A while back a comparison was made between Bob Dylan, and Mohsen Namjoo, a controversial figure in Persian music today. His lyrics discuss growing up in an Islamic state while reflecting the "frustrations and dillusionment" of Iranians. In this way he is very similar to Bob Dylan in the early 1960s, who also wrote acerbic lyrics into the heart of the issues of the day such as civil rights and the corruption of the government.
In a song called "Neo-Kanti," Namjoo sings that "what belongs to us is an apologetic government. What belongs to us is a losing national team." Here he can only be referring to the nation's national soccer side. Most music was banned after the 1974 Islamic Revolution, and only religious and rebellious songs were allowed. Today women are still not allowed to sing.
I found it intriguing that the government of Iran today does not allow Namjoo to receive a license to release his CD, and it is even hard for him to perform publically. Yet he still does. Both he and Bob Dylan believe that controversy and danger both facilitate in some manner what they speak for. In a sense, any attention towards the subject, whether good or bad, puts their country and its actions under the spotlight. As long as someone can expose the feelings of the people to the world.
Tuesday, October 30
Taliban Fanaticism Not Typical of Islam
I left out a key element in my last entry about the Buddhas of Bamiyan, and that is that Laila visited the statutes after the Taliban destroyed them. In a very controversial sequence of events, the Taliban decided to blow up these exceedingly valuable and ancient relics of the past. But it would seem that the issue is much more than such cold-blooded destruction. At face value it is an act of pure religious intolerance and vandalism, but after reading more about the event I found opinions and statements that cannot be left out.
According to UNESCO Director Koichiro Matsuura, a meeting of ambassadors from the Organization of the Islamic conference was conducted regarding the Buddhas. All members protested saving the monuments, including the three nations that officially recognized the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. At this point I was wondering, it this a purely religious issue, or was it a reaction against the international community to want to destroy these monuments? I found out after more reading:
Taliban Ambassador Sayed Rahmataullah Hashemi said destruction was carried out after a Swedish monument expert proposed to restore the statute's heads, because the statues were in desperate need of repair. This was the Ambassador's explanation:
"When the Afghani head council asked them to provide the money
to feed the children instead of fixing the statutes they refused and
said, 'no the money is just for the statutes, not for the children.'"
Of course this man is biased in his statement and his words must be taken with perspective, but his argument was very clear. The world cares not for the Afghans dying of hunger but instead of non-living objects such as the Buddha statutes.
As another side to this argument, I found this statement to be extremely relevent: Intolerance is not a Muslim failing but a human one. When people think of Islam they more often than not think of the Taliban and transfer their feelings to the whole of Islam. The part becomes the whole. And yet fanaticism is not unique to Islam just as it is not typical of Islam either. For example, in the 7th and 8th centuries, Christian religious fanatics were destroying "infidel" statutes and pictures in the Byzantium Empire. The logic is the same as today: if we do exactly as what we think God wants us to do, then maybe these terrible things will stop happening to us. That is not to say that Christians and Muslims are entirely blameless in destroying such important pieces of the world's history, because each are prejudiced in their own ways.
Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia have been eradicating remnants of pre-Islamic religions practices as well, since 1820, when they destroyed 12th century statutes of Dhu Khalasa, a pagan god. Yet I believe that people's lives are more than images and icons. There is only so much this destruction can go on, eventually all these remnants will be gone (though we should still try to protect them as long as possible). The Taliban cannot have failed to notice that blowing up the statutes focused more international attention on their country than all the years of war, all the lives snuffed out, and all the survivors who live today in misery. Though they are not exactly seeking help for the people they rule, they are humans all the same.
Sources: Japan Times, Times of India, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post
The Buddhas of Bamiyan
When I read A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini for the first time, I remember reading about the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Central Afghanistan, but it was not until now that I really undestood their significance (I loved The Kite Runner as well). The novel does a wonderful job portraying Afghanistan's most damaged and abused group: the women. It is a story of unlikely friendship, courage, hope, and self-sacrifice. Intertwined between the lives of Marriam and Rasheed is the story of Laila, a girl whose life is affected one day when she visits the Buddhas of Bamiyan with her father. That trip shapes the way she will cope with her future. One of the quotes that struck me the most was when she said "People shouldn't be allowed to have new children if they;d already given away all their love to their old ones."
I began to wonder what gigantic Buddhist statutes were doing in Afghanistan when I started to research. Central Afghanistan was strategically placed to thrive from the Silk Road that connected many many Asian nations. Bamiyan was a stopping point, the Kingdom of Kushun, whose people were responsible for carving wonders of this ancient world. It was a place where languages and religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam all coexisted.
