is many-fold. One, it makes a point that alternatives are possible AND practical. Two, it makes it easier for people, who are chained by the current structures, to make opt-out choices. For example, the development and availability of an Islamic finance system would allow people to not depend/become slave of the mainstream commercial banking system. Three, like-minded people can come together to support each other, in living simple life-style, in upbringing 'saleh' (pious) children in this kind of environment. Remember, it takes a village to raise a child.

To follow this approach is not being materialistic (as some would say 'you are depending on the 'worldly' factors'), rather it is about being REALISTIC (see here and here).

Two Clarifications

One, when I refer to the ‘matrix’ of materialism, as experienced today, I do not specifically mean to refer to Christianity or Judaism, which if you look into, are often very anti-materialistic in their teachings. Materialism is a distinct phenomenon which I refer to with the expression 'zeitgeist' and its has its independent dynamics and force.

Two, as I mentioned earlier that although this materialism emerged in the west as part of the modernity, it is not restricted to the West anymore. It is now exported and experienced (albeit in multiple ways of accomodation and resistance) all throughout the world through Hollywood movies, cable tv, neoliberal reforms, corporatization, etc. So when I look at materialism in these posts, I have both the West and the rest of the world in mind.

-----------
Click on the tag/label "Materialism" (right column on top) to find other related posts in this blog.

THANKSGIVING OR THANKS-TAKING: THE LESSONS

The impulse for writing today is the occasion of Thanksgiving which is observed in the US on the fourth Thursday of November each year.

Thanksgiving is a celebration. It is a national holiday. It is one of those few times in the year when American families make it a point to come together, to unite, no matter how close or far they may be living otherwise. Airports and shopping malls experience heavy traffic of people around this holiday season. Although the origins of Thanksgiving may have some religious basis, for a majority of people, it's just a national holiday. Just like the Christmas.

Thanksgiving is a family event, celebrated with the theme of "giving thanks" to each other and to God. The theme has its origins in a story that speaks of the cooperation between the English settlers and the Native Americans. The Native Americans helped the poor English settlers survive the harsh weather and new environment by teaching them how to catch fish and grow corn during the first year of their arrival. At the conclusion of the first harvest season, the English settlers, who are also called the Pilgrims, held a Thanksgiving celebration of food, feasting, and praising God. They also invited their Native American benefactors on the occasion, and fed and entertained them for three days. Or so the popular version of the story says.

Power, History, and Identity

What interests me about this story is its utility for the construction of the American identity and American self-perception. Let me make a general point here before I specifically look at Thanksgiving. All Nation-states actively seek to define their identities by tracing them back to certain mythical or historical origins. Often it is difficult to distinguish between the myth and the history. For example, in the history textbooks in Pakistan, the origin of the Muslim Pakistan is indirectly traced back to the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim in Sind. Bin Qasim was basically a Syrian General who came to Sind to protect the Umayyad maritime interests and capture the political opponents at large. The history textbooks and popular cultural discourse (like the PTV drama serial on Bin Qasim), however, have a different version of the story. They glorify Bin Qasim as the Muslim hero sent by Governor Hajjaj Bin Yusuf to rescue Muslim prisoners from Raja Dahir. Interpreted in a metaphysical way, Bin Qasim's victory is presented as the victory of Islam over non-believers and oppressors.

This victory is then connected to the existential foundation of Pakistan. Consider the following statement: "Pakistan was born when the first Muslim stepped on the Subcontinent's soil" (M.A. Jinnah). Or, for example, consider the title, 'Babul Islam' (the Gateway of Islam in South Asia), that is often given to the province of Sind (I remember reading it in my 'social studies' textbooks and being taught in the context of Bin Qasim's incursions in Sind). [However, I should also mention that both the above statement and the title can also refer to the traders and the sufi saints (including the mawali political opponents of the Umayyad) who might have come through Sind.]

What I would like my readers to consider is the need of the new nation-state to define Pakistan in "Islamic" terms, during the Pakistan movement and afterwards, especially during the Zia era, that required that certain heroes and stories are discovered in history which could define and distinguish Pakistan from other nations, particularly, and for obvious reasons, from India.

The point above is not to dwell into the politics of Pakistani identity. It is just to draw attention to the role that the present (present needs, interests, political expedience) often plays in the interpretation and re-interpretation of the past. Power, of course, has a lot to do in this process: The question of who defines the "heroes" and "villains," and who defines what is "success" and "failure." Reminds me of one of my favorite articles by Ali Shariati, On the Plight of the Oppressed People, that expresses this point very eloquently.

