TAP WATER IS THE TASTE OF CIVILIZATION

Refugee Cycle

As always there is a lot going on in the Muslim world, assuming you agree there is such a thing as “the Muslim world” (not sure what colour pill you need to take to get there). Consequently many articles have been written, and continue to be written, by many a journalist on a variety of Islamic-related topics. To save you time I have read many of these articles and present to you below my favourite ones currently doing the rounds.

Yet again it has been a bit of an up-and-down time for us Muslims. We lost a Zayn Malik but we gained a Sinead O’Connor. But I have not chosen any articles below about this subject matter at all. Nor have I chosen any articles about the ongoing fallout over the death of Jamal Khashoggi. Yemen and Palestine also fail to get a mention. And neither have I chosen any articles about Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan saying there is no historical evidence for the existence of the Christian Jesus. My initial reaction upon hearing this? Can you just get on with it! Can you just govern the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and not get side-tracked with nonsense such as this. I can imagine Khan at a rally saying something like “People of Pakistan, I know you are suffering from poverty, from disease, from power shortages, from food shortages, and from domestic terrorism. But I say this to you, and I say it with the utmost confidence…the Christian Jesus did not exist!…So sleep well tonight knowing this…” Just get on with it Khan!

Instead you will find articles below about the state of drinking water in Pakistan, the chaos and stupidity surrounding the “blasphemer” Asia Bibi (again in Pakistan), the mercy (rahma) of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims now being granted permission to keep their beards in the American air force, Christian charitable shoeboxes that in reality are “gift-wrapped Islamophobia,” and a mosque in Turkey where for nearly 40 years they were praying in the wrong direction.

As a bonus, the cartoon image presented above is a simple yet effective way of describing how the refugee cycle works in many parts of the world, a picture definitely speaking a thousand words in this instance. And again, to save you time clicking here, there, and everywhere, each article is presented in full. Happy reading, hope you enjoy!


Let Them Drink Bottled Water

Mohammed Hanif, 23 Nov 2018, nytimes.com

Bottled Water

Karachi, Pakistan — Twice a week every week, I lug four empty bottles of Nestlé Pure Life water to a shop near my home and lug back, one by one, four full bottles of Nestlé Pure Life. Each bottle contains 18.9 liters of safe drinking water. The labels on the bottles advise me to drink at least eight glasses of water every day.

This is our drinking water, our tea-making water, the water we use for cooking, the water we make ice with. Drinking tap water in Pakistan — if you are lucky enough to have a tap with running water — would mean putting your family’s health at some serious risk. For our other water needs — washing ourselves, laundry and house cleaning — we have to buy a tanker that holds 5,000 liters. Deliveries are so unpredictable that the tanker might arrive at 3 a.m. But even then, it’s welcome.

Sometimes I get to travel to Europe, and one of the unapologetic joys of this privilege is to be able to open the tap and gulp down a glass of water or even slurp without fear from a public fountain. That’s the taste of civilization.

Water scarcity is a subject of serious debate in Pakistan, of the occasional riot and sometimes of long queues at rare public wells or sources. The chief justice of the Supreme Court has set up a fund to build two dams and is asking for donations.

Public drinking water here wasn’t always poisonous. Even toward the end of the 1990s, bottled water was reserved for the ultra-elite — for heads of state hosting other heads of states or for posh Pakistanis who vacationed on the French Riviera.

But today, thanks to pollution and a lack of investment in infrastructure, if you don’t drink bottled or filtered water, you are condemning yourself and your little ones to horrible diseases and maybe even to a new form of the ancient affliction called death by contamination. According to one estimate, 53,000 children in Pakistan die of diarrhea every year after drinking water containing dangerous bacteria. According to another estimate, 40 percent of all deaths in Pakistan are caused by water contaminated with sewage, industrial waste, arsenic or diseases.

You would think that those figures alone would be a national health emergency, and that making sure people have access to clean water would be the priority of every single political party. But in any footage of a high-level political or administrative meeting, you see rows and rows of water bottles, one for every official. Our elites have already solved Pakistan’s water problem: Spend 30 rupees (about 20 cents) and pick up a half-liter.

The previous government, which lost the latest general election this summer, takes credit for mega energy projects, shiny airports and new motorways and seaports. But the major water-filtration project it launched turned out to be a scam. When it comes to the basic human need for clean drinking water, we have essentially been told to fend for ourselves.

And people do just that. Those who can’t afford to buy bottled or filtered water drink whatever comes out of the nearest tap, source or pond and leave the rest to the doctor they can’t afford either or to Allah, whom everyone can afford.

Anyway, those of us who can pay for water may only be buying some of the poison that the water we’re paying for was supposed to save us from. Earlier this year, the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources announced that at least eight brands of bottled water — brands with fancy names like Aqua Fine, Pure Aqua, Aqua Gold, Pure 18 and Aab-e-Noor (Water of Light) — were contaminated.

Even when that little plastic bottle contains clean water, it isn’t saving us from death or disease so much as condemning us to a future where we can’t even think of public access to drinking water as everyone’s birthright.

Increasingly, both in Pakistan and elsewhere, when you go to a public event as a speaker or a panelist, the first thing that appears in front of you is a bottle of water. Sometimes you hold onto it as if it might save you from the wrath of the audience. I have heard of writers demanding warm raki at their event, but never of a writer saying, “Can you please take this bottle away and give me some tap water instead?” When hotels automatically stock your room with a complimentary bottle and restaurants greet you with “Still or sparkling?” asking for tap water would mean outing yourself as a miser or a fusspot.

