Being On Time

One of the understated advantages of frequent travelling is being able to interact with different cultures and peoples outside of your usual clime. Taking careful notice of the small nuances that define each culture can be a source of constant interest for the engaged traveler. More than just obvious things such as food, dress, and language, I like to notice their perception of time. How they treat their time is often a truer indication of culture than the usual indicators.

Cultures that put a price on punctuality give a markedly different vibe than those that do not. Behind this punctuality sometimes though I feel is not necessarily a valuing of time, but rather a valuing of the potential marketability of that time. Wasting the time of the other is tantamount to cutting their ability to squeeze that time for its profitability. Also, the ability for one to keep their promise to be on time ensures that the cog fits and the larger machine is running. Maintenance of efficiency becomes a social norm and time keeping is a big part of that.

It should be noted that, almost without exception, every Muslim country is known for their unpunctuality. The Arab countries tend to be the worst offenders, but in general, keeping oneself 'on the clock'  is far from a virtue among Muslim majority populations. This is usually seen as a sign of the regressiveness, the primitiveness of the Muslim masses who are unable to keep pace with modern times. 

Perhaps it is more of a symptom of a certain degree of incompatibility of a Muslim world still with a tenable link to tradition and the modernist conception of time. The Muslim conception of time, stemming from its larger worldview, holds little value to measuring life based on arbitrary units of time, the cumulative effect being to transform entire society into a machine. So if there is resistance to assuming such a dry and sterile perception of time, it should not be wholly condemned. 

Having said that, I still see a promise of being present at a mutually agreed appointed time as a commitment, which our Deen requires us to take seriously. Even if the commitment may be born as a by-product of a mechanized society. Living in Malaysia though, being on time often means waiting as the host arrives. So I've gradually allowed myself a five minute gap from the stated time of meeting, as a sort of compromise between excessive punctualism and tardiness. 

The Lobby and the Deal

As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. That can said of the sad situation in the Middle East today. Saudi Arabia launches its offensive against the Houthi-led regime in Yemen, with possible assistance by Turkey and Pakistan. Along with the ISIS conflict, these latest developments point worryingly to what was once a Sunni-Shia cold war suddenly becoming a hot one. This all is happening in the backdrop of a potential deal between Iran and the US plus five other world powers, which may be a regional game-changer. 

The deal seeks to create a limit on Iran's nuclear centrifuge capacity and ability to develop a nuclear weapon, while allowing Iran to produce nuclear energy for peaceful civilian use and be granted relief from debilitating Western sanctions. It is unclear how many concessions Iran will be able to make in the face of stiff Western demands, and if an outline of a deal will be agreed upon by the approaching deadline. 

The deal is vehemently opposed by Israel (along with Saudi Arabia). The fear-mongering over Iran possessing and using a nuclear weapon against Israel is simply a cover though, as there there is no certainty they even intend to make the weapon (Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamanei has issued a fatwa against their use), nor would they be suicidal enough to use it against a similarly nuclear-armed opponent. The real concern is that Iran continues to assert itself as a regional power in the region, and normalization of its political and economic ties with the West would only further solidify this position. 

Thus, the recently reelected Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and co. are using every tactic to undermine this deal from being actualised. The recent speech on 3 March in front of the US Congress was a typical piece of political theater to garner points back in Tel Aviv and ratchet up pressure from Congress on President Obama to scuttle any deal. That Netanyahu didnt inform the President of his intention to speaker shouldn't be seen as an accident. The dozens of standing ovations he received only highlighted the timidity of the elected representatives of the most powerful country in the world kowtowing to a foreign leader in defiance of their own head of state.

Commentators from outside the US often obliquely refer to the fact that somehow 'Israel owns the US' as an explanation for why US policy in the Middle East is so skewed in favor of Israeli political demands. A more accurate picture needs to to factor in the essential role of the pro-Israeli lobby, which is a critical pressure group, in shaping the political landscape in the US.

More than any country in the world, political in the US is dominated by lobbies which funnel campaign funds to select candidates to finance their campaigns, and funds from the public are minuscule in comparison. Freshman politicians often spends over five hours a day asking for cash from different funders rather than drafting legislation. In over 90% of the political campaigns in the US, the better funded candidate wins, regardless of what he or she proposes. It doesn't take a genius to see that the policies that end of getting enacted favor lobby groups more than the general public interest.

