Worldly Muslimah

Video of Egyptian Red Jacket Woman Protester

2011-12-24T01:46:00.010-05:00

Identity of the Red Jacket Revealed

News reporters have identified and tracked down the Egyptian woman in the red hooded jacket, who heroically stepped in when she saw the Egyptian soldiers attacking the blue bra Egyptian protester.

She is Azza Suleiman. She is a 48-year old woman, and a daughter of an Egyptian general (her father has passed on). She was interviewed by Arab journalists, who passed the information on to CNN. But CNN was, at first, unable to interview her themselves because by the time they showed up, her condition had worsened. She was seen by CNN reporters to be in great pain.

The wounds that she sustained in the beating was shown (and taped by) to the Arab journalists - pretty serious looking. Azza had taken some severe hits to her head!

The next day, CNN was able to interview Azza. Check out what Azza has to say about her treatment at the hands of the Egyptian military, and what she (as a daughter of a general in the military) has to say in the second video.

Azza Suleiman

CNN First Video Report on the Egyptian Woman
in Red Hooded Jacket

CNN Second Video: Egyptian woman beaten
by police speaks out

Thank God she survived. I wish her a speedy recovery!

Blue Bra Egyptian Protester and the Heroine Red Hooded Jacket Woman

2011-12-18T13:59:00.010-05:00

Woman in Red Hooded Jacket Stands Up To Egyptian Soldiers Brutally Beating an Unarmed Woman, and Gets Beaten Herself!

The Internet is all ablaze with the image of an Egyptian female protester (wearing a hijab) being beaten brutally by the Egyptian military with batons, and kicked and dragged, until her hijab and top came off, exposing her mid-riff and the blue bra.

This image symbolized the brutality of the December 17 2011 crackdown by the Egyptian military on the unarmed protesters.

A video of the above incident (see below), as well as other horrifying scenes of Egyptian soldiers running after and firing gunshots into the fleeing unarmed crowd, and burning the tents in Tahrir Square, has been circulating on the Internet.

More Shocking Details Revealed in the Video of the Dec 17 Protest:
Heroine Red Hooded Jacket Woman Stands Up To Egyptian Military and Gets Hit in the Head

But a careful review of this video show other disturbing scenes of military brutality. It also reveals a brave act from an ordinary Egyptian woman who dared to stand up to the brutal attack on the unarmed woman that she witnessed. And she did it at her own personal risk, and suffered for it too. We highlight this incident (taken from the video), in case people have missed out on seeing it. This woman (seen in a red hooded jacket and black pants) deserve accolades for her brave act.

1) We see at 0.39 sec of the video (right hand side) a man dressed in a white long-sleeved shirt and a woman in a red hooded jacket, along with a young girl in long jalabiya and hijab walking past the scene where the Egyptian soldiers are attacking the blue bra woman protester with batons. They turn their heads to the scene of the attack.

2) At 0.49 the woman in the red hooded jacket stop in her tracks and looks to where the woman protester is being attacked while the man in the white shirt appears to gesture her to move along. He then grabs her hand and pulls her away. Meanwhile, a soldier waves his baton threateningly at the two of them, and the man in the white shirt indicates through hand gestures that they were walking away.

3) At 1.23 we see the same woman in the red hooded jacket appear back in the video. She is seen appealing to the Egyptian soldiers to stop attacking the woman on the ground. Video shifts away from this scene.

4) At 1.44, we see the advancing Egyptian military. One of the soldiers knock over the woman in the red hooded jacket, and she falls over the feet of the blue bra woman. The man in white shirt is also knocked down. Both are beaten brutally with the batons. The red hooded jacket woman is kicked in her head many times. And then soldiers hit her the head with the baton. She then becomes motionless. The man in white is similarly kicked and hit in the head with batons. At 2.10 the video shifts to another scene.

5) At 2.37, the video goes back the the scene. We now see the red hooded jacket woman and the white-shirted man lying motionless on the ground. The blue bra protester is not there. Soldiers are seen lifting the woman, and dropping her back to the ground. The video ends here.

This is a highly distressing scene. It is unknown if the woman in the red jacket survived the attacks. Is she dead or alive?

However, one thing is certain. This woman is a heroine!

She could have walked away from the scene fearing for her personal safety, as undoubtedly many others did. And in fact, her husband (or companion) in the whitehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif shirt did gesture and pull her away from the scene.