I know that people have refined tastes, including for this or that healthy mineral in their water. But the array of bottled waters available on the market is a testament to the fact that humans can be conned into buying anything. And this con may be the most basic one in the world: I steal your water and then I sell it to you. And you’ll buy it because, surely, you don’t want your children to die a painful death.

By now, people who want to help solve this problem seem hopelessly earnest. The Supreme Court’s chief justice has asked banks, the media and the government to help him raise funds for his dams. He has ordered some petitioners in his court to contribute. There are ads on the radio and TV that go “Ao Dams Banain Hum” (Let’s Build a Dam).

Building a big shiny structure that makes a mark on the scenery probably seems like making history. But beyond the inherent absurdity of crowdfunding what should be a public infrastructure project — as one critic has said, “the state cannot be run like a charity” — it would be cheaper than building those dams to make existing water supplies drinkable and disease-free. Yet there’s little discussion about that.

In 2010, I witnessed the devastation caused by floods in Sindh, a southern province. The civic-minded went out there to help the affected, and the first thing they did was to throw truckloads of bottled water at the people who had nothing left — no home, nothing to eat or drink — except the tattered clothes on their bodies. It was a perfect image for a planet in its death throes. And the people fleeing the deluge took the little plastic bottles of water, as much for the bottles as for the water.

Mohammed Hanif (@mohammedhanif) is the author of the novels “A Case of Exploding Mangoes,” “Our Lady of Alice Bhatti” and “Red Birds.” He is a contributing opinion writer.


True Islam Does Not Kill Blasphemers

Mustafa Akyol, 21 Nov 2018, nytimes.com

The Quran has 6,236 verses, none of which tell the faithful to stifle blasphemy by force.

The agony of Asia Bibi, a 54-year-old Roman Catholic and mother of five, shows there is something rotten in her country, Pakistan — and in the broader world of Islam.

She was arrested for blasphemy in 2009 after Muslim co-workers on a destitute farm denounced her for merely drinking from the same cup and, during the subsequent quarrel, for “insulting Prophet Muhammad” — a charge Ms. Bibi always denied. Yet she was convicted in 2010 and spent the next eight years in solitary confinement, on death row.

Luckily, Pakistan’s Supreme Court last month saved her from execution, clearing her of the charges and also setting her free. But Pakistan’s militant Islamists, especially those in the notorious Tehreek-e-Labbaik religious party, which is obsessed with punishing blasphemers, were enraged. They forced the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan to accept a court petition to reverse the case and bar Ms. Bibi from leaving the country. She and her family, fearing vigilante violence, went into hiding.

I am hoping that the traumatized family will be able to leave Pakistan safely, to find asylum in some free nation. As a Muslim, I feel ashamed of the cruelty they have suffered at the hands of people who act in the name of my faith.

Of course, in this story there are righteous Muslims to be proud of as well. They include the Supreme Court judges, whose prudent decision that saved Ms. Bibi noted the Prophet Muhammad’s tolerance for Christians. They include Punjabi politician Salman Taser, who stood up for Ms. Bibi in 2011, only to be assassinated for that by his own bodyguard. They include three British imams, who recently joined the campaign to grant asylum to Ms. Bibi in Britain.

In other words, the militant Islamists who want to kill all blasphemers, real or perceived, do not define Islam. But they do define a fanatic, ferocious, dangerous strain within Islam.

This strain has led to various attacks on freedom of expression, the bedrock of civilization, over the past three decades. The first one was the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s infamous 1989 “death fatwa” calling for the execution of the author Salman Rushdie for his irreverent novel, “The Satanic Verses.” Then came the violent reactions to cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. Terrorist attacks on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo followed. And among nations like Pakistan, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, Ms. Bibi is only one of the many victims of blasphemy laws.

Muslims who support such violent or oppressive responses to blasphemy are missing two important points. One is that it is them, not the blasphemers, who are defaming Islam, by presenting it as an immature tradition that has little room for civilized discourse. The second point is that their zealotry is not as religiously grounded as they think.

To see this, one must look at the Quran — the most fundamental and only undisputed source of Islam. Most notably, throughout all of its 6,236 verses, it never tells Muslims to silence blasphemy with force. It tells them only to respond with dignity.

This appears in the Quranic verses that addressed the tensions between the earliest Muslims and other communities nearby. “You are sure to hear much that is hurtful from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with God,” one such verse tells Muslims, only to add, “If you are steadfast and mindful of God, that is the best course.” [3:186]

Another Quranic verse holds up as model Muslims “those who walk humbly on the earth, and who, when the foolish address them, reply, ‘Peace.’” [25:63] Yet another verse addresses the issue of mockery, telling Muslims that when they hear people who ridicule “God’s revelations,” they should just “not sit with them.” [4:140]

However, as Islamic jurisprudence developed over the centuries, much was added to the spirit of the Quran, based often on dubious reports about the words and deeds of the prophet. Blasphemy, in particular sabb al-rasul, or “insulting the prophet,” gradually became a capital crime — but only with objections from prominent jurists like Abu Hanifa, the eighth-century founder of one of the four main Sunni schools. A bigger sin than insulting the prophet is disbelief in God, he reasoned, but Islam decrees no punishment for that.

Today, Pakistan’s liberals, most of whom are faithful Muslims, are referring to such sources in the Islamic tradition to argue against blasphemy laws. They are right. Those laws should be abandoned — in Pakistan and elsewhere.

At the same time, Muslim opinion leaders should help their societies understand that these laws serve not the honor of Islam, but much more mundane interests — for example, persecuting non-Muslim minorities out of greed or jealousy, or silencing Muslims themselves who criticize and challenge the powers that be.

