Well this is totally random but I thought I would post soemthing about an event I just learned about because I found it absolutely devastating. Obviously there are many events all over the world and in the history of Syria that I havent heard about and that are extremely brutal, but I just found out about this massacre and was wondering if anybody else knew the story. It relates to our reading by Kahf, "Manar of Hama," and subsequently my final paper. I researched the massacre to learn about it and here's what I found- Hafez Assad, the dictator at the time in Syria, was concerned about growing criticism of his regime. There was a group, the Muslim Brotherhood, that in particular criticized him and whose only goal was to overthrow the dictator of Syria. Angered by this group and other anti-Assad feelings, Assad decided to make an example of Hama, a Syrian city, in order to quiet these rebels. Hama was an especially critical city and was therefore chosen as the target city. Assad woke the Hama citizens up on February second, 1982, with a dawn bomding of the city that killed some but whose main goal was to shut off the roads that would lead to a freedom and thereby allow the citizens of Hama to escape. After the bombing, Assad sent in the Syrian tanks and artillery that had gathered around the city duringhte night and shelled the city. The Syrian soldiers were then sent in to kill any (women, children and elderly included) surivors and to loot all houses and take the goods. After this Assad still wasnt through and ordered poison gas generators to gas the city and thereby kill all possible survivors. To end all, he afterwards bulldozed and flattened the city. Assad's insane cruelty and brutality was displayed in this unbelievable act of violence. I can't believe such a thing happened and obviously understand now why Kahf's character dwelled on the topic so much and was so concerned with the event.

On Khalid's journeys through tiny villages and around the countryside, he comes across several examples of opposites. In the busy artisan village there were the hard-working, even biblical-esque potters contrasting with the cocoon-man, who is mean, obese, and swindles people. Even Khalid thinks on this difference, "I can not see how, in drinking from the same gushing spring, and breathing the same mountain air,..., the khawaja gets a double chin and the peasant a double curse" (257) As Khalid continues, he meets a poor family who he shares with them his coffee and they, also in a biblical manner, wash his feet and invite him to stay. The mother had lost almost everything and was still going. Immediately following his departure, Kahlid sees a woman living in luxury, bossing her servant around and informing Khalid that he can buy his own eggs and bread before she reluctantly invites him for breakfast. Its interesting how the helpful, poor people Khalid meets are somehow reflective of the Bible and religion, whereas the contrasting mean people have no religious resemblance at all.

“… but whether we do so marmot- like or Maronite- like, is not the question here to be considered. To pray for your bread or to burrow in the earth for it, is it not the same with most people?” (228). While I’m not quite sure what it means, the analogy brings up a legitimate point. “Given a missionary with a Bible in his hip pocket or a peasant with a laod of brushwood on his back and the same gastric coefficient, and you will have in either case a resulting expansion for six feet of coffin ground and a fraction of Allah’s mercy.” (228). Does what we do in the physical world make any difference? Is it worth it in the end? At this point in the story it doesn’t look like it. And the reference to a burrowing rodent with a Maronite isn't a positive one.

Testing hyperlink.

*Okay, so we can post hyperlinks. I'll explain how to do it in class.

This being an open topic, I thought it interesting and relevant to the course to post some information regarding John F. Kennedy's well-known inaugural quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I say this considering an essay of Kahlil Gibran's translated as The New Frontier or The New Deal, in which he writes "Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in a desert." While this has been pointed out by numbers of scholars (all much more esteemed than myself) I still find the notion of a "Great American Quotation" being plagiarized somewhat ironic. (My freshman history teacher thought of me as a propagandist when i told him...)

Arab World

This website offers not only a fairly comprehensive introduction to Arab culture and history, it also has Quicktime format recordings of several poets we'll be reading: Khaled Mattawa, Mohja Kahf and D. H. Melhem.

Check out Margaret Larkin's interview about the history of Arabic literature.

Khalid’s fight with religion, Catholicism in particular is very similar to the European’s. His argument against the fee for marrying his cousin is almost the same as Martin Luther’s argument against the sale of indulgences. “… when a little sum of money can loosen anything you bind…” (216). Khalid’s ripping the letter off the church door is the opposite of Luther’s nailing his 95 thesis to the Wittenberg Castle church door. Khalid realized the embellishments of the Catholic Church, which spurred the Protestant Revolution, and the modernization of Europe. Martin and others complained about the “ruffles and flounces” of the Catholic Church, with the glorification of the saints, lavish lifestyles of the clergy, and influence over the government. All this is reflected in Khalid’s comments and a wish to return to the desert to be closer to God. This is very similar to the early simplification of Christianity in Protestantism.

I'm not too clear on what our posts should be like, but I thought I'd point out an interesting analogy Khalid makes about religion in Chapter 6 of book 2, starting on page 212;

After Khalid and Najma decide to marry, they begin discussing wedding preparations. Najma, after a bit of coaxing, asks Khalid if he will we bearing the same shoddy clothes he is wearing at the moment to their wedding. Without hesitation he agrees to wear whatever will please her, as well as allowing Najma to wear as ornate a wedding gown as she desires, one with "ruffles and flounces". From here, Khalid begins to illustrate his perceived correlation between clothing and the nature of the Church. Speaking about the course of faith and the development of religion, he says "And in spiritual pride and pride of power...it took to ruffling and flouncing to such an extent that at certain epochs it disappeared...and only the appendages remained." This effectively conveys how Khalid feels about the church and organized religion, with genuine faith being the garment and it's physical manifestations, the church and the clergy, composing the "ruffles and flounces". These institutions, like the ruffles, Khalid thinks unnecessary to true faith. It is people's preoccupation with, and patronization of, these facets of religion that allows them to grow into superficial, negative forces that are devoid of the original nature of their faith. Or more simply, that when you organize and regiment spirituality, it becomes less spiritual. Khalid's opinions on the church are further expounded upon in the next chapter, where his discussions with a Priest point out church practices that are clearly in conflict with basic Christian ideals.

James