Its popularity has quickly risen through the emergence of shisha bars in the Western hemisphere, set up by new immigrants.  Warm conversation, relaxing atmospheres and the fun of blowing smoke attracts people of all ages and groups to these places. For some: it’s a lifestyle; a way of bridging the gap between their old culture and their new home. For others its a novel hobby. Others believe it’s the only halal, Islamically permissible form of smoking they can do.

It is really common for people who don’t smoke to do shisha. But, why differentiate between the two?

Another health concern is the sharing of shishas which promotes the spread of air-borne diseases. The World Health Organization predicts that the rate of incidence of tuberculosis due to shisha is 17%. Though this is specific to tuberculosis, this phenomenon can occur with other bacterial or viral air-borne diseases. Even though the mouthpiece at shisha bars is changed, the pipe and water remains the same, and this is where the bacteria can reside.

For many, it will be hard to let go (as is the case with cigarettes). But, one must weigh in the benefits versus risks and make a conscious decision when deciding to smoke shisha or not.

Reports can be found here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/116/1/e113

http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/Waterpipe%20recommendation_Final.pdf

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/cesarfax/vol17/17-23.pdf

Elizabeth Kadegan of the University of Toronto newspaper (The Varsity) is definitely contributing something to this "burka ban" debate in her article called "Symbol of oppression or matter of choice?", published October 1st, 2009, she skillfully provides both sides of the story. She is providing a voice that is, unfortunately, severely lacking in Muslim coverage of the issue.

Muslim reportage is notoriously unable to report on the two sides without passing judgment, alienating groups, and implicitly expressing some kind of superiority (one blog site last week said that the government should ban mini skirts as it is just as degrading for white girls to walk around as "sluts").

Most of this biased reportage seems inaccurate and harmful. We would do well to perhaps note that this is not a religious issue at all. We are certainly not going to have imams decide this issue at the Supreme Court, developing arguments based on hadiths and schools of thought. This is not going to work, and the CMC's claim to various religion thinkers is largely useless. The issue is largely of individual freedoms and individual rights.

For this reason, I invite you all to read Kadegan's article on Pink Hijab Day. In it, three eloquent, modern and educated Muslim women are interviewed:

- Sharifa Khan, in the first year of her Master’s in political science, after getting her undergrad degree at U of T.

- Idil Burale,  fourth year, doing a double major in political science and diaspora and transnational studies.

- Hanan Kulmiye, fourth year, with a major in bioethics and a double minor in physiology and biology.

This is a very difficult time of year for many people. and it can often lead to a terrifying state of depression. One thing to remember is that being depressed doesn't make you a bad Muslim, or someone of weak faith.

“And when My servant question thee concerning Me, then surely I am nigh. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he crieth unto Me. So let them bear My call and let them trust in Me, in order that they may be led aright.”(Surah Al-Baqarah: 186) 

No other relationship will ever be more important than the one you have with yourself, and the one you have with God. Rely on yourself, and rely on Him and Insha'Allah you can get through any rough patches.

‘‘And your Lord says: Call upon Me and I will respond to your supplication.’’ [Surah Ghaafir 40:60]

However, it can often happen that no matter how strong our faith we feel that God is not responding to our prayers. Those in distress should be sincere in their du’aas, but they should also remember that Allah SAW doesn’t always give us what we want, but he will certainly give us what we need.

Sometimes not having your prayers answered is a blessing for Allah SAW in disguise.

‘‘Our Lord! We have heard the call of one calling us to faith: ‘Believe you in the Lord,’ and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remit from us our evil deeds, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous. Our Lord! Grant us what You did promise unto us through Your Messengers, and do not disgrace us on the Day of Judgment, for You never break Your promise. And their Lord has accepted of them, and answered them: Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, whether male or female.’’ [Surah Al-'lmraan 3:193-195]



Ameen.

(all image credits go to the New York Times)

David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was kidnapped by the Taliban in November 2008, while attempting to interview a Taliban commander named Abu Tayyeb.  He was taken hostage along side his Afghan driver, and his Afghan journalist colleague.

What follows is a mesmerizing five part series, featured in this month's New York Times, outlining his months in captivity and what he learned about the inner-workings of the Taliban, the culture of anti-Americanism in the region, and the ideologies of the kidnappers.

Be sure also to check out the Interactive Feature: Rohde reads the articles, against a backdrop of various images and videos collected by the NYT over the years.