And all Muslims of good faith should stand up more forcefully for people like Asia Bibi, who is falsely accused of blasphemy. Also, they should tolerate those who really do blaspheme and at most “not sit with them,” as the Quran counsels.

They should walk away, saying, “Peace.”

Mustafa Akyol is a senior fellow on Islam and modernity at the Cato Institute and the author, most recently, of “The Islamic Jesus.”


Happy Birthday, Muhammad

Haroon Moghul, 20 Nov 2018, nytimes.com

The prophet was an outsider. Just like me.

Tuesday is the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. It’s the 12th of Rabi al-Awwal, the day most Muslims believe he came into the world some 1,400 years ago.

I first met Muhammad in August 1998. I was fresh out of high school in Somers, Conn., and my brother and I made the road trip from Jidda, where he was working for the summer, to Medina to pay our respects at Muhammad’s tomb.

I must have looked ridiculous. I was drowning in elephantine JNCO jeans and carried a backpack with a Pearl Jam patch ironed on. I was probably wearing the boisterous baseball cap of some snowboard manufacturer; I hope I left the wallet chains at home.

I was on my way out of Islam when I made my way with the rush of tens of thousands of pilgrims shuffling from the prayer hall southward toward his tomb. I was headed to atheism. Or Catholicism. I was 18 years old and hadn’t decided which way of life would give me the warmth I felt my faith lacked, and the freedom I believed it denied me.

But I showed up in Medina that summer because I thought I’d give Islam one more chance. I hadn’t expected the moment to mean much to me, because Islam didn’t mean much to me. But there I was, facing the resting place of the prophet, overcome with emotion.

I’d memorized Muhammad’s life story in Sunday school, cramming facts, dates, lineages into my head as if I was preparing for an A.P. exam, a good Muslim like my parents wanted me to be. But it had thus far been so much data — cold, abstract and inhuman.

In Medina I realized I actually believed all the stories about him. That he buried the least loved of his fellow Arabs with his own hands. That he put two of his fingers together and promised that he and the orphan would be that close in the life to come. That he so loved the vulnerable that God loved him in turn.

Sitting facing his tomb, pilgrims pressing against me on every side, I honest to God missed him. I still feel that way today, as absurd as it might sound. He is a living presence in my life.

My connection to him was — and is — peculiarly American. It was initiated by my parents’ piety, inflected by my numerous ailments, was thrown into relief by extremism and today inspires me to help build a United States to which all of us belong.

It began with the troubled circumstances of my birth: I had a malformed intestinal tract. Had I been born a few decades earlier, I would have died very early on. As a sick child, I spent much of my time indoors, with books my parents encouraged, many of which were about Muhammad.

He was an outsider like me. Being an orphan from age 6 in a very patrilineal, very patriarchal and very tribal society must have been a social death sentence. Muhammad could have reacted by seething with resentment and lashing out at the world. He could have turned on himself. Instead he became a paragon of compassion.

When he first proclaimed prophecy, even his own uncle laughed at him, but he never laughed back. His followers were reviled, beaten and killed. He didn’t strike back. Rather he ran from one town to another, like Hagar at Paran, desperate to find his people refuge. Twelve years into his religious mission, in the year 622, he was forced to flee his native Mecca and arrived a refugee in Medina — but the people who chased him there didn’t leave him be. Not long after finding safe harbor, he was forced to take up arms, time and again, to defend his faith, his community, and himself.

But even as he did, he remained dedicated to building a society that would provide the inclusion he (and his followers) had been deprived of. The old Muslims from Mecca had just met the new Muslims from Medina, and Muhammad paired them off, each responsible for the other as they worked to make Medina flourish. This was hard work, and represents the most misunderstood part of Muhammad’s life: Taking Jesus as their template, many critics wonder how a leader who pursues politics can still be a religious model.

When terrorists struck New York and Washington in 2001 I was horrified, scared and bewildered. The Muhammad I revered bore no resemblance to the Muhammad they claimed. In their view, Muhammad was a conqueror first, a politician and a general second, and a man of faith last, and least.

This is a gross misunderstanding of his life, and an inversion of the message he actually preached. When he had nowhere else to turn, when he couldn’t find anyone to protect his community, then — and only then — did he take up arms to defend his faith.

But the politics he attempted are instructive. In one of his first pronouncements in Medina, he pledged that the Muslim community would defend the native Jewish community from any of its enemies, and declared Medina to be one nation of two faiths, a profound and unusual gesture of pluralism and tolerance.

This vision that Muhammad offered for Medina is the one that drives my life’s work, especially in the years since Sep. 11. I’ve dedicated my time, my energy and often my reputation to building bridges between Jewish and Muslim communities. We don’t have to agree about everything to respect each other. And we don’t have to see eye-to-eye to look out for each other. I believe such work to be a sacred calling, good for Jews and for Muslims, but good for America, too.

On the occasion of his birthday, we Americans would do well to study Muhammad’s life: He preached and attempted a politics of tolerance, which is not what people of faith are associated with today. Muslims could stand for re-examining his life, too. Muhammad is called a “rahmah,” a mercy. He is often addressed as “habib Allah,” the beloved of God. If these are not words our communities are associated with, we should take a long look in the mirror and wonder why.

Muhammad was rahmah for me more than two decades ago in Medina. We could all use a little mercy these days.

Haroon Moghul is a fellow in Jewish-Muslim relations at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America and the author of “How To Be A Muslim: An American Story.”


Air Force Grants Beard Waiver To Muslim Airman

Corey Dickstein, 20 Nov 2018, stripes.com

Gaitan

US Air Force Staff Sgt. Abdul Rahman Gaitan, an 821st Contingency Response Squadron aerial porter at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., has become the first Airman to be granted a religious accommodation for a shaving waiver based on his Muslim faith. Liliana Moreno/US Air force.

