Afghan Idol

By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 24, 2009


After 30 years of civil war, foreign invasion, and Taliban rule, Afghans finally have the opportunity to vote in free elections. They have learned to campaign, solicit votes, and support candidates of varying ethnicities. Even women are part of the process. It is likely the most democratic, egalitarian process Afghans have witnessed in decades. Am I referring to the Presidential elections? No. It’s Afghan Star, the new TV show modeled after American Idol. The show is popular, controversial, and it’s paving the way for true political reform in Afghanistan.



Though traditionally Afghanistan had music as part of its culture, in recent decades music was heavily censored. During Taliban rule from 1996-2001, music, dance, television and films were outlawed altogether in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. Anyone caught engaging in these crimes was subject to harsh penalties including death.


After Operation Enduring Freedom toppled the Taliban, these activities became legal. In 2005, shortly after the new parliament was in place, Afghan Star emerged. However, music and dance are still shunned by Islamic fundamentalists and the more conservative Muslim community. Those who enter Afghan Star’s singing contest are, in effect, making a bold political statement and risking their own lives.



In Afghanistan, equality is still a radical concept. Despite this, Afghan Star places no age, gender, or ethnic restrictions on its participants. Last year, approximately 2000 people auditioned for the show, including three women. Two of them were among the top ten finalists, showing great strides for women who, under Taliban rule, were not allowed out of the house unless in a burqa and accompanied by a close male relative.



The show is produced by Tolo TV, the country’s first commercial station, and it is broadcast to fourteen cities nationwide. Because not every Afghan household has a TV, large crowds gather together on Friday nights at restaurants and friends’ homes to watch the contest. It is the most popular show in Afghanistan, and dominates the airwaves for six months of the year.



The film follows the lives of the top four contestants as they compete for the Afghan Star title and $5000 (a small fortune by Afghan standards). This no-frills version of American Idol takes place against the backdrop of a visibly war-torn and poverty-stricken country. The documentary does an excellent job of portraying Afghanistan’s politics, religion, culture, ethnic conflicts, and artistic struggles through the eyes of each singer’s personal experience. It brings Afghanistan’s triumphs and conflicts to life, making them a reality. Indeed, it was filmed amidst bombings and earthquakes, business as usual in Afghanistan. Though the film won two awards at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, it is banned in Afghanistan because it interviewed women on screen.



The final four contestants were Satara, Lima, Rafi and Hamid. Satara, the most rebellious character in the film, is a 21-year-old girl from Kabul, Afghanistan’s most progressive city. Her family hails from Herat, a conservative area on the outskirts of Afghanistan. Growing up she took singing lessons in secret, with her family’s moral support. Singing gives Satara a sense of freedom. Music fills her with happiness which propels her to dance ever so slightly onstage. She allows her hijab to slip, uncovering her hair. She has gone too far and is voted off the show. Almost everyone disapproves of her actions including other contestants. Viewers call her “loose”, “a whore”, and “immoral”. Some believe she deserves to die.



Lima, the last remaining woman, is relatively conservative. Asked if she would consider dancing on the show, she declares “never.” Not even if she were offered thousands of dollars. Not even is she was guaranteed to win. Lima comes from Kandahar, the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism, where the mere fact that a woman is on TV is considered quite politically charged. Nevertheless, she has the support of most of her Pashtun community and many women admire her for her courage and confidence, talent aside. Lima came in third place.



The two finalists, Rafi and Hamid originate from different ethnicities, Tajik and Hazara, respectively. Though they view themselves as singers, in reality the contestants are politicians of a sort, trying to achieve national unity through music. They are encouraging people to compete in song rather than in war. The two travel throughout the country, putting up posters and yelling through megaphones, asking for votes. As in the US, votes are placed through cell phone text messages. The advance of technology is sharply contrasted with Afghanistan’s seventh century mores when teen girls dressed in full burqas catch a glimpse of the stars and start shooting snapshots of them with their cell phones.