Part 1:  "7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity" .
In this article, Rohde describes how the planned interview with Abu Tayyeb goes amiss.

Part 2:  Inside the Islamic Emirate.
In this section, Rohde describes how he was shifted to Miram Shah, the Pakistani stronghold of the Taliban. He knew, once they entered Pakistan, they had no hopes of surviving.

Part 3: ‘You Have Atomic Bombs, but We Have Suicide Bombers.’
Rohde describes getting to understand the "mix of righteousness and delusion" in his captors, defending his Afghan colleagues from accusations of treason and betrayal, and discovering deception on the part of his kidnapper.

Part 4: "A Drone Strike and Dwindling Hope"
Americans strike the Taliban compound where Rohde is being held, and he fears he will be punished for the actions of his government.

Part 5: "A Rope and a Prayer"
The great escape...  

What’s Canada’s national sport? Did you say hockey? It’s actually Lacrosse, believe it or not. But, we all know hockey is what us Canadians hold most dear to our hearts. We cheer our home team and our national team; win or lose. (That’s why the Leafs still have fans.)

And now Canada’s favourite past time has got a Muslim face! His name is Nazem Kadri, a first round, 7th overall draft pick by the Toronto Maple Leafs. He is of Lebanese decent, born in Canada, a practicing a Muslim, and a one time president of his local high school Muslim Students’ Association.

He is 18 years old, born October 6, 1990 and weighs in at 160lbs, at a height of 6ft. He plays center and has razzle-dazzled hockey fans in the preseason with quick hands and quick feet; his lethal combination.

But, before he got drafted, he was faced with a variety of questions of faith-based questions. Teams interested in taking him wanted to know if fasting during Ramadan was going to be a problem. He assured them fasting one month out of the year from dawn to dusk would not affect his abilities to play.

For the remainder of this season, the Leafs have sent him back down to the OHL to play for his team (the London Knights), so he may further develop. Once he gets his call up, I foresee more Muslims entering hockey, a better (non-political) understanding of Muslims in the eyes of the general public, and a brighter future for the Leafs.

Changing relations with Iran has been one of Obama’s main foreign policy priorities. This article will look at different perspectives on Iran, and whether or not Tehran, Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollah are really the threat Bush made them out to be.

The Bush Era

We can all remember when Bush made that epic speech about the “axis of evil”. In effect, he did something really crucial with this speech: he took Iran and placed it outside the realm of rational politics. International relations theory makes the somewhat erroneous assumption that all actors are rational, and make well-considered decisions before acting. With this speech, and his rhetoric towards Iran later, he painted Iran as completely irrational. It was like saying “The Ayatollahs will attempt to attack us with nukes even though it would mean certain suicide for the government of Tehran and the people of Iran.”

Why is that important? When you paint actors as irrational, you are saying that irrespective of  size, might and actual strength, they are a threat because they are willing to kill themselves just to hurt you. The other unchanging assumption in international relations is that ALL STATES DESIRE SECURITY AND/OR POWER IN ORDER TO ENSURE SURVIVAL. As such, a state that decides that it doesn’t CARE about its own survival throws the entire system in a loop and makes everyone go crazy. It is unfathomable to many IR realists, but such regimes do exist. Iran, however,  is simply not among those rare cases.

The Obama Shift?

Obama has been making an effort to re-rationalize Iran.

Kenneth Waltz, a world-famous IR thinker, writes in “A nuclear Iran: promoting security or courting disaster?” that Iran wants nuclear arms NOT because it’s a crazy regime bent on world destruction, but because it’s a rational regime that desires only security. Think about the threats that face Iran:

1)      Though Iran benefited from the destruction of Iraq in the 2003 war, A US-led Iraq is no better than a Saddam-led Iraq, especially with rogue state/axis of evil rhetoric.

2)     Israel, as Iran’s number one enemy in the entire region, has nuclear capability.

3)     Pakistan and Russia, neighbours and “frenemies” all have nuclear capabilities, giving them an upper hand in their regional relationship.

Waltz’s point is this: for a rational actor, having nuclear bombs actually makes the world safer. He says “the spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared”. Why? Because if you and I are mortal enemies, either we both have guns, or neither of us do. This is the only way we can balance each other out. If you have a gun and you’re not afraid to use it, I might just go bonkers trying to make myself safe. In the same way, Iran needs that gun or it just might go bonkers.