Often history is understood from the perspective of the "powerful" and the "victorious". Like Ali Shariati, my argument is that we need to question the dominant narratives of histories; we need to critically examine the processes that construct these narratives; and lastly, we need to understand history from the (objective) point of view of Truth and Justice. Just like Imam Ali recommended, 'Recognize the truth, and you shall recognize the people on the side of the truth".

By engaging in this critical project, we can recuperate the names and struggles of the oppressed people in the past and the present. This effort is the right thing to do in itself. That is, establishing Truth and Justice is 'valuable' and 'beautiful' in itself and requires no instrumental (means-to-end) justification.

But, there is also an instrumental value for this project. Some of the persistent problems of the world exist today because of either a) a wrong interpretation or mis-use of history (like the political use of the Holocaust to justify Zionist territorial expansionism. See, Norman Finkelstein's critical work on this), or, b) a historical amnesia of the wrong-doings in the past, which allows the repetition of the same injustices in the present. Thanksgiving is an example of this historical amnesia, as I will argue below.

The Power of Myths

One notices a number of founding myths that are part of the dominant cultural discourse in the US and that are produced and re-produced in the textbooks, on tv, in movies, by celebration of public holidays, and so on. These include the "manifest destiny", "city on the hill", "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and "american dream" that seek to define the identity of the American people, that answer the questions: "who we are" and "what this nation is all about," and that bestow a sense of self-righteousness and shared glory to the people.

Now it is not necessary that all Americans believe in these foundational myths the same way. What is important here is that a certain version, a certain understanding of these ideals and myths are dominant in the American public discourse. That is the reason why the Columbus Day is celebrated as a holi-day in the US instead of an occasion of mourning, the day that resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations of Aztec, Inca, and Maya (See Eqbal Ahmad's "Culture of Imperialism.")

This historical amnesia plays a critical role in the project of imperialism. The historical amnesia is particularly about two very fundamental injustices on which America was founded and developed: a) Genocide of the Native Americans (about 150 million were exterminated directly by mass slaughter or indirectly by the diseases that the English settlers brought with them, which were hitherto unknown to the Natives), b) Slavery of the Black people.

Furthermore, the later history of the US is full of similar injustices by a certain group of people over others within the US and outside of the US. The Mexican-American War over the forceful annexation of Texas by the US is another example. Especially since the World War I, the US has been directly or indirectly involved in all over the world to advance its interests. One does not find these stories in the regular textbooks of American history. [There are of course exceptions, like Howard Zinn's A People's History. However, it is not the mainstream or dominant version of history; an average American does not learn this kind of critical history from the mass media and textbooks.]

The cost of this ignorance is aptly described by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The American public has again and again been deceived in the name of self-defense, liberty, freedom, democracy, and progress. The latest examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion into Afghanistan is officially called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The reason for the war on Iraq was initially to destroy the WMDs. Now, since no such weapons were found in Iraq, the justification is framed in terms of 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'establishing democracy'. I can imagine why some Americans get very perplexed when they see increasing anti-Americanism around the world, when all what they (their government) are doing is liberating the people from dictatorial regimes and spreading democracy. May be the Iraqi, the Afghani, the Somali, the Palestinian, the Pakistani people should throw annual Thanksgiving dinners in honor of the Bush Administration!

Thanksgiving or Thanks-taking!

What is the Native American side of the story? See, for example, this link that talks about how to teach a critical history of Thanksgiving.

A couple of passages from the above link: "The Puritans and the Pilgrims saw themselves as the "Chosen Elect" mentioned in the book of Revelation. They strove to "purify" first themselves and then everyone else of everything they did not accept in their own interpretation of scripture. Later New England Puritans used any means, including deceptions, treachery, torture, war, and genocide to achieve that end. (4) They saw themselves as fighting a holy war against Satan, and everyone who disagreed with them was the enemy. This rigid fundamentalism was transmitted to America by the Plymouth colonists, and it sheds a very different light on the "Pilgrim" image we have of them. This is best illustrated in the written text of the Thanksgiving sermon delivered at Plymouth in 1623 by "Mather the Elder." In it, Mather the Elder gave special thanks to God for the devastating plague of smallpox which wiped out the majority of the Wampanoag Indians who had been their benefactors. He praised God for destroying "chiefly young men and children, the very seeds of increase, thus clearing the forests to make way for a better growth", i.e., the Pilgrims. (5)"