Washington — The Air Force has quietly approved a request by a Muslim airman to grow a beard, making it one of the service’s first such religious accommodations for a follower of Islam, Air Force officials said.

Staff Sgt. Abdul Rahman Gaitan, 30, was granted the appearance exception in August to grow a beard in keeping with his Muslim faith, officials said, but the Air Force only publicly announced his waiver two weeks ago in a public affairs-produced article published on the service’s website. Gaitan is an aerial porter assigned to the 821st Contingency Response Support Squadron at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., according to the Air Force.

The Air Force had reported Gaitan was the first Muslim airman to receive the religious accommodation for his beard. But Tuesday, Capt. Carrie J. Volpe, an Air Force spokeswoman, said Gaitan was not the first. Eight airmen, including Gaitan, have received the religious accommodation, with a ninth in the works, Volpe said.

Since 2014, the Pentagon has allowed servicemembers to appeal to military leadership for the right to wear certain items mandated by their religions that would not be allowed under standard grooming and appearance regulations of the services. The Army, for example, has allowed brigade commanders to determine whether soldiers may wear certain religious items, including beards and turbans for Sikh soldiers and hijabs for female Muslim soldiers. More recently, the Army approved a soldier’s request to grow a beard as part of his claim to follow a Norse Pagan religion.

While not all Muslim men wear beards, some of them believe facial hair is a requirement of the religion’s male followers.

Gaitan, who converted to Islam following an Air Force stint at a base near Izmir in Turkey in 2011, said his beard is in keeping with the following of the Prophet Muhammad.

“It is a constant reminder of our faith and who we are as Muslims,” he said, according to the Air Force article.

The airman said he had received some negative reactions since he began growing his beard, including questions from fellow airmen about whether he was a terrorist or had decided to join Islamic State. But others came to Gaitan’s defense, he said.

“The incident shot straight to the commander, like a lightning bolt, and the following morning, I was called into his office with the chief and first sergeant waiting for me,” he said in the article. “In my entire career, I’ve never had a commander look me in the eyes like he did…his look, tone, words and posture were shouting at me, ‘Don’t worry, we have your back.’ ”

After the meeting, the commander reminded the unit of the Air Force’s zero-tolerance policy on discrimination.

“I walked out of there with a feeling I had never felt as a Hispanic Muslim airman,” Gaitan said. “I finally felt like I was fully part of the Air Force family and that my peers and my leadership would fight to protect me.”


This Christmas, Beware Evangelical Christians Bearing Gifts

Polly Toynbee, 08 Nov 2018, theguardian.com

The Samaritan’s Purse charity sends gift boxes to children in Muslim countries. They contain a pernicious, hidden agenda.

All over the country, Operation Christmas Child is up and running again. The scheme urges people to pack up a shoebox with toys, pens, notebooks and treats for a poor child. Schools often join in because children love doing it: there is something romantic and mysterious about sending a secret collection of gifts to an unknown child in a faraway land.

Participating drop-off points include major companies, such as Caffè Nero, Shoe Zone, The Entertainer, Barratt Homes and some newspaper offices, such as Luton Today. The volunteer organisation Worcester Lions Club is packing shoeboxes inside Waitrose. Geoff Lewis of the club said: “It’s not known where the boxes will eventually end up at this time. But what is certain is that it will be with a child somewhere in the world that will not be receiving another Christmas present this year.” Maybe if people did know, they might hesitate.

Wales Online reports that Glamorgan cricket team and the Cardiff Blues rugby club are also supporters of the scheme, the former reporting last year that they had helped to load “over 10,000 gift boxes on to vehicles leaving the south Wales depot for a destination in Albania”.

Albania? That’s the clue – a mainly Muslim country, the kind of place where most of these shoeboxes are destined. The sort of countries that, indeed, as in the awful song, do not know it’s Christmastime at all.

Many good-hearted packers of shoeboxes know little of the organisation behind this scheme. It’s run by Samaritan’s Purse, fundamentalist American evangelical Christian missionaries. After the boxes are dispatched, they are then delivered along with a missionary book of bible stories, The Greatest Gift, with “the 12 Bible lessons offered by many of the churches distributing shoeboxes,” according to the Samaritan’s Purse website. “157 million children in over 160 countries have experienced God’s love through the power of simple shoebox gifts from Operation Christmas Child.”

A story from its website tells how a shoebox converted a Muslim family to Christianity: “Angella received an Operation Christmas Child shoebox filled with presents last year at this time. Since then she’s led her Muslim family to Christ.

“Christmas is all about the unexpected: an angel appearing to shepherds, a virgin conceiving, God becoming man…Something unexpected and wonderful began among the Kulemba family of Malawi, a country in southern Africa. That day their 12-year-old daughter Angella received an Operation Christmas Child shoebox gift from the local church. Angella reads the gospel booklet to her family. All are now following Christ.”

The man who runs the Samaritan’s Purse, which has a £16m annual income, is Rev Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. He spoke at the inauguration of both George W Bush and Donald Trump. In an interview with Newsmax, Graham claimed that Obama had “allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to become part of the US government and influence administration decisions”.

Strongly anti-gay and anti-same-sex marriage, Graham defended Russian president Vladimir Putin’s “gay propaganda” law, praising him for “protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda”. He told the Washington Post that God had intervened to cause Trump’s election: “I could sense going across the country that God was going to do something this year. And I believe that at this election, God showed up.”