Many in Afghanistan believe that music is a universal language. The older generation recalls a time when music was part of Afghan culture and is eager to restore it. The younger generation sees music as a vehicle for personal expression and freedom. Others, who have suffered the death of a loved one in war, welcome song as a healing agent. It soothes the pain, and facilitates recovery from the grieving process, bringing a sense of peace. Many of the children love to sing, explaining that there is no joy without music.



Yet, the religious elements of Afghanistan remain steadfast and are not without sway. Though it didn’t come to fruition, midway through the show the Taliban threatened to shut down the transmission towers, which would have rendered people unable to text in their votes and would have caused the show’s demise. Additionally, prior to the finale, the Islamic Council issued a strong statement to President Karzai condemning the immorality of Afghan Star and other TV shows that fail to comply with Sharia law. When the show was over, the Council was successful in passing a resolution making it illegal to dance on TV.



All the contestants were subjected to death threats at the show’s close. Those who resided in Taliban controlled localities were at the gravest risk. When the show ended, Satar, the girl who danced, was evicted from her apartment by a disapproving landlord. She had no choice but to return to her parents’ conservative hometown, with all its consequences. Fortunately, she eventually made her way back to Kabul and is currently recording an album. Lima, despite the fact that she refused to dance, received significant death threats and was forced into exile. She currently lives in hiding in Pakistan.



Daoud Siddiqi, Afghan Star’s show host, known as the Ryan Seacrest of Afghanistan, made the mistake of announcing on film that “the Taliban is finished.” They proved him wrong by making him one of their prime targets. Daoud recently was granted political asylum to the United States.



Despite the challenges, Rafi and Hamid are going on tour, trying to pave the way for greater tolerance and national solidarity. Rafi insists that he does not represent only his ethnicity, but represents all Afghans.



Clearly, Afghanistan has a long way to go in securing the exercise its newfound freedoms. Still, the mere fact that singing is legal and that the show is permitted to air demonstrates the country’s progress. Eleven million people voted in Afghan Star’s finale. That is one third of Afghanistan’s population. For many, it was the first time they voted or the first time they supported someone of a different ethnicity.



Presidential elections are scheduled in Afghanistan for August 20, 2009. Let us hope that the freedom, egalitarianism, and message of tolerance that permeated the democratic process on Afghan Star, paves the way for similar campaigns in Afghanistan’s national politics. Many Afghans believe it will.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss, Esq. lobbies for Vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more ...

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights
By Deborah Weiss
Published in The American Thinker 12/11/08

Yesterday was the 60th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). The UN planned a big celebration, presenting seven awards to international figures who have made a mark in the human rights field this past year. One of the awards was posthumously earmarked to Benazir Bhutto, an advocate for true democracy in Pakistan assassinated during her campaign for Prime Minister.

Great strides have been made in the progress for human rights since the UNDHR was drafted. Yet, several Islamic countries, most notably the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), object. Instead, they are promoting the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights for Muslim-majority countries. Two NGO's have filed an appeal to the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, arguing that the Cairo Declaration and the UNDHR clash. They have requested an official ruling.


The UNDHR came into existence after WWII. When the Nazi atrocities perpetrated upon the Jews came to light, the world community realized that the UN Charter was not sufficiently specific to protect human rights. In response, the UNDHR was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on December 10, 1948. It consists of 30 articles which cover a broad range of rights including social, political, economic and religious. Though not legally binding, the UNDHR is considered a foundational document in international human rights law. It has inspired the development of 50 human rights instruments around the globe including international treaties, national constitutions, and regional human rights laws.


The bedrock beliefs embedded in the UNDHR are the inherent dignity and equality of all, as well as the right to liberty and the brotherhood of all humanity. The document omits any mention of specific religions, but presumes that all religions and cultures are equal. It promotes equality between men and women, and requires that the human rights of children be protected.


