Militant secularisation - worse than militant theocracy.

There are some things you hear about that you need to do a double take with sometimes.  Take an article I read today, for example.  Lady Warsi, a British MP, has called for Christianity to be given a more central role in society and government after the latest furore over the removal of prayer sessions before council meetings.  She claims that British secularisation is "that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."

It's not strange to hear a religious conservative stand against secularisation; at the most harmless level you can take it, they believe supporting religion is standing up for core nationalist values, that religion plays a massive part in creating the identity of a culture and society.   However, the danger with allowing religion into politics and parliament is that it's supporting one particular religion over another; religious favourtisism has never been a fair system in government and usually involves other religions being at a disadvantage at large.  Using a theocratic system I am familiar with, the Brunei government favours its Muslim citizens, allowing better benefits to them over their smaller Buddhist, Christian. Hindu and atheist citizens.  Their reasoning is that Brunei is a Muslim country, built on Muslim values.  It's by no means a fair system.  And that's in a country where a non-Muslim population is at a significantly small ratio that an uprising against that unfairness would probably take many years to overcome.  In England, where religious diversity is far more, well, diverse, favouring one religion over another would light a powder keg of dispute.  In fact, not unlike the powder keg that one Guy Fawkes had attempted. 

And it's not just favouring Christianity as a whole that Lady Warsi is advocating.  She's organising a delegation to the Vatican to argue that "Europe needs to be more confident in its Christianity".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trip to the Vatican itself an advocation for Catholicism being the preferred Christian denomination?  Historically, England turned Protestant under King Henry the Eighth in protest against Roman Catholicism.  Doesn't that imply that Protestant Christianity is far more important to English heritage than that of Catholic Christianity? 

Lady Warsi says she doesn't want a theocracy but that faith should play a bigger role in politics.  In what way?  It's fine if a person wants to practice their faith in private.  The problem secularists have with religion in politics and public office is that it interferes with maintaining government neutrality and fairness.  If faith was allowed to dictate what was moral, that risks pulling the country back several decades, if not centuries.  Religion as a whole has massive disdain for hot political topics such as equal rights for homosexuals and women as well as abortion and marriage, to name but a handful.  By allowing the religious right to advocate their faith in office, the worst case scenario would be to face having to fight for rights we already have. 

In the midst of this whole debate, there is one thing that strikes me as ironic.  Lady Warsi herself is a Muslim.  I wonder how her Muslim constituents must feel about her pushing for putting Christianity over her roots in Islam.

Oh you sick bastards.

Some times you learn something new and disturbing, you wonder if it's some horrible sick joke or troll.  Maybe a piece of propaganda.  Then you research a little deeper and you start fearing for humanity that little bit more.

Now, it's not new news to learn about Muhammad and his infamous marriage to Aisha, a girl aged six.  When I was younger, I had already been fed a few lines about their marriage.  One, that she was thirteen at the time of consumation and two, that it was appropriate for the time, both in a societal and welfare context.  Since then, I obviously had both illusions shattered, especially when placed in contemporary context.  Many Muslims exonerate Muhammad for marrying Aisha at six and having sex with her at nine years old, some using it as a divine example to follow.  Many moderate Muslims don't follow that, thankfully, but a sizable number of literal extremists and perverts have taken those teachings to heart, and to my despair, to the extreme.

‘A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.’

That was quoted from Ayatollah Khomeini, a high ranking scholar of Islam, from his book ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’.  I apologise for my language and imagery, but what the bloody fuck?  There is so much wrong in that paragraph right there!  Raping babies is bad enough, but he tries to make it okay by saying it's fine if the man only sticks it up her pooper!  Where's the logic or humanity in that?  Incidentally, this did raise a flag in my head - why is it okay to sodomise a baby when two adult consensual men are put to death?  And never mind the permanent damage done to the child.  The only punishment a man receives is that he's not allowed to go on to marry that baby or her sister and has to take care of the victim for the rest of her life.  And not only that, but fathers are encouraged to allow their daughters to marry as young as possible and not taint his house with her first spot of menstrual blood so that HE gets the place in heaven. 

