HH Princess Ameerah Al Taweel being interviewed on women's rights in Saudi Arabia by Piers Morgan on CNN:
XQs XXXIII - A Conversation with Mou Banerjee
3 hours ago
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Islam from Another Perspective
Here's a Pakistani praying outside the White House and the hastle he receives because of his choice of prayer ground:
Key cross cultural point: nothing you respect should be thrown to the ground, it becomes dirty and indicates a lack of repsect for the item touching the ground. Hense the shoe throwing at President Bush {see wgaw: PRESIDENT BUSH and SHOE THROWING} being such an insult.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Making Sense of Bahrain
A direct copy and paste, SUHAIL ALGOSAIBI writes below about trying to make sense of all the hate and the madness in Bahrain following the crisis which took place in March
"I recently had dinner with a CNN crew, who had just finished interviewing me and a few others about the so-called “Arab Spring”, and the role social media played in it.
They had been to Tunisia and Egypt before coming to Bahrain, and they told me how different Bahrain was from those two countries. They seemed genuinely confused. I think this was the first conflict they covered where there was no obvious victim and no obvious villain. They asked me lots and lots of questions during the dinner, and I tried to answer as best I could – and as fairly as I could.
Since that dinner I’ve been reflecting more on the recent crisis. And was trying to make sense of some of the events, and more importantly, I was trying to understand all this hate that I keep seeing online. Some of which was aggressively directed at me – from both sides!
The Dictionary Definition of Polarisation
I think Bahrain’s indomitable Foreign Minister, Sh. Khalid Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, described it best when he said people are polarised. Here’s the dictionary definition of “Polarise” from my Mac: “[verb] divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.” I like the “two sharply contrasting” bit. Basically, it’s “either you’re with me, or against me.” There can be no in between. If you’re not fully on my side I will hate you, slander you and personally attack you. And if you’re with me, I’ll love you, support you and protect you.
Rather sad, don’t you think?
Honestly, this is not the Bahrain I know and grew up in. Though I don’t condone the polarisation and extremism, I try very hard to understand where it’s coming from. I try not to judge and not to force my opinions on others.
Anyway, today’s post is about trying to understand and explain some of this polarisation and hate that we see today. And as I’ve said many times before, I don’t claim to fully know all the facts, nor to understand this crisis 100% (frankly I don’t think anyone does).
Where The Protestors’ Frustration/Anger/Hate is Coming From
There is a not insignificant Shia section of society that – rightly or wrongly – feel marginalised in our society. They feel victimised, and have been feeling like this for a long time – for generations.
They feel that they are not given their full rights as Bahraini citizens. Not only that, but they feel they are being intentionally marginalised. Also, they feel discriminated against and disrespected by the Interior Ministry. They feel their human rights are not met, and they also feel like the government is trying to dilute their numbers through the “sunnification” of the population, by giving Sunni Arabs and Asians Bahraini citizenship.
It is my belief that for a small portion of this section of society, this perception has morphed into loathing and blind rage (possibly caused/encouraged/fuelled/endorsed by outside interference). The object of this blind rage was the government and the ruling family, who they perceive as being responsible for the supposed mess they are in.
And for these people, the end justified the means. And the means included exaggerating, lying, fabricating, attacking, and doing whatever else helped their cause, and the rest of the population be damned! They wanted nothing but the total removal of the current regime, and some even wanted nothing but a Royal blood bath. But it is my contention that not all protestors wanted this, and that not all protestors were rioters. But admittedly, the lines were vague. Who can untangle that web?
The hate of the extremists spilled over into hating all those who supported the government, and did not see things from their perspective. When the recent crackdown started, they felt even more victimised and saw it as the government’s excuse to commit further alleged crimes against them. Which of course lead to more hate, and more polarisation. They just could not comprehend how someone could not see things from their perspective.
Where the pro-government Frustration/Anger/Hate Is Coming From
I think the views of most Sunnis (wallahu A’lam) can be summarised as follows; they also had some frustrations with the government, but they don’t believe in getting it through protests and blatant disrespect for the law. I think most believed that a person’s rights should be sought through the current system, and not by replacing it completely. (Arguably though, they are not suffering as much as the people in the other camp).
When they look at their Shia brethren, they see that members of their society are among the wealthiest in the country, and that they have reached the highest echelons in the government and the private sector. They wonder why they feel victimised. They also wonder why (supposedly) so many poor Shia men marry several wives and have lots of children, and then complain about their lot in life. Many Sunnis are bewildered by what they perceive as the Shia “Culture of Victimhood”.
