Nicolas ‘Ataturk’ Sarkozy and French republican principles

Ataturk (1881-1938) was a product of his time and generation. Having watched the once great Ottoman Empire humbled, he struggled to save what territory he could for modern Turkey. Once Turkey's borders were secured he set about trying to modernize Turkey and bring it into the modern age.

A key plank of his strategy was to fully integrate women into mainstream Turkish society. To this end, he granted women the right to vote and banned the wearing of the veil.

In the authoritarian environment of the 1920s, such actions were possible. Not easy, but possible. (As part of Ataturk's modernizing reforms, in 1925 Ataturk outlawed men from wearing the Fez. The ban resulted in civil unrest in many parts of Turkey.)

French civil society of 2010 is an entirely different matter. And Sarkozy is not a national war hero with cult-like standing whose every word is sacred to the French people.

So when the French Parliament's lower house passes legislation banning the face veil there are bound to be repercussions. One need only examine the politicization of the hijab (not niqab) in Turkey and other parts of the world to determine how polarizing such issues can become.

Of course, the niqab and hijab are distinct items of clothing. Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, the late Dean of Islam's oldest and most respected center of learning, Al-Azhar University, is on record stating that full face veiling has no relationship with Islam. In fact, during a visit to a girls' school in Cairo he ordered a student to remove the face veil.

Arguments against the niqab notwithstanding, the action by French lawmakers' raises another question. Is it worthwhile for a national legislative body to spend so much time and energy devising a law which affects as estimated 2,000 people out of a population of 64 million? Surely, a management consultant would argue that such efforts are a waste of taxpayer money.

Psychologists generally suggest that in order to modify behaviour, positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement. Imposing fines for wearing the niqab is negative reinforcement. Perhaps picking out Muslim women role models from mainstream French society – 'middle of the road' mothers, housewives and professionals – and projecting them as the embodiment of 'French' values might work better?

Although the niqab is primarily worn by Arabs, it has slowly permeated other parts of the Islamic world. Here a woman is shown wearing the niqab in Palu, Indonesia

Yes, the niqab is misguided and deviant Islam must be fought tooth and nail. (Perhaps the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' inspired one-eyed veil suggested by a Saudi cleric will be replace the niqab one day!) However, populist legislation may not be the best way forward. Isn't there enough fodder for Islamic extremists to feed upon while espousing their jihad against Western civilization – banning mosque minarets, cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, foreign troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

France is for the French, just as Switzerland is for the Swiss. But to the Islamic world it does seem as if Muslims are needlessly singled out for recrimination by the rest of the world.

For ordinary Muslims, it's tough to see the world only in black and white. But global political trends are fast shrinking the shades of grey in which I and millions of other Muslims thrive!

Lightning rods and acts of God

Doesn't 'death by misadventure' sound like a good way to go? The phrase suggests death occurred while pursuing a passion. This is exactly what happened in the unfortunate case of a 57 year old golfer who died recently after being struck by lightning on a golf course last year.

I have seen golfing do silly things to otherwise rational people. On holidays all they wish to do is wake up at unearthly hours, drive several hours, then walk around in the blazing sun while hitting a little white ball around.

Often golfers' scheme, plot, plan and even lie to get away from their wives in order to reach their place of worship: the country club. Sunstroke, beauty sleep and family be damned. It's all about the golf ball and the green.

Death by misadventure or 'death due to unintentional accident without any violation of law or criminal negligence' is not unusual.

Neither, it seems, is death caused by being struck by bolts of lightning. (Surely nothing can be classified as an 'Act of God' more perfectly than being struck by lightning!) Well, it occurs at least often enough for a group of academics to spend someone else's money and their own time studying the phenomenon.

According to a 1981 study published in the Singapore Medical Journal, Singaporeans are more likely to be struck by lightning than most people. Not surprising given the frequency of thunderstorms in the city. Among a sample of seven countries, national 'lightning death' rates vary from Britain's low of 0.2 per million to Singapore's high of 1.7 deaths per million.

Ok, so the probability of being struck by lightning is slim. Of course, the odds of a lightning strike for a golfer are higher. The golfer holds an iron rod in the middle of an open field – it's almost an open challenge to a lightning bolt!

We all must go someday so, for a golfer what better way than on a golf course; or an entertainer dying on stage during a performance, although such an event might traumatize the audience.

Like most forms of death, death by misadventure does not discriminate between kings and ordinary people. If a court were to rule on Mogul Emperor Humayun's death, the verdict would most certainly be recorded as death by misadventure. On January 27, 1556, Humayun tripped down the stairs of his library and struck a mortal blow to his head. (Few scholars mention that his poor balance may have been caused by his alcohol habit.)