Further, "The Wampanoag were actually invited to that Thanksgiving feast for the purpose of negotiating a treaty that would secure the lands of the Plymouth Plantation for the Pilgrims....A generation later, after the balance of power had indeed shifted, the Indian and White children of that Thanksgiving were striving to kill each other in the genocidal conflict known as King Philip's War. At the end of that conflict most of the New England Indians were either exterminated or refugees among the French in Canada, or they were sold into slavery in the Carolinas by the Puritans. So successful was this early trade in Indian slaves that several Puritan ship owners in Boston began the practice of raiding the Ivory Coast of Africa for black slaves to sell to the proprietary colonies of the South, thus founding the American-based slave trade. (10)"

As for the utility of the popular history of Thanksgiving, the abovementioned concerns are very eloquently articulated (better than I could have) by Judy Dow (Abenaki) and Beverly Slapin in these words:

"What is it about the story of “The First Thanksgiving” that makes it essential to be taught in virtually every grade from preschool through high school? What is it about the story that is so seductive? Why has it become an annual elementary school tradition to hold Thanksgiving pageants, with young children dressing up in paper-bag costumes and feather-duster headdresses and marching around the schoolyard? Why is it seen as necessary for fake “pilgrims” and fake “Indians” (portrayed by real children, many of whom are Indian) to sit down every year to a fake feast, acting out fake scenarios and reciting fake dialogue about friendship? And why do teachers all over the country continue (for the most part, unknowingly) to perpetuate this myth year after year after year?

Is it because as Americans we have a deep need to believe that the soil we live on and the country on which it is based was founded on integrity and cooperation? This belief would help contradict any feelings of guilt that could haunt us when we look at our role in more recent history in dealing with other indigenous peoples in other countries. If we dare to give up the “myth” we may have to take responsibility for our actions both concerning indigenous peoples of this land as well as those brought to this land in violation of everything that makes us human. The realization of these truths untold might crumble the foundation of what many believe is a true democracy. As good people, can we be strong enough to learn the truths of our collective past? Can we learn from our mistakes? This would be our hope."

Read the full text here: Deconstructing the Myths of “The First Thanksgiving”

For more information, visit here

The Lessons

The dominant cultural and political discourse in the US is very apt at historical amnesia. And, not without instrumental justifications, like 'why dig up the bitter past', 'what's the use of it', 'the past creates divisions and hatred', 'we need to look forward, rather than look backward.' With the George Santayana quote above, I have already outlined the need for remembering the past.

What I would like to add here is that there is a critical difference between the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and this active historical amnesia done for the 'good reasons'. The former recognizes the grave injustices of the past so that the plight of the oppressed is recognized (which is valuable in itself) and these injustices are not repeated again (the instrumental value of remembering history). This critical element is missing from the historical amnesia of the US, and not without consequences, as I describe above. Because history creates a certain consciousness and meaning in people. It creates identity, sense of self, sense of community and nation. And it informs their judgments and actions. It is for this reason, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future" (George Orwell).

For all of the above reasons, value-oriented and instrumental, the American people need to resist this historical amnesia. They should not let their political leaders deceive them in the name of false slogans. They should take charge of their history and its future!

Thanksgiving can be a very meaningful occasion, with full of lessons. Let's make it a day of self-reflection, and of a resolution: "Never Again!"

Let us ground our yearning for peace and reconciliation in truth and justice. I end this long post with a Native American Blessing:

“Let us walk softly on the Earth

With all living beings great and small,

Remembering as we go, that one God,

Kind and Wise, created all.”

THE WORLD IS THE BOOK OF GOD ALMIGHTY

I hope the readers were able to follow the ruminations in the previous six posts. The discussion started with the problem of ascertaining knowledge and culminated at outlining the Realistic Islamic Worldview.

Below I want to look at how this Realistic Islamic Worldview is presented by the Quran and how it may be applied to a few thematic issues, namely, On nature and its working, on human presence in this world, their relationship with God, and their interaction with their fellows. The Realistic perspective quite insightfully connects the natural laws, human volition, and Divine wisdom as part of the same reality. You don't need to have read the previous posts to follow the discussion here. Though, you would get the most out of it if you have read them.

