[Reader-list] Fwd: Obama Speaks In Cairo- Three Comments- [Compiled and Posted by Harsh Kapoor in other forum- fwded]

[Venugopalan K M]

Here are three interesting responses to the epoch-making Cairo Speech
of Obama from representatives of secular thought from different parts
of the world .I like to apologize with Harsh for taking the liberty to
make these texts slightly abridged in view of  putting lesser demands
on the readers' time here.
Regards,
Venu.
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Harsh Kapoor <aiindex at gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:23:58 +0200

Subject:  Obama the Preacher meets Oumma : Nice and Dangerous

[Wonder when President Obama plans speaking to Hindusim, to
Christianity and other such enterprises. Three comments on Obama's
religion laced diplomacy. Given the nature of the widespread disease I
am not surprised not to read any voices from the left so far to stop
Obama and his advisors in their tracks and tell them not to peddle
Huntington. Any one on the left for separation of Chruch and the
State? Sadly, secularists are dying tribe and the left has its head
burried in the sand.
-Harsh]

o o o

#1.

http://www.siawi.org/article792.html

Reinforcing presumed religious identities: where are women and
secularists of Muslim countries in Obama’s speech in Cairo?

by Marieme Helie Lucas

June 4, 2009

It is beyond doubt that many people around the world, of various
political opinions and creeds, will feel relieved after the discourse
the President of the USA delivered in Cairo today. It is apparently a
new voice, a voice of peace, quite far from Bush’s clash of
civilisations. But is it so?

I presume that political commentators will point at the fact that
Obama equates violence on the side of occupied Palestinians to
violence on the side of Israeli colonizers, or that he has not
abandonned the idea that the USA should tell the world how to behave
and fight for their rights, or that the Israelo-Palestinian conflict
is reduced to a religious conflict, or that he still justifies the war
in Afghanistan, etc…

All those are important issues that need to be challenged. However,
what affects me most, as an Algerian secularist, is that Obama has not
done away with the idea of homogeneous civilisations that was at the
heart of the theory of the ’clash of civilisations’...
 He persistently opposes ’Islam and the West’ (as two
entities- civilisations), ’America and Islam’( a country vs a
religion); he claims that ’America is not at war with Islam’. In short
’the West’ is composed of countries, while ’Islam’ is not. Old Jomo
Kenyatta used to say of British colonizers : ’when they came, we had
the land, they had the Bible; now we have the Bible, they have the
land’. Obama’s discourse confirms it: religion is still good enough
for us to have, or to be defined by. His concluding compilation of
monotheist religious wisdom sounds as if it were the only language
that we, barbarians, can understand.

These shortcomings have adverse effects on us, citizens of countries
where Islam is the predominant and often the state religion.

First of all, Obama’s discourse is addressed to ’Islam’, as if an
idea, a concept, a belief, could hear him. As if those were not
necessarily mediated by the people who hold these views, ideas,
concepts or beliefs. As Soheib Bencheikh, former Great Mufti of
Marseilles, now Director of the Institute of High Islamic Studies in
Marseilles, used to say: ’I have never seen a Qur’an walking in the
street’…

Can we imagine for one minute that Obama would address himself to ’
Christianity’ or to ’Buddhism’? No, he would talk to Christians or
Buddhists… to real people, keeping in mind all their differences.
Obama is essentializing Islam, ignoring the large differences that
exist among Muslim believers themselves, in terms of religious schools
of thought and interpretations, cultural differences and political
opinions. These differences indeed make it totally irrelevant to speak
about ’Islam’ in such a totalizing way. Obama would not dare
essentialize, for instance, Christianity in such a way, ignoring the
huge gap between Opus Dei and liberation theology…

Unfortunately, this essentializing Islam feeds into the plans of
Muslim fundamentalists whose permanent claim is that there is one
single Islam - their version of it -, one homogeneous Muslim world,
and subsequently one single Islamic law that needs to be respected by
all in the name of religious rights.....these supposedly Muslim laws
reflect as well historical and political factors including colonial
sources [*] - obviously not divine.
This is the first adverse consequence of Obama’s essentializing Islam
and homogeneizing Muslims: as much as he may criticize fundamentalists
- which he calls ’a minority of extremists’-, he is using their
language and their concepts. This is unlikely to help the cause of
anti fundamentalists forces in Muslim countries....
 He assumes that anyone has to have a
religion, overlooking the fact that in many instances, people are
forced into religious identities. In more and more ’Muslim’ countries,
citizens are forced into religious practice [**], and pay dissent with
their freedom and sometimes with their lives....Many citizens of
’Muslim’ countries want to leave religion in its place and delink it
from politics.. they oppose unchangeable, a-historical,
supposedly divine laws, as a process that is alien to democracy...

Obama is claiming to defend democracy, democratic processes, and human
rights? How can this fit with addressing whole nations through their
supposed, hence imposed, religious identities?...
They are made ’Muslims’ . Not just
by our oppressive undemocratic governments - by Obama too… And when he
talks of his own fellow citizens, these ’7 million American Muslims’,
did he ask them what their faith was or is he assuming faith on
geographical origin?

