Thursday, March 06, 2008

Ghada Karmi's book: In Search of Fatima

...is one of the most straight-forward, unselfconscious and unaffected piece of writing I've ever read. These are the highest compliments I can think of for someone of her intellectual stature and experience. It is so easy for academics to fall into the trap of intellectualising everything, it's a major miracle how someone with her background avoided that and came up with such a beautiful book.
She struck a chord with me for several other reasons...a semi-lonely childhood, a house frequented by her father's famous intellectual friends, a convent-school education, studying medicine instead of the arts even though she loved reading and writing to fulfill her parent's wishes...her (self-admitted) anglophilia, her friend's opinion (and her own) of her as "a dark-skinned English girl" and subsequent devotion to the Palestinian cause.
It reminded me in parts of Edward Said's memoir 'Out of Place', but 'In Search of Fatima' is special because it's written from a Muslim perspective, albeit by a person who describes herself as non-practising.
I bought the book at duty-free and could not put it down until I'd finished all 450 pages.
Good stuff.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

common sense 101

...most people would feel helpless if confronted with a medical emergency and seven out of 10 adults would not know what to do if faced with the sight of a child lying face down in water.
"We polled 2,000 adults and their answers ranged from doing nothing and feeling helpless to not checking if the casualty was breathing before starting CPR [cardio-pulmonary resuscitation] - which could prove fatal," says Andrew New, senior training officer for St John Ambulance. "Given the number of first-aid emergencies that could be resolved relatively easily, it is worrying how few parents say they don't know what to do. Even doing something simple, such as having the confidence to give reassurance, can make a huge difference to the outcome."
"Without a doubt, parents don't know enough," says Clive James, a senior training officer and volunteer with St John Ambulance. "Just take the recovery position, for example. Putting somebody in the right position can save their life. Or choking. If you know exactly what to do, you can help."
There are all sorts of first-aid courses in the UK, ranging from a basic three hours to several days, but many people are reluctant to go on one. "Mostly it's because people think they won't need it, that it won't happen to them," says James, "or they're not sure what the course might involve. But 99.9% of first aid is common sense."
Joe Mulligan, head of first aid with the Red Cross, believes some parents are reluctant to learn because they don't want to confront the idea that they may need to use it on their own children. "We get a lot of people signing up for a course after the event. They've normally had a scare of some sort. What happens in the first five minutes after an accident is critical and can be not only life-saving, but in cases of burns and scalds, quick and appropriate treatment can have a huge effect on the cosmetic result."
Instant response: what you need to know
Burns
The first thing to do is cool the affected area. If possible, hold it under cold water for at least 10 minutes. Then cover with clean, non-fluffy material such as a cloth, plastic bag or clingfilm. If it's deep or larger than the palm of the casualty's hand, also seek urgent medical attention. Do not Use lotions, creams or adhesive dressings or break blisters.
Lumps, bumps and bruises
Apply a cold compress to bumped areas for no more than 10 minutes, to relieve the swelling. When people go into shock they go cold. Hold their hand to warm and reassure them. If you are worried they might be concussed, the rule is that if the child gets knocked out, even for a short time, or acts strangely, they should see a doctor.
Nosebleeds
These usually happen because a tiny blood vessel inside the nose has become damaged. Aim to control the blood loss. Sit the child down, tilt their head forwards and allow the blood to drain from the nose. Then get them to pinch their nose and dribble into a bowl. Discourage them from coughing, swallowing or swilling. After a few minutes, release the pressure on the nose. If still bleeding, keep pinching for another 10 minutes.
Strains and sprains
Strains are pulled muscles and sprains are stretched ligaments. Remember "Rice". R is for rest: get the child to sit down. I is for ice to reduce pain and bruising, but don't apply it directly on to the skin - wrap it in kitchen roll or a tea towel. Frozen peas are good because you can roll them around the injury. C is for compress: apply a bandage firmly to the injury. E is for elevation: keep the injured area as high as possible, to slow blood flow to the injury, so reducing swelling and long-term bruising.
Febrile convulsion
Make sure the child is not too hot and keep them in the recovery position (on their side, mouth facing downwards for easy draining, chin up to keep airways open). The convulsion may be caused by their temperature getting too high but it could be asthma or epilepsy. If in doubt, call an ambulance. Do not Wrap the child in too many layers if they have a high temperature.

