Tuesday, December 4, 2007; Page A21

Washington Post

We Americans like to think of ourselves as strong, rugged and supremely confident — a nation of Marlboro Men and Marlboro Women, minus the cigarettes and the lung cancer. So why do we increasingly find ourselves hunkered behind walls, popping pills by the handful to stave off diseases we might never contract and eyeing the rest of the world with an us-or-them suspicion that borders on the pathological?

Last week, I heard some of the nation’s leading cultural anthropologists try to explain these and other phenomena. I came away convinced that we, as a nation, definitely should seek professional help.

The American Anthropological Association held its annual meeting here in Washington, and I was invited to an afternoon-long panel discussion titled “The Insecure American.” I decided to overlook the fact that my hosts, Hugh Gusterson of George Mason University and Catherine Besteman of Colby College, had recently co-edited a book called “Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong.”

“The Insecure American” turned out to be a revelation — by turns alarming, depressing and laugh-out-loud amusing — as scholar after scholar presented research showing just how unnerved this society is.

Setha Low, who teaches at the City University of New York, has spent years studying the advent and increase of gated communities. People decide to sequester their families behind walls because they are afraid of crime, they feel isolated from their neighbors, and they’re nostalgic for a kind of idealized Norman Rockwell past, Low reported. Nothing terribly irrational about that.

But after extensive interviews with residents of gated communities in San Antonio and on Long Island, Low discovered that there isn’t really less crime behind the walls, people don’t really feel more secure, and there was no greater sense of small-town closeness among neighbors. Despite the gates and guard huts, people still felt they needed to set their alarm systems.

Joseph Dumit of the University of California at Davis presented his work arguing that health care has been redefined into a statistical exercise in risk reduction. The average American fills nearly 13 prescriptions a year, Dumit said, and many of the drugs are not to make the patient well but to reduce the statistical risk that the person will become ill. People who are otherwise healthy are prescribed statins to lower their cholesterol, for example, or beta blockers for high blood pressure.

Dumit pointed out that this risk-driven approach assumes that every one of us is “inherently ill.” It also drives health-care costs by pushing doctors and drug companies to spend whatever it takes to incrementally reduce a patient’s risk of getting sick — even though some of those patients never would have gotten sick, anyway.

Susan F. Hirsch, a professor at George Mason University, gave a riveting presentation on how terrorism feeds insecurity. Hirsch’s husband, Abdulrahman Abdullah, was killed in the 1998 al-Qaeda bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. When some of the alleged perpetrators faced justice in a New York courtroom in 2001, Hirsch began attending the trial as a victim. She ended up studying it as an anthropologist, concluding that the legal system, while imperfect, was the best way to deal with terrorists.

Catherine Lutz of Brown University reported on her studies of what President Dwight D. Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.” She noted that the immense resources this country devotes to war-making are based on assumptions that anthropologists might not accept as given — that war is embedded in human nature, for example, and therefore can never be consigned to our barbarian past, as was done with slavery.

Lee Baker of Duke University, Brett Williams of American University and other presenters described their research on economic insecurity, driven by forces such as globalization, immigration and gentrification.

And Nancy Scheper-Hughes, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, had me wincing as she talked about her investigations of what she called “vulture capitalism” — the global trade in body parts for transplant. The fastest-growing segment of kidney transplant recipients, Scheper-Hughes said, consists of patients over 70; when they can’t get a needed organ from the transplant registry, she said, they often ask a healthy child or grandchild to donate.

To recap: We’re afraid of one another, we’re afraid of the rest of the world, we’re afraid of getting sick, we’re afraid of dying. Maybe if we study our insecurities and confront them, we’ll learn to keep them in check. Before we turn the whole nation into one big, paranoid gated community, maybe we’ll learn that life isn’t really any better behind the walls.

http://interrogationdiaries.blogspot.com/

“It is easy – commonplace – for anthropologists to have an opinion on “the war” and to think that our opinions are worth hearing. But those opinions are more informed, nuanced, and will carry further if they are shaped by the close, yet open-minded, encounters with ground level realities, and practice, whose importance we, and our disciplinary forbears, have worked so hard to promote.” – p. 327 in Keith Brown and Catherine Lutz, “Grunt Lit: The participant observers of empire.” AE 34:2, 322-328.

