Sunday 24 January 2010

I HATE YOU, NOW GET IN LINE

“100 per cent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today. So why we should not be profiling people because of their religion?”

“You could say that 80-85 per cent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists”

“We’re just living in a politically correct world to say we should be screening a Scandinavian grandmother the same as we do a middle-eastern male”

These hateful, outrageous and highly insulting generalisations are but a few of the hundreds that Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, who is currently serving his ninth term in the US House of Representatives, is spitting out to the media at every given opportunity.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee King has used the terrorism angle to spread his obvious and unwitheld hatred for Islam. He went as far as criticising the Obama administration for not using the word ‘terrorism’ enough.

In 2008 he protested against an Islam awareness ad campaign aimed at educating people and demanded it be rejected. The ads were simple black and white panels with words such as “Head Scarf?” or “Prophet Mohammad?” and the words “You deserve to know” along with a Web site address.

His latest endeavour is to promote what he describes as a “half truth and half fiction” novel, “Vale of Tears,” which tells a story about future terrorist attacks by so-called Muslim extremists in Nassau County, N.Y.

After the recent foiled bomb attack on a trans-Atlantic airliner, bound for Detroit, King has opted for higher security measures in US airports. This is a predictable reaction considering he is a veteran of the Bush administration. Although if this strategy was ever successful in more than inconveniencing the general public this recent incident would have never been possible.

King’s proposed form of higher security measure is not only shocking but also demeaning to every Muslim and to the Americans themselves. He blatantly proposed on a radio show a Muslims-only screening protocol, which involves a full-body-see-through screening for any person carrying a middle-eastern name (basically full X-ray images recorded on film). His other suggestion is to have Muslims-only checkpoint lines at US airports.

This makes me wonder have they not learned anything from their past? Is this King’s way of going back to the segregated schools and water fountains when it was white versus black?

The mere suggestion of such an absurd broad-based ethnic profiling scheme is clearly nothing but a modern day witch-hunt.

Although this suggestion will not be adopted anytime soon, the sheer thought of it churns my insides. How is it in this day and age, after all that has been done by the Americans themselves to fight bigotry and prejudices, that a man like King and his followers are able to blurt out statements such as “It’s time to have a Muslim checkpoint line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinised. You better believe it, it’s time.”

I wonder if the word Muslim was replaced by the word black or Jew would America have reacted differently to Peter King? This has gone beyond political correctness. This is what Americans must view as illegal, unethical and unconstitutional. The first amendment to the US constitution professes the freedom of religion and the fourth, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

King has many followers urging him to run for the 2012 presidential nomination. If King has his way it would be shameful for any Muslim, let alone middle-eastern, to accept this insult. To willingly stand in Muslims-only queues, herded from the rest and happily be frisked and screened for no reason than our religion, that would be the end of Arab pride, and Islamic dignity.

How long are we going to remain silent and bow down to the barrage of insults that come in the form of France banning the Hijab (Islamic head dress) in schools, Denmark releasing shameful caricatures about Prophet Mohammed, Switzerland approving a constitutional ban on mosque minarets, Jewish soldiers invading Al-Aqsa mosque during Friday prayers and now Peter King. Our political strength lies in our solidarity. Muslim nations should find one united voice in which to speak with. Stand up to this tyranny, injustice and ongoing condemnation. Demand that we are given our rights and respected for we are no less deserving than any other nation or religion.

At last I wish to address my final words to Mr King:

Mr King, bigotry and prejudice are a contagious infliction that spread faster than the swine flu our world was so rattled by. Therefore, for your sake, and the sake of the American people, I wish you a full and speedy recovery.





Published in The Gulf Today on Jan 24th, 2010

Sunday 17 January 2010

EVERYDAY SAVAGES

Have you ever looked at certain people and couldn’t help think that they reminded you of a certain animal, a bird maybe? You could see the resemblance not only in their features but in their behaviour too. Fret not, that doesn’t make you a horrible person it just solidifies the fact that on this planet we are all connected.

Our relationship with animals is one that dates back to the beginning of time. For as long as humans roamed this earth they have walked side by side, or most probably ran in the opposite direction of animals, and therefore, we have a certain kinship to them. We have photographed them in amazement, studied them in wonder, we continue to raise them as pets. And some of us even worship them.

This bond humans have with animals has infiltrated art, and so we witnessed the likes of Leonardo Davinci incorporating them in his paintings, and devising contraptions in their likeness. Writers have made lead characters of them in works such as Aesop’s Fables and KalÄ«lah wa Dimnah. Religious texts are full of them, each animal representing a human flaw, a strength, a weakness. Each is portrayed as the image of good and evil personified. Why does it seem easier for us to accept reality when it is within the confinement of the animal kingdom yet so hard for us to face it in ours?

In children’s literature animals were used as a moral compass to direct them to the rights and steer them away from the wrongs of the world. One wonders if books such as Beatrix Potter’s The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Lewis Caroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland would have been as influential if all their characters were humans. Children can easily relate to animals and understand human characteristics through them, as can adults. I guess it is easier to cast aside discriminatory and judgmental feelings when we are talking about Peter Rabbit and the Cheshire Cat.

George Orwell used animal characters in his portrayal of the evils of totalitarianism in the classic novel Animal Farm. Through the pigs, cows and horses that lived within the borders of a farm fence we learned of political manipulation and twisted agendas better than watching the real thing unfold on the news. There must be a connection between the world of politics and that of animals (no pun intended) because to this day the United States’ two major political parties are represented by animal images. The Democratic Party the donkey and the Republican the elephant.

In language animals make an appearance more often than not. We hear terms such as “crocodile tears” when speaking of hypocrisy in human emotions. But why use an image of a weeping crocodile to portray a characteristic reserved purely for humans? It makes you wonder why the slyness of a fox and the wisdom of an owl? Why not the slyness of politicians and the wisdom of monks?

In our so-called civilised world we pride ourselves on being so different from animals. We are not savages we say. Only animals hunt for survival and we hunt for sport. Animals kill because they have no choice yet humans kill because the choice is all theirs. If only people lifted their heads up once in a while, if they gazed at the faces passing them by or glanced over towards a nearby table in a restaurant they would see. They would see the fox in the face of a passer-by and glimpse the owl in another person’s eyes, only then will they realise that there is something beastly in every human and another thing humane in every beast.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 17th Jan, 2010.


A young man turned war reporter asks…

A young man turned war reporter asks; why should he continue to bare witness to the atrocities  around him when half the world refuses to li...