The Israeli lobby has garnered a reputation as perhaps the most formidable lobby in DC. The American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) is often thought of as the sole lobby group but as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt document in their famous book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2006), the lobby can extend to their different agents with politics, media and other sectors of power. The varied means of the lobby to  frame the debate, select their choice congressional/presidential candidates and draft legislation on  US foreign policy are too many to document here,

There are two main views regarding the extent of the lobby's power. The first is that 'the tail wags the dog', essentially that the Israeli lobby exerts near absolute influence in bending US power to its will in order to further Israeli military interests. The other view (put forward by Prof. Noam Chomsky and others) is that the lobby is merely one among many pressure groups, and ultimately Israel functions to serve US hegemonic interests rather than the other way around. When there is a clash of the lobby versus US government demands, the lobby will yield.

The reality, as can be seen in the case of Iran and the nuclear deal is perhaps a mix of both. Certainly, the lobby's hold over Congress members, who need its vital support to be reelected, is rock solid. But the hold over the Presidency is less than absolute as he only has two terms to be concerned about campaigning for, and is less dependent on the lobby's good wishes after his initial election. Having said that, it is extremely rare for a US president to break away from lobby demands and pursue a different decision, as President Obama appears to be attempting in this exceptional case. Usually, there is a high political cost for such boldness. In the case of a nuclear deal, the President seems to be somewhat apathetic to the idea of a military confrontation with Iran that could have horrific consequences, and wants to close it off via the diplomatic route. Whether this succeeds, time will tell. 

All this chatter about vaccines...

A huge furor was created in the news media recently over the outbreak of measles in Disneyland in the US. The outbreak has sparked heated debate in the mainstream media in the US after more than 70 people contracted the disease since then, a disease long since thought under control. The debate centers on the perceived need based on the public welfare to ensure everyone is vaccinated to stamp out the threat versus those who continue to question the effectiveness and risks of vaccines themselves.

As usual, the big press has succumbed to the alarmist hysteria that we witnessed with swine flu, anthrax and several other putative public menaces. In a rush, it has labelled anyone with even a mild degree of skepticism towards vaccines as an 'anti-vaxxer'. Apparently it is now a movement. Of course, not all vaccine skeptics are against every kind of vaccinations, but who cares? This is typical of media tendencies to shut down critical discussion as soon as events unfold, only to later backtrack or ignore any reasonable evidence to the contrary. TV show hosts have defined the spectrum of reasonable discussion for some time.

I won't go over the scientific data on vaccinations, but clearly with cases of polio or smallpox, for example, it would be foolish to ignore how tremendously effective they have been in vanquishing the diseases. The numbers are there in stark reality. The problem with the vaccine debate though is that it is not as clear cut as proponents of vaccines make it out to be.

The first issue is parental or patient choice when dealing with vaccines. It is disturbing to see ostensibly well-meaning medical practitioners and legal analysts casually discuss how the need for vaccines overrides freedom of choice of parents and patients in what goes into their bodies. Some have even suggested leveling penalties and possible imprisonment for parents who refuse to give their children recommended vaccinations. This is so overboard that it borders on ridiculous. It may not be long before they call on lawmakers to re-look at the laws in most states allowing for an opt-out option on vaccinations. Of course, anyone who does opt-out should realise that this may come with consequences such as where they can work or travel, and where their child can go to school.

Another source of skepticism is that not all vaccines are alike, the same way not all diseases are alike. Is it ok to put anthrax vaccines in the same category as polio or Hepatitis? Is it not fair to view certain vaccines that have been in the market and public sphere decades longer with more trust than seasonal varieties that are pushed into are arms with every annual mutating flu?

Lastly, we are dealing with a severely compromised medical industry nowadays, that has developed an oh-so-cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical complex, all overseen by a government that itself has repeatedly made false claims to the public for questionable goals. Is there any surprise that this will engender a bit of skepticism? Suddenly on this particular issue, we are to trust every claim made to us that it is for our own best health? Are there any nuances to the vaccine issue that need to be explained, without resorting to crass labels such as 'anti-vaxxer'?

