WHEN God asked Cain where his brother was, the Creator did so not
because he lacked omniscience but instead out of a divine sense of due
process—he wanted Cain to have a chance to admit his murder of Abel and
confess his guilt. Unfortunately, instead of asking God’s mercy for his
wrongful act, Cain retorts, in a telling display of selfishness, “Am I
my brother’s keeper?” As the Torah teaches us, Cain was subsequently
condemned by God because he failed to live by the underlying message of
the great religions that indeed we are our brother’s keeper. The great
yardstick of the monotheistic faiths, upon which human action is
judged, is the action’s impact not only upon the doer but, equally
importantly, upon others. Put another way, personal salvation is deeply
intertwined with the salvation of the other.
Fast forward a
couple of eons and you find yourself asking a panel of experts a
question on the marginalization of minority Muslims in the Philippines
and the need for a constitutional mechanism on how to address minority
concerns within a democratic system that valuesmajoritarianism. Instead of obtaining an insightful answer, you get a plain denial that the Moros are, in any way, marginalized. Worse, all the while Moros were referred to as “Muslim brothers.”
The denial of Moro marginalization
reveals the predicament of “Muslim brothers” who must survive within a
culture of discrimination so deeply ingrained and historically enmeshed
that it operates automatically. This is prejudice of the most insidious
kind and its apex is the denial that marginalization and discrimination
even exist.
This kind of intolerance has an American parallel:
African Americans who experienced similar bigotry opine that
discrimination faced by blacks in the United States is, in a sense,
more difficult to combat compared to thepre -Brown v. Board of
Education context (read: American apartheid) because the structures and
systems that engender discrimination are now implicit instead of
explicit. Intolerance has learned the art of subtlety.
Despite
the denial, discrimination against Muslim Filipinos does not only exist
but also remains a pervasive force in Philippine society. In fact, the
starkest face of Moro discrimination is that the lowest levels of
literacy and income percapita in the Philippines are in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM
). This is the undeniable reality of prejudice against Muslim
Filipinos. The mundane aspects of bigotry, among others, are the
stereotyping ofMoros as terrorists or as a people who are violent, uneducated, and misogynistic; the refusal of cab drivers to take on hijab or veil-wearing Moro women as passengers; and the harassment of Muslim passengers at airports.
It
is this discrimination that breeds the social unrest in Mindanao and
fuels the calls for a separate Moro State. Mindanao, the country’s
latent agricultural, mineral and economic powerhouse, will remain
perpetually underutilized and our nation will never reach its full
potential for development unless peace is obtained in the region. But
unless this intolerance is addressed and overcome, Mindanao will
forever be embroiled in conflict.
So we are back to Cain and
Abel. The peace and development of this country is inherently
intertwined with building harmony and prosperity in the Muslim areas.
Indeed, until and unless there is an admission that the problem of
discrimination againstMoros exists and concrete steps are undertaken to
address the social, legal and economic marginalization of Muslim
Filipinos, this nation will never achieve the level of development and
prosperity that its people, both Muslim and Christian, deserve. Truly,
we are our brother’s keeper.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Author's Resume
Though my resume merely gives a sampling of my work and education and, thus, an incomplete picture of who I am, it still might be of some use to know how my studies and vocation/avocation affect my views:
ATTY. ADEL A. TAMANO
Kapunan Tamano Villadolid and Associates
Office: 2106 Antel Global Corporate Center
Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City
Tel: 6873934
Fax: 6874124
Education
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA, Master of Laws, June 2005
Honors: Graduate Program Scholar; Islamic Legal Studies Program Scholar
University of the Philippines, Manila, Master of Public Administration, March 2003
Concentration: Judicial Governance and Reform
Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, Juris Doctor, March 1996
Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, A.B. in Economics, March 1992
Bar membership
Licensed to practice law in the Philippines
Work Experience
Kapunan Tamano Villadolid & Associates, Manila, Philippines, April 2004-Present
Partner
Mendoza Law Office, Manila, Philippines October 1999-April 2004
Associate
Academia
Institute of Law, Far Eastern University, Manila
Associate Lecturer
• Constitutional Law Review
College of Law, Ateneo de Manila University, Manila
Lecturer
• Legal Writing
Sample Publications
• Handbook on Impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, First Edition, Rex Publishing, Inc., 2004
• The Last Unicorn – The Quest for the Modern Islamic State, Manila Times, April 18-19, 2006
• Proposals for Reform of the Congressional Rules on Impeachment to Prevent Misuse of the Anti-Harassment Provision, The Lawyers Review, March 31, 2006
• Impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court-A Policy Analysis, Ateneo Law Journal, 2003
ATTY. ADEL A. TAMANO
Kapunan Tamano Villadolid and Associates
Office: 2106 Antel Global Corporate Center
Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City
Tel: 6873934
Fax: 6874124
Education
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA, Master of Laws, June 2005
Honors: Graduate Program Scholar; Islamic Legal Studies Program Scholar
University of the Philippines, Manila, Master of Public Administration, March 2003
Concentration: Judicial Governance and Reform
Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, Juris Doctor, March 1996
Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, A.B. in Economics, March 1992
Bar membership
Licensed to practice law in the Philippines
Work Experience
Kapunan Tamano Villadolid & Associates, Manila, Philippines, April 2004-Present
Partner
Mendoza Law Office, Manila, Philippines October 1999-April 2004
Associate
Academia
Institute of Law, Far Eastern University, Manila
Associate Lecturer
• Constitutional Law Review
College of Law, Ateneo de Manila University, Manila
Lecturer
• Legal Writing
Sample Publications
• Handbook on Impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, First Edition, Rex Publishing, Inc., 2004
• The Last Unicorn – The Quest for the Modern Islamic State, Manila Times, April 18-19, 2006
• Proposals for Reform of the Congressional Rules on Impeachment to Prevent Misuse of the Anti-Harassment Provision, The Lawyers Review, March 31, 2006
• Impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court-A Policy Analysis, Ateneo Law Journal, 2003
Monday, November 27, 2006
Quest for Modern Islamic State
THE LAST UNICORN: THE QUEST FOR THE
MODERN ISLAMIC STATE
A unicorn is a mythical creature that has an antelope's body, a lion's tail, and a bearded horse's head with a single horn on its forehead. They are believed to bring good fortune and have magical powers of healing. The horn of the unicorn was prized for its healing power and its ability to nullify all kinds of poison.
Similar to the purity and curative power of the unicorn, a number of Islamists have turned to the ideal of an Islamic State, modeled after the polity under Prophet Muhammad and deeply rooted in the Shari’a, in order to address the problems of poverty, war, and social corruption, which were viewed as symptoms of the poisoned lifeblood of the Ummah (Islamic Community), that afflict Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere. For our purposes, an Islamist is defined as a person who uses the tenets of Islam - in fact often by claiming to advocate a "correct" view of the religion - for his own social and political ends. It is this Islamist vision of a Modern Islamic State, set to exist in the contemporary age, where social justice (Adl) is the norm under the sovereignty of God (Hakimiyya) that has fired the imagination of Muslims around the globe.
Even For those, such as this author, who might be labeled as “moderates” in the current dichotomy established by the West as to which Muslims are socially up to standard – the acceptable “moderates” and the intolerable “fundamentalists” – the vision of an Islamic State is appealing.
