Matters of (Islamic) Opinion

Last Saturday, another teacher and I were having a discussion of Islamic sects and schools of thought with our 15/16 year old students. I'd typically only teach A Level Maths but on this occasion I helped out with the Islamic Studies class. Our discussion was prompted by a question around how flexible Islam is and why Muslims are not required to be identical and why Muslims can, in fact, hold different opinions on the same issue and all be correct. One of the students mentioned that he had once been praying and a friend of his tried to physically correct a minor detail in how he was praying during his actual prayer and later refused to accept that there were multiple acceptable styles. It was different to how he did it so therefore it must be wrong - and he refused to back down until eventually his father explained to him.

As the discussion progressed, we talked of the differences between Sunni and Shia, the differences in madhdhabs (schools of thought) and differences in practice. We outlined the madhdhabs and made clear that they were not the work of the one single eponymous person but large bodies of work by numerous scholars spanning all the centuries. We touched upon how the variations in practice came about and held firm that variation is not just tolerated but is a blessing. Most importantly we tried to explain that different does not necessarily mean better or worse.

The best example we could give was the narration covering the time a group of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) companions had gone to visit a specific place. Before their departure they'd been given instructions not to pray their (Asr) afternoon prayer until they arrived at the place. However, the travel took longer than expected and sunset approached well before they arrived. With time for the afternoon prayer fast running out, a discussion broke out over whether they should pray now or continue on. Some said the point of the instruction was to get them to make haste, others said the instruction was definitive in when they should pray. Without settling the disagreement, some prayed there and then and the rest waited to pray until arrival - going beyond sunset and outside the specified timings.

Upon their return, they put the question to the Prophet (pbuh): who was in the right? He said both views were acceptable. Put simply, while there are certain inviolable and immutable beliefs, reasonable differing opinions on matters of law were and are acceptable.

Later that same Saturday I was as at a friend's house for dinner and during the course of the evening I was talking with a married couple that I hadn't met before. The husband had been brought up as a Muslim and the wife was a reverted Muslim. Alongside the excellent and fascinating food, they both had fascinating stories of the journey to Islam, the expectations of their different cultures and how their own expectations of difficulties with cross-cultural marriage didn't really materialise as predicted.
For example, when the British Christian parents were due to meet the Pakistani Muslim parents, there was considerable nervousness but they got on astonishingly over a mutual shared interest in Medicine and Science! One pair were doctors and the other pair a nurse and a scientist. Those of you with friends in medical fields will know about medic-chat - on this occasion it was certainly welcome!

One curiosity which did intrigue me was the issue of how a revert to Islam chooses a 'type' of Islam to follow. Those who are brought up as Muslims tend to passively go with the type that they were raised as but it must be difficult when having to actively make a choice. I asked the question and the answer I got was quite pleasing. The choice she'd made was to be Muslim - a strict sub-type choice wasn't necessary. She continued that one of the first questions people would ask when she told them that she had reverted was "Which sect are you?" and in the initial instance everyone would try and persuade her that theirs was the best way!

This brought to mind the discussion at school and the people for whom my way is the only way and any variation from this is inferior and wrong. It's quite a contemporary and historical phenomenon, not just in the Muslim faith but in general human history.

In Islam there are different schools of thought and paths and there is an ever present danger that when someone doesn't take the time to learn about themselves and others and their beliefs they can forget that that the road to salvation is not a tightrope. It is exactly a road - with people in many lanes and travelling at different speeds. You might find yourself veering off if you're not careful but justifiably doing things a little differently to someone else doesn't keep you from continuing in the right direction. Different does not necessarily mean better or worse.

Next Article: What to expect on a Driver Awareness Course
Previous Article: Are you single? I know someone.

P.S.

We're always keen for volunteer teachers - no experience necessary!

If you are interested in teaching, volunteering or working with the school please contact the headteacher Shaimaa at ccwestsatschool@gmail.com.

The school runs every Saturday (subject to the school timetable) from 10am-1.30pm at the MCHC, 244 Acklam Road, W10 5YG. (Year 4 to A Level)

Are you single? I know someone.

Part and parcel of the single life is that friends and acquaintances may try and introduce you to someone they know. It's usually a noble goal and usually it's well-intentioned. And usually it's gratefully received - it gives a nice fuzzy feeling that someone is thinking of you and also thinks well enough of you that they're comfortable with allowing you to meet other people they know.

That said, there are good ways to suggest an introduction and there are ways that are not so good. Coming from a Muslim background where casual dating is not part of the single lifestyle - there's a lot riding on a successful introduction. This might be better in a flowchart but relationships are not often spoken about in Muslim circles so allow me to break down what good looks like:

The first question normally asked is clarification if you are still single. Understandably important because there's no point going any further if you're off the market. A simple yes or no deals with this one and if it's a "Yes" then we're good to progress to the next level.

The next comment/question is where you can usually tell if someone's made introductions before or if they're unpractised.

If they say "I know someone who's also single. Do you want to know more?" it's a strong indication that they're new to this. It's not an issue if they are new, but you on the receiving end of the introduction will have to be prepared to be just a little bit patient and to help them while they're trying to help you.