I see the value in certain vaccines, but I am hesitant to rush into pumping every new vaccine on the market into my arm as if its the fashionable thing to do. To some, this may seem like an extreme position. I am sure there are many of my friends who would do away with all vaccines altogether, an idea I think goes too far. But holding this position doesn't mean I am a conspiracy theorist or regressive when it comes to science either. The answer, I feel as with most things, falls somewhere in between.

The Acceleration of History

At the outset, let me declare that I wouldn't qualify myself as overly nostalgic. My perception of life is that it is simply too short to spend fixated on what happened in years hence; one's past should be a springboard to richer futures. This of course doesn't mean that memories shouldn't be cherished, that special places and times no longer have resonance, that the boundless emotions in the tears and smiles of childhood shall never be revisited. It is merely to not attach undue weight to the past that it takes away from the drive to trail blaze one's own path.

Ideally, the opposite should apply on a societal level. Rather than wholly foregoing all of their traditions in the face of encroaching modernity, society should embrace their past and discover what defines them as a people. Too often in our pursuit of progress, we march forward to invisible goalposts and leave behind our essence. It's as if time has become our enemy, and we think we can outrace it.

The cumulative effect of this onward march is what many historians and sociologists call the 'acceleration of history'. I find it a fascinating phenomenon. Technological innovation, among many other factors, has resulted in massive rise in the pace of change for human societies. The change isn't subtle, the change is usually paradigmatic. Fashions and tastes no longer evolve, they now come with shell-lives. Social and political institutions often are slow to react and find it rather difficult to manage the consequences of these changes.

Our terminology reflects this new reality. We often refer to decades such as the 80s and 90s as 'eras', each with their own self-contained histories and narratives. Yet the changes compacted in those ten years would in the past have taken much longer to come to pass. How can ten years be considered an 'era'? Most of us are familiar with the law of exponential growth as reflected in the inclined curve. This has manifested itself in human behavior with a dizzying effect, as if we are all on steroids.

Our perception of time itself has been drastically altered. Elders tell often of how in their childhood, they could go with their friends in the afternoon, play and chat at length for seemingly hours and hours, and come home with still plenty of time left before sunset. That same sensation of prolonged time seems absent nowadays. The increasing rapidity and intensity of experience is also felt on a purely personal level. It calls to mind the hadith of the blessed Prophet (pbuh): "The hour shall not come until time will be considered short, and a year will appear like a month, a month like a week, a week like a day, a day like an hour and an hour like a flash of fire." (Tirmidhi)

It takes some effort to realise that what is happening is not normal or natural. Does the acceleration continue forever? The French intellectual Rene Guenon pointed out that acceleration, far from being uplifting, is usually associated with downward motion. With intuition, we can guess that at some point the motion will stop. What happens then is anyone's guess.

The Emerging New (Old) World Order

Not good times for Russia. All indications are that the Russian economy is in a tailspin; the value of the Ruble is plummeting, and Western economic sanctions levied after the Crimea takeover last year are taking a serious toll. In the midst of such gloom, Vladimir Putin comes out with a year end three-hour long marathon press conference that has left many analysts baffled. Evoking the proud image of the 'Russian bear', he gave reassurances that the country will return to its former glory, while resisting efforts from Western imperialists to de-fang the country of its teeth and claws (nuclear weapons) and ravage its natural resources.

The image of the bear is clearly intended to stroke nationalistic sentiments, which have seen a resurgence during Putin's decade-plus stay in power. Fierce, strong and independent, the Russian bear is not a hollow symbol for millions of citizens but is representative of a form of collective power through the ages. In the modern world, where borders seemed to have become meaningless in the face of international capital and globalised media and fashion, political nationalism is often presented as a receding force. But evidently, the idea of the 'nation' has staying power beyond demagogic appeals. Depending on the country and region, nationalism has surreptitiously crept into the group psyche of entire populations. It seems helpful to explore a bit into this phenomenon and whether we are potentially headed into a post-nationalist world.

Nationalism: A bit of a Primer

Most of us have no inkling of any sort of political order outside our current arena of nation-states, almost having accepted that some rudimentary form of this contemporary setup has existed throughout human existence. It hasn't, and the change brought about by the birth of nationalism is one of the most profound in recorded history.