Labels: , ,

Friday, February 01, 2008

essential Friday reading/listening

Besides Soorah Al-Kahf of course, there's this incredibly insightful tafseer (exegesis) of the soorah by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi that you should try to get your hands on (if you haven't read it already that is).

I read it aeons ago and I'm looking to get hold of a copy again for Rasha-Rida to read, in shaa Allaah.

In other Friday news, nothing compares to listening to the soorah by one of my favourite reciters.
I'm convinced that the fastest way to learn a soorah is by listening to it as often as possible.
Try it.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 22, 2007

junioRs: aww inspiring,eww inducing

must-read: Rasha on her pesky little brothers and other junioRs

I quite liked this poem by a youngster called Kaitlyn (age 14) over at poems-and-quotes

My little brothers quite the rascal
Who runs around all day
Who demands things upon things
And always gets his way

He jumps up on the tables
And screams with all his might
He'll pull and twist my hair
Or try to start a fight

He'll throw around his toys
He'll throw around his food
Or he might hand them to you politely
Just depending on his mood

He'll talk to you for ages
About things you never knew
Things that dearly bore you
But what's a boy to do?

(...)
But over all this time
I've finally come to see
I love my little brother for who he is
I should just let him be.

Nice.

Speaking of 'family' poems, I liked Kamala Das (who incidentally is reported to have become Muslim lately). These are only excerpts which I found online, the complete poems -- especially her 'childhood' collections (that I read when I was in school) -- are poignant reads.

Punishment in kindergarten

Today the world is a little more my own.

No need to remember the pain
A blue frocked women caused,
throwingWords at me like pots and pans ,
to drainThat honey-coloured day of peace.

"why don't you join the others,what a peculiar child you are?"

On the lawn ,in clusters ,
sat my schoolmates sippingSugarcane,
they turned and laughed;
Childrens are funny things, they laugh in mirth at others' tears.

I buried my face in the sun-warmed hedge
And smelt the flowers and the pain
The words are muffled now,
the laughingfaces only a blur.
The years haveSped along ,
stopping brieflyAt beloved halts
and movingSadly on.

My mind has found an adult peace .
No need to remember
That picnic day when I lay hidden by the hedge,
watching the steel white sun
Standing lonely in the sky.

and 'An introduction'

'...be girl, be wife, they said.
Be embroiderer, be cook,
Be a quarreler with servants.
Fit in.
Oh Belong, cried the categorizers…..’

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, November 10, 2007

walking the tightrope on a keyboard

excerpts:
"'Do you really keep a diary?" a besotted Algernon asks of Cecily in The Importance of Being Earnest.
"I'd give anything to look at it. May I?"
"Oh no," replies Cecily with princessy disdain. "You see, it is simply a very young girl's record of her own thoughts and impressions, and consequently meant for publication. When it appears in volume form, I hope you will order a copy."
Wilde's jokes are so faultlessly crafted that they tend to retain their bite even a hundred years later, but the latter does lose something of its surreal edge when considered against the news that today there are four million bloggers at work in the UK alone. Four million! It feels like the magic number at which the inner monologue could be officially classified as endangered.
These days, if it's in our heads, out it comes, edited to varying degrees into words and pictures, and presented to a real or imagined audience. Self-important? Perhaps. Often tedious? Certainly. But that doesn't matter as much as people make out.
Even if there weren't the vaguest of ironies in newspaper columnists wondering why people feel the need to share their views on life with anyone, it does seem time to move beyond the sneering accusations of Pooterism that traditionally form the basis of mainstream media attacks on self-published alternatives. If all we had to worry about in this brave new world was preposterous self-regard comingled with a comic lack of self-awareness, then it might be an idyll indeed.
Far more intriguing, and progressively alarming, is the degree to which we have embraced the new exhibitionism. An early term for bloggers - back when it was a frightfully niche pursuit and the internet was all fields and so on - was "escribitionists", and though the word was never what you'd call common parlance, what it stood for has become common practice as personal sites and social networking communities have exploded.
How odd, I found myself thinking recently, that in an age when we seem more and more concerned with encroachments on privacy, we are so increasingly keen to invade our own. My mistake, of course, was to assume there is a "we" at all. According to those who understand far more about communications psychology than I do, the great generational dividing line has been drawn. And broadly speaking, if you're under 30, your private self and public self are interdependent in previously unthinkable ways. Time and again, in surveys of what young people want from their online experiences, keeping socially connected is ranked way above privacy.
[...]But the view that this is a cultural shift with which we must all make our peace is wrong. Naive and cavalier is a dangerous combination, and a disdain for their own privacy will leave young people immensely exposed.
Consider the case of the 23-year-old Muslim woman who was found guilty this week under new anti-terror laws. Samina Malik worked for WH Smith at Heathrow, but was given to writing poetry about beheading non-believers and martyrdom and suchlike. Not long after she had begun visiting chatrooms, calling herself the "lyrical terrorist" - she thought the name "cool" - the knock at the door came. Examination of her computer revealed she had downloaded, inter alia, something called "How to win in hand-to-hand combat". She lives in Southall, awaits sentencing.
When we live in a society where reactionary bedroom poets are found guilty under terrorism laws, it makes you wonder whether their rather more seasoned and significantly more brilliant predecessors such as Swift wouldn't, in a similar climate, have realised the folly of bunging their every move on Facebook, and made alternative arrangements.
The world may be shifting, but we must attempt to encourage in young people an understanding of the value of privacy, and a sense of the very real dangers that might attend them should they discard it."