Mogul Emperor Humayun (1508-1556) seated in a garden

In my case the odds of being struck by a lightning rod increase each time I publish a blog post challenging 'Mullahism' in Islam. Praise be to Allah, all lightning bolts have eluded me so far.

‘Collateral damage’ joins mainstream modern warfare

In the old days, wars were fought with honour. Soldiers met on appointed battlefields and fought until one army was victorious. The losers surrendered and to the victor went the spoils. Undoubtedly, there were incidents of looting, pillaging and other unsavoury stuff that soldiers are apt to do during wars.

However, by and large, civilians continued with their dreary lives in villages and hamlets. Only their 'masters' changed as armies won and lost wars on battlefields.

Yes, then as now, it was said that 'all's fair in love and war.' In the old days perhaps that meant bribing someone inside a walled city to open the city gates, poisoning the king or buying the loyalty of a general. Today, it more likely refers to the justified killing of civilians as part of a broader war effort.

Whether one speaks of suicide bombers or UN mandated stabilization forces erroneously killing civilians, such conclusions are not merely based on anecdotal evidence. (Although the daily newspapers sufficiently portray the horrific amount of civilian suffering in today's war zones.)

In her 1999 book 'New and Old Wars,' Mary Kaldor reveals the facts underlying the dreadful trend in modern warfare. In the early part of the twentieth century, almost 90% of all were casualties were soldiers. Of all the casualties in World War Two, 50% were civilians. (Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki coupled with allied air force bombing raids on 'strategic' targets in Germany during the last few years of the war started racking up the civilian numbers.) Today, more than 50% of wartime casualties are civilian.*

The mushroom cloud from the nuclear explosion at Nagasaki. Within four months of its detonation, the bomb resulted in the deaths of 60,000 - 80,000 people in the city

Dropping bombs on civilian areas by air force planes as done during World War Two is one thing. Killing civilians by uniformed, disciplined soldiers during engagements with rebel groups is another. However, the worst of the lot is intentionally killing 'soft' civilian targets by suicide bombers, intending to browbeat populations into submission.

(It's irrelevant whether the suicide attack takes place in Tel Aviv, Kabul or Pakistan's tribal areas – by targeting civilians such attacks are morally and religiously unjustifiable.)

Sadly, the way warfare has been transformed into 'total warfare' leaves little doubt that civilian deaths will continue to dominate warfare for many years to come.

Warfare, like everything else in the digital age, has been 'democratized.' The front lines are no longer manned by soldiers but by unwitting civilians. Unfortunately, neither bombs nor bullets discriminate when choosing victims for death.  

*The data is referenced in Loretta Napoleoni's book, 'Terror Inc.' published in 2003.

‘Hippocratic’ journalism and modern war zones

Like doctors, one presumes that most journalists have an ethical obligation to report the truth. Reality is expected to pass untainted from the journalist's eyes to her pen.

I guess most of us know that is not always the case, either with doctors or journalists.

Some doctors refuse to treat patients unless evidence of payment is made or, more likely, doctors make patients undergo superfluous tests in order to increase their own earnings. Both actions directly violate the Hippocratic Oath which doctors adhere to as medical professionals. (The ancient Greek version of the oath was updated in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Dean of the Tufts University School of Medicine.)

Journalists, as far as I know, make no similar pledges. Scribes are only answerable to their own conscience.  Among other practices, journalists have been known to be on the payroll of intelligence agencies, politicians or simply to obtain money from special interest groups for espousing certain causes.

In this sense, journalists walk an ethical 'grey area.' Is it wrong for a journalist committed to, say, green causes to receive funds from environmental groups for writing about her passion? It's a debatable subject.

However, sometimes journalists just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Take Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist largely responsible for US general McChrystal's fall from grace. Sure, Hastings' article was the result of his own journalistic endeavours. He engineered the opportunity by cultivating a relationship with McChrystal's staff such that the staff made uncharacteristically blunt and politically incorrect statements.

Based on Hastings' 'breaking' story about McChrystal, he has signed a book publishing deal on the Afghan War. According to the publishers, the book "will offer an unfiltered look at the war, and the soldiers, diplomats and politicians who are waging it."

One cannot and should not begrudge a man his due, so it is with Hastings' book on Afghanistan. Hastings has capitalized on similar fortunes in the past.

In April 2007, Hastings was the Iraq correspondent for Newsweek magazine. Three weeks after his girlfriend was killed in an ambush in Baghdad, Hastings rushed off a book proposal which "focuses on the author's relationship with 28-year-old Andrea "Andi" Parhamovich, a civilian consulting with NGO National Democratic Institute in Baghdad who was killed January 2717, 2007 in an ambush there."

Hastings received USD 500,000 for the book from Scribner. (I have not read the book.)

