Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Pilgrimage
All Muslims who are physically and financially able are required to make the pilgrimage--Hajj in Arabic--to the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia at least once in their lives. Mecca is the home of the holiest site in Islam--a shrine to God that Muslims believe was built by Abraham and his son Ishmael--and the pilgrimage to this site and others in the surrounding area coincides with Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice mentioned in the previous post. This pilgrimage is obviously an essential aspect of the Islamic faith, and many Muslims take the title Hajji--one who has performed the Hajj--after completing it. Also, the household of those making the pilgrimage will decorate the front of their home to welcome them back from their journey, and also to announce to the neighborhood that someone in that particular home has completed this important duty. The above picture shows this decoration, which was recently put up by the family that lives below us in our building.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Eid al-Adha
Eid al-Adha--the Feast of Sacrifice--started today in Jordan, and all across the Islamic world. The Eid is a four day holiday during which Muslims commemorate Abraham's sacrifice of the ram provided by God to replace Abraham's son, whom God had asked Abraham to sacrifice in order to test his faith. Although Christians and Jews believe this son to have been Issac, Muslims believe the son to have been Ishmael. It is during this time that Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca as well. During the three days all normal life in Jordan stops, and people put on their best clothes to visit their friends and family.
This is the scene in downtown Amman the night before the Eid, as many people were making last minute preparations, buying food, clothes and gifts.
It is traditional for families to slaughter a sheep as part of the holiday, and the above two pictures show a sheep being slaughtered on a street not far from where we live. In keeping with Islamic practice, the sheep must specifically be killed with the cut of a knife through the jugular vein while saying the words "In the Name of God", and all of the animal's blood must be drained--which you can see on the sidewalk--before it can be eaten. Although not everyone we know is doing it, it is a major part of the occasion. Last year we were in Morocco during the Eid, and everywhere we went we saw sheep being lead away for slaughter on all types of transportation--carts, trucks and even motorcycles. One of our friends here told us the way out of her neighborhood was blocked this morning by a long line of cars driven by people waiting to buy sheep in a lot nearby.
Eid Mubarak!
(Blessed Festival!)
This is the scene in downtown Amman the night before the Eid, as many people were making last minute preparations, buying food, clothes and gifts.
It is traditional for families to slaughter a sheep as part of the holiday, and the above two pictures show a sheep being slaughtered on a street not far from where we live. In keeping with Islamic practice, the sheep must specifically be killed with the cut of a knife through the jugular vein while saying the words "In the Name of God", and all of the animal's blood must be drained--which you can see on the sidewalk--before it can be eaten. Although not everyone we know is doing it, it is a major part of the occasion. Last year we were in Morocco during the Eid, and everywhere we went we saw sheep being lead away for slaughter on all types of transportation--carts, trucks and even motorcycles. One of our friends here told us the way out of her neighborhood was blocked this morning by a long line of cars driven by people waiting to buy sheep in a lot nearby.
Eid Mubarak!
(Blessed Festival!)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Lessons of Bab al-Harr
This month I've been trying to finish watching online a Syrian mini-series called "Bab al-Harr" that played all throughout the Middle East and North Africa during this past Ramadan. It was played every night during the holiday, and it so captivated Jordanians that--in the words of a Jordanian friend of mine--when it was on you would "not find a person on the street." I too was captivated by it, with its portrayal of life and culture inside the old city walls of early 20th century Damascus, and I'm still watching it now because we left the country for a bit towards the end of Ramadan and I missed the last week or so of the show.
Much of the plot revolves around the family of a man called Abu Isaam, who--after a particularly nasty disagreement with his wife of many years--divorced her. Because of the cultural conditions of the time, this divorce set off a terrible chain reaction within the family, as the former wife was obliged to leave her home and move in with her brother, as--even if she had the means to do so--no honorable woman of the time would live by herself. Also, the father of the man who was engaged to the daughter of the divorced couple forced his son to call off the wedding, as no family of the time would want to be stained by the dishonor of divorce, even when just connected to a family being married into. The program skillfully depicts the social customs of the time, customs which are still in evidence today where we live. Yes, of course there are many differences between early 20th century Damascus and early 21st century Amman, and it is--as another Jordanian friend of mine said--"just TV." However, the overriding culture of honor and shame in which the requirements of the family are put first--as opposed (for better or worse) to the more individualistic nature of American society--remains the same. Also, it is possible to learn from a good book or a good movie, and even a good television show.
Something I ponder when I watch the show regards the male dominated nature of the society portrayed. Whenever anything controversial or important occurs on the screen, the men of the community all gather together to yell at each other, discuss or think about the problem at hand. Meanwhile, the women of the community sit around and wait for a decision or ruling to be made on an issue that may affect them, but on which they have no voice. Once a decision is made, the rest of the community must abide by it. This strikes me as simply a bad way to do life. To leave important discussions to one segment of society while excluding another segment of society from those discussions seems to me to not be the best way to make wise, informed decisions. Such an approach utilizes only part of the brain-power available in a community. Men and women are different, and sometimes have different ways of thinking, and leaving women out of a decision making process eliminates the possibility of hearing different attitudes and perspectives, and as a result short-circuits any potentially more creative solutions to a given problem.
This approach to problem solving is still noticeable in Jordanian society, and some women we know have lives that aren't as full as they could be because of decisions made for them by men in their lives. I also think, though, that it has by no means disappeared from my own American society. For instance, I see this still taking place in our current presidential election season, as some say that a woman--irrespective of her qualifications are lack thereof--should not be elected to the office of president. I also see this especially still taking place in the church, where women are still not welcomed into pastoral roles in many denominations and often shut out of various decision making processes, and are often told to be subordinate in their families.