To me it seems like the Buddhas of Bamiyan are a symbol of the evolution of Buddhism; they represent how Buddhism developed internally. This is because they reflect a major shift in Buddhism: at first Buddha was revered as a human figure and later he became a transcendent being and icon. The Buddhas capture this moment in time. In addition to this I connected the ambiguity of Buddism to these statutes, for Buddhism is shaped and seen in virtually every religion in Asia. Vairocana wrote that these Buddhas, "in whom the entire universe is encompassed and their immensity is made literal," can also be compared to Islam in many fashions. For instance, both are inclined to adopt and learn from other cultures and perhaps from their own faith as well. In the Qur'an a specific reference to other religions is made to epitomize this point: "I do not serve what you worship; not do you serve what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine."
Friday, October 5
"A Good Woman"
I am reading a book called Iran Awakening by Shirin Ebadi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and I found some striking similarities between sati and the oppression of women that is unfolding in Iran. Well, the subjugation of women has been ongoing for years thoroughout the Middle East and India, but in this case the practice of sati exposes the mindset behind the status quo.
Sati literally means "a good woman" in Hindi and to understand the practice one must first recognize it as a fundamental part of the Hindu tradition. A woman is first and foremost a part of her husband, who is to be regarded as a god-like figure. It is believed that self-immolation for the woman will guarantee both her family and seven future generations a place in Heaven; therefore, she is seen as a goddess in her community only after she commits the act. I believe that sati epitomizes the oppressive status of women in India. The propaganda by the media and community that represents sati as a symbol of the ideal Hindu woman, a "chaste devoted wife able to sacrifice her life for her husband" (Hunter 121) not only reduces the woman to a mere symbol of religion but in addition uses religion to validate the ignorance of millions of women. Women are left in the dark of their own rights as human beings, forced to live a life of self-denial, as part of the deeply embedded tradition.
In Iran Awakening Ebadi speaks of a similar horrific fate of women, only in this case self-immolation is chosen by the women themselves. As a statement of injustice and misery, many women in Iran decide to alight themselves. Here as well as in India, women are taught that it is their duty to cope; this is just how the world is. It is intriguing to me that after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the suicide rate among women rose dramatically. Almost all deaths were by self-immolation. I asked myself, why in the world a woman would choose to die this way? I am convinced that it is a woman's way to force her people to confront the cruelty of her oppression. Otherwise, would it not be easier to overdose on pills in a dark room? The binding force in both of these countries and religions is the apparent subjugation of women in the name of religion. Even now in Iran, when women are allowed an education and thereby the possibility of a future beyond the home, they are still stuck when the time comes to get a job. Shirin Ebadi recalls that she was not allowed to practice as a judge even after going to law school. Women are given a new awareness of their rights but crude tools with which to advance them.
Sati literally means "a good woman" in Hindi and to understand the practice one must first recognize it as a fundamental part of the Hindu tradition. A woman is first and foremost a part of her husband, who is to be regarded as a god-like figure. It is believed that self-immolation for the woman will guarantee both her family and seven future generations a place in Heaven; therefore, she is seen as a goddess in her community only after she commits the act. I believe that sati epitomizes the oppressive status of women in India. The propaganda by the media and community that represents sati as a symbol of the ideal Hindu woman, a "chaste devoted wife able to sacrifice her life for her husband" (Hunter 121) not only reduces the woman to a mere symbol of religion but in addition uses religion to validate the ignorance of millions of women. Women are left in the dark of their own rights as human beings, forced to live a life of self-denial, as part of the deeply embedded tradition.
In Iran Awakening Ebadi speaks of a similar horrific fate of women, only in this case self-immolation is chosen by the women themselves. As a statement of injustice and misery, many women in Iran decide to alight themselves. Here as well as in India, women are taught that it is their duty to cope; this is just how the world is. It is intriguing to me that after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the suicide rate among women rose dramatically. Almost all deaths were by self-immolation. I asked myself, why in the world a woman would choose to die this way? I am convinced that it is a woman's way to force her people to confront the cruelty of her oppression. Otherwise, would it not be easier to overdose on pills in a dark room? The binding force in both of these countries and religions is the apparent subjugation of women in the name of religion. Even now in Iran, when women are allowed an education and thereby the possibility of a future beyond the home, they are still stuck when the time comes to get a job. Shirin Ebadi recalls that she was not allowed to practice as a judge even after going to law school. Women are given a new awareness of their rights but crude tools with which to advance them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