For Brown and Lutz, the autobiographical accounts of soldiers provide a window into the messy and chaotic instantiation of empire in war, and are worth submitting to what Lutz calls “[the] discipline’s standard tropes of person-centered, contextualized understanding” (Lutz 2006 in AE, 33:4, p. 593). Along these lines, the interrogation records of the GWOT should be subject to the same ethnographic scrutiny. If nothing else, they reveal that (to paraphrase Clausewitz) interrogation is the extension of war by other means, as a complex ideological conflict is waged discursively in the context of the prison interrogation room.

To make this point, I’ll share a very abbreviated draft of article I’m writing, for which I draw on a subset of roughly 500 pages of documents dealing with FBI interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, between February 2002 and July 2004. Within this collection, there are approximately fifty FBI “transcriptions” (which are perhaps better described as summaries of interviews, “interview” being FBI parlance for interrogation). Because many are heavily redacted, it can be hard to discern where one interview ends and another begins. Reading these is akin to listening to a radio broadcast between bursts of heavy static, or watching a movie interrupted by sporadic blackouts. Although the interview transcriptions do use proper names, identifying information is always redacted; and for convenience, I am following FBI convention in referring to the parties as “interviewers” and “detainees.” I use a bracketed ellipsis to denote redactions […], and I quotations to the official document number so that interested readers can look up the source material (e.g., 4042).

Redactions notwithstanding, this collection provides fascinating insight into the manifold ways in which “culture” makes its presence felt. As Robert Rubinstein points out in his forthcoming book, Peacekeeping Under Fire: Culture and Intervention (Paradigm 2008), culture operates at many levels in UN peacekeeping efforts. He identifies three interlocking cultural dynamics that shape the trajectory of these operations: interactions between peacekeepers and local populations; interactions between participating local and national bureaucracies; and in a meta-sense, as international perceptions of “peacekeeping” evolve politically and institutionally.

Similarly, cultural dynamics operate at multiple levels in interrogation. At its most basic, interrogation aims to get specific information for specific purpose: for example, to develop a criminal case, obtain a confession, or provide “actionable intelligence” that can be used in tactical decision-making. That interviewers are seeking such information is apparent when detainees are asked to explain their presence at an Al Qaeda training camp, or shown photos of other detainees and asked to identify co-conspirators (e.g., 3904). However, far more is going on in these FBI interviews than attempts to elicit specific facts from recalcitrant detainees. In the interrogation encounter, detainees and interviewers look at each other across the table and, with the help of a translator (who is always silent in the transcriptions), they dive into a discursive exchange that reaches far beyond the confines of the interrogation room.

For example, interviewer-detainee exchanges shed light on the dynamics of guard-prisoner interactions in detention operations at Guantánamo. Often, the detainees complain to the interviewers about mistreatment by military police: roughing up prisoners, insulting detainees, and disrespecting the Koran are all sore points among the detainee population. But the weak have weapons: in one interview, a detainee gives the interviewers advice for how guards should comport themselves in front of the detainees – and in doing so, hints at vibrant hidden transcript, in which the projection of state power, embodied in the masculine form of the military police guard, is undermined by a simple technology:

Detainees see the guards as babies, especially the “big American guards that fill the doorway.” This is because the guards are supposed to be strong, yet they walk around with a “camel” (a backpack water storage device with a drinking tube attached) on their back sucking on a tube of water all of the time. A strong man is able to go without water for long periods of time. (The detainee) suggested that the water be kept out of sight of the prisoners and have the guards walk to where the water is kept. (3913)

Secondly, the records illustrate how detainees under interrogation challenge the official transcript of GWOT internment with complex counter-narratives about such topics as the war in Afghanistan (e.g., 3906), jihad and September 11 (e.g., 3899, 4080, 3845, 3844, 3850), American imperialism and foreign policy (e.g., 3918-21, 3912, 3913, 3916, 3925, 3842, 3861, 4086), and the fact that the detention operation at Guantanamo violates legal rights guaranteed by the US Constitution (3924). Along the way, the detainees also share their views on Christianity (e.g., 3906), Israel and Judaism (e.g., 4026), popular culture and sexuality (e.g., 3921), proper treatment of the Koran (e.g., 4803, 4024) and privacy of the body and shame (e.g., 3836, 3854, 4061). Sadly, there are also numerous descriptions of physical abuse, mostly beatings, particularly when the detainees are initially arrested either by Northern Alliance (e.g., 3903) or US troops (e.g., 3892).