On Facebook he wrote, “We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the US until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalised – and they do their killing to honour their religion and Muhammad.”

Most people packing up shoeboxes don’t know they are used for anti-Muslim proselytising. Or that they are backing a pro-Trump, anti-gay message. Some may be from churches sharing that evangelical brand – but I would guess most parents and children haven’t a clue what they are supporting.

Humanists UK, of which I am vice-president, has drafted a template letter that people can sign informing schools and others, urging them to reconsider their support, and offering alternative suggestions. Richy Thompson, Humanists UK’s director of public affairs and policy, says: “Those who donate to the scheme are well-intentioned and want to make an altruistic contribution, but donors in the UK should be aware of the nature of Operation Christmas Child’s activities and instead find a reputable and inclusive charity that has no ulterior motives and only has children’s best interests at heart.”

No one wants to be the Grinch: filling shoeboxes is a feelgood act of generosity. But sending stacks of boxes with Christian missionary messages to Muslim countries is unlikely to ease interfaith tensions – nor is it an economical or ecological way to give: as ever, boring old money to good charities goes further. I note, also in the Luton News, one Lewsey residents’ association is calling for people to fill shoeboxes to be distributed by their local food bank – a far better idea than what one critic called “gift-wrapped Islamophobia”.


Imam Discovers Everyone In Mosque ‘Had Been Praying In Wrong Direction’ For 37 Years

Jon Sharman, 18 Oct 2018, independent.co.uk

Key part of building is misaligned.

Congregants at a mosque in Turkey had been praying in the wrong direction for nearly four decades before its new imam realised the error, according to reports in Turkish media.

The mosque in Sugoren, in the country’s western Yalova province, had a key flaw in its construction that meant faithful Muslims – who are instructed to kneel in the direction of Mecca during prayers – had misaligned themselves by as much as 33 degrees, the Daily Sabah reported.

Hurriyet, citing the Demiroren News Agency, said imam Isa Kaya was appointed last year and that, following rumours about the alignment of a niche in the mosque’s wall indicating the direction of the Kaaba in Mecca, he decided to ask the advice of local muftis.

The officials confirmed the niche, or mihrab, had been constructed in the wrong place when the mosque was built in 1981, it was reported.

Rather than tear down the niche immediately, Mr Kaya used a temporary measure to point people in the right direction – placing arrows made of white tape on the mosque’s carpet.

“We have explained the situation to our congregation and most of them have reacted positively to our solution,” the imam told Demiroren News Agency.

An architect will be given the task of redesigning the structure.

Dr Mustafa Baig, Lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter’s Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, explained the misalignment.

“It is important to emphasise that Muslims do not worship the Ka‘ba but it is the direction (or qibla) to which Muslims pray,” he said. “Worship is to Allah.”

“In the Qur’an it states: ‘Wherever you turn, there is the countenance of Allah (2:115).’ Moreover, the direction (or jiha) is determined by a 90 degree span and not at the exact angle of the Ka’ba.”

Dr Baig added: “The Qur’an mentions: ‘Turn your face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque’ (2:149) and the word shatar in this verse has been defined as one of the four cardinal directions, giving a leeway of 45 degrees to either side of the Ka‘ba: in other any aspect of the forehead should be facing the Ka‘ba. In this particular case, the niche was ‘misaligned’ by 33 degrees so it is with the 45 degree limit.

“Even in the event of praying outside the range of direction, the jurists stipulate that if one has made an effort to determine the direction of the qibla (where due diligence was made) then if later (after the prayer time has lapsed) it becomes known that the prayer direction was completely wrong, the prayer will be considered valid and need not repeated,” the lecturer added.

“In this case, therefore, the previous prayers would not be considered invalid and the placement of the prayer niche is also not ‘wrong’, although they may want to reposition it in order to be facing in the exact direction of the Ka’ba.”

Advertisements

SELFIES MAKE YOU MORE NARCISSISTIC

Internet Intervention

Technology. Marvellous, isn’t it? Why, at this very moment I am using the marvels of technology to type these very words which can be read by anyone on this globe with an internet connection. At the moment that is over 3 billion people who are online, just under half the world’s population. And, yes, the various tech giants are pushing hard to get as many of the rest online too. Marvellous. However, not everyone thinks all this tech is a good thing. Human innovation has transformed the way we live, often for the better. But as our technologies grow more powerful, so do their consequences. There are voices, growing in number and in decibels, who are decrying the various darker aspects of our ongoing love affair with all things digital. For a start, there is the issue of who is actually behind that article you just read.

Several years ago I went to a mosque in sunny Birmingham to listen to a Muslim scholar. I cannot recall the name of the speaker or what the topic was, but I do remember the preacher saying we should be careful when reading about Islam on the internet. He warned the gathered congregation that we should try to find out who actually wrote the article. Was it a Muslim? Was it a learned Muslim? A confused Muslim? An enemy of Islam, deliberately trying to confuse and obfuscate? He went one step further and suggested the article could indeed be written by a pesky jinn, a creature from the netherworld.

