‘She’ promises

Yes! ‘She’ hasn’t spoken for a while. But ‘She’ promises.

A slow rebirth.

of this haven.

be patient.

she’ll speak.

soon.

miss you.

signed.

she.

The Universe

“What if someone said to an embryo in the womb,

“Outside of your world of black nothing

is a miraculously ordered universe;

a vast Earth covered with tasty food;

mountains, oceans and plains,

fragrant orchards and fields full of crops;

a luminous sky beyond your reach,

with a sun, moonbeams, and uncountable stars;

and there are winds from south, north and west,

and gardens replete with sweet flowers

like a banquet at a wedding feast.

 

The wonders of this world are beyond description.

What are you doing living in a dark prison,

Drinking blood through that narrow tube?”

But the womb- world is all an embryo knows

And it would not be particularly impressed

By such amazing tales, saying dismissively:

“You’re crazy. That is all a deluded fantasy.”

 

 

One day you will look back and laugh at yourself.

You’ll say, “ I can’t believe I was so asleep!

How did I ever forget the truth?

How ridiculous to believe that sadness and sickness

Are anything other than bad dreams.”

 

~ Rumi (r)

.

 

 

yourself you must transcend

“O heart let go of your soul
until you see the Soul Maker
leave behind this deceptive faker
so you reach your real goal.

unless you pass through here
you will never reach the beyond
free yourself from worldly bond
doubtless clear, to you appear.

if it is a sign that you seek
in this path, my dear friend
yourself you must transcend
and signs to you will speak.”

~ Jalaluddin Rumi

Channel 4 reinstate impartiality

Magda Ali On behalf of the whole country, I’d like to thank Jon Snow

Silently, the world watches. Two worlds watch. One, a world for the first time exposed to an unseen coverage of a brutal war. The other, a world disturbed, a world that sees this coverage every day, and wonders why this coverage is only ever exposed in their world.

Channel 4, supposedly the savoir of ethical war corresponding aired the dispatches, Unseen Gaza programme last week after a disappointing three week coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Frontier Channel 4 news broadcaster Jon Snow’s attempt to uncover the realities of reporting in Gaza, attracted viewers across the nation, though probably unseen by many due to its late screening, it revealed the compromised second-rate Western coverage of the Gaza strip.

Snow compared the coverage of the conflict in the UK, with the rest of the world. It seems that the western coverage bore one similarity – it was all being covered from one hill, that hill being the hill of shame, or as some like to call it, the hill of same. As the programme unfolded, Snow argued the Muslim and Western worlds have seen two very different accounts of the invasion.

So two worlds saw two very different conflicts, think for a moment about these two worlds. It’s an epic accolade, is it not? Disregard for a moment the thousand of thoughts going through your mind. Now picture a 6 month, tainted lifeless infant, scorched to the bones. It may not be what you want to see whilst watching the news, but it is what is rampant in Gaza right this moment. A third of the death tolls in Gaza are children, though due to Western coverage of Gaza much of the British populace will not know it, many Muslims will.

In any case, before we can ever get deciding on how many dead babies on television is too many, we need to know how many there actually are. Except nobody seems to know, a number is just a number, a picture speaks a thousand words, but most news agencies are not even giving a thousand words of the story, most of the times.

First we see Al Jazeera widely watched by Muslims in the UK, the unedited bona fide horrific images coming out of Gaza have been above all upsetting for Muslims around the world.

This leads us to the real point of Snow’s critique. These are certainly difficult times for those that are exposed to the truth. Those that have access to the most scorching images, and see a vastly different account of this war from that which the average person only exposed to the filtered party lines. As Snow argued in his critique: it presents a dangerous dynamic for the future, to what extent does the choice of news outlet effect opinion of the conflict?

Well to a great extent. What’s more, this failure is due, in large part, to the fact that the Western coverage has been far too deficient, as Snow argues. In fact, the coverage, or should one say the lack of coverage of the Gaza Strip is spurring anger and frustration from many.

But it isn’t just Channel 4 getting complaints about their lack of coverage. Everyone, it appears, is petrified of the very “impartiality” penetrated within this inner circle. Because journalists are of course impartial observers, deliver the truth without any spin. Yet we see Western mediums reduced to Israeli mouthpieces, as Snow argued the Israeli PR machine is slick, their side of the conflict was constantly fed to journalists but balancing an account with Hamas’s version of events, that was impossible. At this point says Snow, the isolation of the war machine from the correspondent is almost without precedence and the first casualty has inevitably been the truth.

Snow poses an important question in the documentary that still remains: “if the world had known more sooner, would efforts to stop the conflict much earlier have succeeded?”

Snow illustrates in the documentary the absence of real reportage and exposure at the top level, which connects directly to the failure of journalism as a whole. The sheer magnitude of what exactly has been compromised and lost as a result can really only be guessed at.