The attraction for many Muslims is easily understandable: Often, at first glance, the arguments for the establishment of a Modern Islamic State appear compelling. On the issue of the model of the Modern Islamic State, one of the most influential and popular modern Muslim thinkers is Sayyid Qutb. Though long deceased, his writings continue to be a source of inspiration, particularly among the more radicalized groups as shown by his influence on the political thought of Osama Bin Laden.
Qutb proposed an Islamic alternative to the political systems, which were then competing in Egypt, based upon, among others, the notions of Jahiliyyah and Hakimiyya. Qutb’s use of the term “Jahiliyyah” - roughly equivalent to a state of societal ignorance and corruption - referred to almost all cultural aspects of the modern world and was a pejorative term pertaining to all things alien to Islam. In his mind, Egypt was in a state of Jahiliyyah and, consequently, needed a revolution to overthrow the corrupt powers – the West and their cronies in the Arab World - and establish a regime of Hakimiyya. According to Qutb, a truly Islamic society could only be established upon the strict tenets of the Shari’a, which was not limited only to legal injunctions or governmental principles but included all aspects of human life and governance. The experience of the first Islamic community in Medina under the Prophet and the Quran provided Muslims with the blueprint for the ideal Islamic State for both the present and the future.
Osama Bin Laden has a similar conception of the Modern Islamic State. According to the so-called “Ladenese Epistle: Declaration of War,” Muslim society’s unfaithfulness to the Shari’a is one of the roots of the problems of the Islamic world. Similar to Qutb’s idea of Hakimiyya, Bin Laden espouses a divine sovereignty and a return to governance under the Shari’a, which would proscribe, among others, modern financial institutions for being in contravention on Islamic laws against usury. Essentially, these Islamists envision a return to the pristine conditions of the original Islamic State, which was an egalitarian, enlightened, and religious community in stark contrast to the present conditions of inequitable distribution of resources, corruption, and vice obtaining in the Middle East.
In this paradigm, the machinery of the State would enforce the Shari’a and all matters deemed un-Islamic would be essentially removed or isolated from society. According to Qutb, the first thing a truly Islamic Government would do is to force the indolent to apply themselves to industry
Accordingly, these views have a powerful magnetic pull for many Muslims, who feel incredibly isolated, marginalized, impoverished, and alienated in the modern world. Certainly, a society built on justice (Adl), governed under divine law (Shari’a), and within a regime of God’s sovereignty (Hakimiyya) is an image of perfection that hardly anyone could resist. However, upon closer inspection, the views propounded by Islamists such as Bin Laden and Qutb, as well as the means they espouse to achieve their ideal polity, are shown to be extremely problematic.
First, in regard the means advocated by Bin Laden and Qutb in order to achieve their ideal Islamic State, both these Islamists adopt a Manichaean view of the world in which only armed struggle and bloodshed between the “good” (true Muslims) and the “bad” (the West) are, ultimately, the means to reach their objective. Both have demonized the West, particularly the US and - although located in the Middle East is seen as an American proxy - Israel. Some of their criticisms about the unfair treatment that Muslims have historically received from the West, such as the current Palestinian situation, have real basis; however, it is their uncompromising view of the necessity of armed resistance to address the problems of the Muslim world that eventually dooms their political enterprise and alienates many Islamic moderates who, while in general agreement for the requirement of reform and the existence of injustice and sources of conflict in the Middle East, have a preference for peaceful methods for social change. In this increasingly global and inter-linked planet, this dualistic approach, categorizing distinct societies as either wholly good or evil, loses much of its appeal and logical certainty.
Secondly, even if Bin Laden were able to achieve the goals of overcoming the West and establishing a new political reality, the Islamist’s paradigm of a Modern Islamic State would nevertheless fail. This failure would be based on fundamental problems, both conceptual and practical, with their model of a Modern Islamic State. Upon deeper analysis, the claims of the Islamists are shown to be irrational and unfounded. Closer inspection of their claims make clear that the Islamist’s indulgence in the apodictic style of discourse, wherein emphatic asseveration is substituted for serious reasoning, ends up with an extremely problematic model for an Islamic State.
A primary setback in the Islamist conception of their ideal State is that their prototype is sui generis. The polity that existed under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad in Medina was a unique phenomenon that can never be replicated. Firstly, no Muslim leader could ever possess the same personal qualities of kindness, charity, piety, wisdom, leadership, and charisma that allowed him to have such a powerful and persuasive effect on his community. Moreover, for any Muslim to even make such an outrageous claim would be the death knell for his leadership ambitions. Additionally, the community that existed during that period was a product of a distinct social, political, religious, and economic context that is impossible to reproduce.
In fact, historically, Muslim leaders who attempted to take the mantle of the prophet and use Islam for their own political gain have often, in the end, suffered greatly. For example, Anwar Sadat, as President of Egypt, did his utmost to cultivate an aura of piety and Islamic devoutness in his persona within Egypt, going as far as preferring to be called by his first name - Muhammad. His wearing of the traditional robe, with his prayer beads and Moses stick as accoutrements, appear, on hindsight, as shallow propaganda. Ultimately, Sadat's misuse of Islam would be his downfall. This is the paradox - or more dramatically, the curse - for the Islamist. His use of Islam to catapult himself to power, at the same time, plants the seeds for his eventual political destruction. Islam brings colossal expectations in terms of social justice, religiosity, and equity. Any person who styles himself as someone who will Islamize society raises the bar incredibly high and ultimately will come up short - much to his and his society's dismay. For some Islamic believers, the downfall of the Islamist is but fitting justice for those who have the temerity to misuse the faith for their own selfish ends.
Secondly, and this is a vital point that strongly undermines the Islamist paradigm, during the time of the Prophet, Shari’a was not implemented via the machinery of the State. To implement Shari’a, the Modern Islamic State would have to enact legislation based on the Shari’a and enforce it through the government apparatus. However, during the Prophet’s period of leadership in Medina, the Shari’a was implemented in the community not via positive legislation and government intervention but instead through the context of the community as a whole – with the genuine piety and great personal charisma of the Prophet providing the normative element, in conjunction with the specific guidance from the Quran, and the close-knit nature of the community and the high level of motivation of the Islamic converts acting as the basis to follow the Shari’a.
The foregoing brings us to a third exceptionally fundamental problem of the Islamist paradigm: The very idea of establishing an Islamic State in order to enforce the Shari’a is conceptually impossible. Put another way, an “Islamic State” is a theoretical nullity because, as a political institution, a State cannot be characterized as Islamic – the proper object of Islam are human beings and not political institutions - and the very attempt to enforce Shari’a as positive law is a repudiation of the Islamic basis of the legislation.
It is important to emphasize that the Shari’a is, by definition, a divine creation and is not a result of a governmental legislative process. To claim that State-crafted legislation, which hews closely to classical Shari’a, is equivalent or identical to the divinely-authored law both undermines and misunderstands the nature of the Shari’a and its genuine purpose. Laws, as expressions of societal norms, are a product of the will of the State; Positive law can never be Shari’a because the Shari’a, as an expression of divine will, is the exact opposite of positive law.