As soon as I heard this I started thinking how one could prove that an article on the web was or was not written by such a creature. Could we devise some sort of Islamic Turing test? Whilst this particular notion may seem rather farfetched, more recently people are asking if, when we are online, are we dealing with humans or bots. With the rise of Amazon’s Alexa, Google’s Home Hub, chatbots, and bots galore on social media (Twitter has taken down a reported 6m bot accounts this year alone), we are spending more and more of our time talking to non-human entities. And as the line between human and digital voices blurs, perhaps we should be asking to whom exactly are we talking to? The comedian John Mulaney does a brilliant bit of stand up about how crazy this particular situation has become…

Everything’s fast now and it’s totally unreasonable. The world is run by computers. The world is run by robots and sometimes they ask us if we’re a robot, just because we’re trying to log on and look at our own stuff, multiple times a day. “May I see my stuff please?” “I smell a robot! Prove, prove, prove you’re not a robot. Look at these curvy letters, much curvier than most letters, wouldn’t you say? No robot could ever read these. You look, mortal, if ye be, you look and you type what you think you see? Is it an ‘E’ or is it a ‘3’? That’s up to ye. The passwords have passed, you’ve correctly guessed. But now it’s time for the robot test! I’ve devised a question no robot could ever answer. Which of these pictures does not have a stop sign in it?” What?! You spend a lot of your day telling a robot that you’re not a robot. Think about that for two minutes and tell me you don’t want to walk into the ocean. – John Mulaney, 15 Apr 2018, from the opening monologue of Saturday Night Live

These types of activities that many of us engage in online on a regular basis are a weird turn of events. The Turing test was originally conceived as a way of enabling us humans to determine whether a machine could respond in such a way that one couldn’t tell whether it was a human or a robot. But now we have wandered into a topsy-turvy world in which the machines make us humans jump through hoops to prove that we are humans and not robots. We began by shaping our tools and now it seems our tools are shaping us.

This is just one of many concerns about technology. There are plenty of others unfortunately, such as how sexism flourishes online, a point recently brought into sharp focus by the sister of Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook:

With regards to the toxic moment we are in, it is without doubt that social media has allowed this to happen. It has created the opportunity for men with anti-feminist ideas to broadcast their views to more people than ever before – and to spread conspiracy theories, lies and misinformation. Social media has elevated misogyny to entirely new levels of violence and virulence. – Donna Zuckerberg

The internet overall is vastly male dominated. Men are on average 33.5% more likely to have internet access than women, according to the Inclusive Internet Index, a survey of 86 countries that are home to 91% of the global population. In some poor, urban areas, men outnumber women online by as much as two to one. The main reason is due to inequalities in education. Women across the world do more unpaid care work than men, and so have less free time and less money than men, and so are less likely to own and use a mobile phone, or spend time on the internet. It is no surprise that not knowing how and not being able to afford it, can act as barriers to being online.

They also have to contend with various patriarchal societies where technology, and the wider online world, are seen as male preserves. And, to be honest, with the amount of sexism online, many of them may not want to. I personally know of at least three women who are no longer on Facebook due to the unwanted male attention they were constantly receiving. Simply put, misogyny and sexism are rife on “the glory hole that is the internet” (to grossly quote the New York based comedian Fareeha Khan).

Other tech related issues include increased narcissism due to the increased amount of selfies we take, the addictive nature of screen time (especially for kids), technological progress offering us more and more bewildering choice, and too many others to mention. These issues, and more, are discussed in the articles presented below. As always only selected quotes are presented, but each article is well worth reading in full…


Posting selfies makes you more narcissistic…

Posting Lots Of Selfies Makes You More Narcissistic, Study Suggests

Chris Baynes, 09 Nov 2018, independent.co.uk

Excessive use of social media, in particular by posting pictures and selfies, is linked to a subsequent increase in narcissism, according to a new study.

Heavy users of platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat displayed a 25-per-cent average rise in narcissistic behaviour over four months, the research found. Psychologists at Swansea University and Milan University studied personality changes in 74 people aged 18 to 34. They also assessed participants’ use of social media over a four-month period. The researchers found “problematic” use of visual forms of social media, such as posting selfies, “appears to drive levels of narcissism” in a way that primarily textual usage does not.

Internet usage is defined as problematic when there are multiple negative impacts on an individual’s life, such as withdrawal effects when disconnected and interference with friendships.

All but one of the study’s participants used social media, with their average usage – excluding for work – about three hours a day. Some reported using social media for as much as eight hours a day for non-work related purposes. Facebook was used by 60 per cent of participants, while a quarter used Instagram and 13 per cent used Twitter and Snapchat each. More than two-thirds of the participants primarily used social media for posting images.

Over the four months, the increase in narcissistic traits took many of the participants above the clinical cut-off for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissism is a personality characteristic that can involve grandiose exhibitionism, a sense of entitlement, and exploiting others.

Professor Phil Reed, of the Department of Psychology at Swansea University, said: “There have been suggestions of links between narcissism and the use of visual postings on social media, such as Facebook, but, until this study, it was not known if narcissists use this form of social media more, or whether using such platforms is associated with the subsequent growth in narcissism. The results of this study suggest that both occur, but show that posting selfies can increase narcissism. Taking our sample as representative of the population, which there is no reason to doubt, this means that about 20 per cent of people may be at risk of developing such narcissistic traits associated with their excessive visual social media use. That the predominant usage of social media for the participants was visual, mainly through Facebook, suggests the growth of this personality problem could be seen increasingly more often, unless we recognise the dangers in this form of communication.”


In fact, selfies can kill you…

I’m Not Surprised An Israeli Teen Fell To His Death Taking A Selfie On Holiday – I Used To Be That Obsessive Myself

Shappi Khorsandi, 07 Sep 2018, independent.co.uk

In the news this week I read that an 18-year-old boy fell 800ft and died as he tried to take a selfie at the edge of a waterfall in Yosemite National Park.

Do we, as parents, not have enough to worry about already? His poor mother. From when he was little, she would have warned him to wrap up against the cold, to eat his greens otherwise he won’t grow strong. She would have instilled in him the term “stranger danger”, trained him to cross roads sensibly and before the young Israeli set off on this wonderful adventure in America, she would have kissed him goodbye and told him to take care of himself.