Of course you want to know more. You're very much aware that there are numerous singles of the opposite gender out there in the world and you very much want to know more about them! And as I've already pointed out - the Muslim way is to accelerate from zero to married which means it's a high-stakes game.

Some people may well be happy to meet someone armed with only the knowledge that they are also single. "She's female. You're male. You should obviously get married." Maybe I've been affected by modern thinking but I like to know that there might be some compatibility and that it's not a random roll of the dice by the introducer. I myself like to pretend I'm a busy person which means I theoretically don't have time to follow up on every whim and fancy.

Information is important. If you are the singleton on the receiving end of this, play nicely and ask the introducer the following four questions. And if you are the introducer - as a minimum be prepared to answer the following four questions:

• How you know the person? 
• What you know about them? 
• Why you think we'd do well together?
• Do you have a photo?

Detail is very welcome but answers don't need to be extensive and thorough - just enough to provide an indication that the introducer has put some thought into the introduction. "I know them from a place I volunteer. They're x years old, funny, creative and a practicing Muslim. They have an above-average interest in memes." is a perfectly good answer.

On to the photo. Human beings are visual creatures and we've learned to identify people by their faces - don't feel embarrassed to ask for one. Blind dates can be interesting but better to know who you're dealing with. As a minimum the photo should be clear enough that it could be used to successfully identify the person (without third party assistance) if and when the first meeting happens. Nothing blurry or low-resolution please. And definitely nothing with Snapchat rabbit-ears.

As an introducer be prepared to answer a few more questions (e.g. job/hobbies etc) but if you've got the above covered then you can pat yourself on the back - you're on your way to a job well done!

Next Article: Matters of (Islamic) Opinion
Previous Article: London standing proud

London standing proud

Yesterday's event outside the Houses of Parliament was bad. Simple and straightforward. Murder is never good and neither is attacking innocent people. It wasn't a large scale 'planned' attack like that in Paris so it's debatable if it was terroristic in intent or whether it was an opportunist but even still, it doesn't make it right or at all OK.

When such events happen, unless you're in the immediate area while it's happening, the only thing you can really do is keep on as normal and not panic. Countless cars drive in and through Westminster and other crowded places on any given day. Multiple knives are readily available in every household. 99.99% of these are being used as they are meant to be and we can't be afraid of doing our everyday activities in case someone decides to use an everyday tool with malicious intent. The city has 8million people and for the most part they're quite normal and nice but in every barrel of apples you'll be able to find a few that are rotten. This doesn't mean you discard the whole barrel or start panicking that every apple is going to kill you.

I happened to be at work a few miles from Westminster when the news broke and for the most part, my colleagues and I carried on with our day, slightly unsettled and keeping on top of the news and various social media, but otherwise continuing on as normal. As the hours went by, a few more facts emerged about the actual incident and numerous of my civil servant friends who work in Westminster reported their offices being on lockdown for a few hours.

The news was piecemeal and facts were few and far between - most likely by police intent to help them conduct rapid investigations. Given the information vacuum, news agencies tried to fill in gaps with conjecture and theories on motives and perpetrators. Channel 4 ended up naming someone who later turned out to be in jail and not at all involved but who fit the theory they were trying to spin. Other opportunist hate-mongers used it as a vindication of their hate.

Generally speaking, I'd say we can be better. It's perfectly human to be scared, anxious, hateful and suspicious but it's equally human to be brave, calm, loving and trusting. Let the dust settle, see what happened for what it was and recognise that while there are those who wish ill on others, most people aren't like that. I'd say London is doing an outstanding job of this and is representing itself very well as a leading global city. And long may it do so in sha allah (God willing).

Previous Article: A Question of Wardrobe
Next Article: Are you single? I know someone.

#NoMuslimBan

I went along to an emergency protest today outside 10 Downing St. Unless you're living in a cave, you will have heard about the Trump administration's ban on people originating from various countries in the Middle East. It's resulted in widespread condemnation and rightly so as despite claims that other countries also have visa requirements, the context here is that it's an early stage fulfilment of his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from the United States.

Having not been to a proper protest for quite a while I wasn't sure what to expect given the cold weather and the short notice but when I turned up to Westminster Station I was met by a slow moving queue of people all streaming towards the protest, many of whom were carrying banners and placards. I found this to be reassuring - seemed like there'd be a sizeable crowd - and upon following the crowd found that Whitehall was heaving with people. 

In the open space it was easier to read the placards that people has put together and it was alhamdulillah (praise be to God) heart-warming to see so many people standing behind and supporting Muslims against the oppressive nature of this latest political/social development. A number of banners were aimed at UK Prime Minister Theresa May who recently visited Trump and ostensibly made no measure of disagreement with his policy plans, other posters were focused on refugees but the overwhelming majority were aimed at Trump. Some of the chants were quite witty - "Trump can't build a wall, Trump's hands are too small" was one memorable example. 

Finding people you knew was a close to impossible task given that it was night-time and that phone signal was terrible with such a volume of people but the general atmosphere was friendly and welcoming and I did eventually bump into a couple of familiar faces. It was good to see that people were being active and demonstrating concern for this new world state of affairs and having now checked my social media I am even more pleased to see other people posting their photos of the protest. 