What is more, there are numerous practical problems that result from the Islamist view. The first is that the prototype of the Islamic community in Medina is an anachronism and is no longer viable in the modern age. The concerns of Modern States in providing food, housing, water, electricity, economic policy, environmental preservation, foreign policy, defense, crime prevention, among others, are unbelievably more numerous than the matters that the first Islamic community in Medina had to address. The old solutions to the problems of that classical age would certainly be deficient in the modern era; hence, the aphorism that under the regime of Imam Khomeini the leaders of Iran realized that the Shari’a did not provide answers to the problem of garbage collection.
Furthermore, a rigorous implementation of the Shari’a, specifically in the classical form that developed during the 7th - 9th Century A.D., would be highly problematic in terms of women’s rights, the rights of non-Muslims living in Muslim communities, and human rights.
Actually, the Shari’a as implemented during the 7th - 9th Century was appropriate and, indeed, progressive for its time, especially in regard the rights of women, such as entitlement to a share of inheritance. Of grave concern is the punishment for apostasy under the 7th Century system, which was death, and its obvious inconsistency with the right to freedom of belief as recognized under human rights conventions and international norms. Clearly, in the modern age where there has been a dramatic increase in women’s rights and a greater emphasis on personal freedoms, such as freedom of expression and belief, the 7th Century Shari’a is no longer fully responsive to the times.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the Islamist’s ideal of the Islamic State, crafted in the mould of the Prophet’s community and functioning in the modern age is unworkable, impracticable, and unrealistic. The Islamist vision, while beautiful and enthralling, is shown to be as real and possible as finding a live unicorn. And maybe this is the core problem of the Islamist philosophy – in the search to provide answers and solutions to the grave problems challenging the Ummah, the Islamists have taken the easy route of going back to myths and archetypes instead of finding more pragmatic responses.
However, ironically, it is this return to archetypes, which is the essential escapism of the Islamist enterprise, that partially explains the Islamist’s appeal. The fact that many of the inhabitants of the Muslim world live in impoverished, unempowered, and undemocratic conditions explain the attractiveness of the Islamist message, specifically in regard the ideal of the Islamic State. Even if the Islamist’s methodology in establishing the Modern Islamic State is violent and cruel, it is, nevertheless, an empowering vision - breaking free of the fetters of colonialism and dependency, defeating great powers through self-sacrifice and courage, and overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds through faith and effort.
It is the social conditions of the Muslim world that provide the perfect nursery for the seeds of Islamist message to take root. This is one of the powerful aspects of the Bin Laden rhetoric: he is able to communicate in plain language the anger, angst, humiliation, and indignation that are felt in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East. More than this, he offers impoverished and marginalized Muslims an ideal world, in the Modern Islamic State as conceived by the Islamist, where they can escape to.
This is the real danger that must be addressed by Muslim moderates and those concerned with the increasing appeal of Bin Laden and his ilk. Not only is there a need for Muslim moderates to demonstrate clearly, persuasively, and emphatically the impossibility of the Islamist enterprise but they must also provide viable alternatives and real solutions to the problems of the Islamic world. As is frequently a painful experience when one leaves childhood and enters adulthood, myths must be destroyed, fantasies must be forgotten, and reality accepted and embraced. For Muslims who adopt the Islamist ideal, it is simply time to grow up.
Indeed, the entire Muslim world must sober up to the harsh reality that there are no easy solutions to the problems of war, poverty, and corruption that plague many Islamic communities in the Middle East and elsewhere and that the fantasy world – where the Modern Islamic State exists and unicorns run free – is not the place where the Ummah should begin searching for answers.
MODERN ISLAMIC STATE
A unicorn is a mythical creature that has an antelope's body, a lion's tail, and a bearded horse's head with a single horn on its forehead. They are believed to bring good fortune and have magical powers of healing. The horn of the unicorn was prized for its healing power and its ability to nullify all kinds of poison.
Similar to the purity and curative power of the unicorn, a number of Islamists have turned to the ideal of an Islamic State, modeled after the polity under Prophet Muhammad and deeply rooted in the Shari’a, in order to address the problems of poverty, war, and social corruption, which were viewed as symptoms of the poisoned lifeblood of the Ummah (Islamic Community), that afflict Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere. For our purposes, an Islamist is defined as a person who uses the tenets of Islam - in fact often by claiming to advocate a "correct" view of the religion - for his own social and political ends. It is this Islamist vision of a Modern Islamic State, set to exist in the contemporary age, where social justice (Adl) is the norm under the sovereignty of God (Hakimiyya) that has fired the imagination of Muslims around the globe.
Even For those, such as this author, who might be labeled as “moderates” in the current dichotomy established by the West as to which Muslims are socially up to standard – the acceptable “moderates” and the intolerable “fundamentalists” – the vision of an Islamic State is appealing.
The attraction for many Muslims is easily understandable: Often, at first glance, the arguments for the establishment of a Modern Islamic State appear compelling. On the issue of the model of the Modern Islamic State, one of the most influential and popular modern Muslim thinkers is Sayyid Qutb. Though long deceased, his writings continue to be a source of inspiration, particularly among the more radicalized groups as shown by his influence on the political thought of Osama Bin Laden.
Qutb proposed an Islamic alternative to the political systems, which were then competing in Egypt, based upon, among others, the notions of Jahiliyyah and Hakimiyya. Qutb’s use of the term “Jahiliyyah” - roughly equivalent to a state of societal ignorance and corruption - referred to almost all cultural aspects of the modern world and was a pejorative term pertaining to all things alien to Islam. In his mind, Egypt was in a state of Jahiliyyah and, consequently, needed a revolution to overthrow the corrupt powers – the West and their cronies in the Arab World - and establish a regime of Hakimiyya. According to Qutb, a truly Islamic society could only be established upon the strict tenets of the Shari’a, which was not limited only to legal injunctions or governmental principles but included all aspects of human life and governance. The experience of the first Islamic community in Medina under the Prophet and the Quran provided Muslims with the blueprint for the ideal Islamic State for both the present and the future.
Osama Bin Laden has a similar conception of the Modern Islamic State. According to the so-called “Ladenese Epistle: Declaration of War,” Muslim society’s unfaithfulness to the Shari’a is one of the roots of the problems of the Islamic world. Similar to Qutb’s idea of Hakimiyya, Bin Laden espouses a divine sovereignty and a return to governance under the Shari’a, which would proscribe, among others, modern financial institutions for being in contravention on Islamic laws against usury. Essentially, these Islamists envision a return to the pristine conditions of the original Islamic State, which was an egalitarian, enlightened, and religious community in stark contrast to the present conditions of inequitable distribution of resources, corruption, and vice obtaining in the Middle East.
In this paradigm, the machinery of the State would enforce the Shari’a and all matters deemed un-Islamic would be essentially removed or isolated from society. According to Qutb, the first thing a truly Islamic Government would do is to force the indolent to apply themselves to industry
Accordingly, these views have a powerful magnetic pull for many Muslims, who feel incredibly isolated, marginalized, impoverished, and alienated in the modern world. Certainly, a society built on justice (Adl), governed under divine law (Shari’a), and within a regime of God’s sovereignty (Hakimiyya) is an image of perfection that hardly anyone could resist. However, upon closer inspection, the views propounded by Islamists such as Bin Laden and Qutb, as well as the means they espouse to achieve their ideal polity, are shown to be extremely problematic.