But just as the detainees challenge the official discourse of the GWOT, we can see the FBI interviewers developing their own counter-narratives of Islam for the purpose of convincing the detainees that they should share what they know about Al Qaeda, terrorism, 9/11, and the Taliban. The manipulation is psychological, playing heavily on old-fashioned self-interest, but is arguably cultural, too, insofar as the manipulation draws on a framework of religious beliefs. For example, in one transcription (4033-4034), the interviewing agents show the interviewee a movie and photographs of people dying in New York and Washington on 9/11. As they do so, they invoke a narrative of Islam that questions the theological basis for mass violence, then point out that the detainee had become involved with a group of people who “…(abused and maligned) the religion, and will feel God’s wrath and anger on judgment day. […] appeared visibly shaken by this realization.” The interviewer then offers the detainee a chance for absolution through cooperating with the FBI. He warns the detainee that his fellows are “out to save their own butt,” and tells him the window of opportunity is closing. The technique, it seems, is emotionally powerful, as illustrated in a surprisingly poignant closing paragraph:

“At the conclusion of the interview, the interview team wished […] luck and that God may accept his prayers. After exiting the room, the interview team witnessed […] with his head down on his hands on the table in front of him… […] was crying and sobbing with the tears falling down on the table when he lifted his head” (4033-4034).

Whether or not this individual eventually gave the FBI team what it wanted is not clear.

By now it should be apparent that interrogation does not necessarily involve the forcible elicitation of “facts”. In these transcriptions, interrogation is revealed as a complicated communicative exchange in which participants share, gather, construct, and deploy knowledge as they provoke and/or resist an alien Other. As Alfred McCoy points out (2006), FBI interrogation strategies strongly emphasize rapport-building over coercion; and we can see FBI agents putting this ethos into practice in the interrogations they conduct. The resulting knowledge that emerges in these exchanges is often profoundly cultural, but not necessarily anthropological. Moreover, the headers on these transcriptions indicate that they were shared among the agencies involved in Guantanamo (DHS, DoD, and FBI) and as such, are likely source material for interrogators and intelligence analysts constructing their own model of the Arab/Islamic Other.

This raises another question about culture; namely, the problem of institutional culture and interagency power struggles as three major government bureaucracies – the FBI, DHS and the Department of Defense – each implement their own strategies for eliciting information from detainees. In particular, DoD interviewers frequently take a much more forceful approach to interrogation, something that FBI agents – and indeed, many DoD personnel – find troubling. And that’s the teaser for my next post.

New America Media, Analysis, William O. Beeman, Posted: Nov 15, 2007

Editor’s Note: In Pakistan the United States has again backed the wrong authoritarian regime, a clear parallel to its support for the Shah of Iran in 1979, writes William O. Beeman, professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota.

In Pakistan the United States has once again placed its reliance on an authoritarian “plumber” to carry out its foreign policy goals with disastrous effects – a time-honored foreign policy blunder that seems unavoidable for U.S. presidents.

This time the plumber is President Pervez Musharraf, who is also General Musharraf, Pakistan’s military chief.

Musharraf was hardly a candidate for this in 1991. He and the Pakistani military intelligence establishment were instrumental in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, who in turn supported al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

There was also the matter of the proliferation of nuclear technology through Pakistani nuclear expert A.Q. Khan – something that President Musharraf must surely have known about, even if he was not directly complicit. Pakistan has nuclear weapons even though it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Musharraf’s turnaround in Washington’s estimation was rapid. Once the United States was on the hunt for the Al Qaeda leader, Musharraf quickly sensed the direction of the political winds and became the Bush administration’s new best friend, vowing to find bin Laden. Washington overlooked the A.Q. Khan incident, and conveniently maintains that Pakistani nukes are okay because Musharraf is our buddy.

But the friendship is fragile.

It is virtually axiomatic that bin Laden would have been captured long ago – except that General Musharraf knew that once bin Laden was gone, his days as leader of Pakistan would be numbered. The United States would lose interest in the South Asian nation, or would scuttle him as an inconvenience. American officials might deny such a scenario, but the U.S. track record is extremely clear: once an American “plumber” ceases to be of use, he or she is toast.

The clearest parallel to General Musharraf is the Shah of Iran, who was deposed in the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79. The United States saw the Shah as a bastion against Soviet penetration into the Persian Gulf and armed him to the hilt. The Carter administration never talked to the Shah’s Iranian opposition and had no clue about the power of the religious forces surrounding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, until it was too late. By making the Shah the United States’ sole plumber in the region, when he fell, the United States could only watch helplessly as it lost everything.