According to the eminent historian, Liah Greenfeld, the first modern concept of a 'nation' emerged in England in the 15th century, initiated by the Tudors. The central thrust behind nationalism is that political sovereignty, the legitimacy behind the right to govern and the ownership of a territory, resides in the 'nation', the collective population, not a Divine Source. A nation, unlike other terms used to describe a people, such as ethnicity or race, is inherently a political term. What defines what exactly constitutes a nation is something that has been debated for ages, and is usually classified along linguistic, cultural and historical lines.

In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia in Europe established definite political dominions recognizing sovereignty within the separate states under ostensibly secular monarchs, not in any religious authority. This was a revolution that dissolved the previous domain of Christendom, when the Church wielded effective control, recognizing only Divine Sovereignty with monarchs acting as mere vassals. As the centuries passed, monarchs and parliaments in the West and appeared not as viceroys for the Lord but representative of the collective will of the 'nation'. This loss of political authority by the religious establishment marked the true origin of secularism and the Modern West. With the passage of time, nationalistic symbols and anthems assumed the aura of religious fervor, only the devotees worshiped now at the altar of a secular geographic god.

A World in Flux

Following independence from colonial rule, the quest for statehood has seen the development of nearly 200 countries across the globe, with more perhaps on the horizon. Nationalism experienced a major boom for much of the 20th century and remained almost to an uncontested degree the definite political order of the human race. Contrary to analysts now who like to view events across entire continents as monolithic happenings, various trends are simultaneously taking place that pose interesting questions for whether this is likely to continue across the 21st century.

The first trend is scaling up. The idea is that the nation-state model is becoming obsolete, and politics should be handled on a larger geographic scale. The European Union has provided the blueprint for such larger regional frameworks. Smaller national affairs have become less meaningful with the temptation of a common economic market, porous borders and shared governance over an entire region. Regionalism is a push to de-emphasize the traditional nation-state model for a larger international groupings. ASEAN, which will form its Common Market this year, and the new Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) appear to be attempts to follow the EU's footsteps.

Another trends is breakdown. Nation-states, particularly post-colonial ones that were fashioned in haste and contrivance, suddenly lose their viability with sufficient internal and external pressure. A 'loss of faith' occurs. In many cases, civil war leads to the state breaking away along to original tribal, religious and ethnic lines, something demonstrated with the sad situation in Syria and Iraq and the rise of ISIS. But Western nations are not exempt. Viewed through a different lens, the recent referendum in Scotland and the possible one in Catalonia can be seen as efforts for a local territory to divest itself a larger federation, in those cases the United Kingdom and Spain. Localism takes precedence over the claims of statehood, even if they extend a few centuries.

Lastly, what we see in Russia is a template being carried in several Asian and Eurasian democracies at the moment: what US political pundit Pat Buchanan calls 'Putinism'. In a departure from traditional liberal democracy, Putinism leans towards autocratic leaders, managed media and a blend of religion and social conservatism all packaged neatly together by economic development. It is something being witnessed in India with Narendra Modi and Turkey with Tayyip Erdogan. Secular modes of nationalism are transformed into a more ethnic, religious variety.

Unlike the claims of those who believe that we are at the precipice of a One-World Government, shifts in the geopolitical tectonic plates suggest that if that is indeed the future, it certainly won't be a straight line. What is clear is that the chest-beating confidence that the West had in the success of its liberal democratic structure is no longer there, and the rest of the World is no longer waiting for cues.

When Will the Shock End?

This has been a particularly depressing past couple of weeks as far as international affairs is concerned, again focused on Muslims. First, we had the long-awaited released of the US Senate report on CIA torture of detainees, which while unsurprising in its content (most of which has been leaked for some time now) makes for grisly reading. That was followed by the Sydney cafe siege and the exaggerated media response to a seemingly lone deranged nutcase. If his intention was to score some quick media fame, then mission accomplished. All this of course happened midst the backdrop of the continuing battle between ISIS and a host of international forces with competing agendas in Syria and Iraq (of which China of all countries may soon be a part). The above for most conscientious souls would be the media equivalent of sensory overload, numbing well-worn instincts for shock value, dulling our feeling of impact. Yet, as if that wasn't enough, we are confronted with the horrific news of a massacre of schoolchildren by militant thugs in Peshawar, and somehow even in this deafening chamber of our world of chaos, this one leaves us stunned.