But she was concerned enough to go back to the scene, and stand up to the soldiers attacking the unarmed girl.

The result is that she herself (and the white shirted man) was attacked senselessly.

This red hooded jacket woman is a symbol of all the brave Egyptian women out there. A true Egyptian heroine.

UPDATE(Dec. 24, 2011): The woman has been identified as Azza Suleiman, and she has survived the brutal attacks. She is still in hospital recovering from two serious fractures to her skull.

The Thanksgiving Day Phenomenon

2011-11-23T23:24:00.011-05:00

Is Thanksgiving Day a World Holiday?

It is that time of the year again in the US - the annual Thanksgiving long weekend. Thanksgiving in the US falls on the fourth Thursday in November, and is a federal holiday. Friday is effectively a holiday too for most people (most definitely a holiday for schools and universities). So it's four blissful days of hanging out with the family and friends, eating too much, and shopping (the bargain on Black Friday is hard to resist). So it's a pretty big deal in the US, if only, by virtue of those four days of rest from one's daily life.

But I am greatly nonplussed at how big it has become in other countries! Upon logging into my Facebook account, no less than five Singaporeans (at 9 am Singapore time) had already wished their friends happy thanksgiving and giving thanks for this and that in their lives.

What??

People living in Singapore in the 80s and 90s were amply exposed to Thanksgiving through the media. I still remember all those American holiday movies that would be screened on Channel 5 in November and December (I always looked forward to those because of the winter scenes). And yeah, traditional American thanksgiving (along with the huge turkey) celebrations were often featured on many of these movies. But I do not recall any of us Singaporeans actually celebrating this holiday, as the Americans did. I never once wished my fellow Singaporean a Happy Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday on November! Well, not until I came to live in US at least.

So where is this coming from? Globalization of culture?

This McDonaldization of culture is a bit sad.

How many Singaporeans actually know of the origins of Thanksgiving? That it is essentially a harvest festival? Are they aware that Thanksgiving is also celebrated in Canada (second Monday of October) and in some places in Europe?

Interestingly, there are harvest festivals that are celebrated in Singapore itself - such as Onam and Pongal (by some ethnic groups within the South Indian community) that most Singaporeans are clueless about.

Now isn't that a shame?

Vegetarian Thanksgiving Dinner

2011-11-23T23:00:00.005-05:00

A Vegetarian Thanksgiving Dinner

When in Rome do as the Romans do. So I will be celebrating Thanksgiving, along with 300 million of Americans. Only my household will be one of the minority who will not be partaking of the traditional turkey Thanksgiving dinner. Instead, we will be having a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner.

What's on the menu:

Soy-based turkey and gravy
Wild rice with mushrooms and sage
Spiced cranberry sauce
Spiced sweet potatoes
Mashed potatoes
Green Beans with Almonds and Thyme
Brussels Sprouts
Baked winter squash
Green apple pecan salad
Pumpkin pie

Happy Thanksgiving

This Thanksgiving, Bob Marley says it all for me!

Thank you Lord!

Thank you, Lord, for what you've done for me.
Thank you, Lord, for what you're doing now.
Thank you, Lord, for ev'ry little thing.
Thank you, Lord, for you made me sing.

Say I'm in no competition,
But I made my decision.
You can keep your opinion.
I'm just calling on the wise man's communion.

Thank you, Lord, for what you've done for me.
Thank you, Lord, for what you're doing now.
Thank you, Lord, for ev'ry little thing.
Thank you, Lord, for you made me sing.

Sing along, sing along.

I don't fear their humiliation,
Just to prove my determination.
I don't yield to temptation,
I haven't learn't my lesson in Revelation.

Thank you, Lord, for what you've done for me.
Thank you, Lord, for what you're doing now.
Thank you, Lord, for ev'ry little thing.
Thank you, Lord, for you made me sing.

Sing along, sing along.

Say I'm in no competition
But I made my decision,
Lord, in my simple way.
Comin', comin', comin', comin'.
I love to pray.

Thank you, Lord, for what you've done for me.
Thank you, Lord, for what you're doing now.
Thank you, Lord, for ev'ry little thing.