Many Sunnis were afraid for their safety during the protests. They seethed while they saw the rioters running amuck. They hated their king and the ruling family being openly insulted like this. They could not understand the perceived duality of the protesters (peaceful yet violent).
The extreme Sunnis hated the protestors and their leaders. And that hate spilled over into hating virtually all Shias. And the fact that the Opposition leaders did not condemn the violent acts, nor try to rein them in, only made matters worse.
They perceived them as ungrateful, disloyal, Iran-loving traitors, who should be punished severely. And they hated everyone who even showed a tiny shred of support or sympathy for them. They genuinely could not understand how anyone could not see things from their perspective.
They hated the perceived arrogance of the opposition leaders, and they couldn’t wait for revenge.
And boy did they get it!
Welcome to The Mother Of All Crackdowns
You know the story, the government lost patience with the protestors/rioters. When they realised that this was more than just a peaceful request for reform, and saw Iran’s fingerprints all over the movement, they cracked down with all their might. Everyone and anyone who showed support for the protestors was a suspect. And the spate of arrests started.
Now the extreme Sunnis rejoiced. It was party time! “Take that you evil traitors!” was the theme. And that! And that! …
The conflict became personal with the rioters on one side, and security forces and the army on the other. While the protesters brazenly defied law and order, attacked people, fabricated attacks against themselves at the same time acted like victims, the government forces seethed (Remember that several of the opposition leaders have received multiple Royal pardons in the past). The protestors won the first round, but the second was won by the government forces, by knock out! Some reportedly enjoyed releasing their frustrations at road check points.
Meanwhile, the moderates cried.
Their voices were mostly unheard, and they had hoped that this could be resolved peacefully. They kept waiting for wise men to prevail. And they still wait.
Some Personal Reflections…
The other day an anti-government acquaintance told me how he was mistreated by the security personnel at a checkpoint. He said “where did all this hate and rudeness come from?” I resisted the temptation of reminding him of the “down with Al-Khalifa” placards at the Pearl roundabout, and the loathing that came from the rioters. Loathing begets loathing. It should never have, but the conflict became personal. Very personal.
My point is that crack downs by definition are brutal. Who’s ever heard of a gentle crack down? When national security is threatened, security forces are not too concerned with constitutional rights. Especially with rioters who were this cunning.
Let me give you an example. A Bahraini friend told me this story many years ago. He was walking down a street in Paris, when suddenly a police van stopped next to him. Several policemen grabbed him violently, and threw him into the van. As I recall, he was beaten and taken to the police station. Poor man was totally confused and wondering what was going on. Later he learnt that a “Moroccan looking” man was suspected of planting a bomb in a Metro Station on the street he was walking along.
Many hours later the police realised they had the wrong man, and let him go. Without a even a hint of an apology! I don’t relay this story to justify anyone’s behaviour, but I do want to point out that when national security is threatened, security forces see red. There are more examples of this in the West, most notably in the US after 9/11, where stories of constitutional/human rights abuses are plentiful.
Do Shias Have More Loyalty To Iran Than to Bahrain?
No, absolutely not! There are a few things I want to say about this. First, if you had asked me at the start of this crisis whether I thought Iran was involved I would have laughed. Today I am convinced that Iran is involved. But I’d be lying if I said I know exactly how. The prevalent theory is that Iran had some sort of long-term sinister plot in Bahrain, which they tried to bring forward when the protests happened. Also, it is said that some of the opposition leaders have very close ties to Iran and/or Hezbollah. I don’t usually believe in conspiracies, but as I mentioned in a previous blog post, I do think Iran is involved.
Having said that however, I think the vast majority of protestors did not know of the Iran involvement. And I think that few of them actually felt more loyal to Iran than to Bahrain.
As for the general Shia population, I know they have no loyalty or affinity to Iran. Besides, why would a multi-generational Arab feel any loyalty to a country who’s language he doesn’t even speak? I think it’s cruel to paint all our Shia brethren with the same, broad brush.
Why I Refuse to Hate
Look, like many others during this crisis I got angry. I was angry at the rioters for making me feel unsafe, and making me worry about my family. I was angry that my business got affected and that I make heavy losses since the crisis began. I can go on an on.
But I refuse to hate.
What’s the point? It’s in the past now, the government won and the rioters were exposed. Will me hating really add value? Let the extremists and haters hate, I will have none of it. I’d rather work on rebuilding our country.
So What’s All This Talk of Forgiveness?
I think my last couple of blog posts confused some people. So maybe some clarification is in order. Personally, not only do I not hate the protesters/rioters, I choose to forgive them.