First, in regard the means advocated by Bin Laden and Qutb in order to achieve their ideal Islamic State, both these Islamists adopt a Manichaean view of the world in which only armed struggle and bloodshed between the “good” (true Muslims) and the “bad” (the West) are, ultimately, the means to reach their objective. Both have demonized the West, particularly the US and - although located in the Middle East is seen as an American proxy - Israel. Some of their criticisms about the unfair treatment that Muslims have historically received from the West, such as the current Palestinian situation, have real basis; however, it is their uncompromising view of the necessity of armed resistance to address the problems of the Muslim world that eventually dooms their political enterprise and alienates many Islamic moderates who, while in general agreement for the requirement of reform and the existence of injustice and sources of conflict in the Middle East, have a preference for peaceful methods for social change. In this increasingly global and inter-linked planet, this dualistic approach, categorizing distinct societies as either wholly good or evil, loses much of its appeal and logical certainty.
Secondly, even if Bin Laden were able to achieve the goals of overcoming the West and establishing a new political reality, the Islamist’s paradigm of a Modern Islamic State would nevertheless fail. This failure would be based on fundamental problems, both conceptual and practical, with their model of a Modern Islamic State. Upon deeper analysis, the claims of the Islamists are shown to be irrational and unfounded. Closer inspection of their claims make clear that the Islamist’s indulgence in the apodictic style of discourse, wherein emphatic asseveration is substituted for serious reasoning, ends up with an extremely problematic model for an Islamic State.
A primary setback in the Islamist conception of their ideal State is that their prototype is sui generis. The polity that existed under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad in Medina was a unique phenomenon that can never be replicated. Firstly, no Muslim leader could ever possess the same personal qualities of kindness, charity, piety, wisdom, leadership, and charisma that allowed him to have such a powerful and persuasive effect on his community. Moreover, for any Muslim to even make such an outrageous claim would be the death knell for his leadership ambitions. Additionally, the community that existed during that period was a product of a distinct social, political, religious, and economic context that is impossible to reproduce.
In fact, historically, Muslim leaders who attempted to take the mantle of the prophet and use Islam for their own political gain have often, in the end, suffered greatly. For example, Anwar Sadat, as President of Egypt, did his utmost to cultivate an aura of piety and Islamic devoutness in his persona within Egypt, going as far as preferring to be called by his first name - Muhammad. His wearing of the traditional robe, with his prayer beads and Moses stick as accoutrements, appear, on hindsight, as shallow propaganda. Ultimately, Sadat's misuse of Islam would be his downfall. This is the paradox - or more dramatically, the curse - for the Islamist. His use of Islam to catapult himself to power, at the same time, plants the seeds for his eventual political destruction. Islam brings colossal expectations in terms of social justice, religiosity, and equity. Any person who styles himself as someone who will Islamize society raises the bar incredibly high and ultimately will come up short - much to his and his society's dismay. For some Islamic believers, the downfall of the Islamist is but fitting justice for those who have the temerity to misuse the faith for their own selfish ends.
Secondly, and this is a vital point that strongly undermines the Islamist paradigm, during the time of the Prophet, Shari’a was not implemented via the machinery of the State. To implement Shari’a, the Modern Islamic State would have to enact legislation based on the Shari’a and enforce it through the government apparatus. However, during the Prophet’s period of leadership in Medina, the Shari’a was implemented in the community not via positive legislation and government intervention but instead through the context of the community as a whole – with the genuine piety and great personal charisma of the Prophet providing the normative element, in conjunction with the specific guidance from the Quran, and the close-knit nature of the community and the high level of motivation of the Islamic converts acting as the basis to follow the Shari’a.
The foregoing brings us to a third exceptionally fundamental problem of the Islamist paradigm: The very idea of establishing an Islamic State in order to enforce the Shari’a is conceptually impossible. Put another way, an “Islamic State” is a theoretical nullity because, as a political institution, a State cannot be characterized as Islamic – the proper object of Islam are human beings and not political institutions - and the very attempt to enforce Shari’a as positive law is a repudiation of the Islamic basis of the legislation.
It is important to emphasize that the Shari’a is, by definition, a divine creation and is not a result of a governmental legislative process. To claim that State-crafted legislation, which hews closely to classical Shari’a, is equivalent or identical to the divinely-authored law both undermines and misunderstands the nature of the Shari’a and its genuine purpose. Laws, as expressions of societal norms, are a product of the will of the State; Positive law can never be Shari’a because the Shari’a, as an expression of divine will, is the exact opposite of positive law.
What is more, there are numerous practical problems that result from the Islamist view. The first is that the prototype of the Islamic community in Medina is an anachronism and is no longer viable in the modern age. The concerns of Modern States in providing food, housing, water, electricity, economic policy, environmental preservation, foreign policy, defense, crime prevention, among others, are unbelievably more numerous than the matters that the first Islamic community in Medina had to address. The old solutions to the problems of that classical age would certainly be deficient in the modern era; hence, the aphorism that under the regime of Imam Khomeini the leaders of Iran realized that the Shari’a did not provide answers to the problem of garbage collection.
Furthermore, a rigorous implementation of the Shari’a, specifically in the classical form that developed during the 7th - 9th Century A.D., would be highly problematic in terms of women’s rights, the rights of non-Muslims living in Muslim communities, and human rights.
Actually, the Shari’a as implemented during the 7th - 9th Century was appropriate and, indeed, progressive for its time, especially in regard the rights of women, such as entitlement to a share of inheritance. Of grave concern is the punishment for apostasy under the 7th Century system, which was death, and its obvious inconsistency with the right to freedom of belief as recognized under human rights conventions and international norms. Clearly, in the modern age where there has been a dramatic increase in women’s rights and a greater emphasis on personal freedoms, such as freedom of expression and belief, the 7th Century Shari’a is no longer fully responsive to the times.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the Islamist’s ideal of the Islamic State, crafted in the mould of the Prophet’s community and functioning in the modern age is unworkable, impracticable, and unrealistic. The Islamist vision, while beautiful and enthralling, is shown to be as real and possible as finding a live unicorn. And maybe this is the core problem of the Islamist philosophy – in the search to provide answers and solutions to the grave problems challenging the Ummah, the Islamists have taken the easy route of going back to myths and archetypes instead of finding more pragmatic responses.
However, ironically, it is this return to archetypes, which is the essential escapism of the Islamist enterprise, that partially explains the Islamist’s appeal. The fact that many of the inhabitants of the Muslim world live in impoverished, unempowered, and undemocratic conditions explain the attractiveness of the Islamist message, specifically in regard the ideal of the Islamic State. Even if the Islamist’s methodology in establishing the Modern Islamic State is violent and cruel, it is, nevertheless, an empowering vision - breaking free of the fetters of colonialism and dependency, defeating great powers through self-sacrifice and courage, and overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds through faith and effort.