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Parents Wake Up!!

Sr. Maryam has a heartfelt post up on Imaam Suhaib Webb's blog called 'Parents: Wake Up!!" which captures the exasperation/frustration I'm sure we've all felt at some point, at the way some Muslim parents allow their children to run amok in public without any supervision.21_irked
Obligatory reading if you're a parent, or even a wannabe.8_grim

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

how the horse got its name

*very* interesting post on one of our favourite blogs: 'How the Horse Got its Name' at Arabic Gems.
Maa shaa Allaah, there's always something interesting and beneficial to read on that blog. thumbsup2

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 18, 2007

missing!

There are books whose sudden disappearance/absence from my life I mourn just like people...and this book is one of them: Bringing up children in Islam, an excellent English translation of the original Arabic Tarbiyat al-awlaad fil-Islaam by Sh. Abdullah Naasih Ulwaan. Someone (I've even forgotten who) borrowed it from our bookshelf a couple of years ago during the course of a visit, and that was the last I saw of it.
There is much to recommend the book...it's very extensively researched and full of authentic references, but most importantly has virtually none of the irritating typos/editorial errors that crop up in most Islamic self-help books.
Recently we bought a couple of books (summer holiday reading for the kids) and I was appalled beyond appalled to see the horrific editing...At one point I was tempted to take my red pen to one of them, correct it to the best of my ability and send it back to the publisher. Since the book was about the early generations of Muslims, who excelled in everything they did, it made me wonder about the legacy they left us latter-day Muslims...and the pathetic little we are doing to realise it.
anyway, the reason I was missing the book was that it had a chapter/section on zuhd (abstemiousness) for children with various instances from the lives of Muslims who realised the value of instilling this quality in their children at a young age. It cuts a sharp contrast to the doctrine of conspicuous consumption that our children are force-fed these days, but it was comforting to read that at some point in time, this wasn't the overwhelming norm that it is today.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 04, 2007

must-have, wish-list

promises to be a good read: 'Detoxing Childhood' by Sue Palmer (of 'Toxic Childhood' fame) to be published by Orion, August 16 (£9.99). It is available from Times BooksFirst at £8.99, free p&p.