But as I explained in my last blog post, forgiveness does not mean I condone the actions of the rioters that broke the law. Nor does it mean that they should not receive their just punishment – quite the contrary, I think they should. Justice should prevail, and the law should be applied to everyone who broke it during the crisis.
Forgiveness is about making peace within yourself, and not letting the actions of others affect you and the way you think and behave. I’d rather focus on the future, not the past.
And I humbly ask you to do the same."
Will adding more hate really help matters? What kind of country do you want our children to live in? I keep hearing from both sides how “we will never forget…”, you don’t have to forget, but you can choose to forgive and let go. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. It means moving on.
"I recently had dinner with a CNN crew, who had just finished interviewing me and a few others about the so-called “Arab Spring”, and the role social media played in it.
They had been to Tunisia and Egypt before coming to Bahrain, and they told me how different Bahrain was from those two countries. They seemed genuinely confused. I think this was the first conflict they covered where there was no obvious victim and no obvious villain. They asked me lots and lots of questions during the dinner, and I tried to answer as best I could – and as fairly as I could.
Since that dinner I’ve been reflecting more on the recent crisis. And was trying to make sense of some of the events, and more importantly, I was trying to understand all this hate that I keep seeing online. Some of which was aggressively directed at me – from both sides!
The Dictionary Definition of Polarisation
I think Bahrain’s indomitable Foreign Minister, Sh. Khalid Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, described it best when he said people are polarised. Here’s the dictionary definition of “Polarise” from my Mac: “[verb] divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.” I like the “two sharply contrasting” bit. Basically, it’s “either you’re with me, or against me.” There can be no in between. If you’re not fully on my side I will hate you, slander you and personally attack you. And if you’re with me, I’ll love you, support you and protect you.
Rather sad, don’t you think?
Honestly, this is not the Bahrain I know and grew up in. Though I don’t condone the polarisation and extremism, I try very hard to understand where it’s coming from. I try not to judge and not to force my opinions on others.
Anyway, today’s post is about trying to understand and explain some of this polarisation and hate that we see today. And as I’ve said many times before, I don’t claim to fully know all the facts, nor to understand this crisis 100% (frankly I don’t think anyone does).
Where The Protestors’ Frustration/Anger/Hate is Coming From
There is a not insignificant Shia section of society that – rightly or wrongly – feel marginalised in our society. They feel victimised, and have been feeling like this for a long time – for generations.
They feel that they are not given their full rights as Bahraini citizens. Not only that, but they feel they are being intentionally marginalised. Also, they feel discriminated against and disrespected by the Interior Ministry. They feel their human rights are not met, and they also feel like the government is trying to dilute their numbers through the “sunnification” of the population, by giving Sunni Arabs and Asians Bahraini citizenship.
It is my belief that for a small portion of this section of society, this perception has morphed into loathing and blind rage (possibly caused/encouraged/fuelled/endorsed by outside interference). The object of this blind rage was the government and the ruling family, who they perceive as being responsible for the supposed mess they are in.
And for these people, the end justified the means. And the means included exaggerating, lying, fabricating, attacking, and doing whatever else helped their cause, and the rest of the population be damned! They wanted nothing but the total removal of the current regime, and some even wanted nothing but a Royal blood bath. But it is my contention that not all protestors wanted this, and that not all protestors were rioters. But admittedly, the lines were vague. Who can untangle that web?
The hate of the extremists spilled over into hating all those who supported the government, and did not see things from their perspective. When the recent crackdown started, they felt even more victimised and saw it as the government’s excuse to commit further alleged crimes against them. Which of course lead to more hate, and more polarisation. They just could not comprehend how someone could not see things from their perspective.
Where the pro-government Frustration/Anger/Hate Is Coming From
I think the views of most Sunnis (wallahu A’lam) can be summarised as follows; they also had some frustrations with the government, but they don’t believe in getting it through protests and blatant disrespect for the law. I think most believed that a person’s rights should be sought through the current system, and not by replacing it completely. (Arguably though, they are not suffering as much as the people in the other camp).
When they look at their Shia brethren, they see that members of their society are among the wealthiest in the country, and that they have reached the highest echelons in the government and the private sector. They wonder why they feel victimised. They also wonder why (supposedly) so many poor Shia men marry several wives and have lots of children, and then complain about their lot in life. Many Sunnis are bewildered by what they perceive as the Shia “Culture of Victimhood”.
Many Sunnis were afraid for their safety during the protests. They seethed while they saw the rioters running amuck. They hated their king and the ruling family being openly insulted like this. They could not understand the perceived duality of the protesters (peaceful yet violent).