All in all, a worthy protest to go to but for me there were two interesting aspects. 

Firstly the sheer number of different reasons people had for protesting against Trump - human rights, women's rights, islamophobia, anti-capitalists, racism. The man has distinctly antagonised a wide range of groups. In a weird way this somewhat diluted the effectiveness of the protest with so many different messages that it was hard to focus on a particular thing (similar to the challenge faced by Hillary Clinton in the campaign). 

And secondly that given that this protest was organised in reaction to the Muslim Ban, that there were so many people who were out in support of Muslims who weren't 'visibly' Muslim. It's reassuring to know that despite the general negative portrayal of Muslims by some parts of the media and now also by national governments, there are people who care and who are willing to provide support to try and make sure humanity does not go down dark and dangerous roads.

Last thing to say is that if you get a chance to go along to a protest - make sure you do so and make your voice heard. Change may not happen immediately, but by applying pressure and showing that we won't stand for injustice or allow our representatives to stand idly by, we might just make change happen.

Previous Article: President Trump
Next Article: A Question of Wardrobe

Noor Tagouri and a needless dose of outrage

I came across a little storm on the internet over this recent weekend, Noor Tagouri - an American Muslim broadcaster in her early twenties was apparently interviewed by Playboy magazine as a Renegade/rising star in broadcast media (I'm not linking to it but I'm sure if you really wanted to find it, you could). She has an online following on Instagram and Twitter like any nascent celebrity should and proudly and vocally wears the hijab/scarf. This last bit is important to note to understand the storm.

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about Noor Tagouri and hadn't heard of her until this week and this is all from Google as she's not a serious enough celebrity yet to have her own Wikipedia page. I haven't read the Playboy interview either as I want to approach this from the theoretical point of view of the standard angry Twitter user/keyboard warrior.

This is Noor Tagouri. Image taken from Aquila Style

The little storm I mentioned is the storm that's blown up over whether, as a hijab-wearing Muslim woman who has pursued a life direction which puts her in the public eye, Noor should have agreed to be interviewed by Playboy magazine - a magazine which is world renowned for its appeal to the baser needs of men. It's also caused people who were comfortable and complacent in their own practice and life to ask questions of what hijab means.

My own personal view on the matter is that I don't really care. This is a stance I take on most celebrity news stories so there's nothing new here.

It is interesting though to observe the storm that's developed amongst the online Muslim community. Based on the number of different articles and sources I've seen posted, it's definitely generated a lot of commentary and a large number of strong opinions being formed by what seems to be all sides. For example, there's people saying she's being a brave Muslim and others calling her a disgraceful Muslim, some saying that it's raising and normalising hijab awareness and other saying it makes a mockery of the hijab.

Controversy by its very definition is divisive and polarises opinion. But controversy is also very fascinating and as a PR move this episode has certainly raised awareness of Noor in the Muslim community. With the wider public who pay attention to such matters, this will help Noor break further into being seen as mainstream personality. But my feeling is that most of the casual 'readers' of Playboy magazine likely won't be paying attention to the magazine text so possibly awareness with these fellows will be limited.

From what I can observe people on both sides of the 'debate' are stirred by the same thing: Noor has taken her Islamic hijab to places it wouldn't be expected. Some call it brave and support her, others call it unnecessary and don't support her. Others still call it dangerous and a betrayal and vilify her.

Playboy is known for its exploitation of immodesty so it's a fair question to ask if a person pushing a modest agenda should feature in it (for an interview not a risqué photoshoot). Seemingly it's a direct contradiction with the modest purpose of the hijab. You can have your opinion and form your own judgement on this question. The simplicity of the question also makes it a very easy one with which to take one of multiple moral high grounds and there's nothing people like more than seizing the moral high ground.

The pro-moral high ground is that she's done it to challenge stereotypes and make the hijab more mainstream in the USA and to show that Muslim women are empowered and boost awareness and improve mainstream attitudes towards Islam.

The anti-moral high ground is that her actions are not modest and she has a young, impressionable following and by associating with a famously immodest magazine she's undermining what it means to be an empowered Muslim woman and also going against Islamic teaching and practice of modesty.

In this instance, both sides have a reasonable case and which particular moral high ground you take you really depends on your own whim and circumstance and your attitude to being outraged. The anti- high ground offers more opportunity for outrage and personal feeling so it's unsurprising that lots of people have taken this stance. The pro- high ground requires a more circumspect view and offers less immediate outrage gratification but allows you to get outraged at the stance that the anti- moral high grounders have taken.

I personally find it hard to get outraged anymore in the modern world we live in where hyperbole and extreme reaction are becoming more and more normal.

I don't feel strongly about this issue at all but I'd say Noor should live her life based on what she feels is right and not be worried about what her more outspoken followers would like her to do based on the lives that they lead. Whatever she does, people will talk and judge and she'll have to live with whatever the worldly outcome may be and the departure or arrival of followers and supporters.

Her intention is her own though and, according to Islamic tradition, that will be judged by Allah (God). The rest of us can comment and criticise or support or not care either way and, so long as comment is respectful, let the non-outraged discussions and explorations continue!