(anyone out there in an obliging mood? :P)

Quote and extracts from an extract in 'The Times': "...as an internet philosopher put it: “If you died next week, the company you work for would fill your place within a week or so. Your family would miss you for ever.”
One of the most pernicious myths of recent decades is the myth of “quality time”, those odd snatched hours with one’s children, when everyone’s supposed to be on best behaviour, “enjoying quality interaction”. But this isn’t how close family relationships work;
children aren’t like business acquaintances or casual dates who can be slotted into a busy diary.
Although special outings and occasions such as a “family viewing night” are great fun, it’s more important just to spend day-by-day time together, hanging out in the same place, following family routines and rituals, getting on with household chores or enjoying a hobby.
These are the times when you can communicate freely with your child, letting conversation develop naturally from whatever’s going on. It’s also the time when you pass on skills and leisure interests to the next generation. Your child is, in a way, your apprentice; by watching as you do daily tasks, such as making a cup of tea, checking e-mails or enjoying a hobby such as fishing or sewing, he or she learns life skills and life enhancement. If you let your child have a go, and give lots of praise for effort, your knowledge will soon be passed on.
Some of the skills you teach can eventually become your child’s responsibilities in the home. Seen like this, they are less like chores and more like a valued contribution from a family member who is growing up.
FORGING A FAMILY
The simple truth is that if children are to grow up happy and resilient, they need love, time and attention from the significant adults in their lives. Those adults don’t need to be parents – they could be grandparents or other relatives, nannies, childminders – but the care on offer has to be loving and consistent, and the adults have to be happy spending time with the child in their care.
Another simple truth has emerged from history: the best institution for providing loving care is the family. So whether you look after your child yourself, or find other carers for some of the time, you need to forge a strong family base to offer protection against the many risk factors inherent in 21st-century life.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, July 20, 2007

just SAY it!