Except his world was very different to the one she grew up in. Her son was raised in the culture of “likes”, reporting his every experience on social media rather than living in the moment.

It seems now, next to “don’t go off with a stranger” or “look both ways before you cross the road”, we now have to tell our kids: “Don’t lean over backwards when you’re standing in a canyon because no amount of Instagram likes is worth breaking your mother’s heart.” It’s maddening. He’s not the first and I doubt he will be the last.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: selfies are a pox on us all and the sooner our culture tires of this soulless, narcissistic practice, the better. I want to go back to the halcyon days when picture-taking was more natural – when we are laughing so hard that our faces looked like a scrunched-up paper bag or perhaps are in the midst of a deep and meaningful chat at a Christmas party about a friend’s divorce and have completely forgotten we are wearing an orange paper party hat.

Selfies don’t capture a moment – they kill it. I know, because I used to be pretty obsessed with them myself.

A few years ago, I was in the Vatican, gazing up at the Sistine Chapel. My boyfriend at the time sensed my angst at the “no photo” signs we had seen. He looked at me, disappointed, and said, “You’re thinking of how you can take a selfie, aren’t you?” Yes, I was. And all I took away from seeing one of the Wonders of the World, was how relieved I was that I’d snuck one in.

The desire to document the moment wrecked my chance of treasuring it. My memory of that day isn’t of seeing Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel; it is of my boyfriend seething, exasperated with me, and me eyeing the security guard, heart-in-mouth, taking a bloody picture and not being able to rest until I’d posted it. I might as well have visited McDonald’s for all the joy I got out of it. It becomes a compulsion to do something at the expense of everything else: your enjoyment, the happiness of your partner, and, in the most tragic cases, your own life.

The same boyfriend threatened to leave me at Glastonbury one year when the Dalai Lama surprised the crowd by joining Patti Smith on stage. Instead of looking at the stage, I scrambled around looking for my phone which I’d tucked into my bra and took pictures of the Dalai Lama as my soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend stood there in anger. I managed to ruin his moment as well as my own, but I also managed to record Patti Smith yelling at the crowd to “put your phones down and live in the f**king moment” which I promptly posted on Facebook, while my boyfriend’s love for me drained from him forever.

The best photos of us are taken by other people. They are not the ones from the same flattering angle, with the same “photo face” taken by ourselves.

One of the sweetest, funniest sights I have ever seen is my dad sliding down a wide slide at Center Parcs in a star shape, spinning as he went down, just after the lifeguard told him spinning is not allowed. He is a small man who looks like wholemeal Willy Nelson. I often play the vision back in my mind and have a little chuckle. No one took a picture of it. It’s my own little piece of joy that I share with people when I feel like it.

I’ve stopped taking my phone out when I’m with my children too. As long as they are with me, there are no emergencies that cannot wait and frankly, I hope they never have the time to sit and look at the thousands of photos I’ve taken of them; they should always be too busy having adventures. I hope one day they will be staring up at the Sistine Chapel holding on to nothing except perhaps the hand of their dear old mum – who would very much like to see it again.


Phone Devil

Addiction risks for kids are high…

A Dark Consensus About Screens And Kids Begins To Emerge In Silicon Valley

Nellie Bowles, 26 Oct 2018, nytimes.com

The people who are closest to a thing are often the most wary of it. Technologists know how phones really work, and many have decided they don’t want their own children anywhere near them.

A wariness that has been slowly brewing is turning into a regionwide consensus: The benefits of screens as a learning tool are overblown, and the risks for addiction and stunting development seem high. The debate in Silicon Valley now is about how much exposure to phones is O.K.

“Doing no screen time is almost easier than doing a little,” said Kristin Stecher, a former social computing researcher married to a Facebook engineer. “If my kids do get it at all, they just want it more.”

Ms. Stecher, 37, and her husband, Rushabh Doshi, researched screen time and came to a simple conclusion: they wanted almost none of it in their house. Their daughters, ages 5 and 3, have no screen time “budget,” no regular hours they are allowed to be on screens. The only time a screen can be used is during the travel portion of a long car ride (the four-hour drive to Tahoe counts) or during a plane trip.

Some of the people who built video programs are now horrified by how many places a child can now watch a video. Asked about limiting screen time for children, Hunter Walk, a venture capitalist who for years directed product for YouTube at Google, sent a photo of a potty training toilet with an iPad attached and wrote: “Hashtag ‘products we didn’t buy.’”

Athena Chavarria, who worked as an executive assistant at Facebook and is now at Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropic arm, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, said: “I am convinced the devil lives in our phones and is wreaking havoc on our children.”

Ms. Chavarria did not let her children have cellphones until high school, and even now bans phone use in the car and severely limits it at home. She said she lives by the mantra that the last child in the class to get a phone wins. Her daughter did not get a phone until she started ninth grade.

“Other parents are like, ‘Aren’t you worried you don’t know where your kids are when you can’t find them?’” Ms. Chavarria said. “And I’m like, ‘No, I do not need to know where my kids are every second of the day.’”

For longtime tech leaders, watching how the tools they built affect their children has felt like a reckoning on their life and work.

Among those is Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired and now the chief executive of a robotics and drone company. He is also the founder of GeekDad.com. “On the scale between candy and crack cocaine, it’s closer to crack cocaine,” Mr. Anderson said of screens.

Technologists building these products and writers observing the tech revolution were naïve, he said. “We thought we could control it,” Mr. Anderson said. “And this is beyond our power to control. This is going straight to the pleasure centers of the developing brain. This is beyond our capacity as regular parents to understand.”