Previous article: YMLP Reunion 2016
Next article: Qibla and reliance on technology

Learning and Commitment through Arabic

I returned to term 3 of my Arabic evening class on Monday this week. Several weeks had passed since the end of the previous term and despite my best intentions to revise and study all the material we'd worked through so far, I went to class without having opened the satchel-bag I use to carry my study material. I also happened to be running late.

A quick chat with a couple of my fellow students reassured me that I was not the only one hoping our teacher would go easy on us and as it happened we spent most of the lesson going over what we had studied previously. Given her experience as a teacher, I'd be quite surprised if our lack of diligent studying came as a surprise! Long story short, I survived and lived to post about it on Facebook.

I had reason to regret my lack of study the very next day. On Tuesday, I went along to a networking event organised by the PWC Muslim Network hoping to gain information and advice which might help in my efforts to start a Muslim network at my current employer. After the customary introductions and speeches reviewing the world economy and the state of the Middle East, there was a brief Q&A session with the guest speakers, followed by a buffet dinner and the networking.

Having eaten and drunk a decent amount of caffeine, my initial post-work lethargy had receded and I was in a networking state of mind. I chatted to some strangers and played the ethnicity guessing game (which is always a nice ice breaker), I made some new acquaintances and had some traditional Oxbridge banter with an Oxonian I came across and also sought out the PWCMN committee members from whom I was hoping to acquire valuable information and insight into the challenges of setting up a professional network. 

While doing my rounds, however, I stumbled upon a group who were chatting merrily away when I heard one of them mention Arabic classes. My interest aroused, I elbowed my way into the conversation and said something like "Ahlan" in my best arabic, hoping to dazzle them with my linguistic brilliance. It turned out the group was mostly Arab and fluent in Arabic. They were very gracious and we glossed over my very limited Arabic and rapidly moved on to more conventional networking conversation.

All in all, a fairly productive evening as I did made some good connections which should help in my Muslim network effort. But mostly I came away feeling that my awkward encounter with Arabs had highlighted my novice status and that any sort of learning should be done with serious intention and serious effort and serious commitment. Anything less and I'm doing myself a serious disservice. 

Previous post: Brussels 

No fancy title today.

For most of today I was avoiding the details...

Next post: The Possibilities of Privilege
Yesterday, I went along to the Oxford & Cambridge Club in Pall Mall, London to a networking/social event held by the Oxbridge Muslim Alumni. 

Free English Language lessons are a good thing

Image taken shamelessly from here

A large number of feathers were needlessly ruffled on Monday following David Cameron's announcement of English Language lessons for Muslim women and those arriving in the UK on spousal visas.

My Facebook newsfeed and various WhatsApp groups were full of outrage, vitriol and anger that the Prime Minister was providing money for free English Language lessons. The absolute cheek of it! People were posting their personal accounts of how "my mother/father knew little English and look how successful I turned out" as though their personal experience meant something and generally condemning the idea of free education for those who could benefit from it as a terrible thing.

You might have guessed by now that I think the reaction was ridiculous and misdirected and missed a fundamental point about politics - very rarely does anyone say what they actually mean.

The BBC article on the story (also with audio to an interview where he explains his position) begins as follows:

A £20m fund to teach Muslim women in the UK to speak English will tackle segregation and help them resist the lure of extremism, David Cameron says.

While there was no "causal connection" between poor English and extremism, language lessons would make communities "more resilient", Mr Cameron said.

And later on in the article:

The PM acknowledged cuts had been made to free language classes for immigrants during the last Parliament, but said the new £20m fund was "more targeted". 

As mentioned above, some of the outrage was from people who had personal anecdotes of success despite coming from families with little English. I've used "despite" rather than "while" because I think it'd be detrimental to not speak the language of the land you live in.

Taking pride in not knowing something seriously annoys me. Coming from a mathematical background it's hugely irritating when people are proud of not knowing Maths or being able to do simple arithmetic. I frown upon ignorance in the life skill there and I will frown upon people who take pride in ignorance in essential communication. Pride in ignorance is ridiculous and should be shunned wherever it raises its ugly head.

Other parts of the outrage was directed at the conflation of poor English and extremism. I can understand the outrage here - it's blatantly nonsense to think that poor English leads to extremism. This is explicitly pointed out in the second quoted paragraph by Cameron himself - a point which seems to have been missed by most people.

So why would he say that it's to fight extremism and then contradict himself? Either because he's an idiot or because he's a politician and he knows what he's saying doesn't make sense but also that the media will report the first bit and give the contradiction less air-time. And if it's reported as being an anti-extremist policy he'll have a much easier time of gathering support for an initiative that will help a much maligned group of people.

If he'd come out and said simply "we've cut £45m from the ESOL budget a few months ago but we made a mistake and the government will now allocate £20m funding to give free English language lessons to immigrants and Muslims so they can have greater opportunity" the reaction would have been favourable in the Muslim community but sadly toxic across much of the media and electorate. No politician in their right mind is going to take that approach.

So what has happened?