But just like in the male only arena of Bab al-Harr, this strikes me as a bad way to do life. For a church to be lead only by a group of people from one segment of society, and for a family to rely on the man to lead and the woman to follow seems to me to not be the best way to make wise, informed decisions that are for the benefit and encouragement of all. The church--like society--consists of both men and women, and as such should be lead by both men and women. A family should rely on the leadership of both of the people who--in the words of the author of Genesis--"united" to "become one flesh." Shutting women out simply because they are women--regardless of their ability to lead or provide a different perspective or creative outlook on a certain situation--seems to shut out the possibility of obtaining the best solution to a problem or situation for growth. So many times in Bab al-Harr what the men decide for the group ends up causing pain or more trouble. Yes, it is just TV, but it does mirror what actually happens in Jordanian society and even, to some extent, what happens in American society. I think a complete inclusion of those still not entirely allowed to be part of decision making processes--while not ultimately bringing about perfect solutions or situations--will create a situation where better, more equitable and more human decisions are possible.
Much of the plot revolves around the family of a man called Abu Isaam, who--after a particularly nasty disagreement with his wife of many years--divorced her. Because of the cultural conditions of the time, this divorce set off a terrible chain reaction within the family, as the former wife was obliged to leave her home and move in with her brother, as--even if she had the means to do so--no honorable woman of the time would live by herself. Also, the father of the man who was engaged to the daughter of the divorced couple forced his son to call off the wedding, as no family of the time would want to be stained by the dishonor of divorce, even when just connected to a family being married into. The program skillfully depicts the social customs of the time, customs which are still in evidence today where we live. Yes, of course there are many differences between early 20th century Damascus and early 21st century Amman, and it is--as another Jordanian friend of mine said--"just TV." However, the overriding culture of honor and shame in which the requirements of the family are put first--as opposed (for better or worse) to the more individualistic nature of American society--remains the same. Also, it is possible to learn from a good book or a good movie, and even a good television show.
Something I ponder when I watch the show regards the male dominated nature of the society portrayed. Whenever anything controversial or important occurs on the screen, the men of the community all gather together to yell at each other, discuss or think about the problem at hand. Meanwhile, the women of the community sit around and wait for a decision or ruling to be made on an issue that may affect them, but on which they have no voice. Once a decision is made, the rest of the community must abide by it. This strikes me as simply a bad way to do life. To leave important discussions to one segment of society while excluding another segment of society from those discussions seems to me to not be the best way to make wise, informed decisions. Such an approach utilizes only part of the brain-power available in a community. Men and women are different, and sometimes have different ways of thinking, and leaving women out of a decision making process eliminates the possibility of hearing different attitudes and perspectives, and as a result short-circuits any potentially more creative solutions to a given problem.
This approach to problem solving is still noticeable in Jordanian society, and some women we know have lives that aren't as full as they could be because of decisions made for them by men in their lives. I also think, though, that it has by no means disappeared from my own American society. For instance, I see this still taking place in our current presidential election season, as some say that a woman--irrespective of her qualifications are lack thereof--should not be elected to the office of president. I also see this especially still taking place in the church, where women are still not welcomed into pastoral roles in many denominations and often shut out of various decision making processes, and are often told to be subordinate in their families.
But just like in the male only arena of Bab al-Harr, this strikes me as a bad way to do life. For a church to be lead only by a group of people from one segment of society, and for a family to rely on the man to lead and the woman to follow seems to me to not be the best way to make wise, informed decisions that are for the benefit and encouragement of all. The church--like society--consists of both men and women, and as such should be lead by both men and women. A family should rely on the leadership of both of the people who--in the words of the author of Genesis--"united" to "become one flesh." Shutting women out simply because they are women--regardless of their ability to lead or provide a different perspective or creative outlook on a certain situation--seems to shut out the possibility of obtaining the best solution to a problem or situation for growth. So many times in Bab al-Harr what the men decide for the group ends up causing pain or more trouble. Yes, it is just TV, but it does mirror what actually happens in Jordanian society and even, to some extent, what happens in American society. I think a complete inclusion of those still not entirely allowed to be part of decision making processes--while not ultimately bringing about perfect solutions or situations--will create a situation where better, more equitable and more human decisions are possible.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Cat Attack
In a past post we wrote about the ubiquitous presence of street cats here, as they can be seen running around everywhere kind of like squirrels at home. We live on the second floor of our building, and occasionally one makes its way to the rooftop built over the garden terrace of the apartment below us, giving it a perfect view right into our apartment. After making the climb up the other day, this particular street cat apparently found our street cat turned house cat quite mesmerizing, enough so that we were able to snap this picture before it got scared and ran away.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Elections in Jordan
Jordan recently held parliamentary elections. It seemed to be quite hotly contested, as there were almost 900 candidates for the 110 seats, and campaign signs and banners and large posters bearing their awkwardly smiling faces were posted all over Amman in the month or two before the vote. Of the nearly 900 candidates, 199 were women. By law, of the 110 seats 12 are reserved for Christian and Circassian candidates, and 6 for the top women candidates. Probably the biggest news once the results were known was that the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood fared poorly, with the number of seats they hold dropping from 17 to 6.
Unfortunately--despite the large number of candidates--the disposition towards the election of most of the people we know was something between apathy and disdain. Some felt people were just running for the prestige of the position, and others said the winners would turn their backs on the people once they took their seat. Many people talked beforehand about some candidates actually going door to door and buying votes, saying it had happened in the past. At least, though, if they wanted to vote, they really had no excuse not to, as election day here is a national holiday. Whatever the case, it was interesting to observe the democratic process here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)