The exhibition, available until September 6, 2009, will travel several other cities such as Barcelona, Onculture.eu said.
The event is organised by “la Caixa” Social and Cultural Outreach Projects in cooperation with the Aga Khan Trust for Culture –the cultural arm of the Aga Khan Development Network and hosted at the CaixaForum Madrid.
The exhibition sets out to question current commonplaces about the polarity between East and West and reconcile points of view about Islamic culture. Through works of art of different periods and geographical origins across world, the exhibition reflects the splendour of Muslim culture in its full diversity, bringing out the pluralism of Islam, both in interpretations of the Koranic faith and the variety of styles, materials and techniques involved in the creation of these works.
These provide an overview of the Islamic world’s finest artistic achievements in wood, stone, gold, bronze, ivory, ceramics and textiles, and on parchment and paper. The different Islamic dynasties can be seen, identifying the territories over which each dynasty ruled following the Abbasid caliphate at the end of the 9th century. The Umayyads held sway over al-Andalus, the Fatimids and the Mamelukes reigned in Egypt, the Ottomans in Turkey, and the Safavids in Iran and the Mughals in India.
The essential characteristics of Islamic courtly culture can be seen in generic portraits of respective sovereigns in profile. The works of art on display also emphasize the high cultural level of the Islamic courts responsible for spreading knowledge of Ancient Greece to the west via translations in Arabic.
The exhibits are divided into three large sections. The central section is devoted to The Qur’anic Faith while the other two guide viewers through various Islamic courts using as a metaphor a journey in two stages –From Cordoba to Damascus and From Baghdad to Delhi.
THERE is a fascinating connection between what US President Barack Obama said about headscarves for women in his June 4 speech in Cairo and the argument over the released Guantanamo detainees who have since been found, or found again, in the ranks of the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. Don’t try to guess, but do please read on.
Since former vice-president Dick Cheney made the most of the New York Times headline of May 21, using US Defence Department statistics to suggest that one in seven Guantanamo graduates had “returned to terrorism or militant activity”, there has been a huge row about whether this is true and, if it is, why it is. Might it not be the case, for example, that an innocent person put through the Guantanamo experience might become radicalised and decide to join the ranks of jihad for the first time?
The latter explanation is certainly not true for several of the recidivists who have been positively identified; we do know the past and present of some of these characters. On my visit to Guantanamo, I was given a list – admittedly containing only 11 names – of former Taliban militants such as Abdullah Mehsud, detained in February 2002 and released in March 2004, who later killed himself rather than surrender to Pakistani security forces. If it is an offence to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offence to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school.
Yet if we think it probable or possible that a man would mutate into such a monster only after undergoing the Guantanamo experience, then I can suggest one reason that may be. Nothing prepared me for the way in which the authorities at the camp have allowed the most extreme religious cultists among the inmates to be the organisers of the prisoners’ daily routine. Suppose you were a secular or unfanatical person caught in the net by mistake. You would still find yourself being compelled to pray five times a day (the guards are not permitted to interrupt), to have a Koran in your cell and to eat food prepared to halal (or sharia) standards. I suppose you could ask to abstain but, in such a case, I wouldn’t much fancy your chances.
The officers in charge were so pleased by this ability to show off their extreme broad-mindedness in respect of Islam that they looked almost hurt when I asked how they justified the use of taxpayers’ money to create an institution dedicated to the fervent practice of the most extreme version of just one religion. To the huge list of reasons to close down Guantanamo, add this: It’s a state-sponsored madrasah, or Muslim religious school.
The same near-masochistic insistence on taking the extreme as the norm was also present in Obama’s smoothly delivered speech in the Egyptian capital. Some of what he said was well-intentioned, if ill-informed. The US should not have overthrown the elected government of Iran in 1953, but when it did so, it used bribed mullahs and ayatollahs to whip up anti-communist sentiment against a secular regime.
The John Adams administration in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli did indeed proclaim that the US had no quarrel with Islam as such (and, even more important, that the US itself was in no sense a Christian nation), but the treaty failed to stop the Barbary states from invoking the Koran as permission to kidnap and enslave travellers on the high seas, and thus Thomas Jefferson was later compelled to send a fleet and the marines to put down the trade.
One hopes that Obama does not prefer Adams to Jefferson in this regard.