The same may well hold true in Pakistan. The Bush administration propped up Musharraf with massive financial aid and arms supplies. They never tried to take opposition to his rule seriously, or develop any backup strategy for preventing Pakistan’s disintegration should Musharraf fall.

And fall he may. He has the backing of segments of the Pakistani military, but lacks broad support among the people. His heavy-handed tactics in quashing public dissent have all but killed Pakistan’s progress in establishing an independent judiciary and an effective civil society. Having tasted a bit of freedom, the opposition to Musharraf has become emboldened, and is not likely to tolerate his authoritarian rule or singular stubbornness in hanging onto absolute power.

If he does fall, Pakistan risks disintegration. As a nation cobbled together from disparate former Indian states at the end of World War II, Pakistan is not well integrated ethnically. Its sole integrating principle is Islam, and a post-Musharraf nation will likely embrace Islamic government as a unifying force. Whole parts of the country are barely under central control. Al Qaeda and the Taliban operate with impunity near the Western border, running international terrorist training camps. And those nuclear weapons are still present, ready to be used to threaten anyone who opposes those who control them. Pakistan’s neighbor is Hindu-dominated India, and every nation that is looking toward the burgeoning Indian economy needs to be very afraid.

All the Beltway blather and talk of support for President Musharraf fail to conceal that he is both weak and vulnerable, and that the United States has no backup plan whatsoever if he is deposed. This event would extend the grand scope of American failure in the region from the Mediterranean to the borders of China. Increasingly, no place in the world may be left safe from the violence emerging through the gaping holes in U.S. foreign policy.

William O. Beeman is professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota. He is president of the Middle East section of the American Anthropological Association, and has conducted research in the Middle East and South Asia for more than 30 years.
<http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=f4b15994d2cffe6667f91b6a19bfc715>

Beet-and-Apple Soup
Simmer 6 peeled and cut-up medium beets, 1 onion, cut up, and 1 garlic clove in 4 cups unsweetened apple juice 25 minutes; puree in a blender. Add 3 Tablespoon fresh lemon juice. Swirl each serving with 1 Tablespoon sour cream. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

Shredded Beets with Orange Zest
Peel and shred 6 medium beets in a food processor. Sauté in 1 Tablespoon butter with 1 grated garlic clove and 1 teaspoon grated orange zest, partially covered, 8 to 10 minutes. Sprinkle with chopped fresh chives. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

Lemon-Basil Beet Salad (pictured)
Peel and slice 6 medium cooked beets; fan on a serving platter. Top with 3 Tablespoon olive oil and 2 Tablespoon fresh lemon juice. Add 2 large fresh basil leaves, julienned, plus more for garnish, and 2 slices red onion, separated into rings. Add curls of Parmesan. Season to taste with salt and pepper.

By Imâm Ibn al-Qayyim

Taken from ‘al-Muntaqâ min Ighâthatul Lufhân fî Masâyid ash-Shaytân’ [pp.’s 102-105] of Ibn al-Qayyim, summarised by ‘Alî Hasan al-Halabî

“Say to the believing men and women that they should lower their sight and guard their private parts; that will make for greater purity for them. Indeed Allâh is well acquainted with all that they do.” [an-Nûr (24):30]

So Allâh made purification and spiritual growth to be the outcome of lowering the sight and guarding the private parts. It is for this reason that lowering one’s sight from (seeing) the prohibited things necessarily leads to three benefits that carry tremendous value and are of great significance.

The First: experiencing the delight and sweetness of faith

This delight and sweetness is far greater and more desirable that which might have been attained from the object that one lowered his sight from for the sake of Allâh. Indeed, “whosoever leaves something for the sake of Allâh then Allâh, the Mighty and Magnificent, will replace it with something better than it.”^[1]

The soul is a temptress and loves to look at beautiful forms and the eye is the guide of the heart. The heart commissions its guide to go and look to see what is there and when the eye informs it of a beautiful image it shudders out of love and desire for it. Frequently such inter-relations tire and wear down both the heart and the eye as is said:

When you sent your eye as a guide
For your heart one day, the object of sight fatigued you
For you saw one over whom you had no power
Neither a portion or in totality, instead you had to be patient.

Therefore when the sight is prevented from looking and investigating the heart finds relief from having to go through the arduous task of (vainly) seeking and desiring.