No. One of the shortest, easiest, most used words in the English language. It can also be one of the hardest to utter in any meaningful way – particularly if you are a modern parent. Those who work with children believe that a generation of parents have forgotten how to say no, with the result that as their children grow up they lack the self-control needed to negotiate adult life successfully.
“Children need to have the experience of an adult saying no,” says Jane Cassidy of the Association of Child Psychotherapists and joint chair of the Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist Division of the Tavistock Society. “If you always give in, they don’t learn that somebody can stay firm, so when they become young teenagers and adults they don’t have the capability to say no to themselves when they are under peer pressure in terms of drugs, delinquency or sex.”
The problem, teachers, psychologists and parents agree, is that when it comes to discipline, parents are hopelessly ill-disciplined. They tell their children that they should not do something or cannot have something that they want, but cave in to the child’s protests.
Dr Tanya Byron, clinical psychologist and Times2 columnist, says that dealing with this issue has become “the spine of my clinic. The majority of people I see really can’t say no to their children or can’t set boundaries. They can’t follow through to a consequence after saying ‘no’. Children don’t have a sense of who is in charge so they take charge themselves.”
The effect of parental ineffectiveness is all too obvious in society – nowhere more so than in schools. Earlier this year I spent a week at Banbury School, a comprehensive in Oxfordshire, shadowing the head teacher, Dr Fiona Hammans, a dynamic and nationally respected teacher who has been responsible for the education and wellbeing of thousands of children. She had no doubts about where many of the school’s discipline problems originated.
“You’ve got a generation of parents that does not believe in punishing their kids. They say ‘you’re grounded for a year’. And the kid cries and then they say ‘Oh all right, then!’ A whole lot of parents don’t know how to control their kids. The kids are in charge.”
Hammans certainly does know how to say no, and back it up. But her point was that what she said was far less important than what parents said and did. Hammans even described the extraordinary situation where parents were not attending parent-teacher evenings because “kids don’t want their parents coming up here”.
Jane Cassidy says that much of the rot set in relatively recently with “the whole idea of positive affirmation: trying to say yes, trying to avoid saying “no” to children because of the negativity”. Byron concurs, saying that our collective failure with the no word is a “huge change” from the situation when she first started working in the field 18 years ago. One of the chief reasons for this change, she believes, is that in the hurly-burly of the modern world we don’t want to spend what precious time we have with our children acting tough.
“We are very busy. In a lot of families where there are two parents, both work and they don’t want to come home at night and have to tell the children what to do. Or they are too bloody knackered to follow through with the discipline and so say ‘fine, do that, eat that’.” Food is one of the key battlegrounds. “Children have the most restricted diets because parents seem incapable of not giving in to what children want.” But according to Andrea Clifford-Poston, author of When Harry Hit Sally, by saying no to your children you are helping them to learn “not only that there are boundaries between you and them, but also how to put boundaries around themselves and other people”. Saying no, she explains, helps children to learn who we can say no to, when we can say no, why to say no and when we can stop saying no.
“If your children are going to have a good life, then they need to understand some of the rules about human beings being together,” she writes.
“If your child has learnt in the early years that you are someone who has clear and firm ideas about how you expect them to behave, and mean what you say and say what you mean, but don’t withdraw your love when your child has made a mistake, then you have built a solid foundation for the more complex years to come.”
Byron believes that the increasing isolation of parents is a crucial factor in how control over children has eroded. “Extended families don’t exist in the way that they used to and so many parents lack the wisdom and support of the older generation.” She also believes that parents feel under pressure to be seen to be raising well-behaved kids. “Parents are anxious not to be seen with unhappy children, so they negotiate and cajole in any way possible to avoid tantrums.
“We have forgotten what it is to be children. It is acceptable to have temper tantrums. Young children are supposed to be defiant. It’s in the job description. They are learning the rules of the game. Let them have a tantrum. Eventually they will learn that when you say ‘no’ it means ‘no’.”
Then there is the modern, highly risky need to be friends with our children. I recently received the following e-mail lament from a friend, a mother of two. “Parents have this warped view of parenting,” she wrote. “They don’t really want to be parents. They want to be down with their kids, to be popular with them. That’s why you have these scenarios of parents picking fights with teachers and encouraging children to do the same: the teachers are the enemy, the boring/repressive authority figures. That’s also why you see parents dressing the same as kids. I am forever seeing families in Wagamama, boy and dad in boardshorts, Converse and logo T-shirts, mum and girl in combats, Crocs and logo T-shirts. The thinking has to be: ‘We are too young and with it to be bossy authority figures, aren’t we? Better to be MATES with the kids and listen to the same music and watch Doctor Who together or fight over the PlayStation.’ I am surrounded by people who seem to treat parenting as a popularity contest. The thought of their child disliking them, however briefly, is very frightening.”
Cassidy agrees: “A lot of parents just want their children to like them. There’s nothing wrong with that but a lot of parents seem to think that you can negotiate with children. You can’t negotiate with a two-year-old. They don’t have the cognitive skills we have. Sometimes you have to get to the point where you say ‘because I told you so and I’m daddy and that’s just the way it is’. You can take time to explain but they have to understand that when you say no, you mean no. They need rules and consequences. They have to learn that if dad says no to something and they still do it, something will happen that they won’t like.”
Or as a friend who is a child psychologist likes to put it: “No negotiation with terrorists.” Cassidy says that parents’ behaviour is often confused by their own childhood experiences. “For example, if they hated school and a child expresses concerns about going to school, the parents’ feelings become muddled up in the child’s feelings.” Her basic strategy for parents who have lost control is to focus on what aspect of the behaviour they want most to change. “If they think that everything is going wrong, they need to start with the worst problem. So you might say ‘we are going to stop the hitting’ and state what the consequences will be for the child if they continue. They get a warning, they know what is going to happen and then if it continues, you remove a toy. But it is important that the consequence is something the child cares about.
Parents say ‘I can’t stop him going to football because that’s what he really loves’, but that’s the whole point. It has to make sense, and then you can have a lot of fun with children once you know what the rules are. Children like knowing what the rules are.”
Byron suggests that where many parents go wrong is in their attitude to dealing with unruly behaviour: “It’s not about discipline, it’s about respect. Parents don’t want their kids to hit but they smack them, which I think is bonkers. They don’t want them to shout or scream, but they shout or scream at them. We should be role models.”
Cassidy agrees that actions speak louder than words: “Children don’t necessarily listen to words. You can say ten times ‘I love you’ but if you are not there they don’t feel they are important.”
It may sound funny coming from professionals, but both Byron and Cassidy believe that one of the burdens for parents is that they are presented with too much information. Byron feels this so strongly that her next book on children will be her last. “A lot of parents feel overloaded by information and disempowered,” she says. “We have got to get to a situation where parents feel empowered to do what they want to do. That may be something that an expert says, but you can do whatever you want as long as it works for you.”
Cassidy says that it is unhelpful for parents to think that there is a right or a wrong way of doing things. “I try to talk to parents about what their instinctive sense of parenting is. They need to have a confidence in themselves and their own sense of authority. If there was a totally right way, there would only be one book, there wouldn’t be hundreds and hundreds of books. We are all different.”
These are encouraging words for parents. The ‘yes’ generation should be able to learn to say ‘no’ again. But as any parent knows, it’s not what you say, but the way that you say it. And say it. And say it. And say it .