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/b/bobmarleylyrics/thankyoulordlyrics.html

Freedom of Expression Vs. Hate Speech

2011-11-21T18:36:00.061-05:00

Some Quick Thoughts on the Fast-Moving Story:
Police Investigations on Complaints of Sedition Act Violations in Singapore 2011

It has been approximately 5-6 days since my last post on the Jason Neo incident, where his captioned photograph of young Singaporean Muslim children (Jason Neo's caption read: Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?) was brought to public light. A bigger furor has since arisen, both amongst proponents of hate speech legislation and proponents of freedom of expression. This recent development has interesting implications; not only for spotlighting race relations in Singapore, but also for how conceptions of freedom of expression will likely evolve in Singapore, as a result of this online fracas.

On Nov 18, 2011, it was reported that a full-time National Service man (i.e. a Singaporean male serving his mandatory army service), Christian Eliab Ratnam, was under investigation by the police for making allegedly strong anti-Islamic statements on his Facebook. It was reported that an online reader lodged a complaint against Ratnam for violating the Sedition Act. A screen-shot of Ratnam's Facebook page has been circulating on the Internet. I re-reproduce it below so that readers can see for themselves what actually prompted the reader to lodge a complaint against Ratnam.

Christian Eliab Ratnam Facebook Page

On Nov. 21, it was reported that a blogger, Donaldson Tan (picture, left), was being investigated for re-posting an image where a pig was superimposed on the Kaabah in Mecca. Someone with access to Donaldson's Facebook page, took a screen shot and reported him to the police for violating the Sedition Act.

Why was the reader upset enough to report him to the police? It could be for two reasons (I am speculating here): (1) insulting Muslims by degrading the Kaabah, a holy site in Islam (2) Tan's subsequent comments when urged to delete the image (see the screen shot image below).

Why is the Kaabah sacred to Muslims? Well, according to the Quran, the Kaabah was built by Prophet Abraham and his son Ismail. During the pre-Islamic times, the polytheistic Arabs worshiped idols that were housed in the Kaabah. When Prophet Muhammad re-entered Mecca (he forced to leave Mecca in previous years due to threats on his life), one of the first things he did was destroy the idols in the Kaabah as a re-affirmation of monotheistic belief. Today, all Muslims around the world face the Kaabah during their five daily prayers. The pig is considered a filthy animal by Muslims, and the Quran forbids Muslims from eating its flesh (as an aside, Jews also do not eat pork as according to their religious teachings).

Donaldson Tan Facebook Page

So basically, in a span of a week, we've had three police reports made against individuals for alleged racist (or hate speech).

In the first instance, the offender, Jason Neo, was found to be a YPAP member. The ruling party was quick to act. Members of the government were pictured visiting and touring the Huda Kindergarten (whose students had been likened to future terrorists by Jason Neo). Neo resigned from the party and issued a written apology to the owner of the kindergarten.

The PAP's quick move of sending its Chairman of the Young PAP, Teo Ser Luck, who is also the Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and its vice-chairman, Zaqy Mohamad, who is also a Member of Parliament, undoubtedly, sends a signal to Singapore Muslims that their concerns will not be taken lightly.

YP chairman Teo Ser Luck (centre)
and vice-chairman Zaqy Mohamad (right)
shaking hands with Huda Kindergarten principal and owner
Syed Abdul Rahman Al Tahir during a visit to the school

Contrast it with the response from pro-democracy opposition groups, such as the National Solidarity Party, which advocated a different form of response to the Jason Neo incident: "The correct response therefore is not to censor individuals but to censure them when they speak irresponsibly". Presumably, according to NSP, societal censuring (read: reprimanding) was enough, and censoring (read: prohibiting) was unwarranted.

But given the fact that two additional incidents were reported to the police, after it appeared to many that Jason Neo was "getting off" with a mere reprimand, indicates that a segment of Singaporean society DO in fact want to see the law on Sedition Act upheld, and to ensure that further examples of hate speech will be strongly prohibited from being expressed (i.e. censored and expressed only at risk of facing deterrent punishment).

Under the Sedition Act(CHAPTER 290), 3 (1)(e) having a seditious tendency is "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

The authorities now have to determine if the criteria of "seditious tendency" under Sedition Act(CHAPTER 290), 3 (1)(e), may have been met, in all of the three cases.

Let's take a closer look at each of these cases.

Jason Neo case: He labelled Muslim children (through a captioned photograph) as having the potential to grow up and become future terrorists by virtue of being educated in a Muslim kindergarten. This perception, if unchecked and left in the public domain, could perhaps lead to discrimination or prejudicial acts against individuals who are Muslims by individuals who indeed believe that Muslims are (or have the potential to be) terrorists. This kind of speech could breed distrust amongst Singaporeans, and could potentially be an example of dangerous hate speech.