Whosoever lets his sight roam free will find that he is in a perpetual state of loss and anguish for sight gives birth to love (mahabbah) the starting point of which is the heart being devoted and dependant upon that which it beholds. This then intensifies to become fervent longing (sabâbah) whereby the heart becomes totally dependant and devoted to the (object of its desire). Then this further intensifies and becomes infatuation (gharâmah) which clings to the heart like the one seeking repayment of a debt clings firmly to the one who has to pay the debt. Then this intensifies and becomes passionate love (‘ishk) and this is a love that transgresses all bounds. Then this further intensifies and becomes crazed passion (shaghafa) and this is a love that encompasses every tiny part of the heart. Then this intensifies and becomes worshipful love (tatayyuma). Tatayyum means worship and it is said: tayyama Allâh i.e. he worshipped Allâh.

Hence the heart begins to worship that which is not correct for it to worship and the reason behind all of this was an illegal glance. The heart is now bound in chains whereas before it used to be the master, it is now imprisoned whereas before it was free. It has been oppressed by the eye and it complains to it upon which the eye replies: I am your guide and messenger and it was you who sent me in the first place!

All that has been mentioned applies to the heart that has relinquished the love of Allâh and being sincere to Him for indeed the heart must have an object of love that it devotes itself to. Therefore when the heart does not love Allâh Alone and does not take Him as its God then it must worship something else.

Allâh said concerning Yûsuf as-Siddîq (AS),

“Thus (did We order) so that We might turn away from him all evil and indecent actions for he was one of Our sincere servants.” [Yûsuf (12):24]

It was because the wife of al-‘Azîz was a polytheist that (the passionate love) entered her heart despite her being married. It was because Yûsuf (AS) was sincere to Allâh that he was saved from it despite his being a young man, unmarried and a servant.

The Second: the illumination of the heart, clear perception and penetrating insight

Ibn Shujâ` al-Kirmânî said, “whosoever builds his outward form upon following the Sunnah, his internal form upon perpetual contemplation and awareness of Allâh, he restrains his soul from following desires, he lowers his gaze from the forbidden things and he always eats the lawful things then his perception and insight shall never be wrong.”

Allâh mentioned the people of Lût and what they were afflicted with and then He went on to say,

“Indeed in this are signs for the Mutawassimîn.” [al-Hijr (15):75]

The Mutwassimîn are those who have clear perception and penetrating insight, those who are secure from looking at the unlawful and performing indecent acts.

Allâh said after mentioning the verse concerning lowering the sight,

“Allâh is the Light of the heavens and the earth.” [an-Nûr (24):35]

The reason behind this is that the reward is of the same type as the action. So whosoever lowers his sight from the unlawful for the sake of Allâh, the Mighty and Magnificent, He will replace it with something better than it of the same type. So just as the servant restrained the light of his eye from falling upon the unlawful, Allâh blesses the light of his sight and heart thereby making him perceive what he would not have seen and understood had he not lowered his sight.

This is a matter that the person can physically sense in himself for the heart is like a mirror and the base desires are like rust upon it. When the mirror is polished and cleaned of the rust then it will reflect the realities (haqâ‘iq) as they actually are. However if it remains rusty then it will not reflect properly and therefore its knowledge and speech will arise from conjecture and doubt.

The Third: the heart becoming strong, firm and courageous

Allâh will give it the might of aid for its strength just as He gave it the might of clear proofs for its light. Hence the heart shall combine both of these factors and as a result, Shaytân shall flee from it. It is mentioned in the narration, “whosoever opposes his base desires, the Shaytân shall flee in terror from his shade.”^[2]

This is why the one who follows his base desires shall find in himself the ignominy of the soul, its being weak, feeble and contemptible. Indeed Allâh places nobility for the one who obeys Him and disgrace for the one who disobeys Him,

“So do not lose heart nor fall into despair; for you must gain mastery if you are true in faith.” [Äli Imrân (3):139]

“If any do seek for nobility and power then to Allâh belongs all nobility and power.” [Fâtir (35):10]

Meaning that whosoever seeks after disobedience and sin then Allâh, the Might and Magnificent, will humiliate the one who disobeys Him.

Some of the salaf said, “the people seek nobility and power at the door of the Kings and they will not find it except through the obedience of Allâh.”