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 19, 2007

can't fool all the people, all the time

Given that the overwhelming majority of self-described "Potter-maniacs" believe it's only uber-religious nuts who find fault with Harry Potter books and the premise they are based on, I found this book review refreshing... alhamdulillaah for the occasional triumph of common sense in popular media.

"It is time to make a stand against Harry Potter. A futile stand, no death or glory involved: just popping my head over the trenches so it can be mowed off by the vast, unstoppable juggernaut of popular acclaim before I have begun to open my mouth.
[...]
I have come, with some regret, to this conclusion: their style is toxic. And this is Rowling's fault. I know that I am anticipating what the style of the latest book will be in advance of actually seeing it, but really, I don't think I'm going out on a limb here. Of course, if she has turned into a first-class writer with her forthcoming Potter book, I will happily, no, joyously, eat my words.
But until then, we have to swallow hers. And for all that she is gifted enough in devising popular scenarios, the words on the page are flat. I think it was Verlaine who said that he could never write a novel because he would have to write, at some point, something like "the count walked into the drawing-room" - not a scruple that can have bothered JK Rowling, who is happy enough writing the most pedestrian descriptive prose.
Here, from page 324 of The Order of the Phoenix, to give you a typical example, are six consecutive descriptions of the way people speak. "...said Snape maliciously," "... said Harry furiously", " ... he said glumly", "... said Hermione severely", "... said Ron indignantly", " ... said Hermione loftily". Do I need to explain why that is such second-rate writing?
If I do, then that means you're one of the many adults who don't have a problem with the retreat into infantilism that your willing immersion in the Potter books represents. It doesn't make you a bad or silly person. But if you have the patience to read it without noticing how plodding it is, then you are self-evidently someone on whom the possibilities of the English language are largely lost.
This is the kind of prose that reasonably intelligent nine-year-olds consider pretty hot stuff, if they're producing it themselves; for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing.
Children exposed to this kind of writing aren't learning anything new about words, or being stretched in any way; as Harold Bloom said, they're not going to be inspired to go off and read the Alice books, or any other enduring classic.
People go hoopla because they're delighted that Rowling has got children reading books - big, fat books without pictures at that. Can't argue with that: and maybe they will learn something about sheer reading stamina in the process. But it's all too easy.
The popular writer whose style is most similar is, it suddenly occurs to me,
Jeffrey Archer (all those dead adverbs). All that paper, all those trees felled, all those words ... surely Rowling could have chosen some better ones, or put them together in a more exciting way?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, July 16, 2007

does your child have an electronic babysitter?

excerpts from a study in The Guardian: TVs and computers breeding generation of 'screen kids'

TVs and computers are the "electronic babysitters" for a generation of children who are losing out on family life and becoming more materialistic, a report says today. The study paints a picture of a breed of "screen kids" who are spending more and more time watching TV and surfing the net in their bedrooms, unsupervised by adults.
[...]
materialistic children were more likely than others to argue with their family, have a lower opinion of their parents and suffer from low self-esteem.
NCC chief executive Ed Mayo said: "Today's children are now 'screen kids'. In some streets, every bedroom has a television for children and many have a computer.
"With many children watching or surfing when they wake up, at breakfast, after school, during dinner and in bed before sleep, we need to ask whether the electronic screen has now become the electronic babysitter."
Children in more deprived areas were most likely to watch commercial television and TV shows made for an older audience. Twice as many children in this group said they "believed" adverts as those in more affluent areas. Youngsters in disadvantaged areas also had greater levels of unsupervised access to television and the internet.
The research also shows that children's TV appears to be losing its appeal to youngsters, who say they are not watching programmes targeted at a younger age group. Fewer than half of all the 12- to 13-year-olds questioned listed any children's programmes in their three favourite shows. And children as young as nine picked out soaps, reality and horror shows among their favourites.