Christian Eliab Ratnam case: He posts a picture that states that "Islam is not a religion, or a race. Islam is an authoritarian, political doctrine which imposes itself by force. Any political doctrine that calls to kill those who do not believe in it is NOT a religion. Islam is not a religion It is __(censored - I do not know what it said originally) that glorifies de__(censored - I believe it originally reads "death").

The image Ratnam posted appears to be representative of Ratnam's personal belief about validity of Islam as a religion (never mind that there are more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide, and is the world's fastest growing religion, something in Islam must be worthwhile to retain that huge number of followers). The question is, can Ratnam's personal belief about Islam hurt individual Muslims now or in the future through discriminatory or prejudicial acts?

It could be argued in the Singaporean context, as in the Jason Neo case, that such beliefs, if propagated in the public domain, could spread and lead to hostilities between Muslims (who believe in the validity of Islam) and others (perhaps a group of people sharing Ratnam's beliefs). That could be a real possibility in multicultural Singapore, a country that has previously experienced race riots, albeit over 4 decades ago.

But then does he not have a right to his personal belief on the invalidity of Islam as a religion? He is NOT targeting individuals, specifically Muslims, rather he is targeting the religion, Islam.

How different is it from a vegetarian believing and stating in public that the slaughter of sheep during Eid-al-adha is murder? Would a vegetarian be allowed to state as such on a Singapore-based website aimed at propagating the view that animal slaughter is murder? Or would that vegetarian be deemed as having offended Singapore Muslims who permit animal slaughter?

This could be an arguable point for freedom of expression proponents. Where does one draw the line between expression of an opinion, and expressing an opinion that others might find offensive? Is it dependent on the intent of the public propagation of that opinion? Could it be also dependent on there being justifications/evidence/scholarly treatment of the subject (from the person expressing the opinion)?

Interestingly, under the Sedition Act, intent of the person is irrelevant if the speech/publication etc is deemed to have a seditious tendency:

Sedition Act(CHAPTER 290), 3 (3): For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Donaldson Tan case:He re-posted an image that many Muslims would be sensitive to (degrading a sacred place, the Kaabah, in Islam) and then when asked why he did so, he stated that it was "to alert people that there is a flame bait. Censorship was never an option". When urged to delete the image Tan responded "Censorship is never an option. You guys have to live and let live with differences, and not expecting people to pander to sensitivities".

In light of the previous two cases, it is probable that Tan was re-posting his image as a political statement on his conception of what freedom of expression should entail; case in point was his response to the individual Muslims who encountered his image and who were offended.

It has been suggested that Donaldson had re-posted the image so as to highlight the potentially offensive nature of the image to the public.

Sedition Act(CHAPTER 290), 3 (2)(d): to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore

But his subsequent statements on censorship, and refusal to delete the image despite being requested to do so by the offended parties, could work against that line of defence.

These three cases raises some very interesting questions on conceptions of freedom of expression in Singapore.

Freedom of Expression and Its Limitations

Freedom of expression is always to an extent regulated in all societies, for example, through hate speech, solicitation to felony, slander or libel laws in Western societies. It is up to society to decide what speech is harmful enough to warrant deterrent punishment.

Singapore has, through its legislation (Sedition Act, Penal Code, section 298A, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act) defined what harmful speech is. But is this legislation relevant, or could the legislation itself be accused of promoting ill-will amongst the races and classes in Singapore?

The practice of freedom of expression always comes with caveats. It is apparent that certain forms of speech are regulated even in the most liberal democracies (eg: Gayssot Act in France). Singapore's Sedition Act resembles, in essence, many of the hate speech laws in Europe.

But the Sedition Act may be too broad to account for the differences in opinion based expression, expression of personal beliefs, and hate speech aimed at degrading and/or harming specific groups (as discussed above in the three recent examples).

Moving forward, this is something that pro-democracy proponents in Singapore will have to think deeply about and address in a meaningful way. Freedom of expression, which includes a permissive acceptance of the propagation of degrading and/or hateful statements targeted at characteristics of groups of people (be it color of skin, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc) breeds a culture of intolerance in the long run. The key, perhaps, is formulate a narrowly defined legislation that prohibits hate speech, and that does not have the potential for chilling freedom of expression through fear.