Essentially, the nukes work as a deterrent. They say: “I know that if you attack me with a nuke, I cannot defend myself. But I can attack back with such a vengeance that you’ll regret having hit me in the first place.” Deterrence is supposed to be such a powerful force that it keeps both sides at bay. It’s an interesting and compelling theory, if you think about it. Especially if you note that nobody really wants to start a nuclear World War III, anyway.

However, there are some concerns that jump out at us. First, though nuclear bombs will balance Israel and Iran out, it doesn’t mean that the two enemies will start to trust each other. During the Cold War, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets and the United States opened up channels of communication. If Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev perceived that an attack was coming, he could call the Whitehouse through a special direct-line “red phone” and clarify. (“Hey dude, is there a missile coming my way, or is that just a ketchup stain on my radar screen?”)

Without these channels of communication, there is a chance for huge misunderstandings. A test run could be taken as the real deal, setting off an attack. And Israel or Iran do not appear anywhere close to having this sit-down-and-talk kind of relationship. Scholar Shiping Tang outlines the problem here: both Israel and Iran are operating under the “worst case scenario” offensive realist assumption. Both assume that the other guy is not just selfish, but aggressive; and capable of the worst. As such, they will be quick to read any sign as a threat. This could further destabilize the entire region.

The second issue is this: even if Tehran is not a threat, nuclear arms spreading to state-sponsored or technologically savvy Islamic neo-fundamentalist group is another problem all together. Perhaps we all remember the infamous AQ Khan drama: he was the Pakistani government scientist who was caught selling nuclear technology and nuclear information in an illicit underground network to Iran, Libya, North Korea and even terrorist groups. (He was eventually pardoned by General Musharraf...)

However, knowing how to make a nuclear device is one thing; actually building it is an another. Rare terrorist groups can afford it, and those who can will never be able to amass enough uranium or plutonium to actually be a real threat. It's not as near a possibility as we may have been lead to believe by "War on Terror" advocates.

So, on the Iran issue, I think Waltz’ position has merit. Iran has never once invaded another country nor shown evidence of being an aggressive power. Though Ahmedinejad is somewhat troubled and possibly mentally unsound, the regime itself is not suicidal. It wants nukes for safety, not world domination. Yes, there is a chance that having nukes might make Iran trigger happy in the region; it might start to act like a bully with the smaller states because it has so much leverage over them. (This is Robert Jervis' classic "instability-stability paradox" theory.) However, in the Iran-Israel-US death triangle, it may actually put things at ease.

Look at the evidence: though Iran is most obviously trying to build a nuclear weapon, it is trying desperately to convince the world it is not. Tehran is actually making an effort to appear like a team player by making concessions here and there to the International Atomic Energy Agency (the world's nuclear proliferation watchdog).  If it wanted, it could have backed out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Years ago and simply said: “Yeah, we’re building a bomb. So what?” Instead, it tries desperately to stay within the system. It wants to be taken seriously; it doesn’t want to be a threatened rogue state.

In an eye-opening New York Times editorial, Flynt and Hillary Leverett state forthrightly that the US cannot deal with Iran as a threat if it does not address Iran’s security issues. And Obama has made little effort to do so.

1) “The Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic.” Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim then, that America is “fomenting terrorism” inside Iran is actually real.  

2) The US has employed Dennis Ross as the State Department point person for Iran, a crucial mistake. He was the Iran guy under Bush, and seriously advocated military strikes against Iran.

3) The US may be acquiescing to Israel and setting a timeline for negotiations. If Iran fails to meet the deadline, then what? Bombs over Tehran? Sanctions? This will worsen the entire situation, it will fail to kill support for the Iranian regime, and further damage US interests and US reputation in the Middle East.

Essentially, the Leveretts' underlying point is clear. Iran is FIRST a rational actor, and THEN a regime run by crazy Shias bent on Islamic takeover of the world. Not the other way around. 

“On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program — or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts.... Under these circumstances, the Iranian government...will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile.”  

With school and work, time seems to become more and more limited. And other things become neglected and lose priority. This is sometimes expected and sometimes necessary.

But at the same time, we have to make room in our lives for other things that are important to us. One such thing is visiting the local Masjid, musallah and even the designated prayer space on campus.

Here we are able to spiritually fulfill ourselves, meet our brothers or sisters and become a part of a larger community. We learn about events prevalent to us. We get the opportunity to participate. We learn more about our deen.