He has five children and 12 tech rules. They include: no phones until the summer before high school, no screens in bedrooms, network-level content blocking, no social media until age 13, no iPads at all and screen time schedules enforced by Google Wifi that he controls from his phone. Bad behavior? The child goes offline for 24 hours.

“I didn’t know what we were doing to their brains until I started to observe the symptoms and the consequences. This is scar tissue talking. We’ve made every mistake in the book, and I think we got it wrong with some of my kids. We glimpsed into the chasm of addiction, and there were some lost years, which we feel bad about,” Mr. Anderson said.

His children attended private elementary school, where he saw the administration introduce iPads and smart whiteboards, only to “descend into chaos and then pull back from it all.”

This idea that Silicon Valley parents are wary about tech is not new. The godfathers of tech expressed these concerns years ago, and concern has been loudest from the top.

Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, said earlier this year that he would not let his nephew join social networks. Bill Gates banned cellphones until his children were teenagers, and Melinda Gates wrote that she wished they had waited even longer. Steve Jobs would not let his young children near iPads.

But in the last year, a fleet of high-profile Silicon Valley defectors have been sounding alarms in increasingly dire terms about what these gadgets do to the human brain. Suddenly rank-and-file Silicon Valley workers are obsessed. No-tech homes are cropping up across the region. Nannies are being asked to sign no-phone contracts.

Those who have exposed their children to screens try to talk them out of addiction by explaining how the tech works. John Lilly, a Silicon Valley-based venture capitalist with Greylock Partners and the former C.E.O. of Mozilla, said he tries to help his 13-year-old son understand that he is being manipulated by those who built the technology. “I try to tell him somebody wrote code to make you feel this way — I’m trying to help him understand how things are made, the values that are going into things and what people are doing to create that feeling,” Mr. Lilly said. “And he’s like, ‘I just want to spend my 20 bucks to get my Fortnite skins.’”


Progress ain’t all it’s cracked up to be…

Black And White TVs Are A Lo-Fi Rebuke To A World Gone Wrong

Stuart Jeffries, 09 Nov 2018, theguardian.com

The UK has 7,000 households that shun colour television. They may be on to something.

A report by TV Licensing this week shows that, more than half a century after colour broadcasts began, over 7,000 people still watch television in black and white.

Why do some still opt for black and white? They can’t all be cheapskates who would rather pay just £49 a year for a black and white licence compared with almost £145.50 for a colour one. Black and white TV is like black and white photography and cinema: for some it’s aesthetically superior, more potently expressive. If you colourised a Mapplethorpe, a Weegee, a Fay Godwin, that glisteningly beautiful black and white of Alexander Mackendrick’s film Sweet Smell of Success, or indeed most of the great Hollywood genre called film noir, you should be arrested for cultural vandalism if not murder, since, in a sense, you would be sucking the life out of them.

One champion of black and white, TV historian Jeffrey Borinsky, asked rhetorically yesterday: “Who wants all this new-fangled 4K ultra HD, satellite dishes or a screen that’s bigger than your room when you can have glorious black and white TV?” Viewed thus, black and white TV is like craft beer, lo-fi reproof to a world gone wrong.

It’s a good point. Technological “progress” often just gives us more of what we don’t want. Endless choice is misery-making rather than liberating. No wonder the 7,000 rebel against colour TV’s gimcrack lunacy of red buttons; endless channels screening nothing worth watching; the binge-based death-in-life of modern viewing, and the whole lie that having access all the time to everything will make us happy rather than confused and sad.


Notifications

Social media never seems to end…

The End Of Endings

Amanda Hess, 15 Nov 2018, nytimes.com

The age of the sequel is over. Now it’s the age of the sequel to the sequel. Also the prequel, the reboot, the reunion, the revival, the remake, the spinoff and the stand-alone franchise-adjacent film. Canceled television shows are reinstated. Killed-off characters are resuscitated. Movies do not begin and end so much as they loiter onscreen. And social media is built for infinite scrolling. Nothing ends anymore, and it’s driving me insane.

Meanwhile, on smaller screens, social media has given rise to self-perpetuating content machines.

Didn’t endings used to mean something? They imbued everything that came before them with significance, and then they gave us the space to reflect on it all. More than that: They made us feel alive. The story ended, but we did not. This had been true at least since the novel supplanted the oral tradition. In his essay “The Storyteller,” Walter Benjamin wrote that the novelist “invites the reader to a divinatory realization of the meaning of life by writing ‘Finis.’” He continued, “What draws the reader to the novel is the hope of warming his shivering life with a death he reads about.” We needed stories to end so we could make sense of them. We needed characters to die so we could make sense of ourselves.

At the same time, social media is pushing the limits of limitlessness. What Instagram has branded “Stories” is an endless feed of images, one-liners and special effects that carries no pretense of progression. All it does is continue.

Phones are NOT God…

The phone network 3 had an advert recently that decried the awesomeness of mobile phones by showing how great they would have been in historical situations such as the sinking of the Titanic.

However, the reality of the situation is perhaps somewhat different, as illustrated by the artist Pierre Brignaud…

Phones Titanic

Also, the advert by 3 has a very clever (and sacrilegious?) bit right towards the end, where we very briefly see the phrase ‘#PhonesAreGod’ just before it quickly changes to ‘#PhonesAreGood’. Not sure what to make of it, not sure what they are trying say, but see if you can spot it anyway.

Phones Are God


We really are addicted to our phones…

And finally, as an added bonus, here is the brilliant British comedian Russell Howard explaining in under 6 minutes some of the ridiculous behaviours technology induces in us all (WARNING – contain adult humour, you have been warned)…