The coverage of Gaza on channel 4, has been frustrating. But on this showing, Unseen Gaza has shown to be oddly impartial of a war that has been purely partial, one-sided and disproportionate. Jon Snow’s report was indeed an astonishing piece of television. Snow is good at quarrel, he doesn’t lose his cool, and he is a man who knows he’s right. In his pursuit of fulfilling his role as a journalist, he restores hope for many, that perhaps one day journalists will fulfil their roles as journalists.

My love for the legend: Robert Fisk

 

 

 

Robert Fisk is renowned globally as a diligent and honest journalist, one of a dying breed. For those that don’t know Fisk, he is a British Middle East correspondent for the Independent and is arguable one of the world’s most experienced and most acclaimed western reporter. He has won the British Press Awards’ International Journalist of the year honour seven times. Amnesty International and the United Nations have given awards to Fisk who speaks often at Harvard, Princeton, MIT and other prestigious American universities.

 

Fisk has lived in the Middle East for 30 years, has engulfed the problems of the Middle East and writes what he experiences firsthand. Robert Fisk is distinctively pugilistic and holds nothing back; never hesitates to fingerprint in stories. In his own words: “Surely there must be a way in which a reporter is honoured and privileged to absorb so much information, to express what he thinks about it.” 

 

I was speaking to one of my lecturers the other day, and he asked me a question about my ardour for Fisk. He asked: “What’s this love for Fisk about, is it his journalistic competence, or just because he tells you what you want to hear.” For some reason it took me quite a while to respond. Then it came to me. In many ways I would say that my admiration for Fisk stems from his journalistic dexterity, and it proliferates to his ongoing battle to expose what we all want to hear: the truth.

 

For every journalist to say something positive about him, there is another with a handful of negatives. Some critics complain that he is not objective and detached; he is subjective and engaged. But what exactly is wrong with that? Is the purpose of Journalism not to challenge the centres of power, and to describe with our own vividness the tragedies, injustices and viciousness of the world?

 

Journalists are there to make people think, Fisk lives and writes by this principle. He may not always be objective, but he exemplifies opinions that many people hold and we can agree or disagree. Fisk reports a fresh, unique and human dimension, and is not afraid to say what he really thinks; he is a profound writer and knows he is right. He may come across as being quite arrogant. Naturally, journalists are people who are insecure and have huge egos, which is a dangerous cocktail. I think a fair few good journalists are slightly arrogant – you need to be to get the story and to have the bottle to write it.

 

In his work, it is clear that Fisk goes to great lengths to side with the perceived victim. And what’s wrong with siding with the victim anyway? Just say you cover a rape trial, you’re not going to give equal space to the rapist as you are going to give to the victim, you’re not going to stand there impassively, and you’re going to write more about the victim and what s/he has suffered. There comes a time when journalists cannot be impartial. Of course we cannot stand in the middle, and the time has come when journalists must stand on the side of the victims and we’ve got to stand up against injustices and give a voice to people who wouldn’t ordinarily have a voice.

 

Orwell once said: “Telling the truth becomes a revolutionary Act.” Fisk brings this reality home. Journalists shouldn’t be completely ‘neutral’ – most journalists I have spoken to accept this. I for one don’t read his work for a “balanced” account. I read his work for his account, the account of a man who has heard both sides of the story, has been actively engaged in the middle east for 30 years and isn’t afraid to speak his mind. This is far more than can be said of the news desk team reading off the teleprompters. Sadly these very critics who condemn Fisk would like to believe that these mediums are the holy source of all truth.

 

Fisks work can be found on this link.

 

We are lost

“Let us not think of Allah in terms of
physical existence
Because if we do
We are lost

Think of the atom
Look into it and you will find a universe
Nay, a myriad of universes
Look at the sky at night
And behold the universe
And universes yet unknown
What did you see?
Just an atom

Where is Allah?
Did you find Him?
No, because you thought of Him
As physical embodiment
And you are lost

But,
Look at the ripples in the sea
And grains of sand at the sea shore
Study human faces and tongues
Hear a child’s cry and a cock’s crow
Feel blades of grass and drops of rain
Appreciate a cat’s love for its kittens

Then Allah’s Greatness will begin to dawn on you.”

~ Siddiq Osman Noormuhammad
[1973]

 

He spoke to me

As the death rate in Gaza rises and hundreds of innocent Palestinians shed blood, the Israeli Authorities say: ‘this is just the beginning.’ The self destructive, powerless feeling is rifest within our hearts. His reassurance we are in dire need of – His speech – His remedy. Where did we go wrong? Where are we going wrong? Ya Haqq, why are we failing in our servitude to You? In His name, Bismillah Irr Rahman Irr Raheem, i felt the pages of the book of the Almighty, as He Most High, guided my fingers to Surah Ibrahim.