This is because the one who obeys Allâh has taken Allâh as his friend and protector and Allâh will never humiliate the one who takes his Lord as friend and patron. In the Du‘â Qunût their occurs, “the one who You take as a friend is not humiliated and the one who You take as an enemy is not ennobled.”^[3]

Notes:

[1] Reported by Ahmad [5/363], al-Marwazî in ‘Zawâ`id az-Zuhd’ [no. 412], an-Nasâ`î in ‘al-Kubrâ’ as mentioned in ‘Tuhfah al-Ashrâf’ [11/199] from one of the Companions that the Messenger of Allâh said, “indeed you will not leave anything for the sake of Allâh except that Allâh will replace it with something better than it.” The isnâd is sahîh.

[2] This is not established as a hadîth of the Prophet .

[3] Reported by Abû Dâwûd [Eng. Trans. 1/374 no. 1420], an-Nasâ`î [3/248], at-Tirmidhî [no. 464], ibn Mâjah [no. 1178], ad-Dârimî [1/311], Ahmad [1/199], ibn Khuzaymah [2/151] from al Hasan from Alî (RA).

The hadîth is sahîh. The isnâd has been criticised by many, however none of the criticisms hold. Refer to: ‘Nasb ar-Râyah’ [2/125] and ‘Talkhîs al-Habîr’ [1/247]

Patience is the ingredient and whole of religion. It’s half of faith. It’s not passive, it’s an utmost active process of religion/spirituality. Religion is neither the opium of the masses (Marx) nor just formalized rituals giving rise to emotions (Geertz); its about determination and perseverance (patience). What is the connection of patience to a discursive religion like Islam? How does one (re)think the question of individual and religion, collectivity and religion, religious rituals, spiritual awakening and practices, internal-external state of self and the connection of all of these to patience and religion?

The Encounter

The women’s session was already in progress when I entered the room. It was my first day today in this meeting, and I was running late. The room was dimly lit, silver Arabic prints on magenta and green colored satin fabrics floated from the ceiling and some framed Arabic script adorned the four walls of the room. The women were sitting on a large bamboo mat covering the floor. As I tip-toed my way inside the room for a place to sit, stepping on books, scarves, and rosaries, I noticed the afternoon sun swam through the yellow curtain glistening the room. Unable to pass through, I greeted the women with “As Salaam u Alaikum” (peace be upon you) and took my place next to the door. I wondered whether or not I had just missed a discussion. An older woman in white sari was speaking, sitting on a green sofa along with the host, whom I met the day before. One of the women asked that everyone make zikr (repetitive recitation of Arabic Islamic words, Arabic God’s name, or Quranic verses. i.e., meditation). A young woman in red and green kameez asked whether everyone had zikr beads (rosaries) and directed us to repeat the Arabic phrases, “La Ilaha illallah” (there is no God but Allah) three hundred times.

The woman in red and green salwar kameez instructed one of the veiled women to lead the zikr. The women closed their eyes, bobbed their heads from left to right, rhythmically, chanting “La Ilaha illallah.” As they continued this meditation, many of them seemed to do this in complete absorption. I joined the meditation, reciting, but did not bob my head and kept my eyes wide open to observe. When we had reached one hundred repetitions, the woman in red and green kameez bellowed her command across the room “one hundred.” The chanting came to an end, when we heard the azan for asr.

As the women were preparing to make namaz (prayer), I inquired a woman sitting next to me whether or not we were making namaz collectively in congregation.

Raising eyebrows and rolling her eyes, “No. we can’t lead the prayer. Women aren’t allowed to lead prayers.”

I asked, “I thought women can lead prayers among women?”

She shook her head, ignoring my question and got up to make her namaz. I followed her to the other side of the room to say my prayers.

After prayers, the host of the house introduced me to the group, “This is (my name), a student from Amreeka. She has come from Amreeka to learn about Islam.”

Some women were busy saying their prayers, some looked at me perturbed, while others mumbled and giggled behind their veils. Uncomfortable about the giggles, I acknowledged the group by waving and smiling.

The host came up to me and said, “You know, there are some problems with the way you pray.”

Embarrassed after getting caught making a mistake I inquired, “Oh, I do? In what ways?”

While showing me the proper ways of making sejdah she told me, “…your elbows should touch the floor or else you’re not praying correctly.”

I questioned, “I thought they are not supposed to touch the ground?”

She shook her head and asserted, “No, no. That’s how men pray. Men’s elbows don’t touch the ground, but women’s elbows should always touch the ground. You also need to lower your bottom. I have seen women in Arabia pray like this,” showing me the sitting posture, “with their bottom up when they go to sejdah. But, that’s how men pray.”