Why is this important now?  It's not like it's widely practiced, right? 

A recent census in Hormozgan in Iran had found there were five marriages of girls under the age of 10 in the province.  24,506 girls and 5, 519 boys have been married off whilst under fourteen years old.  This is too high a number in one province of Iran alone.  Nayereh Akhavan of the Islamic Assembly and it's Judicial Commission has basically trivialised these statistics by saying that most children have reached sexual and intellectual puberty by the age of ten, so it's okay!  And besides, it'd contradict Sharia law and paint Muhammed as fallible as a prophet.  They can't have that, so child marriages can't be banned.

The next video is of Doctor Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi Marriage Officiant.

First off, marriage is only two things apparently - the contract and the consumation.  What he is basically advocating is the marriage of children because there is no minimal age of consent - as long as the father gives his permission for his daughter to marry, it's all fine and dandy.  That'd be okay if it weren't for the fact some fathers would give up his daughters so willingly.  What I find poignant is that he doesn't give an age limit as such, but brings up that culture, environment and local laws have a lot to do with age of sexual activity.  Note I said activity, not CONSENT.  I won't go into age limits because that's a whole other kettle of fish (but maybe a topic I will touch on another day), but the bare bones of sex is that it should be between consenting, preferably properly informed people.  Personally, I don't think a thirteen year old is old enough for sex but then again, what do I know.  I wasn't ready for heavy petting, never mind sex, until I was nineteen.  But that was my own personal experience.  What's even more worrying is more the age gaps between these so called married couples, often a child and an adult man. 

The next video is brief but features a woman speaking about the topic of thighing a child, and I agree with her sentiment tremendously. 

It is sexual abuse, it is in violation of a child's rights, and it's outrageous that Sharia allows this practice to happen.  What I also love is that the guy obviously doesn't like this being laid out to him.  Power to the lady for having the cajones to speak up about this. 


(Thanks to Maryam Namazie for this)

Prevention is better than a cure

Except when what's being prevented is some real education.

I was mooching over in the news websites of my birth country and came across this little nugget. 

EFFORTS to prevent HIV/AIDS must continue even if the number of people suffering from the disease in the Sultanate is low.
This was stressed in the weekly sermon yesterday by Imams at mosques throughout Brunei.

Okay, I resist the urge to prejudge.  After all, just because this advice is coming from the religious leaders of a predominantly Muslim country, it doesn't mean that they can't offer some words of wisdom.  They do mention that making the public aware of the disease and proper medical facilities and practice should be in place to help lower instances of AIDS and HIV infection.  The sermon also mentions to people that unsafe sex was a factor in spreading the disease and anyone who thought they were at risk should be tested.

Brilliant!  What more could the sermon also tell their congregation?  Perhaps some basic level education on how to practice safe sex, or on drug use?  PAH. 

Muslims need to stop themselves and their families from committing sins such as premarital sex.
"It is our responsibility as a Muslim, a parent, a guardian, a neighbour and a friend to give advice and reprimand if we ever catch our children, family members or friends committing an action that is against the religion," the sermon stated, adding that individuals should not be ashamed to do so.
"Remember that the act of not caring is one of the factors why sinful acts such as fornication and misuse of drugs continue to happen, without realising that these factors are the causes of AIDS."

What sort of advice is this to give?  Sex outside of marriage is bad and causes AIDS?  It's against their brand of religion and thus you shouldn't do it?  What about offering real advice, like education about safe, consensual sex or about drug use and safety?  Education is not about condoning the behaviour, but keeping the individual safe from harm and yet some people are so willfully ignorant of that fact.  That last paragraph also had a nice little bit of blame laced through it.  If a friend or family member is aware of someone close to them being "immoral", then they are as much to blame if they fail to warn them of the folly of their ways. 