To elaborate on these thematic points, I use the text from within the Quran, which is the most original and authentic source of Islamic teachings agreed upon by all Muslims. The exegesis technique adopted here may be called the 'hermeneutical circle,' which uses individual parts from the text to illuminate other parts in the same text. The individual parts are thus understood within the context of the whole text. The understanding of the whole text itself is built upon individual parts. Hence, the 'circle'. This approach does not make it impossible to interpret a text within its cultural, historical, and literary context. To my understanding, Allama Tabatabai has deployed similar techniques in his exegesis, Al-Mizan. On using thematic (topical) approach in the exegesis of the Quran, see Shaheed Sadr's discussion here.

In the beginning

Let’s begin with the story of creation in the Quran, which is rich with insightful metaphors and profound meanings.

Before the creation of Adam and Eve, God addresses all the angles, “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” The angels said, “Do you want to create a vindictive and mischievous creature to commit crime and bloodshed on earth, while we pray and glorify you?” But God said, “I know something you know not” (Quran 02:30). Note the trust endowed on humankind in Islam. From their very creation, Human beings were meant to go to earth, not as condemned sinners, but as God’s chosen representatives!

The Quran further tells us that humans are made of earth’s basest materials “clay” and “water”. But, at the same time they are possessors of “His Spirit” (32:7-9; 06:02; 21:30; 15:29; 38:72). The subtle reference to the material and spiritual composition is insightful in understanding human inclinations and desires.

Perhaps it was the material aspect that concerned the angels when they showed their apprehension about possible human conduct on earth. But humans were not meant to be merely material beings. They were to be the possessors and representatives of Divine attributes and perfection on earth including His knowledge, His creativity, His wisdom, His compassion, and His justice. Furthermore, material energies and desires in human beings have the potential to be channeled towards constructive ends.

With these talents and potentials, humankind has composed complex languages, built social relationships, and advanced rich cultures over the course of history. What more could add to human nobility, when the Quran describes the accomplishments of God’s vicegerent as signs of His Creativity and Magnificence!

“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colors: verily in that are Signs for those who know” (30:22).

“O mankind! We created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Surely, Allah is Knowing, Aware” (49:13, also see 25:54).

The World is the Book of God Almighty

Like human intellectual capacity and creative work, the work of nature is also an expression of His sagacity and wisdom. While referring to the laws governing the nature and universe, the Quran tells us that God created the universe with measure and balance (54:49; 35:13; 06:73), and the sun, the moon, the mountains, the trees are all “His Signs” that by following their natural course “bow down in worship” to God (55:03-08; 41:39; 22:18; 41:11; 84:01-05).

In Verse 22:05, the Quran uses technical terminology to illuminate the development of an embryo with terms like “sperm”, “clot”, and “morsel of flesh.” Also mentioned in the same verse is the natural effect of rain in stirring life from barren earth. However, the verse ultimately ties the scientific explanation of both formations of life to Divine Purpose and Creation.

In the realistic outlook that the Quran presents, the natural laws, their sustenance, and the gradual changes in the universe are all Signs of God, as seen in verse 02:164:

“Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that God sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for those who understand.”

Science, thus, complements faith in Islam. The universe is governed by a system of causes and laws, and the human free will lies in the utilization of these laws. Indeed, it is with the exercise of this free will that humankind has developed new technologies and advanced civilizations.

Islam proactively encourages its followers to advance in knowledge and science. The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) has said, “The search of knowledge is a duty on every Muslim, male or female.”

Justice and Human Free Will

The idea of human free will is further supported by the Islamic belief in the Day of Judgment (Qayamat). Humans come to this world without any burden of original sin or predestination. Their choices in this world shape their fate in the hereafter (76:1-3; 91:1-10).

On that day, they will be rewarded or punished on the basis of choices they made in the world (02:286; 76:03). Without such choice of action, an individual’s accountability on the Day of Judgment would be against God’s justice. But the Quran explicitly declares that “Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom” (04:40; also see 03:108; 16:90; 16:111).

“If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them” (04:124).

Society and History

With the same realistic logic and affirmation of human free will, the Quran explains injustice and corruption in the world as a consequence of individual and collective choices and actions of people in the present and the past (10:44; 03:117; 03:137; 09:70).