Dr Nairn, a researcher on children and marketing and affiliate professor of marketing at EM-Lyon Business School, told the Guardian: "The effect of so much television viewing and computer usage is that things are replacing people and family relationships are suffering. This is a bad cycle."
***
The Third Parent , a khutbah by Muhammad Al-Shareef also deals with the same issue:
"Abdullah ibn 'Umar radi Allahu anhu once passed by some people killing time by playing chess. He was shocked at this and angrily said to them, quoting the verse of the Qur’an:
'What are these IDOLS that you are standing in vigilance over?'
What would he think if he saw the television set and the welcoming hug it receives in most Muslim homes?
When a Muslim nation plays in the World Cup, over three million Muslims from that one country tune in to television to watch the game. Multiply that by the duration of the match, and you have almost five million hours of the ummah’s time wasted on a football game, in one sweeping night. If Karl Marx said in 1844 that "Religion is the opium of people," then what about TV?
[...]
"Let’s ask ourselves, if we allowed our sons or daughters to put up a poster of their hero, the one whom they think is the 'coolest,' would their hero be their father or mother? Would it be the Prophet or his companions? Or would it be a basketball player that he saw on TV? Or an actor (even a cartoon character) that he saw on TV? Or a model that she saw on TV? Or a musician that he/she saw on TV? Who would it be?
Dear brothers and sisters, we are not here on earth to entertain ourselves to death. We are an ummah with a risaalah (message)!
When Rib’ee ibn 'Aamir radi Allahu anhu stood at the hands of the king of Persia, he announced the message as proudly and as clearly as every Muslim should. "Allah sent us to rescue humanity from slavery to slaves - to the slavery of the Lord of all slaves; and to rescue them from the choke of the material life to the expanse of this life and the next, and from the corruption of the cults to the justice of Islam!"
Allah subhaanahu wa ta ‘aala states in the Qur’an:
Verily! Hearing, sight, and the heart, all will be questioned (by Allah) (Al-Israa 17/36).
And RasulAllah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam informed us that on the Day of Repayment, no one will move until they are asked about three things, one of which will be their youth and how they spent it.
How are we spending our time? Why do we waste it watching TV? What do our eyes see, what do our ears hear on TV and how is our heart affected by this?

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 26, 2007

let them learn!

I liked this article: 'Why a woman's place is in the kitchen'...it traces the history of how the feminist founder-editor of Spare Rib (a woman's magazine) went from insisting women shouldn't waste their time in the kitchen to wondering (now) if they went too far...interesting, anecdotal, insightful read.