Parents are told to be clever yet firm in handling their children in this matter, but how are the parents supposed to do this with so little information themselves?  They aren't taught anything about safe sex, or about birth control or condoms or the dangers of things like sharing needles.  Most of these parents only have their Imams and scriptures to go back on for advice, which are woefully lacking in facts.  Some children might be lucky enough to have enlightened parents who might be able to offer advice that the rest of us take for granted, but I'm not so optimistic about that.  Instead, abstinence is taught, but that in itself doesn't work.  Just because you're a Muslim who follows doctrine doesn't mean you're going to be able to shut down your sexual urges until your wedding night.  I mean, bloody hell, but I have known some pretty damned horny Bruneians, not just of my generation but of the older generation as well! 

Brunei always prided itself on being modern yet upholding traditions, on being leaders in the Second World when it comes to development and society.  But news like this makes me shake my head and remember that the country's population still has a ways to go.

But you know, let's not end on a downer.  Happy New Year, everyone!

I was expecting to burn since I was little anyway...

The speaker for bigotted British Muslims has reared his head for his pre-Christmas hate speech again this year.  Anjem Choudary is telling Muslims that celebrating Christmas is a pathway to Hell and calls for his fellow bigots to boycott Christmas.

'In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in Western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas,' he raged in a sermon broadcast on the internet. 

Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.  Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.  Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.  How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?  The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.  Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. 

Protect your Paradise from being taken away - protect yourself and your family from Christmas.'

I wish this guy would shut his trap; it's guys like this who ruin it for others, especially the Muslims who do enjoy this season.  This year, my family's been quite lucky that my mother hasn't descended into her annual tradition of guilt-ridden rants of banning Christmas in our house.  Our tree's up, presents wrapped, Christmas table's been set and we intend to celebrate Christmas as we do every year - with as little religion as possible, because we are gathered together as a family. 

And if celebrating being a family is going to land us in Hell, I will gladly be first in line to face Satan down myself. 

(Nod to Maryam Namazie; sourced from The Citizens Report and The Daily Mail)

Taking the piss (literally)

Some good news for the lovers of water sports in the Islamic world! 

Scientific proof that men's pee is purer than women's pee!  Never mind that the study was presided over by a professor who is commisioned to make scientific sense of his scripture of choice.  Or that biologically, it is easier to collect urine samples free from fecal contamination from boys than it is from girls.

An interesting fact about E.Coli is that not all of it is harmful to health.  In fact, it's present in our bodies almost all our lives and can even produce vitamin K, as well preventing the establishment of pathogenic bacteria in our intestines.  Don't know how that ruins your hypothesis, professors, but I think you need to work a bit harder still to sell your religious science.

(Nearly forgot to credit Maryam Namazie)

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

Sharia Law isn't special or unique, no matter how you dress it.

Well, it's been a while since my last post.  I was going to post up another Curious Reading since I've found where I hid my booklets by Dr Naik, but something else has set my blood pressure going (which, given its poor state anyway, is probably a good thing in the long run). 

BRUNEI Darussalam will soon see the creation of a unique hybrid legal system where Islamic laws are integrated into existing civil legislation, making them Syariah-compliant.

In a country that already runs on traditional religious grounds, this only convinces me that rather than sell itself as a modern, fair nation, it's taking five steps back into the Dark Ages.  A senior council member commented that instead of having a seperate law for Muslims and non-Muslims, the two systems will be integrated into one Penal Code, to comply with Sharia law for offences punishable under the Quran.  According to the text, there are six areas of punishable crimes - Theft and Robbery (for some reason, they are separate sections), Illicit Sexual Relations, Unproven Accusations of Illicit Sexual Relations, Drinking Intoxicants and Apostasy. 

From what I am able to recall, these rules aren't anything new for the country.  Corporal punishment is in effect in Brunei and as a child, I remember seeing PSAs on television regarding the punishments a person faces for performing illegal acts (mostly to do with drug trafficking).  I do remember that unrelated, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone together in public or private and there have been reports of couples being arrested for such "crimes" (and being cousins doesn't exempt you from this, by the way).  Drinking was always forbidden for Muslims and given the society out there, I don't blame anyone raised in an Islamic household for not coming out if they stopped believing in Allah. 