To sum it up, the benefits are well worth the time invested.

The Prophet (SAW) said, “Prayer in congregation is superior to prayer alone by twenty seven degrees” (Bukhari & Muslim, from Ibn Umar (RA)).

When I first sat down to watch Little Mosque on the Prairie about two years ago, I was a little sceptical at what I would find. I had heard many things about this new television series, good and bad alike, so granted, I was a little worried. Would there be uproar from the Muslim community? Would fights ensue? Would the show degrade Muslim values? Perhaps I was being a little over-cautious, but 9/11 was still present in many people’s minds, and I was concerned as to what angle this show would take.

Little Mosque is a vibrant and entertaining show that is clearly doing well as it enters its fourth season this fall (September 28, 2009).

The series focuses on the Muslim community in the fictional prairie town of Mercy, Saskatchewan. There is the local mosque, presided over by Imam Amaar Rashid and located in the rented parish hall of the town's Anglican Church, and Fatima's Café, a downtown diner run by Fatima Dinssa. You've also got Yasir Hamoudi, a construction contractor who fronted the money to establish the mosque by pretending that he was renting office space for his business. Yasir's 25-year-old daughter (with wife and convert Sarah) is a doctor and Islamic feminist, and she provides the "modern" and "moderate" female voice on the show.
 
Reviews of the show have been mixed, however, with many observing that Little Mosque is corny, more than anything else. Some feel that it makes non-Muslims seem like idiots, some think it's funny, and at least one commenter thinks the Muslim adviser to the show has made some mistakes.

The show does focus mainly on Islamic values; however, there are the typical ups and downs that are seen in other shows as well. There are the heartbreaks (can’t say between who, you’ll have to watch to find out!), the family fights, and the personal growth of certain characters. At times it can be witty, but as aforementioned, it is certainly corny. Little Mosque is a good pastime; one of those put-your-feet-up and relax shows, and it is definitely worth watching. The show touches on some Islamic issues that are very well explained and have intelligent, thought out answers. The show is not what I would consider to be controversial, although I have spoken to a few people in regards to the sitcom and they find that the show downplays a lot of religious issues, and frankly, they believe it doesn’t stress the importance of Islam.

In my opinion, I think they are doing the best they can. I mean, in the post 9/11 era, you can’t expect television producers to throw out some Islamic values at society and expect them to accept it wholeheartedly. There will be questions and demands—a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with first. So far, they’ve done a good job at explaining the Islamic way to do things, and though I’d also like to see more emphasis on the importance of Islam, I think for now, it’s going at a good pace. It’s humorous and contains a good storyline—what more could an audience want?

You can watch it at Monday’s at 8:30pm on CBC television.

A few months ago, I was sitting on the streetcar when a teenaged girl boarded the car. Two older passengers began to discuss the girl’s t-shirt, in disgust. It was a stylishly oversized Che Guevera t-shirt, with his name emblazoned on top of his photo in silver block letters.

This iconic image of Ernesto “Che” Guevera de la Serna has adorned everything from bathing suits to Louis Vuitton bags. Like the keffiyeh, people wear it because it’s an attractive symbol of masculinity, and edginess. And like the keffiyeh, the vast majority of people who wear it have absolutely no clue what it means.

Ernesto Guevera was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary. He traveled through Latin America as a young medical student, and, after witnessing the immense poverty around him, concluded that Western capitalism and neo-imperialism was to blame. Guevera joined Fidel Castro’s Communist movement, and helped to overthrow the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista.He was eventually captured and executed by the CIA and by Bolivian forces, during his effort to incite revolution in Bolivia.  Che was known to be cruel to anyone who did not support the revolution. His brutal firing squad took care of anyone who got in the way of his vision.

Many Cubans fled Castro’s dictatorial regime in Cuba and settled predominantly in Florida and New Jersey. In a Seattle Times article from 2005, it is evident that many Cuban-Americans are distressed by the very thought of Che Guevera. One man, named Carlos Barberia admitted to buying a Che T-shirt… and then promptly and publicly setting it on fire. Apparently, Che Guevera had ruthlessly murdered Barberia’s father.

This is what the two passengers on the streetcar were upset about: did the girl know what she was wearing? Did she know, that for many Cubans, this piece of clothing is as horrific as wearing a t-shirt glamorizing Hitler, or bin Laden? It’s possible that she doesn’t know the story behind that face. But, it’s also possible that she knows, and chooses to support him anyway.

