Mecca Goes Mega

Visiting modern mecca is like visiting any modern western city center with all the exploitation of modernity and commerce with a tinge of spirituality of Hajj and Umra. F sheikh

A building boom in the city’s sacred center has
created a dazzling, high-tech 21st-century pilgrimage.

In the days before rapid sea or air travel, it could take months to travel to Mecca. The spiritual heart of Islam lay far from its great capitals in Istanbul, Delhi and Isfahan. The devout came from distant lands on foot, by camel and in horse-drawn carriages. Bedouin tribes routinely robbed these pilgrims, who were the primary source of revenue for this ancient desert town. Now, the ease of air travel and the rise of a global Muslim middle class have made the journey to Mecca far less arduous and far more common. Last year, three million came for the hajj, a pilgrimage in the last month of the Islamic lunar calendar that is considered obligatory for every Muslim who can afford it; five million more came for the umrah, a minor pilgrimage that can be made for much of the year. And millions of Saudi citizens routinely pass through Mecca’s sacred sites as tourists.

The Italian photographer Luca Locatelli, visiting Mecca this year during the umrah period, captured how radically the city has changed to accommodate this growing influx of pilgrims. Until the first half of the 20th century, this was a small city of spacious stone houses famed for their mashrabiyah, or latticed windows and balconies. Five hills known as the rim of Mecca encircled the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba, or House of God, located in the city center. Today, all a visitor would recognize from older images of Mecca are the Ottoman domes of the Grand Mosque, its minarets and the Kaaba. The ancient hills, the old stone homes and many of the sites linked to the life of the Prophet Muhammad have been obliterated by towering shopping malls, hotels and apartment blocks.

Click here for full article

 

” I don’t have to be what you want me to be” Muhammad Ali

A great article by Kenan Malik removing the sanctified coat and presenting a raw human Muhammad Ali of Jim Crow era. ”  I am America. I am the part you won’t recognize. But get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to Me” posted by f.sheikh. 

Ali by Gordon Parks

‘A strange fate befell Muhammad Ali in the 1990s’, Mike Marqusee writes in Redemption Song, his wonderful, illuminating study of ‘Muhammad Ali and the Spirit of the Sixties’. ‘The man who had defied the American establishment was taken into its bosom. There he was lavished with an affection which had been strikingly absent thirty years before, when for several years he reigned unchallenged as the most reviled figure in the history of American sports.’

The global outpouring of grief, affection and tribute to Ali this weekend  has been moving and heart-warming. Yet, there is a part of me that thinks that, as affection has washed away the old contempt with which he once was greeted by large sections, especially of American society, we have also lost something of the sense of Ali’s true greatness. It is not that I would rather that Ali be treated with contempt than with affection – far from it. Nor is it that Ali’s brashness and braggadocio, his opposition to the Vietnam War, or his support for the Nation of Islam, have been ignored in the thousands of eulogies this weekend. It is rather that, as Ali’s biographer Thomas Hauser observed, so much effort has been spent trying to sanitise Ali that we are danger of forgetting the real man and his real courage. It is also that we have moved so far from the world that created Muhammad Ali that it is difficult properly to comprehend the hatred and revulsion that once greeted him, or the radicalism and hope that he embodied.

There is a danger, too, of sanctifying Ali, of according him mythical status, and so depriving him of his real humanity. He was a man of great contradictions and, like all human beings, of deep flaws. He was one of the greatest symbols of black pride, and yet, as Arthur Ashe said of his run-ins with Sonny Liston and Floyd Paterson, ‘No black athlete had ever spoken so disparagingly to another black athlete’.  He was proud of his accomplishments as a fighter, and yet also deeply ambivalent about his role in the ring, describing boxing as ‘a lot of white men watching two black men beat each other up’.  He was an icon of the civil rights movement yet pledged allegiance to the Nation of Islam, an organization that despised the movement and the ‘integration agenda’. He prized friendship and loyalty, yet treated his friend and mentor Malcolm X with cruel disdain after the latter broke with the Nation of Islam.

Ali defeats lLston by Gordon Parks

Part of Ali’s greatness, however, was his ability to reveal all his contradictions and flaws, and yet also to transcend them. Listening now, in an age which most boxers are merely loudmouth journeymen, to Ali’s great, boastful tirades, the ‘Louisville Lip’ may sound similarly tiresome. But that is not to understand the context of his swagger. In an age of Jim Crow laws and brutal lynchings, for a young black man to stand up and proclaim his greatness, defy convention, refuse to be humble or to know his place, was an incomparable act of bravery and defiance. It was a means of turning the world on its head, of demonstrating that through strength of will and force of personality, it was possible to force people to look upon the world – to look upon you – differently. As Ali put it:

I am America. I am the part you won’t recognize. But get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me.