There have been complaints to this new system of laws, over the "draconian punishments" prescribed under Hudud (restrictions and punishments for serious crimes), such as amputation of hands for theft and flogging for adultery.  In defence, Zuraini Haji Sharbawi, a senior counsel, points out that the burden of proof under Hudud is "very, very difficult".  An example -

For someone to be punished for sex with a minor, there must be at least four witnesses to fulfil the burden of proof.

Who does this protect, really?  The minor or the offender?  This can only be an advantage to the predator in this situation; where is the victim going to find four witnesses to their abuse?   When sex outside of marriage has such a taboo in their society, who is even going to believe them when they try to report their abuse?  In fact, even if they are brave enough to report their sexual abuse, if they are unable to prove that an adult has had sex with them through witnesses, the victim themselves will be punished for unproven accusations of illicit sexual relations.  Sure, some can claim that this law prevents innocent people from being accused of being sexual predators, but this protects the abusers more than saves the innocent accused.  And even outside of the whole paedophilia net, unmarried couples aren't allowed to "fornicate" either.  And affairs are punishable by flogging.  How is this considered right by any means?  Suppressing people's sexual desires doesn't make them any more or less moral than anyone who sleeps around as long as no one is hurt. 

In addition to this reformation, there will be a review panel to decide if every case should be brought to the Hudud court, or the Takzir court (civil offences with no punishment under Hudud).  Forgive my cynicism here, but if the people employed on the panel are supporters of such a system, who support a moral code based on a scripture as opposed to a society's opinions, I don't hold a lot of hope for anyone who is unlucky enough to be caught drinking, not believing in Allah or for having sex out of marriage and wedlock. 

This system has been cited as unique and special to Brunei, but I fail to see how this is anything more than a redressing of Sharia Law.  At the end of the day, they are still using religion to punish people and I don't see how this will result in a fair and just judicial system.

Curious Reading: Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, Part 2

And here we go with the second installment of my ripping through Dr Naik's booklet "Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam".  So without further ado, let's get to it!

Chapter 3. Hijab for Women

Here we go into another tricky topic for those with an interest in Islam and Women's Rights.  Doctor Naik begins the chapter by pointing out how ancient civilisations of the past have degraded their women, citing Babylon, Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilisations.  He uses Pandora as an example for Greek civilisation's degradation of women, for being the root cause of misfortune to human beings world wide. Please tell me I'm not the only one who felt like laughing at the irony that he used a myth as an example?  Not only that, but he himself calls her an 'imaginary woman'.  But I digress.  He also mentions in all these civilisations, sexual perversion and prostitution is rife, with women at the bottom tier of all societies.  Even in Pre-Islamic Arabia, he says that Arabs looked down on women.  (No change there, really).

So, what of his argument for the hijab?  Well, first he extols Islam as giving women equality and expects them to maintain status.  He hastens to add that men also have hijabs.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." (Al-Qur'an an 24:30)

So, a man's hijab is merely to look away if he starts thinking 'brazen or unashamed thoughts' about a woman he's looking at.  But if that's the case, then any honest man will end up walking into walls or lamposts more often.  Let's face it, men are no strangers to sexual thoughts, just like women.  And what of women?

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appeart thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons..." (Al Qur'an an 24:31)

Doesn't that seem a little one sided to anyone?  A man has to look away, but a woman has to cover up?  I have nothing against modesty - I think every woman has her day where she doesn't want to slap up but really, is full body coverage necessary?

So, Doctor Naik, what are the criterion for hijab?  Well, first off, he very briefly lays out the obligatory dress code for men, namely 'to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees'. For women, 'the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and hands upto the wrist.  If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body'.  All right...still not helping on the one-sidedness there. And there's more as well, although this time it applies to both genders.

• The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
• The clothes worn should not be transparent such that someone can see through them.
• The clothes worn should not be so glamourous as to attract the opposite sex.
• The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
• The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers' religions.

Quite the dress code there.  Pass me that potato sack, Doctor Naik, I'm feeling decidedly exposed now compared to that list.

Oh wait, fuck that!