 

 

Lloyds TSB in charity account row

 

Lloyds TSB’s decision to withdraw its clearing services for the accounts of Interpal, a British charity which sends humanitarian aid to Palestinians has prompted a series of protests alongside a barrage of public complaints. Lloyds TSB has now changed its tune as more protestors have questioned the decision, though one question remains unanswered , why have Lloyds TSB have ceased all operations with Interpal? Magda Ali investigates.

Interpal, the largest UK Palestinian relief charity, which has since 1994 been supporting charity projects in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the refugee camps of Jordan and Lebanon, may be a month or less away from closure. A series of protests by British human rights activists have been calling for Lloyds TSB to reverse its decision. A spokeswoman for Interpal said the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign staged a demonstration outside Lloyds TSB in Edinburgh’s Hanover Street last week, and Islamic student group FOSIS had launched a petition that had so far attracted 700 signatures. One of the protestors said: “Demonstrations outside every Lloyds TSB branch may be a good thing, to raise awareness and embarrass them.” The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has written to Lloyds TSB deploring an action that places what the Secretary General, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari calls “the most respected charity” in limbo.

Interpal, also known as the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, has accounts with the Islamic Bank of Britain (IBB) but its Islamic bankers rely on Lloyds TSB for its clearing services. Lloyds TSB is one of 4 clearing banks in the UK and are responsible for the processing of all financial transactions for IBB. The charity was notified on the 12^th November that the Islamic Bank of Britain had been told by a letter from Lloyds TSB to cease all dealings with the British charity that use Lloyds TSB services. In effect, this would make the account inoperable, a move intended to come into effect on the 8^th December 2008, on Eidul Adha, o6ne of the largest Islamic festivals, ironically, a time when Muslims are encouraged to give charity.

Lloyds TSB gave a verbal extension to the Islamic Bank until January 30, 2009, but cancelled this a few days later. Interpal now has little time left to find alternative banking arrangements. According to the charity, they have been told by IBB that after this time “all transactions into or out of Interpal accounts will be blocked and IBB will be at further risk of all its customer payments being suspended.”

Interpal has been investigated a number of times by the Charity Commission after a series of damaging allegations that the charity was funding terrorism through Hamas, the de facto government in the Gaza Strip. Just two years, due to a court case in New York, Interpal’s previous bank, NatWest, closed its accounts, setting a dangerous precedent for British charities and their work. The first two investigations by the Charity Commission, which concluded in 1996 and 2003, found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the charity, which has never been found guilty of any illegal activity in the UK, although it is on a list of “specially designated global terrorist entities” in the United States. It is this, Interpal believes, that has prompted the Lloyds TSB decision as the bank has extensive US operations. The Chairman of Interpal’s Board of Trustees, Ibrahim Hewitt, said, “Interpal has been at the receiving end of a relentless campaign by political forces that want humanitarian efforts for Palestinians to cease.” He believes that unfounded allegations of an illegal use of funds has led to foreign governments setting out hoops through which British banks have to jump, even though his charity has never intentionally done anything illegal.

Exactly two years ago, following a BBC Panorama programme broadcast in July 2006, which raised some serious concerns, the Charity Commission once again opened an inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993. The Inquiry team are yet to publish their findings. The reasons for the new investigation may be many and of complex origin, but it is all very uncertain. A spokeswoman for the Commission said a report was expected soon. Jo Moir, press officer of the Charity Commission said: “We recognise that charities often deliver essential services in areas where the need is greatest, and it is clear that there is a real need for humanitarian aid to reach people in the Palestinian Territories.”

“We are discussing the potential implications for Interpal’s charitable work with its trustees, and will provide then with any appropriate advice and guidance.”

The British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) have been providing support to Interpal as part of their role in ‘strengthening the quality and effectiveness of UK-based international development organisations.’ They have also been working closely with the Charity Commission in developing its counter-terrorism strategy and guidance. Clare Palmer, BOND’s Sector Advocacy officer said: “There is no doubt that the assets of registered charities need to be protected from potential abuse by terrorist groups.” She added: “However, BOND is also determined that legitimate humanitarian work should be able to continue – indeed, it plays a crucial role in counteracting a rise in extremism which can fuel the appeal of terrorist organisations.”

While Lloyds TSB refuses to comment on the specifics of the case, the bank has been at pains to deny allegations that the high street bank directed IBB to cease its operations with Interpal. Lloyds TSB’s Media Relations manager, Eleanor Ross says: “Lloyds would not direct nor would it be appropriate for us, to direct another institution on how to deal with its own customers.”