Hate Speech Legislation in Singapore

2011-11-16T23:41:00.027-05:00

Hate Speech Targets Muslim Ethnic Group in Singapore

A photograph with a controversial caption has been circulating on Facebook since yesterday, attracting the ire of many Singaporeans of all races. The photograph (see on the left) shows a school bus with young children inside. The bus services students from the Huda Kindergarten in Woodlands, Singapore. One can see clearly the attire worn by the little boys - a white shirt and a songkok (Muslim hat). These little children are clearly Muslims. And for those who are not aware, Huda is a Muslim-run kindergarten. The caption below the photograph (part of it has been blurred in this version of the photograph) states "Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?". This caption has been attributed to a Jason Neo, a member of the Youth People's Action Party (YPAP).

Clearly, the caption to the photograph is hate speech targeted at Muslims in Singapore.

Singaporeans and the ISA Refrain Each Time Racial Agitators Strike

Many Singaporeans on Facebook have been quick (to their credit) to denounce the inflammatory caption. Several have also called for the Singapore Internal Security Department (ISD) to investigate the matter; in what I can only call a knee-jerk reaction. Each time, a racial incident rears its ugly head in Singapore, invariably the ISD is foremost in the minds of people.

More so today, as the ISD and the Internal Security Act (ISA) have been debated in the Singapore only a month ago.

The ruling party, PAP, had defended the relevance of the ISA in Singapore and has stated that it has been used against racial agitation:

"The ISA has been used, for instance, against foreign subversion and espionage as well as racial agitation. Between 1991 and 2010, there were a total of seven cases of detentions for espionage. One case was subsequently charged under the Official Secrets Act. Wherever possible we have prosecuted espionage cases in court, but this is not always practicable when the danger from compromising confidentiality of the intelligence involved outweighs any advantage from open prosecution and conviction".

Source: DPM Teo Chee Hean

ISA Unnecessary as Means to Prevent Racial Agitation

Hate speech (the general definition of hate speech is: any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic) is regulated by various legislation in Singapore, other than the ISA.

Legislation that addresses hate speech in Singapore, other than the ISA:
Sedition Act
Penal Code, section 298A
Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

The ISA, as a means, to deal with racial agitators in Singapore is unnecessary. Singaporeans need to avoid this knee-jerk reaction to invoke the ISD/ISA, given the host of available legislation to deal with hate speech.

Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

In 2010, a Christian pastor was called up by the ISD for posting Youtube videos deriding the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. He subsequently apologized and was let off with a reprimand from the ISD. But in that particular case, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act could have been a route that police could have used.

Section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act permits the Minister for Home Affairs to make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution where the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts:[8]

(a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;
(b) carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief;
(c) carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief; or
(d) exciting disaffection against the President or the Government while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief.

Sedition Act

In 2005, animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $S5000 ($A3924) for racist comments against the Malay community. Both were convicted under the Sedition Act.

3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

It remains to be seen how and under which legislation Jason Neo will be investigated for his hate speech.

Deadly Clashes Erupt in Libyan City

2011-11-13T00:48:00.005-05:00

Aljazeera has just reported that clashes have erupted in the Libyan city of Zawiya.

"We are fighting with the pro-Gaddafi followers. Gaddafi followers still exist and we're still tracking them down and capturing them. We will clean the country of them."

Mohamed Sayeh, a member of Libya's interim government, the National Transitional Council (NTC), played down the fighting.

He told the Reuters news agency it was an attack of men from Zawiya who wanted control of the Imaya military base, and who had been misled by a rumour that Gaddafi loyalists were in the area.

The incoming prime minister, Abdurrahim El-Keib, has promised to disarm the country and set up a national army, but has yet to announce a concrete timetable or form a government.

Source: Aljazeera

The statement - We will clean the country of them - is ominous at a minimum. I wonder if this portends a future civil strife in Libya.

The armed men in Libya are not going to disarm willingly, and they do appear bent on ridding the country of opponents (or any perceived opponents).

This does not bode well at all for Libya.

Andy Boyle #BurgerKingBreakup

2011-11-12T23:14:00.014-05:00

On Monday, a web developer with the Boston Globe, Andy Boyle (in picture on the left), live-tweeted a young married couple arguing loudly in a Boston Burger King location. He had suggested that the couple were on the verge of a break-up.