There is nothing wrong with the human body that it requires a complete camoflage like that.  As for resembling the opposite sex, that's a point against encouraging transexuals or effeminate or butch dressers in their community as well.  And we all know that sexual attraction ranks lowest when we view the opposite sex, obviously!  That's why we don't have to even look at them or be interesting to look at; how dare we?  Actually, that's something I don't get - the suggested covering for men is only from the belly button to the knees, and yet you can't attract the opposite sex with the way you dress.  Don't they think a woman would catch a big eyeful if guys went along with that, or is that too immodest for the woman as well? (Oh wait, of course it is.  We're not supposed to be sexually aware).

But the hijab isn't all about how you dress.  It's about how you act as well.  Everything should be modest, from how we walk, talk, behave.  Bland, dull and homogenous.  I don't know if it occured to Dr Naik and others like him, but we're humans, not sheep.  We possess a thing called individuality.  Personality.  Some of us will be louder than others, more confident.  This enforced dress code is simply a way to drain independant thought from people, not just women.  And when you take that away from people, then they are far easier to preach to with no argument.

But that's not all.  The other reason for hijab for women - their own protection!  The hijab is supposed to be a billboard for men; that the woman is of the modest sort and it will put them off raping her.  There's also a situational example provided - the Example of Twin Sisters.

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street.  One of them is attired in the Islamic hijab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists.  The other sister is wearing western clothes or a mini skirt.  Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl.  Whom will he tease?  The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the mini skirt?  Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the mini skirt.  Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation.  The Qur'an rightly says that hijab prevents women from being molested.

Hmm, now, I'm not a criminal psychologist, but won't a rapist firstly focus on assaulting a woman walking by on her own?  Not with her sister or friends or whatever?  They don't particularly want to be caught, after all.  It won't matter if that woman was modestly dressed - if a man already has it in his head he wants to rape a woman, he will do it, hijab or not.  And is it me, or does the whole dress thing also smack heavily of "blame the victim"?  I'll be frank, I once thought like that.  That if you dress like a whore, expect to be treated like one.  However, I had since looked in the mirror.  I have walked out the door in shorts or mini skirts before.  It's not me inviting men, indirectly or otherwise, to molest me.  Oh, and incidentally, the men who do see me dressed like that don't instantly decide to attack me.  Oh no, don't tell me, it must be that those men ARE NOT MINDLESS FUCKING ANIMALS!  They are free to appreciate a woman's beauty, but it's not as if they're going to instantly want to rape them!  Leave that to the ruffians, hooligans and people whom other men would not want representing their gender. 

The argument Dr Naik presents about Western society's false claim of women's liberation being a disguised form of exploitation then becomes laughable.  We are not degraded in body, soul and honour.  Having pride in our appearance is not degrading, and our souls are not any more tarnished for it.  We are not "mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers". 

The closing sentiment in this chapter is the kicker as well.  After his talk of the hijab preserving a woman's modesty, he brings out statistics on rape cases in America, which leads onto, wait for it....

Implementation of Islamic Sharia law!

You KNEW that was coming.

But wait!  It makes PERFECT sense.  Sharia law implements capital punishment for rapists, so that should be reason enough.  What husband doesn't want to punish a man who rapes his wife?  What father wouldn't want to kill the man who would hurt his little girl?  But hang on a sec.  Isn't this Sharia Law the same one that demands that a woman brings four male witnesses OF THE RAPE IN ACTION to prove it!?  Isn't this the same law that decrees that a married woman cannot be raped because sex is part of her duties as a wife, no questions asked?  Isn't this the same law that punishes raped women who cannot find witnesses to their rapes, executing them and labelling them adulterers? 

Umm, excuse me Dr Naik, but keep your Sharia Law.  I much prefer living in secular Britain, where religion has no place in politics and law, where a woman isn't blamed for her sexual assault, where a woman's testimony is enough to start an investigation and where she is not at risk of being executed for being a liar. 

Curious Reading: Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, Part 1

I have recently bought myself some booklets off eBay about Islam, produced by the Islamic Dawah Centre International (I.D.C.I), thinking they should be an interesting read.  And interesting they are.  The first one I opened up is titled Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, written by Dr Zakir Naik.  I did a little background research on him, and let's just say he's not very well liked in Muslim circles either.  So, this already picqued my curiosity on what he has to say...