The extreme Sunnis hated the protestors and their leaders. And that hate spilled over into hating virtually all Shias. And the fact that the Opposition leaders did not condemn the violent acts, nor try to rein them in, only made matters worse.
They perceived them as ungrateful, disloyal, Iran-loving traitors, who should be punished severely. And they hated everyone who even showed a tiny shred of support or sympathy for them. They genuinely could not understand how anyone could not see things from their perspective.
They hated the perceived arrogance of the opposition leaders, and they couldn’t wait for revenge.
And boy did they get it!
Welcome to The Mother Of All Crackdowns
You know the story, the government lost patience with the protestors/rioters. When they realised that this was more than just a peaceful request for reform, and saw Iran’s fingerprints all over the movement, they cracked down with all their might. Everyone and anyone who showed support for the protestors was a suspect. And the spate of arrests started.
Now the extreme Sunnis rejoiced. It was party time! “Take that you evil traitors!” was the theme. And that! And that! …
The conflict became personal with the rioters on one side, and security forces and the army on the other. While the protesters brazenly defied law and order, attacked people, fabricated attacks against themselves at the same time acted like victims, the government forces seethed (Remember that several of the opposition leaders have received multiple Royal pardons in the past). The protestors won the first round, but the second was won by the government forces, by knock out! Some reportedly enjoyed releasing their frustrations at road check points.
Meanwhile, the moderates cried.
Their voices were mostly unheard, and they had hoped that this could be resolved peacefully. They kept waiting for wise men to prevail. And they still wait.
Some Personal Reflections…
The other day an anti-government acquaintance told me how he was mistreated by the security personnel at a checkpoint. He said “where did all this hate and rudeness come from?” I resisted the temptation of reminding him of the “down with Al-Khalifa” placards at the Pearl roundabout, and the loathing that came from the rioters. Loathing begets loathing. It should never have, but the conflict became personal. Very personal.
My point is that crack downs by definition are brutal. Who’s ever heard of a gentle crack down? When national security is threatened, security forces are not too concerned with constitutional rights. Especially with rioters who were this cunning.
Let me give you an example. A Bahraini friend told me this story many years ago. He was walking down a street in Paris, when suddenly a police van stopped next to him. Several policemen grabbed him violently, and threw him into the van. As I recall, he was beaten and taken to the police station. Poor man was totally confused and wondering what was going on. Later he learnt that a “Moroccan looking” man was suspected of planting a bomb in a Metro Station on the street he was walking along.
Many hours later the police realised they had the wrong man, and let him go. Without a even a hint of an apology! I don’t relay this story to justify anyone’s behaviour, but I do want to point out that when national security is threatened, security forces see red. There are more examples of this in the West, most notably in the US after 9/11, where stories of constitutional/human rights abuses are plentiful.
Do Shias Have More Loyalty To Iran Than to Bahrain?
No, absolutely not! There are a few things I want to say about this. First, if you had asked me at the start of this crisis whether I thought Iran was involved I would have laughed. Today I am convinced that Iran is involved. But I’d be lying if I said I know exactly how. The prevalent theory is that Iran had some sort of long-term sinister plot in Bahrain, which they tried to bring forward when the protests happened. Also, it is said that some of the opposition leaders have very close ties to Iran and/or Hezbollah. I don’t usually believe in conspiracies, but as I mentioned in a previous blog post, I do think Iran is involved.
Having said that however, I think the vast majority of protestors did not know of the Iran involvement. And I think that few of them actually felt more loyal to Iran than to Bahrain.
As for the general Shia population, I know they have no loyalty or affinity to Iran. Besides, why would a multi-generational Arab feel any loyalty to a country who’s language he doesn’t even speak? I think it’s cruel to paint all our Shia brethren with the same, broad brush.
Why I Refuse to Hate
Look, like many others during this crisis I got angry. I was angry at the rioters for making me feel unsafe, and making me worry about my family. I was angry that my business got affected and that I make heavy losses since the crisis began. I can go on an on.
But I refuse to hate.
What’s the point? It’s in the past now, the government won and the rioters were exposed. Will me hating really add value? Let the extremists and haters hate, I will have none of it. I’d rather work on rebuilding our country.
So What’s All This Talk of Forgiveness?
I think my last couple of blog posts confused some people. So maybe some clarification is in order. Personally, not only do I not hate the protesters/rioters, I choose to forgive them.
But as I explained in my last blog post, forgiveness does not mean I condone the actions of the rioters that broke the law. Nor does it mean that they should not receive their just punishment – quite the contrary, I think they should. Justice should prevail, and the law should be applied to everyone who broke it during the crisis.