I kept nodding my head attentively and wondered how to respond to her. Since this was the first time I confronted something like this in my home country, I was searching for a smart response to assert myself. The ideas in my head kept searching for the hadis (sayings of the prophet) that addressed sejdah, but I was unable to find it right then and there.

She further added and simultaneously made the bodily movements for the second time, “People in our country pray like this…and, why do you say takbir when you go and come up from ruku? That is not the Hanafi method of our country. You’ll see people elsewhere pray this way. I have seen it in Arabia, Iraq, but they are not correct.”

With a questioning, uncertain shaky voice I added, “I think there are different methods of saying the prayers?”

The woman in red and green kameez folding her prayer rug rushed into our conversation and interjected looking at the host, “Apa, you know people like to argue with you over these things. You tell them what is right and they challenge you when they don’t even know themselves.

Not knowing how to react to her riposte I hesitantly asked, “Uhm…there are so many groups–who is correct?”

The woman in red and green kameez promptly shot back, “Tabligh. They are right and observe the correct methods of the prophet,” and other women around us concurred with her by nodding their heads. She vocalizes, “You’ve come from America to learn about Islam, right? Come to our meetings every Tuesday and Sunday and you will learn the ‘true’ Islam…”

From My Field Diary

…what is this ‘true’ Islam? Why was I not able to think of that hadith about sujud? Why did I draw a blank? That lady is wrong about sujud! Why did I not tell her she was praying incorrectly? Will I not be asked whether I informed people about what I knew to be the truth about Islam?…

After they interrogated me and taught me the “proper” praying etiquettes, the woman in red and green kameez asked the speaker whether we should continue with zikr or begin topical discussion. Other women in the room supported discussion. The speaker began reciting and everyone chorused after her Sura Fatiha, Astagfirullah, and Kalimaah Tanjeel. The speaker took out a book to read from her purse while all the women tuned in to her.

“Rasulallah (sawas) is very important to us, that’s why we need to learn Kaleemah. If we read it, Allah will keep our head clear and make our life easy in this world. If we read the Kaleemah at the time of our death, the soul leaves our body peacefully. Similarly, namaz is also very important. Namaz makes life easy in the world and protects us from danger and evil. And, 30,000 roads to heaven will be paved for those who make their namaz regularly. Praising our Rasulallah is also important. On the Day of Judgment, he will smile at us if we make zikr. Hazrat Bashir Ahmed made zikr all night and day crying to Allah for our Rasulallah (sawas). This is how Allah’s best servants worshipped and loved Allah and loved the Rasulallah (sawas). Those who spend time otherwise will be thrown into the fire…”

Women in the room uttered together, “Subhanallah,” while others yelled “Nawzubillah.”

The speaker continued, “Women and men should zikr separately. There are some folks who make zikr in mixed congregation and they do it in dark. That’s the work of Shaytan.”

Some women indicated agreement and started to name some mixed-gender zikr groups, giggling and talking among themselves when the host of the house caught me looking at her, “How do you do zikir in Amreeka?”

“Uhm…I’ve actually never been to a zikr session like this before…and…”

The woman in red and green kameez abruptly interposed, “Apa people there don’t even do namaz, how can they know about zikr or zakat or other works of deen?”

While nodding my head I said, “People pay zakat in….”

One of the three veiled women interrupted, “That’s not a Muslim country…” looking at the speaker, “Apa, will Allah accepts zakat there?”

The speaker looking a little annoyed at the digression, “How will we face Allah if our luggage is empty? We will not enter paradise if we have no luggage to take with us. So, when we go to Allah we need to have a filled luggage. If one doesn’t pay zakat, they are outside of Islam and do not accrue good deeds…”

She went on to reading an excerpt from a book for ten minutes and someone warned her about the time for maghrib (dusk prayer). The speaker raised her hands up in the air for munazat (supplication) and uttered some Arabic dua’s (supplication) then implored,

“O Allah, you blessed us today to gather here to learn about You, our Rasulallah and our Deen. O Allah! You are Peace, and All Peace is from You. And all Peace returns to You. O Master of Power and Glory. Send peace to our Rasulallah, and progenies and followers living and dead. Oh Allah, Forgive us all our sins, great and small, the first and the last, those that are apparent and those that are hidden… Oh Allah, we seek Protection in Your Pleasure. We seek Protection in Your Forgiveness from Your Punishment. We Seek Protection in You from You. We cannot count Your Praises. You are as You have Praised Yourself.”