Chapter 1.  Polygamy

And we hurtle headlong into one of my favourite topics in Islam.  And wow, does it get the blood boiling.  Here, Dr Naik attempts to justify polygyny (a man taking on multiple wives), firstly by pointing out that the Qur'an is the only holy text that encourages men to "marry only one", quoting this verse

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." (Al-Qur'an an 4:3)

 The clause there is that you should deal justly with all of them, but how many men can say they can?  Ah, there's a verse for that as well.

"You are never able to be fair and just as between women..." (Al- Qur'an an 4:129)

He goes on to say therefore that polygyny isn't a rule, but an exception.  It's permissible in Islam, but not compulsory.  But then why is is even mentioned in the first place?  Well, Dr Naik says that it isn't PRACTICAL for a man to only have one wife.  The ratio of men to women in the world leans too greatly to the women, therefore, there's not enough potential husbands out there for these women.  And the alternative for these women, living as unmarried spinsters, isn't even an option for him.

"Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in the USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in the USA.  The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes 'public property'.  There is no other option.  All those who are modest will opt for the first."  (Emphasis mine)

 "Most women would not like to share their husband with other women.  But in Islam when the situation deems it necessary Muslim women endued with faith could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim sisters becoming 'public properties'."

 Public property!?  Women are not objects to be shared around the community and yet unless she's married, she's fair game?  And I love the cheek of the second paragraph.  It's down to the already married woman to show grace and allow her husband to take a second wife so that her 'sister' doesn't end up living the shameful life of being public property.  So by not allowing her husband to commit polygamy, it's the wife who's at fault.  Nice one.  After all, it's the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

Chapter 2. Polyandry

And what of the other side of the coin?  Why is polygyny allowed, but not polyandry (woman taking on multiple husbands)?  Here's what he says

"Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation of an Islamic society is justice and equality.  Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different capabilities and different responsibilities.  Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically.  Their roles and responsibilities are different.  Men and women are equal in Islam, but not identical."

Here we go, straight into the roundabout nature of gender roles.  So, what reasons does he give?

1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified.  In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father.

This was his longest reason, going on to say how psychologically damaging it is for a child to not know their parents and that if a woman with more than one husband had to enrol her child into school, she would have to endure the shame of submitting two names for the child.  He does admit DNA tests nowadays can remove that confusion, citing "this point was applicable for the past may not be applocable for the present".  No shit.  Besides, there are plenty of children in the world who don't know their parents.  It's not nice, but they don't all instantly become psychologically damaged - it's down to how they are raised with the guardians they do have.  Hell, my youngest niece barely knows what her father looks like and she's the brightest, smartest and most well adjusted child I know.  And that's because she has a wonderful mother to raise her.

2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.

What?  Wow, so by nature, a man wants more sex than a woman?  That's why he's allowed more than one wife?  So, what of the women out there who do have multiple partners?  I suppose they're the exception to the rule, or are they 'public property'?

3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives.  A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife.  A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioural changes due to different phases of the menstural cycle.

And he tries delving into science for this one.  So, a man is completely capable of sleeping with more women, but a woman can't possibly sleep with more than one man?  Because she's biologically incapable to do so?  Oh, and lastly...

4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex.  This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

I don't know how to break it to you, "Doctor" Naik, but STIs don't work like that.  All it takes is for one of either gender to have an infection for all of them to catch it through sex.  It doesn't matter if it's one wife between a couple of husbands or one husband between a couple of wives and none of them sleep with someone outside of the marriage.

And just in case those reasons don't leave you scratching your head, this chapter's closing statement is this.

The above reasons are those that one can easily identify.  There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited polyandry.

These reasons all scream extreme bullshit to me.  Although he tries to paint polygamy as inherrently good for women, he has done nothing but insult both women AND men in his reasonings.  Men are promiscuous, so having multiple partners is a good thing for him.  It's like saying men are inherrently violent, so we should allow them to beat the crap out of other people.  And women are not honourable unless they marry, even if it mean marrying a man who is already married, or else she becomes 'public property' and lives an unprotected and undignified life.  Well, excuse me Dr Naik, but I am my own woman.  I am not public property and by implying I am such is incredibly insulting and frankly, false.