However, the original letter sent by Lloyds TSB to the Islamic Bank of Britain appears to contradict Ms. Ross’s claims: “We do not wish you to transfer, receive, process or in any way deal with any funds or in any way whatsoever be involved with any type of banking arrangements for Interpal which either uses or involves any products or services provided by us.” Most commentators agree that this is a fairly explicit “direction” by Lloyds TSB to “another institution”. Interpal’s chairman called Lloyds TSB’s claim “cynical semantics” in a letter to the Times newspaper.

“Clearly something doesn’t add up,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). He argues that this has very little to do with customer care: “It seems that Lloyds TSB have learnt nothing from the current credit crisis and are trying to mislead the public.” He added: “Lloyd’s decision appears to be entirely political and not based on any charges or evidence laid at the feet of Interpal. In fact, all charges thus far alleged against Interpal have remained unproven.”

In a previous statement, a spokesman for BOND argued that despite being cleared by the Charities Commission on several occasions, “Interpal remains on the US list, and has subsequently been listed by other countries including Australia and Canada, apparently as direct result of the US designation. Not only does there seem to be no evidence to support these governments’ decisions, but the process by which organizations end up on such lists and how they can be taken off a list remains unclear.”

Lloyds TSB’s decision is understood to have been influenced by the US designation of Interpal and pressure from other groups who claim that Interpal has links with terrorists. The MPAC website urges the Muslim community to complain and boycott Lloyds TSB to counter what the group believes is evidence of an “Israel lobby” which seeks to close down Interpal.

The Islamic Bank of Britain has offered its support to Interpal but is apparently powerless to prevent Lloyds TSB taking this step, even though Interpal believes the bank does not want to close its accounts. A spokeswoman for IBB said, “We can’t make any comment as this is of a confidential nature.” HM Treasury says that “this is a commercial matter for the Bank”, despite the evidence that makes it clear that it is a political decision which, according to Ibrahim Hewitt, requires a political solution. ”This goes beyond Interpal,” he added, “and actually undermines the whole autonomy of Islamic Banking and Finance in the UK.”

The British government wants to make London a world centre of Islamic banking and finance, and this episode has the potential to scupper such plans, persuading investors in the Middle East to look elsewhere for secure shari’ah compliant investments. Interpal chairman, Ibrahim Hewitt believes that a government solution to this problem is essential. “We shall have to wait and see,” he says. In the meantime, the clock is ticking for Interpal’s access to the banking system. “As one can imagine, this has the potential not only to damage Interpal but also affect community cohesion in Britain, as well as Middle East cohesion with Britain,” concluded Ibrahim Hewitt.

(Published: Muslim Weekly- 19/12/2008 )

Month’s facebook + chocolate fast

Sponsor me now.

 

Obama needs to reach out

 

The velocity of speed in which the ball of religious influence has been rolling in the American Presidential elections is quite remarkable. Temples, synagogues and churches were all part of Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign to become President of the United States, but in tandem with headline grabbing anti-Muslim rhetoric, Obama chose to steer well clear of mosques during his campaign.

 Obama cynics on Left and Right seized the opportunity to paint him as a closet Muslim. The willing mix up of “Obama” with “Osama” is for the most part, a sordid example of how a mould has transpired much of the electoral campaigns. To have to pronounce your faith, be confronted and then accused of being a Muslim, almost like a dirty, uncouth disqualifier. To feel that you must defend yourself, of the accusation by completely distancing yourself from one sixth of the world’s population is lamentable. Nothing sets back the eradication of Islamophobia more than the very president being so fiercely timid at the thought of being associated with the Islamic faith. Our times really are obstinate.

 Obama’s final sprint on the 5^th of November where the whole world watched with anticipation as he was elevated the 44^th president of the USA. Tears of joy in commemoration overflew onto streets on distant continents, people around the globe summoned Obama’s election a victory for the world and a renewal of America’s ability to change.

 Change was Obama’s rallying call, what he has promised and continues to promise. But change for who exactly? Obama’s apparent drawback may be his relationship with the Muslim communities in the United States, and every other continent for that matter. The reasons for the antagonism of the Democrat candidate may be multifaceted. Nonetheless, whatever the reasons, it is clear American Muslims are palpably caught in a backwash from a presidential election campaign where the false notion that Barack Obama is Muslim has been seized on by suspicion and fear of Muslims being used as a political weapon. And Obama just is not identifying himself with the Muslims in America.

Will Obama still distance himself from Muslims, even with the presidency throne? Fact is, with Obama, the issue has nothing to do with whether or not he is a Muslim, rather whether he has the courage to actively reach out to communities, who have been supportive of his pursuit in the presidential elections, albeit for the sake of community cohesion in hope that Americans respond to his intellectual integrity.

 Obama is a refreshing change from the administration America has had for the last 8 years. His diverse background might actually give him the aptitude of healing divides rather than creating them. Obama must reach out, before communities who have been supportive of him, start to think that this “change” is limited to creed and that Mr Obama will do anything necessary to get elected and continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power.