Arab Animosity

[I intended to shelve this post after I had written it for fear of being too judgmental. However, recent experiences on my travel to Istanbul through the Middle East have cemented my opinions and made me decide to publish this post]

What makes Arabs such a charged, hyper tensed race of people? Readers will rightly argue that I am generalizing here since there are bunches among the Arab race who are the calm-composed types. But having experienced the Middle East, during my growing up years, I have time and again come across Arabs who seem to have very little of  attributes like patience, composure and diplomacy. Don’t get me wrong; Arabs are in general, honest and hardworking people, but they lose their cool more often than not, bickering about the most trivial of things. It is no wonder that countries like England and U.S who descended upon the Middle East with imperialistic intentions regret it for the most part even to this day!!

Many Anti-islamists have blamed Islam to be the reason for such attributes citing evidences of how the religion spread through the sword. Whether Islam spread through the sword is a topic for another day but my view is that Arab animosity comes from a variety of related factors, religion contributing very little. A few years ago, shortly after the Danish cartoon incident, I ran an experiment with some friends who belonged to various ethnicities and religions. I showed them two cards, one with the picture of a silhouette holding a sword and the other of the exact same silhouette meditating- sort of in a saintly pose. I asked them to identify in their opinion which one represented the prophet of Islam (pbuh) more accurately. 90 percent (including a few muslims), chose the card with the sword! It demonstrated to me that often great people in history are misconstrued by popular belief rather than facts. Arabs today are seen through the eyes of the media portraying violence and chaos which may indeed be the case for some countries but not all. This has unconsciously fed the minds of people to think that an Arab prophet could be violent.

The fact is that Muhammed(Pbuh) was introduced to Islam in a cave while he was MEDITATING. The fact is that he never had intentions to fight where force was not required. The fact is he used his sword only where his near and dear ones needed protection and to these near and dear ones, he treated them with respect, honour, humility and kindness. If not anything, the religion he bought turned a race of barbarians into a people with substance whose expanse traversed from central Asia all the way to Europe. At the time, a muslim was identified as one who would leave an ownerless gold coin lying on the road untouched. Where then did these divine attributes disappear in the Arabs of today? 

 The truth is that these divine attributes turned human and thus came about divisions within the religion and a quest for power, fame and wealth. These characteristics passed on from generation to generation inciting hatred and disunity. The discovery of oil in the 19^th century created more chaos with imperialistic powers meddling in the affairs of the Arab folk. In the end, the Arab society who were identified by tribes at one point where now identified with wealth. Wealth disparity is so widespread in the middle east, it’s only natural for the common Arab man to be so pissed about everything! After all, while he struggles with unemployment to make ends meet, his tribe member who was once considered an equal, now owns oil fields and enjoys the finer things in life

The Curious Case of a Giant named Goliath

The story of David and Goliath (‘Dawud ‘and ‘Jalut ‘in Arabic) has forever been a literary cliché in self-help scenarios and as a precursor to ‘anything is possible’ speeches. It is one of those stories specifically highlighted in the Quran, Bible and Talmud making it significant for Muslim, Christians and Jews.

That said, the biggest problem that I have with historic stories such as these is that there are aspects in it which are quite far-fetched.  Take for example the fact that David who is known to be a shepherd boy of average size was able to ‘out maneuver ‘ and take on a very ‘powerful’ and ‘tactful’ giant Goliath which seems to suggest that there was a real competition playing out on that field that day. Not that it is impossible; however I felt gaps in understanding on how it actually played out. The ‘physics’ of it all somehow seemed to be out of place. Then last evening I got a plausible explanation: A recent book and a TED video by Malcolm Gladwell explains that the competition may not have been the spectacle that it was made out to be. 

For readers, who are not familiar with this story, it occurs in the 11^th century B.C (around the year 1040-50 BC) during a time when the Kingdom of Israel was at loggerheads with the Philistines, a sea faring tribe most likely originating from modern day Greece and Turkey. The two armies had gathered at Elah, a valley in the plains of Israel which was so conspicuous that any army advancing into the valley first would clearly be exposing themselves to failure. For this reason, the two parties decided to wait it out, till finally it was apparent that the only way there could be a winner was if either parties sent their finest warrior for a face to face combat. The winner of the duel would decide who had won the war. The Phiistines banking on scaring the opponent with size decides to send Goliath, a 9 foot giant from the hills of modern day Armenia while the Israelites still undecided on who to send turn to their leader and King Saul. A shepherd boy named David persists to be sent till King Saul finally agrees and lets him proceed. At this point, I must draw attention to the mystery of David’s confidence in facing this giant and convincing King Saul. Given his upbringing as a shepherd and little or no military experience per se, my view is that either this boy was unbelievably brave or there was a divine intervention (similar to Muhammad’s -PBUH victory at the battle of Badr) which guaranteed him of victory. In either case, David proceeds with a stick and his satchel containing stones for his slingshot. He takes a shot at Goliath between the eyes, and Goliath tumbles to the floor after which David used Goliath’s sword to sever the beast. 

Gladwell argues that Goliath might NOT have been the finest fighter that the Philistines had; instead he would have in most probability been their tallest, and heftiest which would serve well in scaring off the enemy. Given that Goliath’s height was close to 9 feet, it is most likely he suffered from Acromegaly, a condition related to Gigantism that in turn causes pituitary adenoma. Pituitary adenoma is a tumor like growth that affects eyesight and mobility. Gladwell supports this theory with the following observations:

•  On seeing David approaching, Goliath says “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks”. Why “sticks” when David was carrying only a single stick? Could it be that the giant’s vision was so poor that he was seeing double or even triple?
• Goliath was assisted down the hill by a helper. Why would their “finest” fighter need assistance? Also when David used his slingshot to hit Goliath, why was he so slow in reacting if he was indeed their ‘”finest” fighter? Both indicate a problem in mobility functions i.e. not being able to react and move quickly.