It is the social conditions of the Muslim world that provide the perfect nursery for the seeds of Islamist message to take root. This is one of the powerful aspects of the Bin Laden rhetoric: he is able to communicate in plain language the anger, angst, humiliation, and indignation that are felt in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East. More than this, he offers impoverished and marginalized Muslims an ideal world, in the Modern Islamic State as conceived by the Islamist, where they can escape to.
This is the real danger that must be addressed by Muslim moderates and those concerned with the increasing appeal of Bin Laden and his ilk. Not only is there a need for Muslim moderates to demonstrate clearly, persuasively, and emphatically the impossibility of the Islamist enterprise but they must also provide viable alternatives and real solutions to the problems of the Islamic world. As is frequently a painful experience when one leaves childhood and enters adulthood, myths must be destroyed, fantasies must be forgotten, and reality accepted and embraced. For Muslims who adopt the Islamist ideal, it is simply time to grow up.
Indeed, the entire Muslim world must sober up to the harsh reality that there are no easy solutions to the problems of war, poverty, and corruption that plague many Islamic communities in the Middle East and elsewhere and that the fantasy world – where the Modern Islamic State exists and unicorns run free – is not the place where the Ummah should begin searching for answers.
Superman is Moro
SUPERMAN IS MORO – PROBLEMS OF IDENTITY, ALIENATION,
AND INTEGRATION
Superman is a Moro. How do I know this? - He has too many similarities with the contemporary Moro that simple logic reveals his true identity and ethnicity. Let’s turn to the facts which confirm that, indeed, this icon of goodness, truth, and decency, the man of steel, is a Filipino Muslim.
Proof No. 1: He has a Moro name. This is the biggest give-away - Kal-El is the real name of Clark Kent, Superman’s mild-mannered alter ego. His given name is incredibly similar to common Filipino Muslim names like Khalil, or even Ysmael and Abdul. In fact, for this reason, for him to get a job in the Philippines, he would have to use a pseudonym. According to the latest Social Weather Station Survey, Filipinos prefer hiring people with Christian–sounding names rather than those whose names appear to be of Islamic etymology.
Without a doubt, within the context of the global war on terrorism, wherein the usual suspects are those of the Islamic faith, it becomes easy to rationalize the preference. It needn’t be rooted any longer in stereotypes of Moros as violent, aggressive, and vicious, the classic “juramentado”, but can be much more easily and socially acceptable on the basis of general security concerns.
While liberalism encourages and advances the renunciation of discrimination and stereotyping, new anxieties about terrorism and safety provide seemingly liberal-minded people a basis for discriminating against Muslims without the concomitant guilt. In fact, honestly, whom would you prefer to hire as your clerk, manager, driver, etc., Kal-El, or Clark?
Proof No. 2: He has to keep his real identity a secret. Imagine how difficult it must be for a person with the power to fly, smash through walls, bounce bullets off his chest, and x-ray vision to keeps these phenomenal abilities secret. Most people would want to shout it out to the world, publicize it, and, ultimately, capitalize on it. But Superman is different. And wise. He knows that in the increasingly globalized and homogenized world, being alien, different, and outside the norm is a surefire way to becoming ostracized and misunderstood. This is the reason why he dons his suit and tie. This is the supreme irony: it is his corporate attire and not the blue tights with the Superman logo and big red cape that is his real costume. The coat and tie conceals his authentic identity - as an alien and, ultimately, an outsider.
This is the same situation that the Moro faces; a case in point is the fact that many Filipino Muslims, when interacting with the Christian majority, have to adopt Christian names – Michael instead of Muhammad – as a way of side-stepping discrimination. This too is an aspect of an emerging Moro culture of keeping things hidden and undercover. The name itself is a costume, a camouflage, to conceal the reality of being Muslim and therefore different from the Catholic majority.
In fact, Moro women, particularly in Metro Manila, suffering daily the indignities of subtle discrimination, such as Taxi drivers refusing to accept as passengers veiled (hijab-wearing) Muslim women, are forced to forego using the hijab when taking public transportation, keeping their Muslim-ness incognito. For both Moro genders, the badges of being a Moro, which include the cultural traits of the Moro as Maranaw, Maguindanao, or Tausug, as well as the indivisible Islamic element that infuses the culture of these Muslim tribes, such as headscarves, Moro hats (kupya), beards, and prayer beads, are eschewed for modern clothing for easier acceptance.
Even prayer, the most fundamental of human actions, with man communing with his creator, has to be done clandestinely. It is not difficult to recall the recent furor that was raised over the request of Moro merchants in Greenhills to build a small prayer room so that they could perform salah (prayer). Some prominent members of Philippine society vehemently objected, using the media as their forum, to the establishment of the prayer room, at times using the most racially and ethnically discriminatory of arguments.
Proof No. 3: He is forced not to wear his ethnic costume. This is really a corollary to No. 2, but the use of clothing to emphasize and be express pride in one’s culture only makes sense in a world without prejudice, particularly when one belongs to a minority. In this world, wherein intolerance abounds, emphasizing cultural pride, particularly when it is Moro pride, produces real-world problems.
Interestingly, some Moro women, and their counterparts in the West, have taken to wearing the veil as an overt political statement, a re-affirmation of their Islamic faith in the face of discrimination. It is worn, literally, as a badge of fearlessness and courage knowing that an intolerant society will make them suffer, in ways subtle and otherwise, for their beliefs. The current increase in veil-wearing among Moros is paradoxical because originally the use of the hijab was a sign of old-fashionedness and modesty and not worldliness in terms of the knowledge of the political implications that using the veil engenders.
For those of a more activist bent, the use of the hijab is a banner screaming for an end to prejudice and intolerance against Muslims; for those who prefer convenience, then they go the route of not wearing their veils to avoid complications, even in small things like hailing taxi-cabs.
Regardless of what route is chosen by the Moro woman, whether to use or not to use the hijab, the undertone of forcing conformity is inescapable. The coercion not to express one’s ethnicity and a person’s deep conviction in Islam is a reality that is faced by Moros, both men and women, on a daily basis. Now imagine what stares, rude comments, and general disapproval Superman would get by his non-conformist attire, least of which is his big red cape. Imagine further the spectacle of Superman applying for a job, say as a reporter in news daily, in his red, blue, and yellow tights. Compare this with a Moro woman, proudly wearing her veil, applying as a clerk in a bank or government office. Our own inner sense will tell us that they will be treated similarly – with equal measures of disdain, discrimination, and prejudice.
Proof No. 4: He has strong views about what is right and wrong that constantly gets him into trouble. This is one of the powerful aspects of Islam – it provides its adherents with a simple and clear view of the world. A Muslim is tasked with knowing what is right and wrong and, in fact, all that is good in the world, and even those elements that man considers as evil, exist on the basis of
God’s will. This forms part of the Islamic conception of Tauhid, the essential oneness of existence. The Islamic injunction to enjoin what is good and forbid wrongdoing becomes problematic for Moros who must live in an unjust and intolerant society. Accordingly, striving for what is good and just will pit Moros against forces that desire and prefer the status quo. Superman too, in fighting for what he believed was good, had his Lex Luthor to contend with. In fact, there is never a shortage of villains for Superman to square off against, a reality that he bravely accepts as part of his responsibility. Kal-El needn’t have to put up with this situation because he could easily leave the Earth for another less violent and complicated planet. But he stays here and sticks to his beliefs.