Maybe the book was a cathartic experience for Hastings but sending the pitch three weeks following her death. It sounds more like he had to cash a check before it expired. Or maybe Hastings simply wished to reveal the truth about his experiences in a war zone.

Content is dictated by consumers. Most readers are more interested in intimate relationships forged in war zones than the finer points of my personal religious philosophy!

The halal trinity: simplicity, hygiene and faith

I came across a restaurant advertising itself as a 'Muslim seafood' restaurant recently. I am aware that the halal certification is a big thing in Singapore and Malaysia, especially given that pork products are freely sold alongside other types of food.

In fact, it was fascinating to learn that in Singapore fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken are 'halal' certified, or that food courts which only serve halal food exist. In most Muslim societies one does not worry about food being halal – by definition most everything is halal. Truth be told, for those seeking non-halal food, it is not easily available in many Muslim countries!

I do not intend for this post to be a theological debate about personal dietary habits. For all I care, people can eat pork, fry their parathas in lard or cook their pet dog. It's not my place to decide what others eat.

However, the notion of 'Muslim seafood' can be entertaining. Does that mean the crabs, lobsters and prawns were netted in 'Muslim' seas, thus conferring 'Islamic' status upon them? Were the fishermen Muslim or non-Muslim? Or perhaps the male crustaceans were circumcised by having a tiny piece of their shell removed at an early age!

Most Muslims are aware that, in general, all seafood is halal. The Islamic Council of Singapore (MUIS) halal guidelines state, "Aquatic animals are those, which live in water and cannot survive outside it, such as fish. All aquatic animals are halal except those that are poisonous, intoxicating or hazardous to health." (I suppose theologians have spent endless hours debating whether 'land crabs,' are halal or not.)

The notion of halal, as defined by MUIS, is interesting. MUIS guidelines suggest only Muslim employees may slaughter and tag poultry. In fact, the guidelines even require that the 'slaughterers' (odd word choice) "shall rotate duties with other qualified slaughterers every half an hour" so as to "ensure optimal concentration and prevent fatigue."  

I could not find any information on the guidelines pertaining to slaughtering other types of animal, such as cows and sheep. I guess in the modern era of industrial food processing, it's probably not easy (and most likely illegal) to ensure that all Australian and Argentine 'beef processors' be exclusively Muslim?

The question then becomes how does one square the circle – Muslims must personally slaughter chicken in a prescribed manner but non-Muslims may slaughter cows, although also in a prescribed manner? If not, then that coveted 'halal' certificate is missing. (The halal certificate is kind of like a professional certification, a prerequisite for selling into Muslim markets.)

Additionally, the question of 'non-halal' certified premises selling halal food products arises. While this is not an issue for packaged foods sold in supermarkets, it is for restaurants and bakeries? Can a baker place bread prepared using non-halal animal fats next to 'regular' bread?

Next stop 'interracial' cutlery and dishes – shall I walk around with my own forks and knives to ensure 'clean' cutlery to use while dining out? Where does it stop, as with each step we place barriers between people of different faiths?

It all seems a bit complicated to me. So, I keep it simple and just stay away from obviously 'haram' food, e.g. pig meat. I believe that is sufficient to remain a Muslim. And I trust that cutlery is kept clean and 'pollutants' are washed away after each use. Of course there is one final step, have faith.

For 'true' believers, nothing short of the following flow chart will suffice: A Brief Guide to Halal Food Selection. Surely, all true believers carry the chart in their pocket when walking the aisles of their local supermarket?

Life's all about stuff, stuff and still more stuff

It's human nature to want more stuff. Purchasing the 'must have' CD only to listen to it only once, or the expensive shirt that's been hanging in the closet for years. Then there's that pile of unread books sitting in the 'to read' pile collecting in the study.

But greed is most pronounced when measured in plain, simple cash. We all want to win the lottery and become overnight millionaires. Millionaires don't have any problems – at least none that money can't solve.

1907 photograph of Alaskan Inuit woman

After hitting the million dollar mark, everyone agrees that the rest of our lives will be happy? I tend to disagree – greed knows no limits.

(Given inflation and the decline in the value of paper currencies, perhaps we should be talking about eight digits and not merely seven? With the resale price of some (subsidized) Housing Development Board flats in Singapore nearing SGD one million (USD 714,000) then adding one more digit does seem appropriate.)

Humans always covet the next million dollars, the better car and the better home. Will a CEO be happy with his existing pay check, even if it is one hundred million dollars? Or will the Wall Street trader be content with a twenty million dollars annual performance bonus?  No. It's human nature to want more, irrespective of how much we already have.

The nascent field of 'neuroeconomics' contends that many of these behavioural traits, including greed, are reflexive and instinctual. Just pre-programmed responses controlled by emotions which reside in certain parts of the brain.