In a nutshell - what has happened is that Cameron has been quite politically astute. In an era of budget cuts, he has secured £20m of funding aimed at teaching Muslim women and immigrants (who speak other languages) to read and write English. And by claiming it's for anti-extremism purposes the only people who are upset about this is the Muslim community that will end up benefitting the most from the fund - the Muslim community could do with the extra education.

Another interesting observation is that it seems the excuse of extremism cuts two ways. Call a policy anti-extremist and most of the electorate won't bat an eyelid and if no one's paying attention then you can, at least politically, do whatever you like. There's no denying that most of the time the anti-extremism label doesn't help but it seems that in the odd case it can actually lead to a benefit.


Next post: Tax and Google
Previous post: A light and dark perspective

Refugees and a crisis of compassion

This was written before the horrific Paris and Beirut terror attacks - for my thoughts on those events please read my post From Paris, With Terror.

An edited version of this post was also published on The Elenchus.

A topic of alarming regularity and long-running history, the refugee crisis has only just begun to dominate the headlines of a lot of  news outlets. This sudden tidal-wave of press activity has taken form of shocking stories of traffickers dangerously overloading rickety boats with human cargo; accompanied by disturbing images of the consequent drowned bodies. The desperate, vicious and dangerous ordeals of people attempting to make the journey from the most war-torn regions of the world to the ‘safe haven’ of Europe has been endlessly reported on. However, can we really brand this attempt to raise awareness of the refugee crisis as successful? Are we, the British public, now truly aware of the refugee situation, or are we all just a little too late to the party?

Between 2012 and 2014, the number of refugees of concern to UNCHR increased from 10million to 14million - a rising trend which has sadly continued into 2015 (note that this figure does not include the 5million Palestinian refugees who are looked after by UNRWA). A large portion of the increase is due to the vast numbers of people fleeing Syria: a figure of over 4million refugees since the conflicts in that region started. It is more often than not that, when prompted with the thought of the ‘refugee crisis’, we immediately conflate all that we know about it with the current Syrian refugees. However, what we forget in this narrow scope is that there are a huge number of refugees from other parts of the world, including a close-to-3million from Afghanistan and another million from Somalia.

The natural consequence of such a massive outflow of people from these countries is that there will be an equally massive inflow of people into other countries, in particular: neighbouring countries. From Syria, large numbers of refugees have fled to Turkey (1.6million), Lebanon (1.2million) and Jordan (0.6million) to name a few. Displaced Afghans have tended to go to Pakistan (1.5million) and Iran (1million). For some of these countries, the inflow is beyond anything they could possibly prepare for: take Lebanon for example, with its Lebanese population reaching 4.5million and its refugee population contributing a whopping extra 1.7million. Yet, despite this extreme human crowding, Lebanon has taken the refugees in: a commendable act of morality.

Little is heard in Europe of the quantitative figures of the ‘desperately displaced’. I myself had not been so knowledgeable on the topic until I attended a City Circle talk with speakers from Amnesty International, the Refugee Council and the National Zakat Foundation. All of the speakers went to considerable amounts of trouble to deliver eye-opening detail about the depth of the global refugee crisis and the European and UK governmental response.

Sadly, a lot of what was said made for quite depressing comprehension. The refugee numbers just keep on rising: 220,000 people attempted to cross the Mediterranean in 2014 – an increase from 60,000 two years earlier. The estimate for 2015 is 800,000.

To give Europe some credit, however, they acknowledged the need for the establishment of safe routes to Europe way back in 2013 after the Lampedusa shipwreck which saw 500 refugees crammed onto a 20m boat. The boat sank close to the Italian island resulting in over 300 drownings with the survivors saved by Italian search and rescue teams. Immediately after this event, the EU Commission called for increasing the level of sea patrols to make sure this level of tragedy is avoided in the future.

Italy took a leading role in the European contribution by duly increasing its level of patrols. This continued until the EU finally took over after it had decided that the influx of refugees was not just an Italian problem, but a European problem. However, this soon became controversial as the EU began to think that, although running extensive patrols made the crossing safer, it might also be encouraging more refugees to attempt the crossing. Accordingly, it cut back the extent of the patrols but, after a few months, was surprised to find that regardless of the dangers, people were still attempting to cross.

The major barrier towards a progressive solution for the refugee crisis is the problem of NIMBYism. Everyone agrees that something must be done but everyone wants someone else to take the hit. Taking in refugees comes with costs: both financial and political. The UK, for example, has been generous with sending aid to the affected countries but not so generous with taking in refugees. It pledged to take 500 Syrian refugees over 3 years until images of Aylan Kurdi – the toddler who had washed up on a beach in Turkey – went viral and struck a charitable chord with the UK public. This caused an outcry which prompted the government to raise this figure to a further 20,000, which is certainly an improvement but, given the sheer numbers of refugees, it is clear that there is still a long way to go.

Other European countries have done similar: some taking their lead from the UK. At first, Hungary was letting refugees into and through the country but has since moved to close its border and erect a 4m-high fence to keep people out. This has, somewhat perversely, resulted in improved opinion ratings for its prime minister. Nevertheless, even in this shambolic and embarrassing time for Europe, it is not all doom and gloom as a few countries have made an effort to help the refugees in their darkest hours. Germany and Sweden have been taking in around 190,000 refugees this year alone. This is expected to rise to an acceptance of close to 1million refugees in the coming year.