So, what's not to like? According to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and the other countries comprising the OIC, the UNDHR fails to take into account the "cultural and religious context of Islamic countries". Indeed, in 1981, the Iranian Representative to the UN construed the UNDHR to be a "secular interpretation of a Judeo-Christian tradition which can't be implemented without trespassing on Islamic law." In June 2000, the OIC resolved to support the Cairo Declaration as an alternative.


So, what's the Cairo Declaration? The pre-cursor to the Cairo Declaration was the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, first proclaimed in the 1980's by the Islamic Council at the International Conference on the Prophet Mohammad and His Message. The document was rooted in the belief that Allah alone is the law giver and the source of all laws. It espoused that the State has an obligation to establish an Islamic order, and that all laws must be based on the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, as compiled by Muslim scholars, jurists, and representatives of various Islamic movements.


Many of these ideas were finalized in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights (Cairo). 54 Muslim-majority countries signed the document that year. Many of these countries had abstained from the first vote on the UNDHR. The strategy of abstaining rather than voting in opposition to UNDHR, allowed these countries to uphold the false appearance of supporting human rights, while at the same time precluding a sufficient number of yes votes necessary for the UNDHR to pass.


How does Cairo stack up to the UNDHR? Cairo, unlike the UNDHR is anything but a religion-neutral document. On the contrary, it overtly asserts that Islam is superior over other religions, and that the Islamic ummah is the "best nation". It cites the Muslim community's role in guiding "a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies", and claims that Islam is the solution to man's "chronic problems of this materialistic civilization." It lists separate rights for men and women rather than advocating for general equality. It precludes the State from taking a life or perpetrating bodily harm except as allowed by Sharia (Islamic law). It entitles everyone to a State-funded Islamic education even if they are not Muslim, but refuses to fund education in any other religion. Freedom of expression is restricted by Islamic interpretation, and blasphemy is forbidden. Most ominously, Articles 24 and 25 assert that all interpretations of the so-called rights stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, must be interpreted through the eyes of Sharia law. Sharia is cited as the sole source of reference allowable for explanation and clarification of all articles in the Declaration. Therefore, the entire document and all the rights and freedoms contained therein, are in fact, limited to those which are in accordance with the Islamic Sharia.


In short, the Cairo Declaration is a religious document. It is not the rights of the individual that are protected, but the best interest of the Islamic Ummah (community). It pits Muslims against non-Muslims and discriminates against women. It allows stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and the death penalty for blasphemy. Its freedom of religion does not include the freedom to leave Islam, and the proselytizing of other religions or of atheism is strictly forbidden. Freedom of expression and freedom to obtain information cannot be of a nature that weakens the faith of the Islamic society. It is no coincidence that many of the enumerated "rights" are not rights at all, but are actually limitations on rights and freedoms. Therefore, the Cairo Declaration cannot reasonably be interpreted as a declaration of human rights. It is more accurately a statement of obligations which are required to submit to the will of Allah.


The Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights holds a misleading title. By limiting the rights otherwise guaranteed by the UNDHR and confining rights to those permitted by Sharia law, the Cairo Declaration undermines the very rights it purports to protect. In a world where radical Muslims are at war with Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Christians in the Sudan and moderate Muslims in their own countries, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, still insists that Islamophobia is one of the root causes of the world's violence and instability. Further, he claims that Israel is the world's main human rights oppressor.


The OIC diligently works to enforce oppressive measures in Muslim lands and expand Islamic supremacy around the globe. Yet, the OIC Secretary General still has the audacity to request that the 60th anniversary of the UNDHR be used to engage in dialogue with countries of "different viewpoints and religions" in an atmosphere of "mutual respect and tolerance." In other words, the OIC, arch enemy of human rights, is demanding tolerance for the intolerant, and respect for the disrespectful.


What is the reason that the OIC refuses to support the UNDHR? Does Islam conflict with fundamental human rights, basic freedoms and western values? Many moderate Muslims around the globe claim that it does not. But the leaders of the OIC insist that it does.

Read more ...