Tutu, Habib, apartheid and Islamophobia -- the power of the internet

I read with interest the decision of the United States government to refuse Professor Adam Habib entry into the US. Purportedly this was based on an Immigration and Nationality Act relating to terrorist activities.

Habib is the deputy vice-chancellor of research, innovation and advancement at the University of Johannesburg. Crucially here, he is also a Muslim who is critical of the war in Iraq and the goings on at Guantánamo Bay.

Of course the same could be said for millions of Americans opposed to the war and the use of draconian measures at the facility in Cuba.

Whether or not you agree with Professor Habib’s views, to call him a terrorist or even equate him with terrorism requires an explanation.

If his views fall within the definition of what constitutes a terrorist, then I’m afraid there is going to be a confluence between terrorism and opposition to government policy, leaving a blur where no man would dare to tread.

To my mind, the US government has scratched the surface and made two plus two equal seven. Muslim plus anti-war plus critical of Guantánamo = terrorist.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1& click_id=13&art_id=vn20071111085221827C642728

The same can be said about Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s approach to the question of Israel and Palestine.

If you were a white growing up in South Africa during apartheid, you were led to believe that this man represented every evil on the planet. A rogue priest best left shaken but never stirred — in case he told the government what it really didn’t want to hear.

Yet post-apartheid he has continued his courageous stand against oppression in Zimbabwe and wherever else it may be found.

As Jews we don’t like to hear his views on Israel because they are mistakenly interpreted as the views of the enemy.

What a load of garbage. The archbishop, like many Jews, is calling for a two-state solution while expressing outrage at some of the excesses of the Israeli military.

Yes, I condemn the attacks on Israel and I accept that Israel has a right to defend herself, but I also accept that the archbishop is a good friend to Jews and Muslims alike.

I’m not asking Jews or Muslims to like the advice, merely to accept that it comes from a gentleman of the highest integrity and impeccable credentials when it comes to assessing right and wrong, as well as offering viable solutions.

Extremists on both sides might not like his views, or condemn him as anti-Semitic or out of touch with Muslim aspirations. What they cannot do, while trying to fudge the issue to suit their own purpose, is detract from the fact that he is a voice of sanity and reason.

That is the beauty of the internet: if you want to research the archbishop or Professor Habib, then all you have to do is spend the time. It’s at your fingertips.

In my case there are many differences, with both, on their take on Judaism, but this does not detract from who they are and what they wish to achieve.

They are men well worth listening to, because through the sharing of insight and ideas comes understanding and hopefully meaningful progress. Particularly where they are men with the insight and foresight of these two.

This is why I believe that apartheid would have ended far sooner had the internet been around from, say, 1950. The garbage about Madiba and the ANC would have had a counterweight easily accesible to all South Africans.

It is inconceivable that the majority of whites (who voted for its end before the internet) would have done two years’ military service, fought wars and become the world’s least loved nation to combat the introduction of a democratic country run by a moderate party.

You can no longer supress the free flow of information in this “age of information”, as Viscount Linley and the British courts soon found out.

As the Pakistani government is finding out.

I have been following the state of emergency in Pakistan through the eyes of the Muslim community who follow cricket on Pakpassion.net. They are a cross-section of the people of Pakistan with other people contributing from around the world.

While the situation in Pakistan remains dire :

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ C341BB4A-EC10-4CB8-A79A-F563467C05C0.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7089245.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ asia/article2848487.ece

I have been struck by the members of the forum’s general decency, humour and insight into the events going on around them. They are at once highly intelligent, perceptive and do not accept things at face value.

If you wish to deal with Islamophobia, then let people read the thoughts of these Muslims who have no political agenda other than a desire to improve their lives. They are no different to any cross-section of humanity the world over.

Indeed, if regard is given to the circumstances in which they find themselves, their postings are not only incredibly restrained, but highly courageous. It begs the question of how Pakistan with people of this calibre has ever arrived at this point.

Their “state of emergency” thread was not designed for the outside world, nor does it sit on one side of the fence. It looks at what is going on around them and what it means to them.

It also rubbishes Western or Islamophobic pre-conceived ideas about Muslims.

They are not the blood-thirsty, militants that we are all conditioned to believe. If anything, they are very much like South Africans — well spoken, well read and with a very good sense of humour.

Before I began blogging for the Mail & Guardian Online, I blasted an individual for attributing certain philosophies to Muslims in order to prove his point regarding Muslim views regarding Jesus. Their beliefs are best explained by them.

Likewise I’m now saying that in the case of Habib, Tutu, apartheid and Islamophobia, much of the fear, mistrust and suspicion can be eliminated by simply letting the parties involved “speak” for themselves.

That is the power and the beauty of the internet.