Forgiveness is about making peace within yourself, and not letting the actions of others affect you and the way you think and behave. I’d rather focus on the future, not the past.
And I humbly ask you to do the same."
Will adding more hate really help matters? What kind of country do you want our children to live in? I keep hearing from both sides how “we will never forget…”, you don’t have to forget, but you can choose to forgive and let go. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. It means moving on.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Bahrain Unite
Bahraini rappers, DJ Outlaw, The Mystro, Flipperachi and May Alqasim have joined together to produce a unity track with a single called “Bahrain Unite”.
As it says on the website, AMMARO the song aims to bring people from all over the island together. It, "doesn't matter if you're Sunni, Shiaa, Christian, Indian, Arab, English, man, woman, boy or girl, whoever you are or wherever you are from, we all make up one Bahrain."
Vocals by: Flipp, May AlQasim, Mohammed Janahi, Rashid Hanthal, Hamad AlFardan
Oud by: Ahmed AlHermi
Bass by: Yasser AlBanna
Track Arranged & Produced by: DJ Outlaw
Video Filmed & Directed by: Ammaro Productions
Additional Footage by: Fardan Raffii
Video Editing by: Elements Productions
As it says on the website, AMMARO the song aims to bring people from all over the island together. It, "doesn't matter if you're Sunni, Shiaa, Christian, Indian, Arab, English, man, woman, boy or girl, whoever you are or wherever you are from, we all make up one Bahrain."
Vocals by: Flipp, May AlQasim, Mohammed Janahi, Rashid Hanthal, Hamad AlFardan
Oud by: Ahmed AlHermi
Bass by: Yasser AlBanna
Track Arranged & Produced by: DJ Outlaw
Video Filmed & Directed by: Ammaro Productions
Additional Footage by: Fardan Raffii
Video Editing by: Elements Productions
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wadah Khafar and the Middle Eastern Change Process
Palestinian, Wadah Khanfar, the head of Al Jazeera, talks on TED about the changes currently going on in the Arab world, states his views:
Sunday, January 23, 2011
What is the Difference Between Arabs and Iranians?
Maz Jobrani is an Iranian-born, American comedian {see: MAZ JOBRANI} and forms part of the comedy group, 'Axis of Evil' {see: AXIS OF EVIL}
Jobrani's jokes focus on race, while outwardly poking fun at his own ethnic group, Iranians.
Here he explains the differences which exist between Arabs and Iranians, from his point of view:
Jobrani's jokes focus on race, while outwardly poking fun at his own ethnic group, Iranians.
Here he explains the differences which exist between Arabs and Iranians, from his point of view:
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Key Difference Between Europe and the Arab World
Syrian poet, Adonis explains from his point of view the key differences between Arab and European thinking. Posted because it's an interesting viewpoint and there appear to be very few Arab public thoughts on this subject.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Sofas? Banned for Women
Just sent to my inbox this morning ...
The latest FATWA: women are not allowed to sit on sofa because they get relaxed and they may open their legs while relaxing and this will seduce the male in the room…..
28th July - update
this was written by a woman
اخر فتاوي :الجلوس على الكرسي حرام
الى اي مستوى قد ينزل التفكير ؟؟ والى اي مستوى نصل بالدين الى حد الأضحوكة
كان الرسول الاكرم وصحابته الكرام يجلسون على المنبر
فتوى (تحريم الجلوس على الكراسي) التي أصدرتها الدَّاعية أم أنس، على موقعها الإليكتروني، بعنوان (تنبيه إلى حرمة الكراسي وما أشبهها من مقاعد وأرائك، والله أكبر) وإليكم نص الفتوى:
"إن من أخطر المفاسد التي بُليت بها أمتنا العظيمة ما يُسمَّى بالكرسي، وما يشبهه من الكنبات وخلافها، ممَّا هو شرٌّ عظيم يخرج من الملة كما يخرج السَّهم من الرَّمية . و إن السَّلف الصالح وأوائل هذه الأمَّة، وهم خير خلق الله، كانوا يجلسون على الأرض، ولم يستخدموا الكراسي، ولم يجلسوا عليها، ولو فيها خير لفعله حبيبي، وقرة قلبي، وروح فؤادي، المصطفى عليه الصلاة والسَّلام ومن تبعه بإحسان. و إن هذه الكراسي وما شابهها صناعة غربيَّة، وفي استخدامها والإعجاب بها ما يوحي بالإعجاب بصانعها وهم الغرب، وهذا، والعياذ بالله، يهدم ركناً عظيماً من الإسلام وهو الولاء والبراء، نسأل اللــــه العافية . الأمر جلل يا أمَّة الإسلام، فكيف نرضى بالغرب ونعجب بهم وهم العدو . و ما يجلبه الكرسي أو الأريكة من راحة تجعل الجَّالس يسترخي، والمرأة تفتح رجليها، وفي هذا مدعاة للفتنة والتبرُّج، فالمرأة بهذا العمل، تمكن الرَّجل من نفسها لينكحها، وقد يكون الرَّجل من الجّنّ أو الإنس، والغالب أن الجّن ينكحون النساء وهنَّ على الكراسي. وكم من مرَّة شعرت المرأة بالهيجان والشَّبق الجّنسي المحرَّم، وذلك بعد جلوسها على الكرسي. ولكَمْ من مرَّة وجدت المرأة روائح قذرة في فرجها كما خبرت وكما حدثتني بذلك بعض الصَّالحات، التائبات من الجُّلوس على الكراسي، لذلك فالجُّلوس على الكرسي رذيلة وزنا لا شبهة فيه . و الجلوس على الأرض يُذكر المسلم بخالق الأرض وهذا يزيد في التعبُّد، والتهجُّد، والإقرار بعظمته سبحانه "
The latest FATWA: women are not allowed to sit on sofa because they get relaxed and they may open their legs while relaxing and this will seduce the male in the room…..