The Quran makes the followers responsible for the betterment of their society, which is part of their test in this world; after all, “God does not change the conditions of a people until they change themselves” (13:11 and 08:53; also see 06:34; 17:77; 33:62 where similar decrees for social change and trends of history are described as “His Words” and “His Sunnat” and are fundamentally tied to human actions and their consequences).

Thus, rather than presenting a fatalistic and unconcerned attitude toward this world and its miseries, Islam exhorts its followers to actively strive toward eradicating the social ills and injustices in society (09:71; 02:148; 04:135).

The Islamic society in the Quran is based on respect, harmony, justice, and responsibility. The Quran abhors disrespect and injustice in all social relationships, be they among family members, between opposite genders, or among different ethnic and national groups (04:135; 09:71; 30:21; 02:148; 49:09). According to the Quran, killing one innocent life is like killing the whole of humanity, and saving one human life is like saving the whole of humanity (05:32).

The Quran recognizes the diversity among human languages and cultures; however, it is against the use of such an identity for the assertion of false superiority by one group over another. In the Quranic outlook, human nobility lies is one’s piety, knowledge, and struggle in God’s way (30:22; 49:13; 2:31-34; 39:09; 16:110; 61:11).

In the End

From the above discussion, we see that Islam encompasses the ideals of human freedom and nobility. It points to the realities of His Signs, His Words, and His Sunnat in nature and history. It sets noble values and goals for humanity. And, it carries the ultimate Truth about the Creator of everything (03:83; 30:30). The word “Islam” means submission, and the first condition of being a Muslim is to submit to these ideals and truths.

Such is the realization expressed in the words of Imam Ali when he said, “My Lord! I did not worship you for fear of Hell nor for a desire of Paradise. Rather I found you worthy of worship.”

The ultimate drive, the ultimate meaning behind all human struggles in this world is to gain God’s Favor and to connect with Him, the Eternal (02:285; 84:06; 02:46: 29:2-5; 76:2-3; 35:18). After that connection, there is no end!

“Surely, to Allah we belong, and to Him is our return” (02:156).

Sources consulted:

- Allama Tabatabai Al-Mizan

- Murtaza Mutahhari Fundamentals of Islamic Thought: God, Man, and the Universe (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1985)

- Murtaza Mutahhari Man and his Destiny
- Mohammad Baqir Sadr Trends of History in Quran
- Ali Shariati Man and Islam

SELF AND BEYOND

So this joke came up in a conversation yesterday. On Descartes' famous argument, Cogito Ergo Sum, that is, ‘I think, therefore, I am’.

Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender walks up to him and says, "Would you care for a drink?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and disappears!!!

Joke aside, there are obvious problems with this argument. Does it really solve the problem of proving one's existence, philosophically speaking that is? Let me step back for a moment and quickly introduce Descartes' philosophical method, known as the Cartesian Method, which he meant to use in meta-physics (meaning: beyond physics), to establish a sound basis of knowledge/truth and to prove the existence of things, including those that are beyond matter, such as the existence of God and Soul.

Cartesian Method starts from a 'methodical doubt' about everything you previously believed in, including the laws of science, mathematical principles, and moral principles, even the belief (yaqeen) in your own existence. This method demands that you start from zero. Starting off at this point of nothing-ness, Descartes sought to prove his own existence by arguing that he knows for sure that he thinks. Even when he is in doubt, he is thinking. And an existence is required to do this thinking. Therefore, he must exist.

The obvious problem with Descartes' argument is that he assumes his own existence in the premise, that is, in the very first proposition of his argument. Let me quote a passage here from Shaheed Baqir Sadr's wonderful book, Our Philosophy (here), where Sadr makes a compelling critique of this argument, using Ibn Sina's (Avicenna) work.

"To begin with, we must know that the fundamental principle on which Descartes based his doctrine and philosophical certitude, 'I think, therefore, I exist', was criticized in Islamic philosophy a few centuries prior to Descartes' time. Ash-Shaykh ar-Ra'is, Ibn Sina, presented it and criticized it as being unfit as a method of scientific evidence for the existence of the human thinker himself.

A human being cannot prove his existence by means of his thought. This is so, because if by saying, 'I think, therefore, l exist', he wishes to prove his existence by means of his specific thought only, then he proves his specific existence at the outset and admits his existence in the very first phrase.

If, on the other hand, he wishes to make the absolute thought as an evidence of his existence, he is at fault, because an absolute thought asserts the existence of an absolute thinker, not a specific thinker.

Thus, the specific existence of every thinker must be known to him in a primary manner, regardless of any considerations, including his doubt and his thought."

Source: Our Philosophy by Baqir Sadr. Trans. Shams C. Inati. Part I, Chap 2 "The Value of Knowledge."

Later, Shaheed Sadr argues that even within the limitations of his logic of Methodical Doubt, Descartes couldn't have made a valid connection between his thought and his existence, without already believing in causality. That is, the simple and most fundamental principle that says that you need a cause to produce an effect. For the thinking (effect) to happen, you need a cause (a thinking being), Descartes assumed. But how could he take this principle for granted, if he is starting off at point zero, at nothing-ness? Hence, Shaheed Sadr argues that his Cartesian Method cannot take him a single step beyond this nothing-ness, unless he starts off with believing in a priori knowledge or self-evident truth of some fundamental principles.

Although a failed epistemology in itself, the Cartesian Method, more specifically the ‘methodical doubt,’ has inspired the thinking of many among the later theorists, not only in the fields of metaphysics and moral philosophy but also in philosophy of science, scientific research method, and even social sciences and humanities. The ‘methodical doubt’ leads to a kind of skepticism, or agnosticism if you will, if it remains unresolved. Of course, the politics of the time, that is, the 'Dark Ages' preceding the 'enlightenment movement', in which the Church suppressed free thinking and scientific knowledge, also had its influence on the preference for this mode of thinking (see Shaheed Mutahhari's related article(s) here on the causes of materialism in the west). I will write more on this and also quote a few passages from Our Philosophy in the following posts.

Here I want to emphasize on the following point: The theory of knowledge is at the roots of some of the very fundamental questions that we ask about our existence: a) Who am I? b) How do I see the world around me? c) What is the meaning of life? In other words, these questions refer to the knowledge of self, of the world, its Creator, the meaning and purpose of life, how should we interact with each other, what is the best social system to organize our societies, on what principles.

Shaheed Sadr recognizes the importance of theory of knowledge in Our Philosophy. His introduction entitled, “The Social Issue”, tells the reader that he is interested in addressing the social problems of society, but which, he thinks, cannot be solved in a meaningful manner without solving the problem of knowledge. Shaheed Sadr intended to solve this in Our Philosophy, which was meant to be the first of (at least) three books series, the second of which was Our Economics. Unfortunately, due to Saddam Hussein’s persecution and circumstances of the time Shaheed Sadr was never able to publish the third one, Our Society.

An important implication to consider is this: If Cartesian Method of Doubt or Hume’s Empiricist Epistemology or Dialectical Materialism (all of these are discussed/criticized by Shaheed Sadr in the same book) become the basis of our scientific and philosophical knowledge, they have their effects in shaping our social reality in a certain manner (which is what we are seeing today, as in, for e.g., the secular vs. religious divide in the scientific outlook and moral reasoning as seen in our textbooks. More on this in some post later on, inshallah).

The place to start therefore would be to develop alternative basis of knowledge, to discover such basis within our Islamic tradition and in benefiting from the philosophies of other civilizations. It would be a knowledge base that could effectively bridge the modern divides between secular and religious, rational and emotional, material and spiritual, and so on. Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai's works could be seen as representatives of the tradition of Irfan, which seeks to bring together philosophy and spiritual experiences in the quest for knowledge and truth. Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai's works could be seen as representatives of this tradition. Allama Tabatabai is the author of the famous Al-Mizan, a wonderful exegesis of the Quran, and the book 'Usool Falsifae va Ravish-e-Realism' (The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism). Shaheed Mutahhari, who was Allama Tabatabai's student, later added his hashiyeh or notes to this book.

Both Shaheed Sadr and Shaheed Mutahhari presented a Rational/Realistic theory of knowledge, formulated in opposition to an idealistic/fatalistic worldview on the one hand and a purely materialistic worldview on the other. Their theory of knowledge informed their analysis of many philosophical as well as social problems, as seen in, for example, their works on Human Free Will, on Hamasa (struggle for social justice) and Irfan, and on History and Social Change. Mutahhari: 'Man and His Destiny', 'Man and Universe', and Sadr: 'Trends of History in Quran', on the Realistic worldview, see Part Two, Chap One of Our Philosophy.