Any person with the smallest pretence to cultural literacy knows there is no such place or thing as the Muslim world or, rather, that it consists of many places and many things. (It is precisely the aim of the jihadists to bring it all under one rulership preparatory to making Islam the world’s only religion.) But Obama said nothing about the schism between Sunni and Shi’ites, or about the argument over Sufism, or about Ahmadi and Ismaili forms of worship and practice. All this was conceded to the umma, the highly ideological notion that a person is first defined by their adherence to a religion and that all concepts of citizenship and rights take second place to this theocratic diktat. Nothing could be more reactionary.
Take the single case in which the President touched on the best-known fact about the Islamic world: its tendency to make women second-class citizens. He mentioned this only to say that Western countries were discriminating against Muslim women! And how is this discrimination imposed? By limiting the wearing of the headscarf, or hijab (a word that Obama pronounced as hajib; imagine the uproar if George Bush had done that). The clear implication was an attack on the French law that prohibits the display of religious garb or symbols in state schools.
Indeed, the following day in Paris, Obama made this point even more explicitly. I quote from an excellent commentary by an Algerian-American visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, Karima Bennoune, who says: “I have just published research conducted among the many people of Muslim, Arab and North African descent in France who support that country’s 2004 law banning religious symbols in public schools which they see as a necessary deployment of the ‘law of the republic’ to counter the ‘law of the Brothers’, an informal rule imposed undemocratically on many women and girls in neighbourhoods and at home and by fundamentalists.” (See http://img.slate.com/ media/22/CHAP5. Bennoune.Headscarves.pdf)
But to the women who are compelled to dress according to the requirements of others, Obama had nothing to say at all, as if the only right at stake were the right to obey an instruction that is, in fact – if it matters – not found in the Koran.
In Turkey, too, headscarves are outlawed in some contexts. Is this, too, Islamophobia? Does the president think that the veil and the burka are also freely chosen fashion statements? This sort of naivety is worrying, and it means that among the global Muslim audience, the wrong sort of people were laughing at us, while the ones who ought to be our friends and allies were shedding a disappointed tear.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and online magazine Slate, where this column first appeared. He is the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California.
OTTAWA – Canada will grant the Aga Khan honorary citizenship for what Prime Minister Stephen Harper describes as his exemplary humanitarianism and long friendship with Canada.
Born in Geneva, Shah Karim al-Hussayni is the 49th hereditary imam of the Shia Ismaili Muslims and is widely recognized for his work against poverty and his promotion of tolerance.
Now 72, he is the founder and chairman of the Aga Khan Development Network, which works in Asia and Africa and is one of the world’s largest private development networks.
Harper told the House of Commons the Aga Khan is “a beacon of humanitarianism, of pluralism and of tolerance throughout the entire world.”
The Aga Khan was in Edmonton on Tuesday to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from the University of Alberta.
He gave an impassioned speech that touched on several global issues, including what he described as “faltering instruments of government in many countries of Asia and Africa.”
“We have learned that simplistic systems don’t work, whether built around the arrogance of colonialism, the rigidities of communism, the romantic dreams of nationalism or the naive promises of untrammeled capitalism.”
The Aga Khan also spoke at length about ethics, not only in government but in all areas of society and the need for leaders and academics to provide an ethical example for people to follow.
“We know from recent headlines about scoundrels from the American financial scene to the halls of European parliaments – and we can certainly do without either,” he said.
“When a construction company cheats on the quality of materials for a school or a bridge, when a teacher skimps on class work in order to sell his time privately, when a doctor recommends a drug because of incentives from a pharmaceutical company, when a bank loan is skewed by kickbacks, or a student paper is plagiarized from the Internet – when the norms of fairness and decency are violated in any way, then the foundations of society are undermined.”
The Aga Khan also mentioned last week’s landmark speech in Cairo by U.S. President Barack Obama who reached out for a fresh start with the Islamic world.
“It continually amazes me…how little is understood about the Muslim civilizations and cultures in the non-Islamic world and how little is taught,” he said.
“When President Obama described the richness of that history in his Cairo speech, he was telling a story which is unfamiliar to many in the West.
“As the world shrinks and as contact among diverse peoples increases, some would argue that we face an inevitable clash of civilizations. My own conviction, however, is that we face today a clash of ignorances.”
Honorary Canadian citizenship is bestowed by the governor general and requires the unanimous approval of all voting MPs.
It has been given to four others: Swedish diplomat and Holocaust hero Raoul Wallenberg (posthumously in 1985); former South Africa president and Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela (2001); the Dalai Lama (2006); and pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi (2007), a Nobel laureate who has spent most of the last 20 years under house arrest in her native Myanmar.
-With files from Jim Macdonald in Edmonton