In this religious straight jacket, women’s rights are limited to their
right to education - and Obama distances himself from arrogant
westerners by making it clear that women’s covering is not seen by him
as an obstacle to their emancipation. Especially, if it is ’their
choice’… Meanwhile, Iran is next door, with its morality police that
jails women whose hair slips out of the said-covering, in the name of
religious laws… And what about Afghanistan or Algeria where women were
abducted, tortured, raped, mutilated, burnt alive, killed for not
covering [***]?

At no point does he raise the issue of who defines culture, who
defines religion, who speaks for ’the Muslims’ - and why could not it
be defined by individual women themselves - without clerics, without
morality police, without self appointed, old, conservative, male,
religious leaders - if their fundamental human rights were to be
respected. Obviously, Obama trades women’s human rights for political
and economic alliances with ’Islam’… ’Islam’ definitely owns oil,
among other things.

No, this discourse is not such a change for an American President:
Obama remains within the boundaries of clashing civilisations-
religions. How can this save us from the global rise of religious
fundamentalism, which this discourse was supposed to counter?

Footnotes

[*] for instance, from 1962 to 1976, the source for Algerian laws on
reproductive rights was the 1920 French law; or, in 1947, the source
for Pakistani law on inheritance was the Victorian law that the UK
itself had already done way with.

[**] One Malaysian state made daily prayers compulsory; Algerian
courts condemned to prison non fasting citizens in 2008; Iranian
courts still jail women for ’unislamic behavior’.

[***] *** Shadow Report on Algeria. wluml.org

Creative Commons License
Reinforcing presumed religious identities: where are women and
secularists of Muslim countries in Obama’s speech in Cairo? by Marieme
Helie Lucas is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for
non-commercial purposes following these guidelines.

o o o

#2.

The Guardian, 5 June 2009

We wanted a world leader. We saw only a US president

Obama’s long-awaited speech demonstrated little to suggest America
will pursue any course beyond its own interests

by Ahdaf Soueif

This is hard. It’s hard because we so need to believe that Obama is
about change, that he’s wise, that he’s good, that he has the
interests of the world – rather than just the interests of the United
States – at heart.
....In the great Festival Hall under the dome of Cairo University we are a
good-humoured crowd....Obama did what many of us hoped he would not
do: he accorded faith a
central position in the relationship between our different parts of
the world: rather than human beings with different histories and
different political interests and ambitions – and despite a quick
acknowledgment of colonialism – we were essentially people of
different faiths who would now make nice with each other. And such is
our beleaguered state of mind here in this part of the world that
every time he quoted the Qur’an, he was applauded. But then again, it
seemed that it was the same 200 or so people who were putting their
hands together – to less effect each time.
"Extremism" was top of the agenda, even though al-Qaida, once so
modern and cutting edge, is now tired and irrelevant. But it was
prodded out of its stall again as justification for American
operations in Afghanistan. We were reminded of the 3,000 people killed
in New York – people who had done no harm to anyone. And every person
listening east of Rome and many west of it would have been thinking
"and what about the million Iraqis, what about the Afghanis, what
about …" And nothing about non-Muslim extremism, about the 40 million
American Christian Zionists anticipating the Rapture with glee, or the
Israeli settlers who in Hebron take your photo and upload it to God to
fast-lane you to hell.
Obama’s speech was a lawyerly speech, a clever speech. It certainly
departed from the Bush discourse, but how far away from the policies
of the last eight years are the sources it springs from? We still can
only wait and see.
The biggest applause he got was when he said that all US troops would
be out of Iraq by 2012, and when he repeated his position on the
Israeli settlements. He’s been brave on the settlements, and of course
we’re all grateful for every step in the direction of halting the
dispossession of the Palestinians. But it also needs to be remembered
that stopping the settlements has been part of the official position
of every American administration; what’s required is the
implementation of that position by cutting off the funding for the
settlements and closing the tax loophole that allows private American
organisations to fund them.
Around the pedestal carrying the Eternal Flame of Knowledge outside
the university,the American activist group Code Pink carried banners
that said "Obama: Stop funding Israeli war crimes". They came out of
Gaza on Wednesday carrying a letter from Hamas to the American
president, and they were at pains to point out that Hamas chose an
American feminist group to carry their letter. I don’t know if they
managed to deliver it.
There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests
of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and
believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem
compatible with America’s. Obama has said that America should have not
only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we
waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the
leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the
United States.


o o o


#3.

The Ottawa Citizen, June 4, 2009
Obama misses his ‘tear down this wall’ moment
by Tarek Fatah
"..But perhaps there was a method in Obama’s madness. Perhaps he would
walk into the heart of dictatorship and racism to make his “tear down
this wall” call as Ronald Reagan did in Berlin in 1987. I waited, but
that moment never came.
At one stage when Obama made reference to Bang-ladesh and Indonesia
and Turkey, my heart fluttered in anticipation. Yes, I thought. He is
now going to make the argument directly to the men who rule the Arab
world with an iron fist. Talking about women’s rights, Obama said: “In
Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen
Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.”
Bravo, I thought. I hoped his next sentence would say: Now is the time
for Arab countries to take a lead from their non-Arab co-religionists
and learn how to bring women to the forefront of politics and
leadership.
But he didn’t.
Instead his next line was almost an apology for why the Arab world is
so hostile to women’s equality. Obama said, “Meanwhile, the struggle
for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and
in countries around the world."
To me he sounded as if he was saying to the kings and generals: Do not
despair, we Americans too are not without blame as far as women’s
rights are concerned.
Of course America has miles to go before it rests, but to even hint of
a parallel between the challenges facing women in America and the
appalling condition of women in the Arab world is downright dangerous
and only feeds the mullahs who will say, “Look, even America
discriminates against women — Obama said it.”...