His account of the argument (complete with quotes, pictures and videos) was very quickly picked up by his followers, and spread like bush-fire. It wasn't long before the press, both local and international, got wind of it.

The account of the fight - which he called tongue-in-cheek "a study in marriage disintegration, with anthropological data collected in the field" is definitely an amusing read. Check out Andy Boyle's tweets below (note some the links to pictures he took of the couple have been deleted (presumably he had deleted the pictures himself after some people had questioned the ethics of publicizing the argument).

The Burger King Fight: a study in marriage disintegration, with anthropological data collected in the field

A study in marriage disintegration, with anthropological data collected in the field by Andy M. Boyle on Nov. 7, 2011. Location: A restaurant.

I am listening to a marriage disintegrate at a table next to me in this restaurant. Aaron Sorkin couldn't write this any better.
Andy Boyle

These kids must be 21, tops. His main complaint? She doesn't clean the dishes when his mom asks her to.
Andy Boyle

She is sobbing quite loud. He gets up and walks out. She stays. We all feel quite awkward. Do we console her? No one does anything.
Andy Boyle

He is back. She is telling him she didn't cheat. He doesn't believe her. He says he loves her anyway. He sits. We are more calm.
Andy Boyle

Another unrelated couple, who has been giving me the "can you believe this?" look, is hugging each other in response to this drama.
Andy Boyle

"Baby," he says. "I only say these things because I want you to be a better wife." The restaurant does not believe him.
Andy Boyle

She thinks it is unfair that he gets to play video games and she has to clean when "his mother" tells her. We agree.
Andy Boyle

"If you loved me," he says, "you would want me to be happy." We notice his argument is not swaying her.
Andy Boyle

"I don't want to hear it!" she shouts. The tables are turned: She is now accusing him of lying, of what we do not know.
Andy Boyle

"Why did you even marry me?" he asks. "Because I loved you," she responds. "Loved me?" We all notice the past tense.
Andy Boyle

The couple. t.co/RE1icmra
Andy Boyle

Apparently they both think the other cheated because of missed phone calls on occasion. It must be noted he has a speech impediment.
Andy Boyle

"A big lie and a small lie are the same thing," he says. "And I told you not to lie!"
Andy Boyle

I have no clue if you can hear this, but here's a snippet: t.co/EFDXL0e3
Andy Boyle

"I am a gentleman," he says. She stands up at his audacity and states out the window. Someone's phone on speaker is blocking their chat.
Andy Boyle

"Go!" she says. "Run away like a scared little boy!" He continues sitting, eating his fries.
Andy Boyle

She has moved to another table, still facing him. t.co/HtEjbZLf
Andy Boyle

"Let's go outside," she says. "Why? Let's do this here. Everyone needs to know what kind of a wife you are."
Andy Boyle

He is now critiquing how she dressed at a party recently. "I like dressing like that," she says. "I get to decide how you dress," he says.
Andy Boyle

He is now swearing a lot, mentioning something about cutting his hand in the dishwasher (?) and that's why he shouldn't clean dishes.
Andy Boyle

"It was only one time!" he admits. "I only did one time, too!" she says. "That doesn't make us even."
Andy Boyle

"You want to bring up the slap? I'll bring up everything. It wasn't a punch. If it was, I would've left," he says.
Andy Boyle

Just so those are aware, he is not being physically imposing or threatening violence. I would call the cops if that was the case.
Andy Boyle

They are now speaking too quiet for me to hear as U2's "Beautiful Day" plays. Seriously. t.co/tbCAhYpQ
Andy Boyle

"It's kind of weird having to talk to you about this here," she says. He laughs. She sort of laughs.
Andy Boyle

"I understand that some of this is on me," he says. People at a nearby table actively laugh after this.
Andy Boyle

He brings up something about having a baby. She runs out. He empties the tray and follows.
Andy Boyle

She comes back in. She apologizes. He shrugs. They walk into the vestibule and he sorta hugs her. They depart.
Andy Boyle

Their chair is now empty, just like the love in their marriage. With this, I depart. t.co/CabYK1HQ
Andy Boyle

You do not have to be a celebrity, it seems, to have people want to read about you. But it is unsurprising that this has gotten the publicity it has. We have been watching lives of average Joes and Janes on reality shows for nearly a decade now (The Bachelor, The Biggest Loser, Wife Swap, Supernanny and so on) - and our appetite for reality insights have been whetted. It is precisely that they are average folks that we are so curious about how they would handle everyday life events, which is what this Burger King argument exactly was. In all likelihood, if the media does manage to track down the couple, they'd merely tell us that it was just one of those moments - and that they're back together again.