Moros do that likewise. You find them in every metropolitan center in the country, usually with a small business, striving to survive within a system that discriminates against him not only socially but in terms of recourse to economic resources. Many in the Christian majority do not know the difficulties Moros face in looking for credit facilities.
Despite their hardships, the Moro maintains his faith no matter where you find him – in Manila, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro. He does this despite the routine harassment from the authorities, for some, especially those living in the poorer areas of the metropolis, the raids and tactical interrogations, which are all part of the global war against terrorism. How easy it would be for others to just renounce their faith and their culture in order to live a less stressful and challenging life. The Moro may, pursuant to Proof Nos. 2 and 3, change his name or clothing style but in his heart the Moro maintains his identity and his faith. Faith being something unseen and deeply personal in nature is a matter that should be easy to change, simple to dispose of for the sake of convenience. However, the Moro chooses otherwise and maintains his faith, identity, and culture. As the BangsaMoro will attest, almost half a millennia of struggle for independence by Muslims in the Southern Philippines, is strong evidence of the Moros tenacity for their faith and culture.
Proof No. 5: He never finds peace. Unfortunately, because of this struggle, the Moro, like Superman, never finds peace. For ever Lex Luthor that he defeats, another villain appears in a never ending cycle of conflict for the man of steel. For him, peace too is elusive, a dream that never seems attainable. For the Moro, one of the tragic non-variables of Philippine history is the fact of the conflict between the Muslims and Christians in the Southern Philippines. From the Spanish period through the American and into the 21st Century, our country never attains the peace that it deserves. In fact, it may be this never-ending conflict between Muslims and Christians in the Philippines that have embedded in Philippine mainstream culture the prejudice and intolerance against Moros. It is a sad self-perpetuating cycle – the intolerance against Moros breeds resentment in the Filipino Muslim against the Christian majority, which is the basis for some Moros to take up arms against the Philippine Government, which becomes the basis for the Christian majority to view Moros as violent, vicious, and unacceptable.
CONCLUSION
Moros have borne discrimination, marginalization, and intolerance in the Philippines for centuries with great measures of dignity and self-esteem. We remain proud of our being Muslim and being part of the BangsaMoro. Some brothers have taken the path of armed struggle, a matter that many Moros may have strong disagreement with but, at the same time, understand the roots and the motivation for fighting. That many Moros still strive to succeed - and in fact some do succeed – in an intolerant society is a great display of innate strength and resilience. Some would say that the armed struggle of the Moros, centuries long as it is, is also a sign of this inner power. Actually, we started this piece with a wrong premise; Superman is not a Moro; indeed, it is the Moro that is the Superman.
AND INTEGRATION
Superman is a Moro. How do I know this? - He has too many similarities with the contemporary Moro that simple logic reveals his true identity and ethnicity. Let’s turn to the facts which confirm that, indeed, this icon of goodness, truth, and decency, the man of steel, is a Filipino Muslim.
Proof No. 1: He has a Moro name. This is the biggest give-away - Kal-El is the real name of Clark Kent, Superman’s mild-mannered alter ego. His given name is incredibly similar to common Filipino Muslim names like Khalil, or even Ysmael and Abdul. In fact, for this reason, for him to get a job in the Philippines, he would have to use a pseudonym. According to the latest Social Weather Station Survey, Filipinos prefer hiring people with Christian–sounding names rather than those whose names appear to be of Islamic etymology.
Without a doubt, within the context of the global war on terrorism, wherein the usual suspects are those of the Islamic faith, it becomes easy to rationalize the preference. It needn’t be rooted any longer in stereotypes of Moros as violent, aggressive, and vicious, the classic “juramentado”, but can be much more easily and socially acceptable on the basis of general security concerns.
While liberalism encourages and advances the renunciation of discrimination and stereotyping, new anxieties about terrorism and safety provide seemingly liberal-minded people a basis for discriminating against Muslims without the concomitant guilt. In fact, honestly, whom would you prefer to hire as your clerk, manager, driver, etc., Kal-El, or Clark?
Proof No. 2: He has to keep his real identity a secret. Imagine how difficult it must be for a person with the power to fly, smash through walls, bounce bullets off his chest, and x-ray vision to keeps these phenomenal abilities secret. Most people would want to shout it out to the world, publicize it, and, ultimately, capitalize on it. But Superman is different. And wise. He knows that in the increasingly globalized and homogenized world, being alien, different, and outside the norm is a surefire way to becoming ostracized and misunderstood. This is the reason why he dons his suit and tie. This is the supreme irony: it is his corporate attire and not the blue tights with the Superman logo and big red cape that is his real costume. The coat and tie conceals his authentic identity - as an alien and, ultimately, an outsider.
This is the same situation that the Moro faces; a case in point is the fact that many Filipino Muslims, when interacting with the Christian majority, have to adopt Christian names – Michael instead of Muhammad – as a way of side-stepping discrimination. This too is an aspect of an emerging Moro culture of keeping things hidden and undercover. The name itself is a costume, a camouflage, to conceal the reality of being Muslim and therefore different from the Catholic majority.
In fact, Moro women, particularly in Metro Manila, suffering daily the indignities of subtle discrimination, such as Taxi drivers refusing to accept as passengers veiled (hijab-wearing) Muslim women, are forced to forego using the hijab when taking public transportation, keeping their Muslim-ness incognito. For both Moro genders, the badges of being a Moro, which include the cultural traits of the Moro as Maranaw, Maguindanao, or Tausug, as well as the indivisible Islamic element that infuses the culture of these Muslim tribes, such as headscarves, Moro hats (kupya), beards, and prayer beads, are eschewed for modern clothing for easier acceptance.
Even prayer, the most fundamental of human actions, with man communing with his creator, has to be done clandestinely. It is not difficult to recall the recent furor that was raised over the request of Moro merchants in Greenhills to build a small prayer room so that they could perform salah (prayer). Some prominent members of Philippine society vehemently objected, using the media as their forum, to the establishment of the prayer room, at times using the most racially and ethnically discriminatory of arguments.
Proof No. 3: He is forced not to wear his ethnic costume. This is really a corollary to No. 2, but the use of clothing to emphasize and be express pride in one’s culture only makes sense in a world without prejudice, particularly when one belongs to a minority. In this world, wherein intolerance abounds, emphasizing cultural pride, particularly when it is Moro pride, produces real-world problems.
Interestingly, some Moro women, and their counterparts in the West, have taken to wearing the veil as an overt political statement, a re-affirmation of their Islamic faith in the face of discrimination. It is worn, literally, as a badge of fearlessness and courage knowing that an intolerant society will make them suffer, in ways subtle and otherwise, for their beliefs. The current increase in veil-wearing among Moros is paradoxical because originally the use of the hijab was a sign of old-fashionedness and modesty and not worldliness in terms of the knowledge of the political implications that using the veil engenders.
For those of a more activist bent, the use of the hijab is a banner screaming for an end to prejudice and intolerance against Muslims; for those who prefer convenience, then they go the route of not wearing their veils to avoid complications, even in small things like hailing taxi-cabs.
