How Muslims can live in a Modern Age?

The question assumes that Muslims are recalcitrant to a progressive period of time characterized by meanings and criteria describing modernity. A Muslim who stay foot, hold and paralyze from the past and severely impacted by serious beliefs accounting from practices, norms, folkways and mores of a particular time. If this is the case, then, the question leads us to a premise that there is something wrong with the means, ways and lifestyles of a person who profess his/her faith to Islam. The wrongs that I am thinking are the perennial questions that others (non-Muslims) instigated and somehow are bewildered. These are the posited inquiries on how Islam treats issues such as democracy, women’s status in the society, minority rights, and other ideological conflicts with the so-called West.
     Still, these questions colored the way others think about Muslims thus if left unanswered hostility aggravates and enmity increases. However, if Muslim scholars provide substantial and grounded answers most, if not all, of the others lack the amenities of comprehension, some stays ignorant, and some refutes especially those who are one-night-instant-expert of Islam. For the Muslim part, because of these mixed reactions they are getting, they also tend to become aloof and built their own understanding of the others especially on issues on westernization, imperialism, post-colonization, and other contrasting ideologies that beset the Muslims toward them.
     How can we unlock the door that keeps this long, deep, and winding gap between Muslims and the others? The answer lies among themselves, acceptance as the mean and socialization as the end. These two key elements I suggest are the main focal points of bridging the gap. Accepting the fact that not only Muslims live in this world but there are also others exist, and try to encounter, make some contact, reach out and live with them even for a short duration of time. From there you will be able to discuss, converse and talk about differences in a civilized and humanely manner without resorting to coercion or force.
     On the other hand, I contend the way the title of this essay is posited which leads to a diminutive, parochial and pejorative imposition of defining Muslim as inadvertently incapable, conflictual and in discord with the Modern age. Delineating time periods into ancient, medieval and modern is also problematic. This understanding is very Eurocentric and scarcely unable to describe polarized cultures from different great civilizations and plurality of world societies. Arnold Toynbee concurred that the idea of nation-state is only a modern term for tribalism. Should we categorize world history into three different periods and based it on the fixated Eurocentric ancient-medieval-modern historicity?
     Where do we start? Is the ancient time of Europe same as the ancient time of Mesopotamia? Is the medieval time in Europe same as the medieval time in Islamic civilizations? Is the American modern times same as to Chinese modern times? Fixating modern age consonance to Europe also imposed their culture, norms, folkways, customs, and beliefs. If Muslims should submit to this way of thinking then they should surrender all those beliefs and practices in contrast with Western beliefs and practices. Is this the solution we are asking for? Is this the way which will solve everything and create harmony? Why we cannot just respect and accept that differences exist in the human world, whereby we can have dialogues based on interfaith, transborder or transnational schemes of mutual understanding?

Human Identity

Result: Failed

Imagining and visualizing a harmonious and peaceful world is an extravagant and utopian dream. However, dreaming about it is not bad after all the sufferings humans and the mother earth had experienced. This is really an arduous task that requires sincere passion and interest in taking care of ourselves, of others and of the environment we live in. How can we truly be truthful to accept that we are the enemies we are encountering? It is us that makes the world go round, letting it fall to despair, chaos and enmity. It is us that must be blame why war, famine, and environmental disaster exist.
     We tend to look ourselves as superior from others. Framing the reality based on our perceptive preferences. Shaping the world based on what we think and view it should be. Defining others on how they should act, feel and believe. Putting a crown to our culture which suggests supremacy, sophistication and leadership, thus disregarding cultural polarity, differences and variety of civilizations emerged from different or subsequent temporal periods and spatial elements. Is this the nature of human identity? Does human identity equates to (or necessarily means) race, color of the skin, structure of the face or eyes, nationality, ethnicity, religion and so on and forth?
     Human identity should not be taken as complex poles of different characterizations or manifesting unique attributes, whether the identity of human A is different from human B. What is the point of relegating human identity into subliminal conscience that each human has its own identity? Human identity is something universal that even if we peel off our skins we have the same color and structures of muscles. Even if we go abroad, we would assume that people there have eyes, face or similar anatomy like us. Contemplate and comprehend that nationality, ethnicity, culture, language and religion are insignificant in determining human identity. The nature being is that we accept who we are, where we came from, and respect and recognize other’s existence for it is you and I share the wonders and burdens of the world.
     Moreover, equality, in all of its aspects (gender, sexual orientation, racial background, religious affinity, and etc.), is the result and outcome of the nature of a cosmopolitan interpretation of human identity. If we perceived ourselves something superior from others, we are only facing our greatest enemy, and that is ‘our reflection’. Conceived perceptions shaped by our upbringing and framed by the society we live in are the contrived elements planned to determine who we are. Unless, we go on soul searching, travelling beyond the limits of the world, experiencing the anathema of being cursed because of who we are, and encountering plethora of human societies; then, we can say that we all have one common identity, i.e. being a human who faces lots of obstacles and strives to be the best of what we can be.
     You and I, we are all part of the same web of life cycles, of a wider community of human associations and societies, and of a global culture. How can we operationalize this universal approach to human identity? It should first start with ‘education’ regardless of primary, secondary or tertiary levels; the youth as students of philosophical learning of human identity. Building a subsidiary organ in the educational agency of the United Nations to train educators and teachers the modules of the ‘Philosophy of Human Identity’ and incorporating it to the curriculum as part of the general education. The mechanism of disseminating this information will be the task of UN partners in the sector of education like national universities, NGOs, and the media.
     The proponent will vehemently volunteer himself for the development of a certain universal curriculum accepted by all parties involved in the project. Afterwards, suggesting the developed curriculum to governments of nation-states to be part of their national education system from elementary to college. If the suggestion was not seriously taken into consideration by governments, then, a widespread advocacy programs with the help of partner groups like lobbyists in the congress and media outlets may intensify the campaign. With these parameters outlined, the proponent hopes that with the success of its implementation, a tantamount decline of human sufferings will be achieved and human identity will be recognized as a universal element and part and parcel of humanity.