28th July - update
this was written by a woman
اخر فتاوي :الجلوس على الكرسي حرام
الى اي مستوى قد ينزل التفكير ؟؟ والى اي مستوى نصل بالدين الى حد الأضحوكة
كان الرسول الاكرم وصحابته الكرام يجلسون على المنبر
فتوى (تحريم الجلوس على الكراسي) التي أصدرتها الدَّاعية أم أنس، على موقعها الإليكتروني، بعنوان (تنبيه إلى حرمة الكراسي وما أشبهها من مقاعد وأرائك، والله أكبر) وإليكم نص الفتوى:
"إن من أخطر المفاسد التي بُليت بها أمتنا العظيمة ما يُسمَّى بالكرسي، وما يشبهه من الكنبات وخلافها، ممَّا هو شرٌّ عظيم يخرج من الملة كما يخرج السَّهم من الرَّمية . و إن السَّلف الصالح وأوائل هذه الأمَّة، وهم خير خلق الله، كانوا يجلسون على الأرض، ولم يستخدموا الكراسي، ولم يجلسوا عليها، ولو فيها خير لفعله حبيبي، وقرة قلبي، وروح فؤادي، المصطفى عليه الصلاة والسَّلام ومن تبعه بإحسان. و إن هذه الكراسي وما شابهها صناعة غربيَّة، وفي استخدامها والإعجاب بها ما يوحي بالإعجاب بصانعها وهم الغرب، وهذا، والعياذ بالله، يهدم ركناً عظيماً من الإسلام وهو الولاء والبراء، نسأل اللــــه العافية . الأمر جلل يا أمَّة الإسلام، فكيف نرضى بالغرب ونعجب بهم وهم العدو . و ما يجلبه الكرسي أو الأريكة من راحة تجعل الجَّالس يسترخي، والمرأة تفتح رجليها، وفي هذا مدعاة للفتنة والتبرُّج، فالمرأة بهذا العمل، تمكن الرَّجل من نفسها لينكحها، وقد يكون الرَّجل من الجّنّ أو الإنس، والغالب أن الجّن ينكحون النساء وهنَّ على الكراسي. وكم من مرَّة شعرت المرأة بالهيجان والشَّبق الجّنسي المحرَّم، وذلك بعد جلوسها على الكرسي. ولكَمْ من مرَّة وجدت المرأة روائح قذرة في فرجها كما خبرت وكما حدثتني بذلك بعض الصَّالحات، التائبات من الجُّلوس على الكراسي، لذلك فالجُّلوس على الكرسي رذيلة وزنا لا شبهة فيه . و الجلوس على الأرض يُذكر المسلم بخالق الأرض وهذا يزيد في التعبُّد، والتهجُّد، والإقرار بعظمته سبحانه "
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Changes: Some Positive, Some Negative
I feel quite positive about many of the changes which are occuring in the Gulf right now.
Image taken from: http://www.islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1355&Itemid=63
Having said that, as westerners we often expect change to happen fast, although that's something that's open to interpretation. Women were banned from voting in Switzerland until 1971 (and in the area of, 'Appenzell Inner Rhoden' until 1991), whilst the last witch trial was held in England in 1944. Helen Duncan was convicted and served nine months in jail.