There are many problems associated with polygamy, whichever gender follows it.  I find it very difficult to understand why someone would attempt to defend it, especially when they argue on behalf of one gender and not the other.  It just screams of entitlement and in this case, male supremacy.  Which, to be honest, Zakir Naik is a massive fan of. 

I'll stop the post here for now.  There're more chapters of this booklet which I will tear through in a later blog post, just so I don't overload this one.

News from the Motherland

Those close to me know that I wasn't English-born; I in fact hail from the exotic sounding (and sometimes difficult to spell correctly) land of Brunei Darussalam, a tiny little speck of a country nestling on the equator over in Asia.  Although its population is diverse, it is mostly made of of Muslim natives and thus a lot of the laws and ways of life is influenced as such, with religious ministers sitting in government and the Sultan of Brunei being the figurehead of religious piety for the country.

Why am I telling you this?  Well, I point you to an old post of mine talking about Zamzam water, the "holy" water from Mecca that Muslims are inadvertantly killing themselves with.  And now, I point you to this article from the old country, particularly the following quote.

The other book, 'Air Zamzam: Untuk Apa Ia Diminum' (Leila's Translation - Zamzam Water: Why do we drink it?) , which is divided into three sub-topics, details the significance of drinking 'Zamzam' water and explains how the water could be used as a medical cure for illnesses.

Now, since learning that the water is contaminated with all kinds of "tasty" barteria and high levels of arsenic, I fail to see how it can be used to cure illness, short of killing the drinkers themselves. 

I am curious to read what he has to say, I'll have to admit.  I may get my mum to pick me up a copy whilst she's out there visiting family.  And given the exchange rate, £2.50 is a bargain for a paperback book. 

Musical Monday (a day late) - Strange choice this time,

It's been a couple of months since I did a Musical Monday post, mostly because I am admittedly a lazy wench, and partially because I couldn't decide on a song to post up.  However, on Sunday, a pang of reminiscence caught me out of the blue and I went searching for a melody that always haunted me in my childhood.

Haunting is the best way to describe this song.  Song is probably not quite the word to use either.  I am referring to the Azaan, or the Islamic call to prayer.  Like I said, odd choice.  Whilst I hold no particular reverence for the religion behind the call to prayer, nor did I ever enjoy the ritual itself, I did always enjoy the sound of it.  I guess it's the talent of the imam to make it sound just so. 

That's something I wondered about religious music.  As humans, we are attracted to certain melodies, chords, rhythms and sounds, so it wouldn't be any wonder why religion would use music as a way to attract followers as well and bring together the communities.  In this case, the Azaan is calling the community to pray together.  I remember the evening calls in particular, mostly because it would just start to turn dark, so the sky would be a heavy mix of pink and purple with dark and white clouds, the air would be cooling down but still carry that hint of humidity and I would have just finished my homework, dangling my feet over my grandparents' balcony as I ate or drank something sweet.  I suppose, ironically, those moments were when I cared least for the call of religious obedience and just revelled in my childhood freedom. 

There's definitely something in the water

And it most certainly isn't healthy.

The Zamzam well in Mecca is considered holy to Muslims as being magically sprung when Abraham's son Ishmael kicked the ground when he was particularly parched to tears and Allah created the spring for the little mite to drink (no thanks then to his poor mother who ran from mountain to mountain to find her son a drink in the desert). 

I hope little Ishmael didn't drink too much of that water though because it would seem Allah had the last laugh on him.  Scientists have managed to get a pilgrim to Mecca to bring them a sample of Zamzam water to test.  What they found was high levels of arsenic in the water; three times over the maximum limit considered for safe drinking, not to mention high levels of nitrates and bacteria. 

Tasty.

I had the dubious pleasure of drinking the water a couple of times.  I remember my mother coming home with the little terracotta bottles, presents from relatives who could afford to go to Mecca on Hajj, and pouring me a glass of the stuff.  I can't say it was particularly refreshing, and thinking back, I do remember it tasting...different to the water I was used to grabbing from the tap in the kitchen.  Now I know why.  Nothing like a nice glass of diluted arsenic to get the tastebuds tingling. 