But is wealth a necessary condition for happiness? To a large extent, the answer depends on how one defines wealth.

Take away a CEO's private jet and she might be extremely unhappy. The CEO takes a private jet for granted. Give a factory worker an enhanced transport allowance and she will consider her company management to be enlightened and benevolent capitalists, for a few days at any rate.

In a sense, the fewer our wants the easier it is to be happy. Like a child who is just as delighted playing with a worthless piece of paper as with an expensive 'designer' toy. (I assume there is such a thing as a designer toy?)

No, I don't suggest that we 'turn on, tune in, and drop out,' Timothy Leary style. (Remember, in Singapore graffiti vandalism results in caning but illegal drug use is punishable by death!) Or become monks and renounce all material possessions.

Nevertheless, taking a step back to determine what is important and necessary is a worthwhile exercise. In all likelihood, one will conclude that, other than family and friends, little else matters.

We need only ask the Maasai tribal people in Kenya or the Inuit people living in harsh snowy climate of the Arctic. On an annual global survey conducted by psychologists both the Maasais and Inuits score just as high as members of the Forbes 400 'Rich List' on a 'Happiness Index,' despite their relative lack of wealth and bleak weather conditions in the Arctic.*

*See "Your Money and Your Brain" by Jason Zweig. 2007. At the time of the survey, the minimum net worth for someone to be on the Forbes 400 list was USD 125 million.

Where are today’s heroes? Detained at JFK airport by US immigration!

Role models are important. They help us aspire to be better than we are and give us concrete examples of success. Role models possess those qualities which help us achieve our goals.

Of course, the operative word here is success.

There are successful scientists, doctors, businessmen and politicians. But to some, negative role models such as Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar or their local variants may have greater appeal than members of mainstream society.

That the Islamic world has not been able to throw up vigorous contemporary role models may lie at the heart of the problem. Sure, aspiring politicians may look towards Ataturk, Jinnah or other nationalists for inspiration. However, their appeal is jaded and historical, not in tune with today's iPod generation. The jihadists and other radicals are far more likely to appeal to the young.

At a practical level, there are hardly any instances of world class scientists, doctors or the like produced by the Islamic world. When Dr. Abdus Salam, the Pakistani physicist received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, he was the exception that proves the rule.

And, being a member of a 'deviant' Islamic sect, Dr. Salam's status as a Muslim will be disputed by many traditional bearded 'scholars.' (That's another story for another day.)

Islamic scholars will hark back to the glory days of Islamic history when Muslims led the advancement of thought in most any field, including medicine, mathematics, physics and their derivatives. History provides context but is not sufficiently strong to shape the next generation. Especially today's digital generation which requires everything to be 'here and now.'

There are two major flaws with my argument. Firstly, I have restricted role models by religious persuasion. Secondly, not all role models must have achieved greatness on the international stage. Local, even parochial, role models are sufficient for most of us.

Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bishop Desmond Tutu are not excluded from being role models simply because they are non-Muslims. Far from it, as role models for humanity these three are among the finest examples we can emulate.

However, the reality is that for most young in today's Muslim world the ability to 'connect and relate' with a role model increases exponentially if the individual is a Muslim. Perhaps this is an unfortunate by product of 9/11 or academic debates being anchored around Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' thesis – who knows.

Additionally, publicity within the Islamic world naturally gravitates towards 'indigenous' leaders. Just as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has a natural bias towards reporting British news, the national media of Muslim nations has a domestic and subsequently 'Islamic' bias in its reporting.

Undoubtedly, 'local' role models play as significant (if not more) a role as national models. Who can argue that a parent, teacher or some other relative did not help shape their worldly outlook?

A doctor looks to the specialist in her ward for leadership by example, a scientist to the lead scientist at her institute and so on.

However, a purely 'local' approach is fraught with the danger that a truly gifted individual remains 'undiscovered' – a loss to all of humanity. The approach implies functioning filtering systems to ensure that the individual is 'pushed up' to the next level of achievement. Much is left to chance.

Hence, individuals must have larger greatness to emulate. Ideally, these people must have visible achievements, readily seen by all. Bangladeshi 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammad Yunus, famed for his community banking concepts and Pakistani philanthropist Abdus Sattar Edhi and the Edhi Foundation come immediately to my mind.

Abdus Salam Road in Geneva, Switzerland

Let's hope that the next century holds more heroes for Muslims – and Osama doesn't count! And that these Muslim heroes are recognized beyond Islam's borders too. That US authorities confiscated 79 year old Maulana Edhi's passport and interrogated him for nine hours at New York's JFK airport in 2008, considering him a potential terrorist threat,' only underscores to Muslims the unfortunate (but real) notion that there is a clear distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim role models in the world today.