All the women with their hands in supplication listened attentively while some began to shed tears. I hastened to write down the words with one hand and kept the other in supplication.

A woman sitting in the middle of the room yelled, “Make it short, Apa. It’s getting late..”

Rubbing her palms over her face, gesturing the completion of munazat and looking at the audience the speaker says, “I read that long munazat because we need to pray for all of humanity, for our relatives, parents, all prophets. It is important that we are unselfish in our dua...”

A woman in brown burka (long over garment) and niqab (face veil ) concurred adding, “Apa, you are right, but we don’t have time today. Don’t we have to finish zikr?”

The women picked up their rosaries and began to chant “La Ilaha Illallah.” Once finished, each woman went around making dua.

The woman continued with this and began to supplicate to the prophet. I felt a little troubled with raising my hand for supplication. I haven’t been taught to supplicate to the Prophet in this manner and was not sure whether that was ‘Islamic’. I didn’t believe in asking or supplicating to the prophet or another human being for anything.

A woman in black burka began, “O Allah, all praise to you, the Most Merciful an Most Gracious! Have mercy on all your creation and for our sins. Forgive my every sin I have committed and every mistake I have made. O Allah, I ask You with the asking of a submissive and lowly person to show me mercy. Glory be to You. All praise is to You. I have wronged myself. And I have been ignorant and depended upon without gratitude. Your favor toward me is infinite. O Allah, you are my protector. How many ugly things You have concealed. How many hardships and tribulations You have abolished…”

Crying profusely she continued, “…And my continuous negligence and my ignorance…and my manifold passions and forgetfulness…My Lord, have mercy upon the weaknesses of my body, the thinness of my skin and the frailty of my bones… and by Your might, o Allah, be kind to me in all states and be gracious to me in all affairs…”

The room vibrated with the synchronicity of the women lamenting. Eyes imbued in tears, chorus of weeping, and the refrained twinge enveloped the atmosphere. The thought of massive sins and good deeds smaller than a stone reverberated me into sobbing with the women, finding it difficult to take notes.

After a few more women made individual supplication, some women taking off their dupatta (long scarf that covered the head and torso) sat around, chewing betel leaves and chatting over tea. I followed the women and took off my hijab as it was very humid inside the room, when two middle-aged women with a smirk approached me, “You’ve come from Amrika?”

I nodded in affirmative.

The woman in orange sari in a chary voice, “You speak [our language] well.”

“I was born and lived here for sometimes.”

With an inquisitive face, the woman in orange sari, “Where are your parents?”

“They also live in America, but currently they are here as well.”

The woman in orange sari took my right palm into her palm in a way as if she was inspecting something and the other woman in burka inquired, “Are you married?”

Hesitantly, I answered in affirmative and wondered what was she searching for in my palms.

After inspecting my both palms, she stretched her hands towards my head, touching and playing with my hair. Keeping a restrained smile, I try to pull my hair back towards me. Smiling and feeling my hair again, she commented on the length of my hair and added, “My brother and sister-in-law live in Amreeka. She and her two daughters have cut their hair short like men. The daughters don’t listen to their parents, can’t speak Bangla well, don’t pray, wear improper clothes, short skirts… They have become too “Amreekan.” Mashallah, you can pray and dress and can talk like ‘us’…” …… to be continued….

Preview of Sec 2, Part I

The Arrival

It was a humid day when I stepped outside of the airport in May 2004 but the sky appeared cloudy. There was a mushroom of black cloud hovering in the sky. I was not sure if they were clouds or polluted air but as the warm breeze touched my cheek, I knew I was back to my childhood. When I was placing my luggage in the car, a group of homeless persons (i.e., beggars) circled around me asking for money, “Ma’m, you came from bidesh, give us some money.” Homeless persons were not new to me, yet this appeared new and strange. I have not had anyone ask for money this way for a long time, and a dose of reality sank in.

After having lived in the U.S for sixteen years, I arrived in my home country in a time of turmoil. The front pages of newspapers on the day I landed reported about some “Islamist” extremist groups, operating in the northwest provinces of the country. Within a few days of my stay and the day before the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld arrived, hundreds of activists took to the streets in the capital city, protesting against his visit. As Rumsfield was one of the main planners for Iraq’s invasion, the activists and political leaders demanded cancellation of Rumsfield’s tour to the country. People I conversed with were outraged and many held a common belief that Rumsfield was going to ask Bangladesh to send troops to Iraq.

To be continued…

………….