 According to me and it follows from Gladwell’s observations that David was probably made aware of these facts beforehand through divine sources. His faith coupled with this revelation probably catapulted this young man from being a mere shepherd boy to one of the greatest kings of the kingdom of Israel. Thus the story may not be about the victory of the underdog but instead of the fact that with immense unconditional faith, a solution to your problems always appears!

Personality profile: Umar Ibn Al Katthab

Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to be introducing a new series of posts in my blog that will talk about leading figures in Islam and history in general. Ideally I would have liked to start with our beloved prophet (PBUH), however given the man that he was and his achievements, I want to take time to research and make it relevant  and special for readers. I therefore start the series with one of his close aides, the second caliph according to the Sunni tradition- Umar Ibn Al khattab. 

Much has been said about the man, and stories relating to his piousness are a part of every Muslim gathering and event.  Encyclopedia Britannica describes Umar as follows : 

“ʿUmar I, in full ʿumar Ibn Al-khaṭtāb    (born c. ad 586, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died Nov. 3, 644, Medina, Arabia), the second Muslim caliph (from 634), under whom Arab armies conquered Mesopotamia and Syria and began the conquest of Iran and Egypt.

A member of the clan of ʿAdi of the Meccan tribe of Quraysh (Koreish), ʿUmar at first opposed Muḥammad but, by about 615, became a Muslim. By 622, he had become one of Muḥammad’s chief advisers, closely associated with Abū Bakr. His position in the state was marked by Muḥammad’s marriage to his daughter Hafsa in 625. On Muḥammad’s death in 632 ʿUmar was largely responsible for reconciling the Medinan Muslims to the acceptance of a Meccan, Abū Bakr, as head of state (caliph). Abū Bakr (reigned 632–634) relied greatly on ʿUmar and nominated him to succeed him. As caliph, ʿUmar was the first to call himself “commander of the faithful” (amīr al-muʾminīn). His reign saw the transformation of the Islāmic state from an Arabian principality to a world power. Throughout this remarkable expansion ʿUmar closely controlled general policy and laid down the principles for administering the conquered lands. The structure of the later Islāmic empire, including legal practice, is largely due to him. Assassinated by a Persian slave for personal reasons, he died at Medina 10 years after coming to the throne. A strong ruler, stern toward offenders, and himself ascetic to the point of harshness, he was universally respected for his justice and authority.”

As described correctly, a large part of Sunni Islam as we see it today has roots in policies that were implemented by Umar during his reign. For this reason, my view is that he is easily attributed to be one of (if not the only) true architects of modern Islam after the prophet (PBUH). Many practices that you see today including the Tarawih prayers during the holy month of Ramadhan and the compilation of the Quran into the book we know of are as a result of orders given out by Umar during his reign.  Among the various stories that are prevalent on his humbleness and fairness as the ruler of Muslims (amīr al-muʾminīn), there are two that distinctly fascinate me.

The first one relates to the power he bestowed on the administrative officials of his state during his reign as the second caliph of Islam. Here was an all-powerful ruler, leader of over a billion people, who placed so much trust in his administrative officials, that he himself had to ask permission and seek approval from these officials if their services were to be availed. The story begins on one of the days of Ramadhan when Umar approached the official in charge of the people’s treasury seeking a loan. Despite being the ruler, Umar lived a most humble life and on the advice of his wife decided to take a loan from the treasury to buy his daughters some new clothes on the occasion of Eid. Umar asked the official if he could borrow some money with the intention of repaying once his salary was received at the end of the month (The fact that a ruler at the time received a salary from the treasury and the fact that he had to seek permission to take a loan itself is fascinating for me). But the story goes on to show how capable the people whom Umar placed his trust on were. The official replied that he would gladly give Umar the loan from the People’s treasury provided Umar signs a written affidavit that he would not die till the end of the month!! The official then goes on to say that the treasury was made up of the people’s contribution and to take this money without the guarantee of repaying would be a grave sin. Umar immediately realized his mistake and recalled his decision to take the loan.

The second story, similar in context and equally riveting goes something like this: It was late evening when Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet approaches Umar’s house to talk to him on an urgent issue. Umar had just wrapped up a meeting with his administrative officials. On seeing Ali and learning of his purpose of visit, he immediately enquires if the matter he would like to talk about is regarding the state or something personal. Ali replies it was the latter. On hearing this, Umar extinguishes that lamp that was already lit, and lights another lamp. Puzzled by this rather odd reaction, Ali asks for a reason to which Umar replies “ My dear Ali, the oil that burns in the first lamp has been bought with money from the treasury i.e the People’s treasury. To use this lamp while we speak of personal matters would be highly unfair and unethical. For this reason, we can have the conversation at my expense i.e using the second lamp which burns of oil bought from my salary.”

How many of our present day leaders follow such an honest and fair path? How many of our present day leaders can be so accountable? Is this not what the Arab spring set to bring about ? Both these stories coupled with his achievements in history to take Islam far from the lands from where it was born and more importantly to rule these lands in a such a just and right manner makes him in my view one of the greats in Islam’s 1400 year old history. Though there is much controversy among Shia Muslims on his genuineness, they would agree that if not for this ‘commander of the faithful’ and the solid foundations that he laid, Islam today would have not survived the long list of events that took place in the very lands in which he ruled.