The cold blooded killing of children, and particularly children, and in such a deliberative fashion, is beyond the pale. It leaves one speechless, empty, grasping for words that will attempt to but cannot adequately capture the gravity of what has occurred. One naturally questions the humanity of the perpetrators, but I find myself questioning humanity itself. Perhaps if I were not a Muslim, believing in Divine Purpose and Order, I would cynically conclude that humanity is a failed experiment of Nature, our intelligence being a genetic mutation liability, adduced from the fact that that we have such capacity for self-destruction.

The actions of the TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) who claimed responsibility for the attack, were clearly intended to demoralise the Army which has been carrying out military operations in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan since July. Yet they have come across as desperate and deranged. A rallying effect has been created in Pakistan to unite those disparate forces in opposition, for the time being. Public sentiment is unanimously angry. Even other militant groups has disowned this attack, so heinous it was. The big question is what will happen now. Will a new strategy be crafted? And can, for once, an inquiry be properly done into the security failures that led to this tragedy?

Our prayers go to the families who lost their loved ones. Their grief must be unimaginable. The hope, naive though it may be, is that this incident is a tipping point to allow measures to bring to an end years of conflict insha Allah, rather than a harbinger of further bloodshed.

Why Malcolm Still Matters

In the days of the Greek yore, 'hero cults' were a common thing. The hero represented a larger than life figure capable of feats beyond the scope of the average man. Yet he (or occasionally she) would almost always be someone not among the living. The passing away would only enhance whatever fame he or she gained during a lifetime, and lacquer their deeds in a varnish of gold.  They would transcend to a status above mere mortals but lower perhaps than the gods. In their death, they somehow had the ability, it was believed, to provide strength and succor to those left behind.

Malcolm X is a modern day hero. He exemplified those qualities of valor, selflessness and forthrightness that typified the archetypal heroes of the classical era. Malcolm came at a time in the history of the United States when the African-American was beginning to question their notion of self-worth that had been imposed by a vicious system of White Privilege. Not only did he shatter that idea in his most articulate and inimitable manner, but he could speak truths to the face of the oppressor that nobody else had the courage to. And, at a young age of 39, he paid for his mission with his life. In a world today lacking in inspiration and lagging in spirit, we need figures like Malcolm who can galvanize us to heed the call of the day. 

Yet nowadays, Malcolm X has been reduced to a visual icon, a trendy symbol of counterculture thinking ala Che Guevara. Sporting a Malcolm X image on a T-shirt somehow reveals one to be a contrarian with a touch of rebel thinking. Much less time is spent listening to his penetrating speeches when he dissected the problems of a racist system of bondage, except for soundbites snippets here and there. Even lesser time is spent reading of his life and personal journey. In an ideal world, The Autobiography of Malcolm X would have been required reading in every classroom. 

Unsurprisingly, Malcolm X posthumously was taken up by socialists and civil rights activists, though certainly not to the extent that it was for Dr. Martin Luther King, who had a much 'safer' message of non-violent cooperation rather than self-empowerment. What is curious is that Muslims haven't gone to the same extent to embrace Malcolm X as a uniquely heroic figure and a source of motivation. So much potential lays dormant in the exploration of his journey from Malcolm Little, the hoodlum; to Malcolm X, spokesperson for the Nation of Islam; and finally Al Hajj Malik El Shabazz. We can learn much on the realised possibilities of spiritually driven self-transformation. 

If there was a central message of Malcolm that continues to remain relevant until today, I feel it is the theme of emancipation. In his day, when the vestiges of Jim Crow were still visible to the naked eye, emancipation took a more literal meaning. In our time, we have deluded ourselves into thinking that freedom has been achieved in an information age. We need to recognize that access to information has not emancipated us, its only made us more acutely aware of the level of slavery we suffer from, in larger systems beyond our control. 

It is precisely on this theme of emancipation that the UNRIBA campaign will be organising an event to introduce Malcolm X, both as a historical figure and a motivational one, to the local Malaysian scene. It is our hope that a spark can be generated, in particular in the younger audience, to research more about this special individual and take his example. The event is scheduled for 10 January 2015 and more information can be found at https://www.facebook.com/unriba

For a parting note, I will leave you with a lesser-known clip of Malcolm X from his days in the Nation of Islam, when he rebuffs efforts by the FBI to sell his soul. It is what integrity is all about.