The Palestinian Refugee Question: A Constitutive Constructivist Interpretation

The paper aims to present a constitutive constructivist interpretation of the Palestinian refugee question by examining the speeches and other public documents. The proponent questions the perennial inadequacy of mainstream theories particularly realism, thus its purpose is to present an alternative theoretical framework, and with the help of a method to deeply understand the problem.

The constitutive version of constructivism differs from the conventional strand because it gives importance to the potency of the use of language. This will be undertaken through the verbs-in-context-system (VICS) method of content analysis. Consequently, the findings are not as good as we would hope for because based on the calculative verbs that were gathered using VICS, it gave us a negative and even pejorative interpretation whether all of the agreements and public statements were done in the spirit of pacta sunt servanda. However, there are glitches in the evaluated statements stating some plethoric and unbinding declarations.

Most, if not all, were unilaterally declared based on their perspectives and insinuate some argumentative issues particularly on the right of the refugees to return to their homeland or acquire their lost properties.

Click here to download it for free.


Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 2009.

Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Law eJournal, Vol. 11, Issue 73 (November 17, 2010)

Political Methods: Qualitative & Multiple Methods eJournal, Vol. 3, Issue 24 (October 28, 2010)

Philippine Madrassas

Click pictures to view larger image:

XIV World Congress for Comparative Education Societies

Theme: Bordering, Re-Bordering and New Possibilities in Education and Societies
XIV WCCES Istanbul, 14-18 June 2010

Panel:
Education in Post-Conflict Societies – I
Presenters:
Nassef M. Adiong, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Dr. Jayson W. Richardson, University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA 
and Dr.Edward Brantmeier, Colorado State University, USA
Esperance Ibuka, Florida International University, USA
Date and Time:
 June 15, 2010 (Tuesday), 8:45 – 10:15 AM
Venue:
North Campus (NH 201) of Boğaziçi University

Abstract:

The Philippines, the only Catholic-dominated Asian country, is continuously bombarded by Muslim rebels from the south. All of the main government agencies are located in the north while the south is considered the food basket of the nation. The Muslims in the south have been living there peacefully and were, in fact, able to resist foreign invaders because of their strong skills in combat. However, during the first republic, immigrants from the north started to flock the south and amassed lands away from the Muslims. Then, never ending fightings and hostilities started.

With participants from different countries in Africa

Fast-forward to the present, the government and the rebel group are in the negotiation table again. As part of the earlier agreements, the government implemented Madrassa in the primary education with an objective of bridging the gap between Christians and Muslims. It made the children as the first actor to be oriented (educated) regarding religious, cultural, social and ethnical diversities so as to instill respect and understanding of one another. The question that this paper aims to present is how effective Madrassa in a Catholic country that is full of prejudices towards Muslims, from Christian families that have no Muslim contact experiences, Catholic universities to the media?

At the Southern Campus of Boğaziçi University.

Eclecticism in the Study of International Relations of the Middle East

Click pictures to view larger image:
 

 
World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies
July 19th – 24th, 2010 / Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain
 

With co-presenter Ms. Ellinor.
 
Panel 457:  
Challenges to Theoretical Perspectives of International Relations

 Chair and Presenter: 
 Nassef M. Adiong, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Presenters: 
Simon Mabon, University of Leeds, UK
Ellinor Zeino-Mahmalat, German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Germany
Date and Time:  
July 23, 2010 (Friday), 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM
Venue:  
Aula 113, Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres

 With other participants from Germany.

Abstract:

A theory tries to explain and laid down logical statements and assumptions that would permeate to guide and assist the members of the academe and/or practitioners on how to study and conceptualize the complexities and intricacies of International Relations (IR) of the Middle East.
A strong theory is set under one paradigm with its strong explanatory power that encompasses temporal and spatial elements of a certain phenomenon. However, is this line of argument applicable to conceptual approaches to the area study of the Middle East? Eclecticism has been a fashion fad in the contemporary trend of international relations theory especially in looking into area studies.
This approach was used and still being utilize by IR scholars in presenting theoretical framework(s) for cases and issue-areas of the Middle East. Fred Halliday’s historical/political sociological approach; John Galtung’s structural theory of imperialism which was enshrined to Wallerstein’s modern world system approach; Birthe Hansen’s (neo)realism, Stephen Walt’s balance-against-threats and other scholars attempt to converge constructivism with realism; and other scholars like Shibley Telhami, Michael Barnett, Raymond Hinnebusch and Anoushirvan Ehteshami interpretations to constructivism (a mix of qausi-conventional to quasi-constitutive elements of constructivism).
These are just some of the prominent scholars, who in some way or the other suspected to have used eclecticism in their approach to understand the complexity of the IR of the Middle East. If this is the trend, why do some experts draw their attention on applying eclecticism in theoretically conceptualizing the IR of the Middle East? What are the strengths and weaknesses of being eclectic to the study of IR of the Middle East? These are the primal questions that the paper aims to present, and later would provide answers for.
The proponent will argue that in trying to understand and conceptualize the IR of the Middle East, we need several sets of paradigms (patterns of explanations), assumptions and propositions that draw upon the multiplicity of theories, styles and ideas, which will help us gain a wider scope of insights into the telescopic array of issues and/or case for the study of the Middle East.

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=nasmadi-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0307269981&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr