Hanan

Film Week @ KU

hanan — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:09:38 +0000

The Department of English Language & Literature Presents
Film Week
East to West:
The Immigrant Experience

13-17 December 2009, 7 pm
Ceremonial Hall
(across from Al-Ahli Bank)
Khaldiya Campus, Kuwait University

13 Dec 2009
Man Push Cart
Directed by Ramin Bahrani
Pakistan/USA, 2005, 87 minutes
English and Urdu with English subtitles

14 Dec 2009
Brothers and Others
Directed by Nicolas Rossier
Documentary
USA, 2004, 54 minutes
English

15 Dec 2009
Inch-Allah Dimanche
Directed by Yamina Benguigui
Algeria/France, 2001, 98 minutes
French and Arabic with English subtitles

16 Dec 2009
Breaking Bread
Directed by Hamid Rahmanian
Documentary
Korea/USA, 2000, 54 minutes
English and Korean with English subtitles

Sir Alfred of Charles de Gaulle Airport
Directed by Hamid Rahmanian and Melissa Hibbard
Docmentary
Iran/USA, 2001, 29 minutes
English, French, and Farsi with English subtitles

17 Dec 2009
The Namesake
Directed by Mira Nair
India/USA, 2006, 122 minutes
English, French, Hindi, and Bengali with English subtitles

*free admission

update: click below to access brochure (includes synopsis of movies)
Film Week 2009

The Trouble with Islam Today by Irshad Manji

hanan — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:22:33 +0000

A very bold book. Manji is funny, but I doubt if her sense of humor would be tolerated by most Muslims who read her book. Tough love. That’s what she calls it. Muslims (or Islam today) needs someone to shake them/it into waking up to the reality of today. She argues that Islam is in big trouble – basically stemming from her own inability to fully accept what she has been taught in school regarding a faith that deprives her from the right to ask questions. And it is our job as Muslims to rescue Islam.

“By writing this open letter,” Manji begins her book, “I’m not implying that other religions are problem-free. Hardly. The difference is, libraries abound in books about the trouble with Christianity. There’s no shortage of books about the trouble with Judaism. We Muslims have a lot of catching up to do in the dissent department. Whose permission are we waiting for?” (4)

She then talks about attending Saturday classes for Muslims in Toronto where “wherever classes congregated within the side expanse of that room, a partition would tag along. Worse was the partition between mind and soul. In my Saturday classes I learned that if you’re spiritual, you don’t think. If you think, you’re not spiritual.” (11)

Her biggest problem, it seems, is that Islam, or modern practices of Islam, not only lack any tolerance for other religions, but lack tolerance for any interpretations of the Quran that go against the general agreement reached years ago, and against the laws decreed by a few clergy who all belong to only a small portion of the Muslim world today.

In her books she calls for a reform of Islam, but she is not shy to argue that such reform can take on any issue, including issues of whether or not the Quran, as we have it today, is perfect (citing examples of its deliverance to the Prophet and the final accumulation of it under hasty circumstances).

To the Arab reader, her attack on modern Islam might not be the worst. She almost directly praises the Israeli government and people for their ability to create a country, though based on religion, but one that is more open for freedom of thought and interpretation, an open-mindedness that she sees to be the cause of the major problem with Islam today.

But as she says in the first few pages: “Is that a heart attack you’re having? Make it fast.” (2)

عزازيل – رواية ليوسف زيدان

hanan — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:34:48 +0000

A wonderful book about a monk’s search for the truth and his gradual realization that truth is not as absolute as his religious teachings dictate. The novel begins with the narrator (this is a novel in the epistolary form. These journal entries are supposed to have been found years after they were written) wondering how to begin writing, a linear process, when beginnings are not as linear and straightforward as writing supposes them to be:

من أين أبدأ تدويني؟ .. البدايات متداخلةٌ ومحتشدةٌ برأسي. ولعل البدايات كما كان أستاذي القديم سوريانوس يقول، ما هي إلا محضُ أوهامٍ نعتقدها. فالبداية والنهاية، إنما تكونان فقط في الخط المستقيم. ولا خطوط مستقيمة إلا في أوهامنا. أو في الوريقات التي نسطر فيها ما نتوهَّمه. أما في الحياة وفي الكون كله، فكُّل شيء دائريٌّ يعود إلى ما منه بدأ، ويتداخلُ مع ما به اتصل. فليس ثمة بدايةٌ ولا نهايةٌ على الحقيقة، –15

Then he proceeds to question sin and punishment. Stressing the changeability of all things, our monk wonders how he is to be punished later (by God, the world, his conscious) for offenses he committed in an earlier part of his life. This is such a poststructural re-evaluation of the “I” that supposes stability and fixity, when the “I” is ever-changeable:

الحياةُ ظالمةٌ. فهي تمتدُّ بنا وتُلهينا، ثم تُذهلنا عنا وتغيِّرنا، حتى نصير كأننا غيرنا. هل كنتُ أنا الذي كنتُ في الإسكندرية قبل عشرين عاماً! كيف تحاسبني الحياة الآن، على أخطاء وخطايا اقترفتها أيامها؟ ولماذا سيعود الرَّبُّ بنا يوم الدينونة، ليحاسبنا على ما فعلناه قبل أمدٍ بعيد، وكأننا عشنا حياةً واحدةً لم نتبدَّل خلالها؟ –107

Among the many philosophical debates he puts forward is his questioning the concept of religion as a rational subject of discussion. Being a scientist, a physician, the narrator finds it difficult to accept a religion that is by its very nature dependant on faith, as such, logic should most definitely not enter into its evaluations. Earlier in the book, he voices their conflicts in his comment on another man’s inability to accept an irrational religion:

كان الرجل فيما بدا لي، لا يدرك أن الديانة لا شان لها بالعقل، وأن الإيمان لا يكون إيماناً، إلا إذا كان يناقض العقل والمنطق، وإلا فهو فكرٌ وفلسفة. –110

The title is by far the most interesting part of the book. Azazeel, Satan, is the inspiration behind which these words are written. By the end of the book, the narrator realizes that Satan is nothing but an inner voice that speaks his own repressed desires (not in any Freudian sense necessarily). By naming the book Azazeel, Satan, the author gives value to the words written only as they are the voice of the devil inside the narrator. The fact that the book was hidden from view reiterates the narrator’s own attempt throughout the book to hide his own Satanic voice. So is Yousef Zaidan arguing that the words in his novel are the voice of the devil? Or is he arguing that such hidden voices (of the devil in this case) are the only voices of not only reason, but life.

مَنْ أنت؟
ألا تعرفني، حقًا!
الطيفُ المخايلُ صار يتكلم.. كلامه أبهت صورته، وغيَّب عنها الملامح التي كانت تتبدَّل بين وجوهٍ شتى. لم أعرف بأيِّ كلامٍ، يجب أن أجاوبه. غير أنني لم أعد خائفاً، من حضوره حولي.
أنا لست حولك يا هيبا، أنا فيك
قَدَّرتُ أن الجنونَ انتزعني من عالمي المضطرب، فصرت أهذي. قلت لعلني الآن نائم، وما هذا إلا حلم عابر. نعم، هو حلمٌ عابرٌ سوف أفيق منه، ثم يصير ذكرى سرعان ما أنساها. لقد صرتُ قلقاً من كل ما حولي، والقلقُ يثير المخاوف.. لا بد أن أُهدِّئ قليلاً من قَلَقي.
أنت قلقٌ يا هيبا مما فيك. لأنك تعرف ما سوف يحدث في إفسوس، وتعرف أنك ستفقد مرتا، مثلما فقدت من قبل ما كان لك: حلمُ النبوغ في الطب، الأملُ في إدراك سرِّ الديانة، الغرامُ بأوكتافيا، الولعُ بهيباتيا، الاطمئنان بالغفلة، الإيمانُ بالخرافات.
كان الصوت يأتيني هذه المرة هامساً، واضح النبرات، ثم صارت ملامح الوجه، أبينَ وأظهر. كان يشبهني، وكان الصوتُ صوتي. هذا أنا آخر، غيري، محبوسٌ بداخلي.. –344

The novel is not only philosophical and religious debates. It is mostly a story of a monk who falls in love with 3 women. The first is a woman 5 years his senior who cares for him for 3 days and who he idealizes in his description. The second woman is Hypatia, the Greek philosopher whose lecture he attends once, and whose death he witnesses, this one is 20 years his senior and his love for her is an admiration for her genius. The third woman is Marta, 20 years younger than him, and a singer whose voice and beauty captivate him and forces the writing of these pages.

Hypatia

The book is one of the best I’ve read for a while. Maybe it’s all these questions it poses that intrigue me, but the story itself is just as beautiful, just as painful.
Read it if you get the chance.

Welcome to Kaifan

hanan — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:37:20 +0000

Kaifan welcomes students to the start of a new semester!!

I know why the free bird cries*

hanan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:08:06 +0000

Marital relationships are complex. Marriage is seen as a mean to bring two people together (or 2 or 3 or 4 for that matter). But that is only done by trapping the 2, 3, 4, individuals in a contract from which escape is almost impossible without injury. One decides to break free, and in that decision, whether intentionally or not, hurts the other caged bird. Wouldn’t it just be much better if the cage was never built?**

Often in my classes we debate issues of reason and passion. Plato is a dominant and domineering voice there. My classrooms, as all classrooms are, are a reflection of my positions in life, a reflection of how I see life. So we debate the validity of reason over passion. And we debate the insensitivity of promoting reason over passion. And then I come to my own personal life and find myself, in contradiction to what I preach in class, unable to find a position that supports passion as not necessarily less than reason, nor stick to reason that I, very often, find quite … unreasonable. So I choose the grey area. I choose to be unreasonably passionate and passionately reasonable. And in the process, I confuse. ***

* Remodelled from Maya Angelou

** Inspired by a very dear friend whose cage collapsed on her and is now forced to fly away from that cage. Freedom she values. But freedom she doesn’t want. And what do you do as a friend? Support her in her new-found freedom? Or help her get back to the comfort of the cage?

*** Not inspired by my attempt to start translating Spivak’s Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Let’s see how that goes.

Elections 2009

hanan — Sat, 16 May 2009 08:31:17 +0000

I’m now ‘once, twice, three times a [voter]‘ to misquote Lionel Richie
With my jinsiya in hand, I headed to make my choices.

I still feel elated when I finally make those ticks. The fact that I did it three times in four years makes it all the more joyous, despite the rather nagging, critical voice that makes me wonder about the usefulness of a vote that can easily be thrown away within a year with this constant change in Parliament.

No … Today, there is no chance for negativity. This is a good day.

I didn’t even hesitate when I looked at the time (8 am) and decided to get on with it now. I didn’t even have to drag myself out of bed. I got up, put on my very comfortable beige pants, and my very summery white shirt – minding the heat – and headed to the center. I found my hall, went in, placed my ticks – with a heart that seems to have been beating faster, then headed home to share the experience with mother, father and brother over the breakfast table.

This is a good day.

My ‘jinsiya’ now has three stamps: a green hexagon, a black star, and a red oval, indicative of our flag of course.

This is a very good day.

*Dear visitor: please do not burst my bubble. I am happy. It might be a temporary sense of happiness that will fade away soon. But I am now happy. So spare me any negativity you might be unfortunate enough to have. Just celebrate the day with me.

Elections

hanan — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:22:18 +0000

يتشرف عبدالله النيباري بدعوتكم لافتتاح مقره الانتخابي بمشاركةصالح الملا و شروق مظفر.الاحد3/5 س8.ض عبدالله\السالم ق٤.ش سيدعلي سيدسليمان

Blackberry Doubts!

hanan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:46:43 +0000

“Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certaintly”
Father Flynn

Meryl Streep in Doubt

I think I have fallen in love with Meryl Streep yet again, for the third time in about 3 years. She struck me while watching her on stage for Mother Courage in 2006. She struck me again in 2008 when I watched Mama Mia. And here she goes again baffling me in Doubt. This woman is just amazing. To think of the spectrum of roles she played, and played to an excellence, in only these three movies …

So I’m in love with Meryl Streep. Do you blame me?

And I’m also in love with my Blackberry. These toys are such an amazing and deadly waste of time. And I have no doubt about that whatsoever. This certainty is actually a bond as powerful and sustaining as doubt.

Back to school

hanan — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:22:21 +0000

In Kaifan there is a new scattering of lawn chairs, I’ve detected at least 10, like those you see in the picture. Not bad. And a shaded seating arrangement that includes a table in the center is actually very useful for campus. I think they would serve their purpose rather well when I take my classes outside.
However, these chairs each cose KD520, from AlKhurafi Group. A rather huge sum I think. On another frontier, a departmental activity that lasts 2 days, including fashion shows and art galleries and music, with all the expenses you can imagine (costumes, music, lights, plaques, certificates, awards, etc.) was begrudged the KD 1500 requested by the department, and only received the KD 1000 after alot of haggling. The activity cost us at least KD 1600, and I am not counting the money that students put in themselves, or the money donated from other teachers.
It makes you wonder about KU’s priorities. It also makes you wonder who decides where our money goes.
520 KD is alot for these chairs, right? Or am I mistaken?

Love Without Sex?!

hanan — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:35:02 +0000

Gustav Klimt - Danaë

Sex Without Love by Sharon Olds

How do they do it, the ones who make love
without love? Beautiful as dancers,
gliding over each other like ice-skaters
over the ice, fingers hooked
inside each other’s bodies, faces
red as steak, wine, wet as the
children at birth whose mothers are going to
give them away. How do they come to the
come to the come to the God come to the
still waters, and not love
the one who came there with them, light
rising slowly as steam off their joined
skin? These are the true religious,
the purists, the pros, the ones who will not
accept a false Messiah, love the
priest instead of the God. They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health–just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time.

I love how Olds calls our feelings of love for our lover “lov[ing] the priest instead of God.” We have a tendency, needy humans as we are, of “mistaking the lover for [our] own pleasure.” The sex is good, so we think it’s the giver that is good. We’re human beings. Physical bodies. And in our aspiration to be trans-physical (is that even a real term?), in our need to be more than just pure body, in our endless desire and wishes to be more than what we are, we refuse to accept the simple, earthly, natural pleasure we find during the act of physical sex and insist on making it ‘more meaningful’ and more transcendental, so we insist that it is not just the body that we love, but the person (soul/body/mind) that comes with the body. Why can we enjoy a dish prepared by someone without guiltily thinking that we have to love that someone, yet we don’t do the same when it comes to sex?

But my own question goes in the opposite direction to that of Olds. How do they do it, the one who love without making love? Platonic love. Isn’t that what we call it? But isn’t it just partial love? Impaired love? Even flawed love? Isn’t it just preparation for real love? And if sex is such a necessary component of love (proven simply by the act of physically consummating a marriage as the ultimate goal of love), then why claim love to be more prophetic, more noble, more worthy of humanity? And why claim that love can exist without sex?