As with most governmental decisions, the varying responses from European countries are largely driven by politics. Issues of NIMBYism, trade, legality and finance all play their part. Some have said taking refugees in is in national interest: a statement based on our need for an influx of younger people in order to maintain society and industry amongst an ever-aging population. However, others reject this stance and simply state that our strained national finances cannot bear the additional cost of housing additional persons. Nonetheless, a restorative mode of thought belittles this by dousing partial responsibility onto the British for the maintenance of wars via the UK’s participation in the manufacturing and supplying of arms.

Moreover, some countries are prioritising help given towards Christian refugees over that of Muslim refugees in a bid to ‘keep the country Christian’ though even these are small in numbers – Poland has taken in only 50 families. And of course, there is always the old “the foreigners will take our jobs” argument which more or less acts as a final resort for want of a better reason. What this is all conclusive of, however, is that politics is a complex beast. Those in positions of responsibility have to make some difficult decisions and sadly, very few political leaders will ever prioritise showing some humanity to those in desperate need to their public opinion ratings..

 It has become all too easy to separate ourselves from the refugee crisis and brand it a regional problem rather than a global problem. To this, I simply state: when a situation in another country is desperate enough that a mother places her child into the hands of a stranger with the intention of smuggling it over the sea in a rickety boat, it becomes clear that levels of desperation have escalated to that which no human being should have to endure.

Given the sudden policy change following Aylan's photo, it is clear that politicians do listen. The UK leadership was lightening-quick to respond and ramp up what could be described as – at the time – its pitiful efforts. Power is still with the people. ‘There, but for the grace of God, go I’ is not a phrase that comes easily to political leaders but it can come easily to us as the individuals in their electorate and we should require our leaders to bend to our charitable will. ‘Change’ requires enough of the right pressure in the right places. It requires sufficient number of people writing to their MPs. It requires our involvement with organisations and actively seeking to help. In short, it requires us to do our bit. Together, we can push political mountains to their disappearance. There is so much that we can do to help: we just need to want it enough.

Next post: Air Strikes and International Politics
Previous post: From Paris, with Terror

Like my Facebook page

Islamophobia

Islamophobia. The fear of Islam. Or as Wikipedia describes it "prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims". Sounds simple enough on the surface and quite clearly wrong but in recent years there has been an increasing level of Islamophobic activity in the UK and elsewhere. I think Muslims in the UK are actually luckier on this front than their counterparts in a number of other developed countries where religious freedoms are harder to come by. The UK has a long history of openness to new cultures and beliefs - mostly due to it's imperial past but that's a whole other story for another day.

Islamophobia comes in many forms, both hidden and blatant, and all are wrong. Whether it's the ignorant petition campaigns against halal meat or insultingly being called a terrorist by strangers when doing your grocery shopping or having your professional CV discarded because of the foreign-looking name at the top or being 'randomly' stopped at the airport for additional screening or people looking at you funny because you've got a beard/scarf and you're wearing a rucksack on the London Underground. It's all wrong and it all needs to stop. 

It's a big ask though isn't it? How on earth do you persuade the wider majority in society to arrive at a point where Islamophobia is a thing to be fiercely denounced and instantly rejected? I wrote about this previously in my post comparing modern and ancient muslims but this Friday I heard an interesting comment made by a speaker at the City Circle talk titled "Islamophobia: Embrace British Values. Erase Muslim Identity?" The point made by Dr Salman Sayyid was simply that there was once a time that racism was widely acceptable and we're now in a time where racism is widely unacceptable. You could be a racist and a person of good standing in society but over a period of many, many years and with huge amounts of effort and sacrifice the tide slowly shifted. And while racism hasn't been totally eradicated, an open racist would find it impossible to have good standing in society and this is how it should be.

The talk hosted a panel of four - two academics (Dr Chris Allen and Dr Salman Sayyid), an IHRC activist (Raza Karim) and a police officer (Asif Sadiq). The academics went first and explained some of the challenges with defining what Islamophobia is and the difficulties of measuring it as an under-reported activity. Some people confuse disagreeing with Islam as Islamophobic and this does need to be clarified. Disagreement with the religion by itself is fine - it's when it turns into incitement to discrimination and hatred that it becomes a problem. It was very intriguing and disheartening to learn that, from the recorded statistics, the majority of victims of Islamophobia are "visibly muslim" women - presumably as they are seen to be easier targets. 

Part of the prejudice is certainly fuelled by media irresponsibility - when a Muslim does something wrong that gets media attention their defining characteristic becomes their Muslim-ness even if their religion is irrelevant to the story. Every Muslim becomes a media ambassador for Islam and every action by a Muslim becomes an Islamic act even if it goes against Islamic teaching (grooming gangs in Rotherham is a prime example). Muslims are no different to any other community - we have our good apples and our bad apples with the majority falling somewhere in between. But all too often it's only the rogues that get the media coverage along with the Muslim tag and this is dangerously provocative.

The remaining speakers took a more practical approach on raising awareness of Islamophobia and how to go about pushing back against the tide.

Raza had a lot to say about the informant culture that was being insidiously propagated by the government's latest strategies to get teachers to report possible and potentially extremist views from their pupils and how Muslims and non-Muslims needed to become more active in the fight against state monitoring and social engineering. He spoke of the work that MEND are doing to encourage political participation amongst the Muslim community. He proposed disengagement from the established system to avoid giving it a veneer of legitimacy and fight from outside what he saw as an Islamophobic institution.

Asif spoke about some of the changes and education the police force had gone through as a result of the need to have a greater understanding of Islam amongst officers. Social media has a massive role to play in making people aware of what is happening and bring pressure to bear on the police to take action - citing the recent Bus Rant woman and the speed of police action to identify and arrest the culprit. He encouraged getting involved in the established system to fight, educate and change it from within to better fulfil the needs of the people both Muslim and non. 

For me, it was very curious that Raza and Asif were able to sit next to each other and have one saying get involved inside the system and the other say get involved from outside the system. I think both saw each other as possibly undermining their own efforts to bring about change and probably damaging the cause. Who's right is anyone's guess - maybe they're both right or maybe they're both wrong - only the fullness of time will tell. To be honest I don't think it matters who is right - the important take away from all this is their common message of getting involved somehow. 

It's the easiest thing in the world to do nothing and say nothing and think "it'll make no difference so what's the point?" and that it will take far too long for change to happen or have the individualist mindset of "I'm OK so it's not my business". Sitting back and doing nothing will be of no benefit to anyone and will allow those that want to sow mistrust and chaos a free rein to do as they will leading to ever more dangerous times. 

In this case we should remember the lessons from the fight against racism which has been going on in the West for over two hundred years and anti-semitism which has been going on even longer. It's not going to be quick but that doesn't mean its not worth trying to change. It takes only a few pebbles to start at avalanche so keep throwing pebbles at the mountain. There's a famous Greek proverb that fits very well here - “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” Let's start planting our trees for our own future and beyond.

Life and Death

Warning - this post discusses difficult issues. Please stop reading if you feel too uncomfortable.

I'm going to make a bold claim: people rarely discuss death. It's something that every last person on this planet is destined to experience yet I think in modern society the concept of death and the transient nature of life has been pushed far, far down the list of topics people are comfortable discussing. Maybe it has always been so but while I have no idea if mortality has ever been a dinner-table conversation, it's certainly true that in times gone by death was a much more regular event and much more a part of people's everyday lives.

As an example, churches were once the centre of the community - the place where everybody visited on a regular basis. If you ever visit an old church you'll find a graveyard adjacent to it in a prime location - often having to walk past it to enter the church. Nowadays graveyards have been relocated to out of town sites - out of sight and out of mind. Medicine and agricultural advancements have also contributed to leave death at the fringes of our existence and it has become so easy to forget that life is not forever despite a complete subconscious awareness that it is. 

Today I went to a talk titled "Coping with Death, Dealing with Grief" held by The City Circle. A little bit of a sombre title but the essence of the topic was the Islamic perspective on dealing with grief. The speaker (Shaykh Yunus Dudhwala) was very credible and well qualified to discuss the issue as the Head of Chaplaincy and Bereavement Services at Barts Health NHS Trust. 

To react to death and to grieve is perfectly natural and human and no one should be ashamed of such. Grief and bereavement show the depth of the bond between the departed and those left behind and comes from a compassionate and merciful place and this should not be forgotten. Different people do react differently to the death of someone close to them - their cultural and religious background affects their reaction as does their own belief of what death is. If they believe in life after death then that leads to a different view to someone who believe death is final. 

Islamic theology and practice is heavily rooted in the actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and one of the early points made was that the Prophet (pbuh) experienced the loss of relatives of every relationship: father, mother, grandparents, wife, uncles, sons, daughters and friends. The example is there for every situation and always he counselled and practiced patience and forbearance. The speaker shared a number of traditions describing the Prophet's instructions and comments to people suffering through grief. He encouraged compassion that allows for the release of grief. Crying and sadness are perfectly natural reactions and should not be discouraged - to feel is to be human and we are but human. Do not be too quick to judge the level of others' grief - some are stoic, others are more emotional. To each their own way of dealing with it and the best thing you can do is to support them and be there for them. That said though, some level of self-control is required in Islam - grief is personal and does not need to be announced to the world. Wailing, smashing things, screaming - all of these are not allowed. 

At the heart of it is the concept of patience and the famous verse "Allah is with those who are patient". Demonstrating patience and exercising self control at the time when feelings are most raw and you are at your most vulnerable is the pinnacle of spiritual achievement. Incredibly hard to do  when anger, frustration, sadness and wishfulness are all assaulting your mind. 

This is where the second major point comes into play. Islam teaches that there is life after death and whenever a Muslim hears of a death he/she is encouraged to say "To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return". A short phrase that has a superbly powerful and profound meaning. It's a reminder that our lives and the lives of our friends and the lives of our family and the lives of every single person who walks the earth are only ever on temporary loan and that the loan will eventually have to be paid back. It teaches the awareness that the time is appointed for everyone and cannot be avoided. There are no premature deaths in Islam. People may die young but not early as it was ever written thus.