excerpts:
Today Britain has the dubious distinction of being the largest consumer of ready meals in Europe - everything from Pot Noodles to sophisticated concoctions such as duck à l'orange and chicken à la king. Not only has home cooking declined, but in many households these pre-assembled dishes are consumed individually, all over the house, when and where family members want. Food - once something that brought adults and children together around the kitchen table - is now yet another way to avoid family life.
[...]
My mother was unusual among her peers in her dislike of things domestic, though in 1956, when Constance Spry published her 1,200-page magnum opus of recipes and cooking tips, she noted: "It is strange how low the subject ranks in the estimation of many academically minded people ... There is still a tendency to consider the subject suitable primarily either for girls who cannot make the grade for a university or for those who intend to become teachers."
My mother, university-educated but frustrated by her subsequent life as a housewife, was clearly one of those who ranked cooking as a lowly pursuit, and she passed her lack of interest (and her attitude) on to me. In my turn, I furthered the belief that cooking was a demeaning pursuit for women who wanted to get on in a man's world.
In 1972, when I was 21, I co-founded Spare Rib magazine with an Australian friend called Marsha Rowe. The newly emerging feminist movement wanted to get women out of the typing pools and away from the kitchen sinks and into the boardrooms of the land. I remember being particularly adamant that the way to get ahead was to refuse to learn to type and to spend as little time as possible in the kitchen. As an early subscription offer for the magazine, we printed a purple dish cloth, which, though tattered and a bit torn, is still in use in our home today. Written on it are the words: "First you sink into his arms, then your arms end up in his sink."
[...]
Indeed, the whole area of housework was a fraught area that women were just starting to examine. We felt that the lack of childcare, and women's inequality in the work place, created an enormous pressure on women to be good housewives, to become psychologically dependent on housework. I well remember some of the early letters that told stories of these "kitchen-sink blues". Housework - unpaid, lowly and trivial - was, in those days, a woman's only job, and in the social pecking order it was right down there at the bottom.
Raising women's self-esteem, as a first step to liberating them from the confines of the home, was one of feminism's earliest and most vital tasks. Much of that was achieved through consciousness-raising groups in which women shared their stories and gained confidence from each other. Just by admitting that their lives were frustrating and often downright miserable, women were able to gain confidence. Cooking, which we all knew could be a creative activity, was all too often very different - because husbands and children demanded meals on tap. The very act of shopping, preparing and serving up food was, for many (like my mother, I suspect), another shackle of a dependent life.
To drive home our point, we frequently analysed adverts that depicted women in "household" roles. One, for a can of Heinz toddler food, showed a woman squashed between her laden kitchen sink and the open door of her washing machine, with the words, "The puddings taste so nice you might forget who you bought them for." What was unwritten was that this was woman's natural home, between the washing machine and the cooking utensils. At her feet, her two children are pulling on the skirts of her apron, sending the powerful message that "Children need their mummy and home. She is the only provider of all their nourishment." The children look as if they are about to have a fight, so a further message goes out to say that if mummy wasn't there, those two would be committing fratricide on each other. On the drying rack are four plates - clearly the man of the house, the fourth member of the nuclear family, is on his way. Heinz was giving us the stereotyped pattern - dad at work, mum at home with the kids, and that was how things should stay.
As it was, food preparation was so entwined with the role of the housewife that we consigned it to the bin of history, alongside the short stories that promised you would "live happily ever after" once he had popped the question.
[...]
By the mid-1970s, more than half of all British households were equipped with the first wave of labour-saving electrical appliances: fridge-freezers, Kenwood mixers, non-stick pans and dishwashers. (Ours was an exception: till the end of her life, my mother always refused to have a dishwasher on the grounds that it was a waste of money. She would often start washing up a meal before everyone had finished eating - a habit that, on occasions, I sadly find myself repeating.) Supermarkets such as Sainsbury's had begun to fulfil the demand for convenience frozen foods, peas, pastry, pies and complete packaged meals.
Liberated from domestic slavery by these modern miracles, women were, in theory, no longer required to devote all their time to household chores. My generation of women wholeheartedly embraced the workplace - which was just as well, since two incomes were certainly better than one when it came to paying for the new technology.
By the 1980s - the decade of the superwoman who could work full time, bring up children, run a home and knock up a mid-week dinner party for eight - about a third of households owned microwaves, the ultimate gadget to minimise cooking time. The writing was on the wall for cookery in British homes.
In 2005, the Guardian analysed the contents of some of Britain's most popular ready meals: Sainsbury's Taste the Difference Luxury Shepherd's Pie, "based on the Ivy restaurant's recipe" and sold to the public as a healthy meal that you could have made at home if you'd only had the time, contained 69 separate ingredients, including a large range of chemical flavourings and preservatives. When I make shepherd's pie, I use just six: mince, onions, tomatoes, potatoes, Worcester sauce and beef stock.
Today, cook books dominate the bestseller lists: most of them are destined to lie, unused, on kitchen shelves. Schools no longer teach cooking per se, just variants on subjects such as home technology, in which teachers explain to children how microwaves heat up food. Meanwhile, sales of ready meals continue to climb hand in hand with teenage obesity. It may be fanciful to lay the blame for this at the feet of the early feminists, but, without a doubt, our struggle to free women from the sheer drudgery of housework was a small link in the chain.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 10, 2007

must-read

A sister posts about a journey to Mu'tah, Jordan, the scene of the historic Battle of Mu'tah, and reflects on how it is: "a perfect metaphor for our state: we are sitting on this legacy of some of the most beautiful, courageous and passionate people that walked on this planet - and what are we adding to this tradition except garbage and wasting of time?"

very moving, maa shaa Allaah.

Labels: , ,