Ali’s support for the reactionary National of Islam may, from today’s perspective, seem disturbing. But, again, in the context of the treatment of African Americans in the 1960s, it was a bold insistence on being able to define his own identity, and not allowing himself to be constrained by a deeply racist society and by his ‘slave name’. The day after he defeated Sonny Liston to become world champion for the first time,  Ali held a press conference in which he formally announced that he had joined the Nation of Islam (he had secretly been a member for two years). ‘I don’t have to be what you want me to be’, he told the assembled media. ‘I’m free to be what I want.’ ‘I don’t have to be what you want me to be’. Nothing better summed up the Muhammad Ali of the 1960s, or why he drew upon himself such opprobrium and contempt from the establishment, or why, for so many, he was such a symbol of aspiration and hope.

Ali’s refusal of the draft to fight in Vietnam was a courageous stance. His willingness to stand by his decision, despite the authorities stripping him of his world title, his boxing licence, his passport and almost his liberty (he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for draft evasion, the conviction eventually being overturned  by the Supreme Court  after a four-year legal battle), was an act of great principle. ‘Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?’ he asked. ‘The real enemy of my people’, he continued, ‘is right here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality’.

Click here for full article

IMF & WB vis-a-vis the underdeveloped countries.

Imtiaz Bokhari Sahib has written to me again that he wants to continue discussion about the topic in the title. Some of the initial exchanges between some members were done via email but most TF subscribers should have received those exchanges. So Bokhari Sahib, this is in some more detail the point I have been making.

Some of you have seen recent discussion going on the TF mailing list re. the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank vis a vis Third World countries. The original article’s premise was that the above two institutions were essentially blood suckers making poor countries poorer while those poor countries were faultless victims. I did not challenge the premise that those institutions (IMF &WB and their investors) care only for their profit and not for the well being of the citizens of those poor countries. The only thing I challenged is the fact that the underdeveloped countries were made out to be faultless victims.
As a result I was asked by some to read some articles that would enlighten me. At the time I refused to read those articles because I didn’t think you could acquire commonsense by reading an article and I feel commonsense is all you need to come to the conclusion I came to. Fayyaz,Nasik and Babar Sahibs actually did – and put it in writing. But over the long weekend I had a few hours to kill and to satisfy my own curiosity I decided to do my own research on the subject. I have attached links to a few articles and to be objective I have purposely chosen articles that are highly critical of the IMF and the WB but read carefully and you’ll see that those countries were not faultless. I’ll make it easier by giving you the exact location of the lines that will prove my point.
As you can see this article is highly critical of IMF & WB but scroll down to section “How do countries get into financial trouble, the Debt Crisis” and read the third line down in the second paragraph. Corrupt and inept leaders is why the countries are poor in the first place; getting loans to fill their own pockets makes things worse. And what is a bank supposed to do when a country fails to pay back? you certainly don’t expect them to say “please consider that loan as charity, we have enough money”.
This article is even more critical of IMF & WB but go to paragraph nine and read some of the lines.
Both these authors  seem to write pages and pages about how evil the banks are (and I am not even denying that) but  very casually glide over the ineptness of the poor countries’ leaders as if it was a very, very minor cause of poor countries getting poorer. I  think the leaders of those countries are AT LEAST half the problem
Shoeb

Song Of Lahore

This Memorial Day Weekend, while looking for some movie to watch at home theater, we stumbled upon a documentary” Song Of Lahore”. It is available on demand at Cablevision. This documentary turned out to be a rare treat. It is directed by Oscar winning director Sharmeen Chinoy. It follows classic Lahori  musicians who went through a hard time during General Zia’s regime and later Taliban’s rise that made playing music in public a life threatening endeavor. They recently started to regroup and create their own eastern version of Jazz music, Sachal Jazz. Their journey led to invitation by Wynton Marsalis, famous American Jazz musician, to collaborate with them and perform at Lincoln Center with full Orchestra. It is about 90 minute’s documentary but time flies and especially last 45 minutes are full of drama and joy. It is worth watching with family and friends.

Link to trailer of Documentary;

https://youtu.be/1_AVWUDomFk

Posted By F. Sheikh