But I digress. If we accept changes occur in the Middle East at a Middle Eastern pace, because it is the Middle East, then things are moving very quickly indeed.
Two years ago Saudi newspapers were noticable empty of women; not a single woman would be pictured, ever. It was as if only one sex existed. Last week I counted 10 photos of women in the Friday newspaper, with one of those photos covering half a page, in full colour, with the woman's arms and head hair on display. In local terms that is F1 speed.
Some Positive
So, why all the positivity? Last week it was announced
1.
Kuwaiti women would no longer need a Mahram {see wgaw blog archive: divorce}, which leaves just Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan {see wgaw blog archive: rape} the only places in the world in which a woman is legally not allowed to leave the house without a male escort.
2.
Mixed education can now take place, up to the age of 9, in private schools in Saudi Arabia. See this article
Some Negative
However, on the negative side, the Sudanese fundie group, 'al shabab' [al sha-bab] (the boys) announced this week in addition to women being banned from wearing trousers, they could no longer wear bras. It seems they check if a bra is being worn by forcing the women to shake her breasts.
I shouldn't joke, in general sarcasm is not used or understood in the Gulf, but what article of clothing is next I wonder?
Image taken from: http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?p=376468
Image taken from: http://www.islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1355&Itemid=63
Having said that, as westerners we often expect change to happen fast, although that's something that's open to interpretation. Women were banned from voting in Switzerland until 1971 (and in the area of, 'Appenzell Inner Rhoden' until 1991), whilst the last witch trial was held in England in 1944. Helen Duncan was convicted and served nine months in jail.
But I digress. If we accept changes occur in the Middle East at a Middle Eastern pace, because it is the Middle East, then things are moving very quickly indeed.
Two years ago Saudi newspapers were noticable empty of women; not a single woman would be pictured, ever. It was as if only one sex existed. Last week I counted 10 photos of women in the Friday newspaper, with one of those photos covering half a page, in full colour, with the woman's arms and head hair on display. In local terms that is F1 speed.
Some Positive
So, why all the positivity? Last week it was announced
1.
Kuwaiti women would no longer need a Mahram {see wgaw blog archive: divorce}, which leaves just Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan {see wgaw blog archive: rape} the only places in the world in which a woman is legally not allowed to leave the house without a male escort.
2.
Mixed education can now take place, up to the age of 9, in private schools in Saudi Arabia. See this article
Some Negative
However, on the negative side, the Sudanese fundie group, 'al shabab' [al sha-bab] (the boys) announced this week in addition to women being banned from wearing trousers, they could no longer wear bras. It seems they check if a bra is being worn by forcing the women to shake her breasts.
I shouldn't joke, in general sarcasm is not used or understood in the Gulf, but what article of clothing is next I wonder?
Image taken from: http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?p=376468
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Rape
For the longest time I've beome more and more tired of the restrictions, all the superior fearfulness of people telling you, 'you shouldn't do this ...' and 'you shouldn't do that ...' Not only does it seem to clog up the news networks across the world but the blogs are full of it too.
Doesn't anyone but me get sick to the back teeth with it? Doesn't anyone but me feel a tightening of the stomach and a ringing in the head and a wish to shoot the bully who is telling me how to live my life?
So why am I thinking about it today? Because I've just read an article about legalising rape in Afghanistan. Why am I posting this particular issue on a blog which is supposed to be about the Middle East? For two reasons, many people connect these kind of laws with Muslims ~especially if they don't know the area, but do know the religion of choice in Afghanistan is Islam~ and because I'm so saddened by what I have just read.
The article is cut and pasted in its entirity, as I couldn't say it any better, from: JEZEBEL
U.S.-Backed Afghan Government Passes Pro-Rape Law To Win Election
US-backed Afghani President Hamid Karzai is poised to issue a law on women's rights that the UN Development Fund for Women has warned against and a female Parliamentarian calls "worse than during the Taliban."
The law would legalize marital rape; require women to seek their husband's permission to leave the house; additionally mean that women obtain their husband's permission to see a doctor, go to school or work; and eliminate the child custody rights of women in the event of divorce or widowhood. No, for real. This is what the government we've installed is about to do to half its citizens. Our government — which is happily handing out Viagra in tribal areas to ensure the military and intelligence cooperation of impotent warlords — is backing the President of a country who is putting into effect a new law which legislates away what few rights those warlords' wives have. I guess somebody in the embassy forgot to read Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing testimony in which she promised to elevate the status of women's rights in foregin policy.