This got me thinking about the “moderate Muslim” conception of violence and justice. After 9/11, Muslim immigrants in modern industrialized democracies were put on the spot, and they were forced to ask themselves: is violence ever justified?

In 1969, as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: young and beautiful Leila Khaled hijacked a Boeing 707 on its way from Rome to Athens. No one was injured, but the plane was blown up after the hostages disembarked. After she became famous for her actions, she underwent plastic surgery to change her face so that she could attempt the publicity stunt one more time. In her next hijacking (a flight from Amsterdam to NYC in 1970), she was captured. Her partner, Patrick Arguello -- who was, incidentally, inspired by Che Guevera -- shot a steward. The steward survived, but Arguello was killed by Israeli forces.

Khaled claims that she had no intention of taking anyone’s life. Her goal was simple: to get exposure for the struggle in Palestine. And to this end, she was relatively successful. Her militant and rebellious efforts were glorified and she became a household name in the 1970s. Movies, books, and even songs were written about her. During a prisoner exchange, Khaled was released, and she is now heavily involved in politics. She is a member of the Palestinian National Council, and also appears regularly before the United Nations World Social Forum.

Something about Leila Khaled has always intrigued legions of people. On the one hand, she is everything women want to be: strong, powerful, deeply principled and respected by her fellow citizens. On the other hand, she is irresponsible and dangerous. There was a good chance that any number of small mistakes could have brought that whole plane down. And rather than coming out victorious, she would have set the "cause" back by another hundred years. To the eyes of the moderate Muslim, are her actions ultimately reprehensible, because of the potential damage she could have done?

An old adage comes to mind:  an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. After World War II, the victors of the war and the subsequent global human rights movement painstakingly constructed domestic and international legal norms and political institutions on the premise that war is despicable and wrong, and should only be used defensively (as a last resort) by sovereign governments.  The world decided that protecting the dignity of the individual is a just goal, and should be universally enforced. But, keep in mind, the post-war human rights movement is one built on the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other mass graveyards. The new liberal world order was erected over the tombs of thousands upon thousands of guiltless civilian casualties. So we must ask once again: is violence ever justified?

Many Muslims in Canada will respond that the answer is largely “NO”. Only the state should be able to legitimately use force and all other instances should be judged as violations of this principle. I know I would not trust just any citizen in the world to have free rein to take up arms, even on my behalf.

I recognize that I am making these judgment calls from a privileged position and I have no idea what it’s like to live under an oppressive regime. And I realize that political systems can be exclusive, risk-averse and overly bureaucratic, thus compelling the downtrodden to reinterpret the notion of “just war.” However, the issue of rising up against an illegitimate government (like the Darfurians against the government in Sudan, like the African National Congress in apartheid South Africa, like the Americans in the Civil War) is a wholly different issue than waging carefully choreographed attacks against innocent people in a different country altogether. The only crime most of these innocent people have committed is that they dared to be born in a Western nation. 

Essentially, the grievances might be real. Terrorists do make claims about the United States that are 100% true. But, nevertheless, there is something undeniably hypocritical and malicious about the whole exercise of terrorism. The terrorist tries to make innocent people in another part of the world understand his plight by forcing them to taste the same devastation he has endured. Worse still, he is placated and even delighted by the whole event, treating it like a political victory for his side.

Though the question about ethics cannot be simply answered (and I recognize my own intellectual limitations), I do know this: for better or worse, the institutions that have been built since the end of the war have made every effort to prove violent behavior politically useless. A single person, acting on behalf of a large group, cannot exact revenge on a government by using blameless people as pawns. Despite the fact that the post-WWII institutions have yet to catch up with the problems of the post-9/11 world, the ends do not justify the means. As long as non-violent recourse exists, the end can be deemed good only by virtue of the means used to achieve it.

In my mind, Leila Khaled’s greatest legacy will be her non-violent critique of the unjust political system, not her militancy. The innocent citizens of Palestine, Darfur, Pakistan or Sri Lanka will probably be the first to say that the terrorist actions of a select few have brought them nothing of significant political or economic value. If anything, it has set them back. For when norms of human rights are violated, no matter how real your grievances, the rest of the world becomes blind to your cause, deaf to your message and mute on your behalf.