So with this awareness what does it mean for us? To me, the blessing in all this is that the length of the loan is unknown to us. That death can come at any time can be either a cause for lethargy or a spur for activity. It's the difference between "If I don't know if I'll get to finish an endeavour why should should I bother to start it?" and "If I don't know I'll get to finish an endeavour I had better make sure I do as much as I can!". The latter is a much more positive view and should be the default stance for everybody. Think on death and your own mortality but let it drive you to achieve, build, maintain your relationships, be productive and generally do what is worthwhile in life.

P.S. Here's an interesting folktale on the impermanent nature of life.

Important Jumuah Notice

An email I wrote while VP of Cambridge University I-Soc:
Assalamualaikum dear brothers.

I'm afraid this is a long email, but it is very important you read until the end. InshA it will be informative.

It has come to my attention that there have been several complaints about "inadequate" levels of covering up at Jumuah prayers by those brothers praying in the last rows who, for one reason or another, insist on displaying their body to those behind them, with little regard for the general well-being of the community. A quote from an affected sister (which may or may not be made up): "It's especially bad during the sujud! All of a sudden looking down is not an option for those with a wariness of things unsightly and those with a dislike of nausea!".

I'd like to be constructive in my criticism, so I have spent some time extensively researching the possible causes of the phenomenon and possible solutions and have devised a two-stage plan to resolve this thorny issue:

STAGE 1: Know Thine Enemy

One of our foes is quite easily identified. There is a relatively popular new fashion trend to wear low-hanging trousers which, as the name suggests, hang low. I'm not one to judge the fashionability of most clothing types, but I am strongly against low-hanging trousers and related clothing which, I am told, are designed "to show the batty". Having consulted various government bodies and experts I am sure I am not alone in regarding this particular fashion trend as "heading down the wrong road".

In an effort to aid comprehension and understanding I have compiled an exhaustive list of various acceptable low-hanging items:

• Fruit on trees.

My research further indicates that this new fashion could be an unwanted side-effect of the banning of corporal punishment in UK schools by the Education Act of 1986. The original motivation behind the legislation was to make life harder for teachers, to encourage rowdy behaviour in the classroom and to bring about a general feeling of malaise throughout the population.
However, new evidence suggests that an unforeseen consequence of the ban was to reduce sales of mens' belts (due to the removal of the option to teach young hoodlums a lesson in appropriate behavour by laying about them with your belt). Evidence to show the link between the ban and belt sales includes the irrefutable proof provided by watching a bout of professional wrestling. The "championship" belts (an unusual type of belt awarded to the champion) are often used to attack the opponent with the intention of discouraging the opponent from attacking the belt-holder. It is also worth noting the corroborative evidence of the dramatic drop in sales of canes.

A third detail which must be identified is the tendency of young males to wear t-shirts and/or pullovers which have a hem that only just reaches the waistband of their trousers. Under normal circumstances this is not a problem, but when in Ruku or Sujud, it is common for the lower back to become visible to those behind and trying to avoid direct eye-contact can be distracting for those trying to concentrate on their prayer.

STAGE 2: The Enemy of Your Enemy is your Friend

I will now embark on a brief discussion on the possible remedies for the aforementioned issues.

The simplest remedy to the problem is to wear a thawb. This particular item of clothing is very popular throughout the Middle-East because of the freedom of movement it affords (visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawb for further information on thawbs). The basic design of thawbs makes it practically impossible to unknowingly display any skin and is thus ideally suited for praying in. There have also been claims that wearing a thawb is advantageous if you are ever in need of a quick route through a traffic jam. A causal link has never been proven though.
Naturally, different designs and styles are available for the fashion conscious.

For those with a penchant for trousers, I wholeheartedly recommend investing in trousers with a properly fitting waistline, even if it does mean coming to terms with any weight-issues you may have. The benefits of a properly fitting waistline are innumerable and so I will not attempt to ennumerate them.

I realise that most of you are students with a limited budget, so if you have any money remaining after purchasing properly fitting trousers, I would request that you use this money to invest in a quality belt (preferably leather) (visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_(clothing) for further information on belts). Recent advances in the science of belt and buckle manufacture now mean that you can purchase belts with removable buckles, something which was unheard of only four years ago. This exciting development is helping to reverse the decline in the popularity of the belt (see above for discussion). "The belt is mightier than the sword" is a well-worn phrase that has survived the test of time and it is clear why.

Finally, I recommend wearing a vest or shirt that can be tucked into the trousers. This style of dress is very popular throughout the business world and rightly so. The pervading sense of calm and oneness with the world that wearing a modern-day shirt causes has led some fashion gurus to state: "Fasten your seatbelts! Shirts are back in vogue and are every man's must-have fashion item!". I'm not going to argue with fashion gurus and neither should anyone else.



In summary, wear appropriate clothing when praying. This is important not only for modesty in dress, but also for the validity of your prayer.


Wasalaam,

Yusuf