The Ottawa Citizen, June 4, 2009

Obama misses his ‘tear down this wall’ moment

by Tarek Fatah

Whether we like Barack Obama or not, few would disagree the United
States is today being led by a man like no other in its history. And
being black is not the reason why. It is the uncharted waters the
American president has chosen to traverse that make his journey so
captivating, much more than his mastery of oratory. His speech in
Cairo yesterday was a milestone no other American president could have
or would have cared or dared to reach.

Abu Natasha (father of Natasha), as Obama would be known to Arabs, has
made a seemingly easy pitch at the Muslim world that could very well
turn out to be a nasty curve ball that few of the dictators in the
region would be able to read. Only time will tell if Obama’s pitch is
hit out of the park by the guile of the wicked batsmen who have
occupied their positions for decades, or whether he scores a
strikeout.

As a secular Muslim admirer of Obama who has one degree of separation
from him (we have a common friend) I got up early to listen to the
much-anticipated speech from Cairo.

I was uneasy about his choice of location, even as I wanted to give
the man the benefit of doubt. After all, Obama was supposed to address
the Muslim world, not the Arab world. Some may argue that questioning
his choice for the venue is nitpicking, but where he said what he said
is hugely significant as well.

Some observers argued that, in rejecting venues like Jakarta, Karachi,
Dar es Salaam, Dakar, Dhaka or Kuala Lumpur, President Obama had
inadvertently bought into the doctrine that divides the Muslim world
between the so-called authentic Muslims of the Arab countries and the
B-grade Muslims that live elsewhere.

For centuries, non-Arab African Muslims like the Kenyan Barack Obama
Sr., have been deemed of lesser worth and referred to in the Arab
world as “Ya Abdi” (O my slave) while other non-Arab Muslims have been
slapped with the derogatory title of Mawalis, the manifestation of
which is seen today in Darfur and Dubai.

But perhaps there was a method in Obama’s madness. Perhaps he would
walk into the heart of dictatorship and racism to make his “tear down
this wall” call as Ronald Reagan did in Berlin in 1987. I waited, but
that moment never came.

At one stage when Obama made reference to Bang-ladesh and Indonesia
and Turkey, my heart fluttered in anticipation. Yes, I thought. He is
now going to make the argument directly to the men who rule the Arab
world with an iron fist. Talking about women’s rights, Obama said: “In
Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen
Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.”

Bravo, I thought. I hoped his next sentence would say: Now is the time
for Arab countries to take a lead from their non-Arab co-religionists
and learn how to bring women to the forefront of politics and
leadership.

But he didn’t.

Instead his next line was almost an apology for why the Arab world is
so hostile to women’s equality. Obama said, “Meanwhile, the struggle
for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and
in countries around the world.”

To me he sounded as if he was saying to the kings and generals: Do not
despair, we Americans too are not without blame as far as women’s
rights are concerned.

Of course America has miles to go before it rests, but to even hint of
a parallel between the challenges facing women in America and the
appalling condition of women in the Arab world is downright dangerous
and only feeds the mullahs who will say, “Look, even America
discriminates against women — Obama said it.”

To give Obama credit, he did lay down the line when it comes to the
violent jihadis of al-Qaeda.

My hat’s off to him for making the journey and extending a hand, but
in doing so he has risked validating the very soft jihadis of the
Muslim Brotherhood who have  forced the hijab on the heads of Muslim
women, and made them think that not wearing one is like walking naked
in public.

I salute him for standing up for Muslim women who wish to wear the
hijab, but where was his condemnation of the punishment of Muslim
women in Saudi Arabia and Iran for daring to show their curls?

Obama has a few years to go before his legacy is written. In dealing
with Muslims I hope he does not swallow the Islamist definitions of
Islam that seem to be slowly creeping into his administration’s
narrative and outreach. I would hope that when he engages with
Muslims, he is not too enamoured by those who define their faith by
the number of bangs that are hidden under a hijab, but also by the
Muslims whom he befriended as a young man; such as his buddy, the
Pakistan-American Mohammed Hasan Chandoo.

Dear Abu Natasha,

As another Abu Natasha from just north of the border, please do not
impose on us Muslims what the Muslim Brotherhood wishes to impose, but
remember what you desire for your Christian daughter Natasha, I demand
for my Muslim daughter Natasha.

Khuda Hafiz.


--
http://venukm.blogspot.com/



--
http://venukm.blogspot.com/



-- 
http://venukm.blogspot.com/