All joking aside, it is worrying that people are clamouring to drink this poison so willingly, just because they think it came from a sacred well.  And that it's being supplied in the UK (how they manage it, I don't know - export of Zamzam water is illegal).  But it's there on the shelves in London, in Islamic books shops, being sold to people who by all accounts are drinking it regularly.

"They depend on it, they don't drink anything else," said the owner of an Islamic bookshop in Upton Park.

Those people are killing themselves, pure and simple.  It's not the first time either that Zamzam water had caught attention.  In 2005, the Food Standards Agency did encounter the fake(?) bottles of water in London and they had high levels of arsenic back then too.  You'd think by now the people drinking it would figure out it wasn't healthy for them.  Heck, the fact that Saudi Arabia have made it illegal to export the water comercially would make them think twice about buying the stuff from the shelves anyway. And with this damning evidence, one would hope that the authorities in Mecca would put a stopper in the well, too.  But, given that the pilgrims don't want to believe their precious holy water might be killing them, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Dancing on graves

As you will have no doubt heard, one of the most high profile criminals in the world has been killed in Pakistan.  Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda and the man behind the deaths of hundreds of innocents, was shot dead in his compound during a US raid on his home.  When I first heard the news yesterday morning before work, I felt some grim satisfaction about it.  The world can heal a little bit more now that there is one less madman killing in the name of some ill-placed ideal and expert manipulation.  However, as the news broke through the day as I was listening to the radio, I felt a different grim sickness in my stomach.

Yes, Osama bin Laden was a vile, evil man with no compassion for fellow human beings.  Yes, he killed without hesitation.  Yes, he made many many lives miserable.  But is his death really a cause for celebration?  A lot of people, most of them being American, seem to think so.  The raucous cheers of joy from the streets of New York and the noise of jubilation was something akin to a street party.  Is it really right that we celebrate the death of another human being?  People have been saying that justice has been done, but wouldn't a better practice of civilised justice be to bring him to trial in a court of law, to judge him in front of millions and hold him accountable for his crimes?  It was good enough for Saddam Hussein, why isn't it good enough for Osama bin Laden?  A lot of people seem to believe that making him stand in court would be too humane, but wouldn't it be a better example to him?  Why should we stoop to his level and regress to barbarians?  We should be better than that. We are better than that.

I have said this a lot to people in the past 24+ hours, but it still holds true to me - death should never be celebrated.  Death should never be "right".  Sometimes necessary, but never right. 

Not my turn yet.

So, I hear that from the 20th of March until the 26th, it'll be 'A' Week. As the website states:

'A' Week is not about being disrespectful to religion or people who have religious views, it’s about quietly showing that there are more people than may be realised who are ‘Good without God’ and who don’t need religion to influence their lives. 

It's kinda encouraging, really.  But as much as I would like to join the ranks in this movement, the time is not right for me just yet to come out.  One friend knows, and I suspect more have their suspicions, but no point in me coming out as agnostic/atheist yet.  Why?  Simply, because I don't think my otherwise traditional Muslim family know.  I wouldn't say they're fundamentalist in their thinking and practice, but I don't think they'd take too kindly to one of their own blood coming out as a heathen.  Especially my mother, who as of late has been rather morbid and developed a very skewed and hypocritical religious viewpoint.  No, once I move out of the family nest, and by the cultural rules am thus my own woman, I can come out a bit more freely.  Although I will say that if everyone in my family is surprised then (extended family and immediate family included), I would be shocked and maybe even a little bit appalled at their apparent short-sightedness.  After all, I haven't been a model Muslim woman since I was born, so why would it be any surprise if I told them I thought it was bull?

So yeah, to those of you who are out, or are planning on coming out very soon, well done.  Whilst I may not be waving my flag on Facebook, I will at least do so here.  Heck, I doubt anyone I know reads this anyway, so it's not like I'm burning my own boat down or anything.