Regardless of what route is chosen by the Moro woman, whether to use or not to use the hijab, the undertone of forcing conformity is inescapable. The coercion not to express one’s ethnicity and a person’s deep conviction in Islam is a reality that is faced by Moros, both men and women, on a daily basis. Now imagine what stares, rude comments, and general disapproval Superman would get by his non-conformist attire, least of which is his big red cape. Imagine further the spectacle of Superman applying for a job, say as a reporter in news daily, in his red, blue, and yellow tights. Compare this with a Moro woman, proudly wearing her veil, applying as a clerk in a bank or government office. Our own inner sense will tell us that they will be treated similarly – with equal measures of disdain, discrimination, and prejudice.
Proof No. 4: He has strong views about what is right and wrong that constantly gets him into trouble. This is one of the powerful aspects of Islam – it provides its adherents with a simple and clear view of the world. A Muslim is tasked with knowing what is right and wrong and, in fact, all that is good in the world, and even those elements that man considers as evil, exist on the basis of
God’s will. This forms part of the Islamic conception of Tauhid, the essential oneness of existence. The Islamic injunction to enjoin what is good and forbid wrongdoing becomes problematic for Moros who must live in an unjust and intolerant society. Accordingly, striving for what is good and just will pit Moros against forces that desire and prefer the status quo. Superman too, in fighting for what he believed was good, had his Lex Luthor to contend with. In fact, there is never a shortage of villains for Superman to square off against, a reality that he bravely accepts as part of his responsibility. Kal-El needn’t have to put up with this situation because he could easily leave the Earth for another less violent and complicated planet. But he stays here and sticks to his beliefs.
Moros do that likewise. You find them in every metropolitan center in the country, usually with a small business, striving to survive within a system that discriminates against him not only socially but in terms of recourse to economic resources. Many in the Christian majority do not know the difficulties Moros face in looking for credit facilities.
Despite their hardships, the Moro maintains his faith no matter where you find him – in Manila, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro. He does this despite the routine harassment from the authorities, for some, especially those living in the poorer areas of the metropolis, the raids and tactical interrogations, which are all part of the global war against terrorism. How easy it would be for others to just renounce their faith and their culture in order to live a less stressful and challenging life. The Moro may, pursuant to Proof Nos. 2 and 3, change his name or clothing style but in his heart the Moro maintains his identity and his faith. Faith being something unseen and deeply personal in nature is a matter that should be easy to change, simple to dispose of for the sake of convenience. However, the Moro chooses otherwise and maintains his faith, identity, and culture. As the BangsaMoro will attest, almost half a millennia of struggle for independence by Muslims in the Southern Philippines, is strong evidence of the Moros tenacity for their faith and culture.
Proof No. 5: He never finds peace. Unfortunately, because of this struggle, the Moro, like Superman, never finds peace. For ever Lex Luthor that he defeats, another villain appears in a never ending cycle of conflict for the man of steel. For him, peace too is elusive, a dream that never seems attainable. For the Moro, one of the tragic non-variables of Philippine history is the fact of the conflict between the Muslims and Christians in the Southern Philippines. From the Spanish period through the American and into the 21st Century, our country never attains the peace that it deserves. In fact, it may be this never-ending conflict between Muslims and Christians in the Philippines that have embedded in Philippine mainstream culture the prejudice and intolerance against Moros. It is a sad self-perpetuating cycle – the intolerance against Moros breeds resentment in the Filipino Muslim against the Christian majority, which is the basis for some Moros to take up arms against the Philippine Government, which becomes the basis for the Christian majority to view Moros as violent, vicious, and unacceptable.
CONCLUSION
Moros have borne discrimination, marginalization, and intolerance in the Philippines for centuries with great measures of dignity and self-esteem. We remain proud of our being Muslim and being part of the BangsaMoro. Some brothers have taken the path of armed struggle, a matter that many Moros may have strong disagreement with but, at the same time, understand the roots and the motivation for fighting. That many Moros still strive to succeed - and in fact some do succeed – in an intolerant society is a great display of innate strength and resilience. Some would say that the armed struggle of the Moros, centuries long as it is, is also a sign of this inner power. Actually, we started this piece with a wrong premise; Superman is not a Moro; indeed, it is the Moro that is the Superman.
Harvard Commencement Speech
Note: This speech was delivered at the 2005 Commencement Exercises of Harvard Law School -
Dean Kagan, the faculty and staff of Harvard Law School, the Graduating Class of 2005, our family and friends – Good Afternoon:
We begin with a caveat: If you believe that the praise and celebration are the only remarks that are appropriate for a graduation ceremony, then what I have to say will be a big disappointment.
This is not to belittle the hard work and sacrifice that we have undergone in order to be here today. For all of this and more, we deserve the warmest congratulations.
However, it would not serve us well to focus solely on our personal achievements: that would merely serve our vanity. What is more, it would be untruthful. Today’s graduation belongs as much to us as it does to our parents, spouses, relatives, and loved ones. They have sacrificed as much as we have, if not more so. They deserve equal praise for their support, love, and encouragement.
Furthermore, we must remember that our education is a great privilege. For someone like myself, a Filipino-Muslim, studying at Harvard was an unbelievable opportunity. In the predominantly Muslim areas of the Philippines, out of 10 grade-school students, only 2 will be able to complete high-school. Those in the developing world know, firsthand, that education is a truly precious commodity.
This is why our commencement today should not only be a time for self-congratulation but, more importantly, a moment for deep and sincere reflection. We must ask the essential questions of a graduate: 1) What have we learned?; and 2) Where do we go from here?
Today, we leave the comfortable and secure confines of Harvard Law School and enter the real world. It is a world of growing unilateralism, of heightened volatility in the Middle East, of mounting threats to security, of unrelenting degradation of the environment, and an ever widening gap, in economic terms, between the developed and developing nations.
What is more, we depart knowing that we have a responsibility to address these global issues. It should be emphasized that we, the members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, were not chosen from the thousands of applicants to the Graduate Program solely because of our academic or professional achievements. Instead, the choice was made with the prospect that a Harvard education would enable us to become future leaders and policymakers. Very simply, much is expected of us.
Accordingly, in order to address these global issues we must ask: what have we learned? Certainly, from the 250 courses available in the Law School, we have learned much in terms of legal theory and the substance of the Law. However, the most valuable source of education was our exposure to the diverse beliefs and cultures of men and women from over 60 nations. Indeed, the real genius of the Graduate Program is its embrace of multiculturalism and diversity.
In fact, it is this multiculturalism that will prove to be of the most benefit not only to each of us but more so to the Law School itself. This is a vital point: the very existence of the Graduate Program and the presence of legal scholars from over 60 nations is a powerful symbol and a clear reminder that no single country, race, or religion has a monopoly on good will, knowledge, or wisdom.
So where do we go from here? This is a question that each one of us, the 162 members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, will have to answer on our own and in our own time. We all desire to succeed and success itself can be defined and achieved in myriad ways. But one thing is certain - if your graduation becomes the high-water mark of your life, then you have failed to achieve the hopes of this institution. More importantly, you will have failed yourself. Again, we must never forget that much is expected of us.