And why do you think our puppet government is perfect happy to legislate away the hard-fought rights of half its citizens — rights, by the way, that the U.S. actually sort of fought for on their behalf? To increase Karzai's chance of winning re-election in a country that is sick of his increasingly corrupt and ineffective government. There's a reason they call the guy the Mayor of Kabul.
After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics.
Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law.
Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras.
And if that's not fun enough, check out how well the Islamic supporters of the law can parrot the talking points of American conservatives when it comes to women and "innate" differences.
But [Akbari] said the law actually protected women's rights.
"Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."
By the way, Akbari says that women can refuse sex with their husbands if they are sick or have a "reasonable" excuse — not that they could, like, prosecute that or anything — and they would totally be allowed to leave the house without permission in an emergency. There's, naturally, nothing in the law that defines a reasonable excuse or an emergency, but I'm assuming that will be for the husband or male authorities to determine.
Of course, Afghanistan's Western allies (ie., the U.S. and its allies) have been suspiciously quiet about this heinous new law, being as Karzai's people have convinced us that it's the only way he can win the election.
"It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted.
Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women's affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said western silence had been "disastrous for women's rights in Afghanistan".
"What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It's too late for that."
Some diplomats are claiming that we'll, like, totes object when the law is final.
Some female Parliamentarians are trying to see the silver lining in the big black cloud of this law, at least until their husbands rescind their permission to work. Some female politicians have taken a more pragmatic stance, saying their fight in parliament's lower house succeeded in improving the law, including raising the original proposed marriage age of girls from nine to 16 and removing completely provisions for temporary marriages.
"It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said Shukria Barakzai, an MP.
Doesn't anyone but me get sick to the back teeth with it? Doesn't anyone but me feel a tightening of the stomach and a ringing in the head and a wish to shoot the bully who is telling me how to live my life?
So why am I thinking about it today? Because I've just read an article about legalising rape in Afghanistan. Why am I posting this particular issue on a blog which is supposed to be about the Middle East? For two reasons, many people connect these kind of laws with Muslims ~especially if they don't know the area, but do know the religion of choice in Afghanistan is Islam~ and because I'm so saddened by what I have just read.
The article is cut and pasted in its entirity, as I couldn't say it any better, from: JEZEBEL
U.S.-Backed Afghan Government Passes Pro-Rape Law To Win Election
US-backed Afghani President Hamid Karzai is poised to issue a law on women's rights that the UN Development Fund for Women has warned against and a female Parliamentarian calls "worse than during the Taliban."
The law would legalize marital rape; require women to seek their husband's permission to leave the house; additionally mean that women obtain their husband's permission to see a doctor, go to school or work; and eliminate the child custody rights of women in the event of divorce or widowhood. No, for real. This is what the government we've installed is about to do to half its citizens. Our government — which is happily handing out Viagra in tribal areas to ensure the military and intelligence cooperation of impotent warlords — is backing the President of a country who is putting into effect a new law which legislates away what few rights those warlords' wives have. I guess somebody in the embassy forgot to read Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing testimony in which she promised to elevate the status of women's rights in foregin policy.
And why do you think our puppet government is perfect happy to legislate away the hard-fought rights of half its citizens — rights, by the way, that the U.S. actually sort of fought for on their behalf? To increase Karzai's chance of winning re-election in a country that is sick of his increasingly corrupt and ineffective government. There's a reason they call the guy the Mayor of Kabul.
After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics.
Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law.
Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras.
And if that's not fun enough, check out how well the Islamic supporters of the law can parrot the talking points of American conservatives when it comes to women and "innate" differences.
But [Akbari] said the law actually protected women's rights.
"Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."
By the way, Akbari says that women can refuse sex with their husbands if they are sick or have a "reasonable" excuse — not that they could, like, prosecute that or anything — and they would totally be allowed to leave the house without permission in an emergency. There's, naturally, nothing in the law that defines a reasonable excuse or an emergency, but I'm assuming that will be for the husband or male authorities to determine.
Of course, Afghanistan's Western allies (ie., the U.S. and its allies) have been suspiciously quiet about this heinous new law, being as Karzai's people have convinced us that it's the only way he can win the election.
"It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted.
Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women's affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said western silence had been "disastrous for women's rights in Afghanistan".
"What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It's too late for that."
Some diplomats are claiming that we'll, like, totes object when the law is final.
Some female Parliamentarians are trying to see the silver lining in the big black cloud of this law, at least until their husbands rescind their permission to work. Some female politicians have taken a more pragmatic stance, saying their fight in parliament's lower house succeeded in improving the law, including raising the original proposed marriage age of girls from nine to 16 and removing completely provisions for temporary marriages.
"It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said Shukria Barakzai, an MP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