I must confess that there is a personal reason for framing this speech in terms of poverty, terrorism, pollution, and world peace. I am a husband and a father of a two-year old son and when I think about the enormity of the global problems that we face, frankly, I am filled with fear and doubt. This is why I have such a personal stake in the success of our class and of the LL.M. Program itself.
Ultimately, the real value of our education will be assessed in terms of our making the world a more just, peaceful, equitable, environmentally sustainable, and tolerant place for our children.
Finally, in this world that, at times, seems so determined to destroy itself on the basis of differences in ideology, race, religion, or ethnicity, I have, nevertheless, witnessed 162 people from over 60 nations meet, initially, as strangers, then come together as classmates - who argued, debated, and, at times, vehemently disagreed - and, ultimately, become united as genuine friends. In this I find my optimism, hopefulness, and confidence. It is upon this bond of friendship and the spirit of understanding and humanity that I entrust my hopes for our future. I am truly proud to be a member of the LL.M. Class of 2005.
I thank you. I honor you. Congratulations.
Dean Kagan, the faculty and staff of Harvard Law School, the Graduating Class of 2005, our family and friends – Good Afternoon:
We begin with a caveat: If you believe that the praise and celebration are the only remarks that are appropriate for a graduation ceremony, then what I have to say will be a big disappointment.
This is not to belittle the hard work and sacrifice that we have undergone in order to be here today. For all of this and more, we deserve the warmest congratulations.
However, it would not serve us well to focus solely on our personal achievements: that would merely serve our vanity. What is more, it would be untruthful. Today’s graduation belongs as much to us as it does to our parents, spouses, relatives, and loved ones. They have sacrificed as much as we have, if not more so. They deserve equal praise for their support, love, and encouragement.
Furthermore, we must remember that our education is a great privilege. For someone like myself, a Filipino-Muslim, studying at Harvard was an unbelievable opportunity. In the predominantly Muslim areas of the Philippines, out of 10 grade-school students, only 2 will be able to complete high-school. Those in the developing world know, firsthand, that education is a truly precious commodity.
This is why our commencement today should not only be a time for self-congratulation but, more importantly, a moment for deep and sincere reflection. We must ask the essential questions of a graduate: 1) What have we learned?; and 2) Where do we go from here?
Today, we leave the comfortable and secure confines of Harvard Law School and enter the real world. It is a world of growing unilateralism, of heightened volatility in the Middle East, of mounting threats to security, of unrelenting degradation of the environment, and an ever widening gap, in economic terms, between the developed and developing nations.
What is more, we depart knowing that we have a responsibility to address these global issues. It should be emphasized that we, the members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, were not chosen from the thousands of applicants to the Graduate Program solely because of our academic or professional achievements. Instead, the choice was made with the prospect that a Harvard education would enable us to become future leaders and policymakers. Very simply, much is expected of us.
Accordingly, in order to address these global issues we must ask: what have we learned? Certainly, from the 250 courses available in the Law School, we have learned much in terms of legal theory and the substance of the Law. However, the most valuable source of education was our exposure to the diverse beliefs and cultures of men and women from over 60 nations. Indeed, the real genius of the Graduate Program is its embrace of multiculturalism and diversity.
In fact, it is this multiculturalism that will prove to be of the most benefit not only to each of us but more so to the Law School itself. This is a vital point: the very existence of the Graduate Program and the presence of legal scholars from over 60 nations is a powerful symbol and a clear reminder that no single country, race, or religion has a monopoly on good will, knowledge, or wisdom.
So where do we go from here? This is a question that each one of us, the 162 members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, will have to answer on our own and in our own time. We all desire to succeed and success itself can be defined and achieved in myriad ways. But one thing is certain - if your graduation becomes the high-water mark of your life, then you have failed to achieve the hopes of this institution. More importantly, you will have failed yourself. Again, we must never forget that much is expected of us.
I must confess that there is a personal reason for framing this speech in terms of poverty, terrorism, pollution, and world peace. I am a husband and a father of a two-year old son and when I think about the enormity of the global problems that we face, frankly, I am filled with fear and doubt. This is why I have such a personal stake in the success of our class and of the LL.M. Program itself.
Ultimately, the real value of our education will be assessed in terms of our making the world a more just, peaceful, equitable, environmentally sustainable, and tolerant place for our children.
Finally, in this world that, at times, seems so determined to destroy itself on the basis of differences in ideology, race, religion, or ethnicity, I have, nevertheless, witnessed 162 people from over 60 nations meet, initially, as strangers, then come together as classmates - who argued, debated, and, at times, vehemently disagreed - and, ultimately, become united as genuine friends. In this I find my optimism, hopefulness, and confidence. It is upon this bond of friendship and the spirit of understanding and humanity that I entrust my hopes for our future. I am truly proud to be a member of the LL.M. Class of 2005.
I thank you. I honor you. Congratulations.
Welcome Note
Webster's International Dictionary defines an infidel as, among others,
a non-Christian and a skeptic. I happen to be both and these aspects -
my being a Muslim and someone with a critical/skeptical bent - will
pervade this blog. But I am more than these: I am a Moro, Filipino,
teacher, father, husband, lawyer,Lakers fan, trekkie, FHM reader,
etc. The point is we are all innately complex and this complexity will
spill across our views, arguments, and beliefs. So the stuff that you
will see here will not always be consistent or even coherent. But it
will reflect my point of view, which is exactly the rationale for
blogging in the first place.
Justice Holmes' faith in the "marketplace of ideas" is likewise the basis of my entry into
cyberspace. The Boston Brahmin's views may, at times, seem antiquated,
but his faith - and mine - in the power of ideas, as well as the need
to articulate and disseminate them, are timeless and universal.
I hope that the views expressed here will be of some use to you. Many of
the topics will deal on law, democracy, and Islam since these are some
of my areas of interest. I make no claims on being an expert on any of
these subjects but I hope that any research or scholarship that I may
have used for these articles/blogs will be helpful to the reader. Take
what I write here with as much skepticism and criticism as I have used
in preparing them. Also, share your thoughts with me. The "marketplace
of ideas" is no good if there is only one seller.
a non-Christian and a skeptic. I happen to be both and these aspects -
my being a Muslim and someone with a critical/skeptical bent - will
pervade this blog. But I am more than these: I am a Moro, Filipino,
teacher, father, husband, lawyer,Lakers fan, trekkie, FHM reader,
etc. The point is we are all innately complex and this complexity will
spill across our views, arguments, and beliefs. So the stuff that you
will see here will not always be consistent or even coherent. But it
will reflect my point of view, which is exactly the rationale for
blogging in the first place.
Justice Holmes' faith in the "marketplace of ideas" is likewise the basis of my entry into
cyberspace. The Boston Brahmin's views may, at times, seem antiquated,
but his faith - and mine - in the power of ideas, as well as the need
to articulate and disseminate them, are timeless and universal.
I hope that the views expressed here will be of some use to you. Many of
the topics will deal on law, democracy, and Islam since these are some
of my areas of interest. I make no claims on being an expert on any of
these subjects but I hope that any research or scholarship that I may
have used for these articles/blogs will be helpful to the reader. Take
what I write here with as much skepticism and criticism as I have used
in preparing them. Also, share your thoughts with me. The "marketplace
of ideas" is no good if there is only one seller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