Of course, it can be argued that the folks on reality shows have given voluntarily consent to be on the media for public viewing. We can debate the ethics of this to ad nauseam. But why bother? Thing is, we had just better be prepared for more of such incidences.

Privacy-conscious folks, be warned that the inane (and at times melodramatic) arguments that you have with with your spouse, child or friend outside of your home is all fair game. They're all watching you!

Why can’t a Muslim Woman Marry a non-Muslim Man?

2009-06-07T09:51:00.009-04:00

I have not been able to write in a while, but I had no idea that it has been this long! My last posts was way back in January. Anyhow, hopefully I will start blogging again.

Here are some quick thoughts I had; thought I'd pen them down in this blog before I lost my motivation to write, which has happened rather frequently the past few months.

Islam's Prohibition of Muslim Women Marrying Non-Muslim Men

A friend had called and told me that an interesting topic on Muslim women was being debated on the BBC show - The Doha Debates. I only managed to catch the last 20 mins of the debate - should Muslim women be allowed to marry non-Muslim men - but it was sufficient for me to get at gist of the topic. At the end, over 60% of the audience voted that Muslim women should be allowed to marry non-Muslim men. It was not defined exactly what "allowed" translated into - but I imagine it entailed broad societal acceptance.

I would sure like to know the exact make-up of the audience - it appeared to me from the audience speakers that there were quite a bit of young Muslim people (both men and women from various countries) so the high percentage was notable.

Towards the end of the debate, a Muslim girl from the audience very eloquently explained why Muslim women, who have been raised in Muslim households and educated, are intelligent enough, and should be trusted to make the right decision without facing any opposition from their families. It all sounded very positive.

Only this fact still remained: a Muslim woman who was raised and educated in a Muslim household, would also know very well that no less than the Quran (2:221) states that believing Muslim women should not marry non-Muslim men until the men become believers (Muslims) themselves - ie. belief in the Oneness of God and the message of the Prophet.

One of the minimum requirements of Muslim belief is the acceptance of the Quran - words of God. Surely, these individual(s) based on their own desiresdo not want Muslim society to be forced to alter the word of God? How presumptuous? But that is exactly what is happening all around, on a variety of issues from drinking of alcohol to homosexuality. All of it in an effort to be humanistic, and all-accepting. As if one cannot be that while still retaining to your concept of the truth. People who do not practice the religion, but vehemently claim the label for themselves do nothing but corrode the essence of relgion.

This isn't about being too rigid, or old-fashioned. It is simply this - if one chooses to be a Muslim, to have conscious acceptance, then one also has the responsibility to accept and try to live a life based on its dictates. Not every believing Muslim would be unfailing in this endeavour - I am no exception - but at least believing Muslims should have the decency to not force or demand that a wrong (religiously speaking) be turned into a right to bolster one's individual divergent choice.

Not every single individual act needs the seal of approval from the larger society. If approval is needed, seek it elsewhere where it is to be found.

An interesting article by one of the speakers at the debate: Yasir Qadhi

An Article Worth Reading: Oxford University Professor Avi Shlaim on Gaza War

2009-01-19T21:10:00.005-05:00

I came across this article sometime ago. It was published at the Guardian Online on Jan. 7, 2009. I meant to put it up because I thought it was a good article worth the time to read. The writer is an Israeli, an ex-IDF personnel, and someone who had actually fought in Israel's wars. He is now a professor at a top university in the UK. His conclusions bear attention....

How Israel brought Gaza to the Brink of Humanitarian Catastrophe
By Avi Shlaim, Oxford University Professor of International Relations

The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza's prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.

Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.

Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.

The war unleashed by Israel on Gaza on 27 December was the culmination of a series of clashes and confrontations with the Hamas government. In a broader sense, however, it is a war between Israel and the Palestinian people, because the people had elected the party to power. The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel's terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

The timing of the war was determined by political expediency. A general election is scheduled for 10 February and, in the lead-up to the election, all the main contenders are looking for an opportunity to prove their toughness. The army top brass had been champing at the bit to deliver a crushing blow to Hamas in order to remove the stain left on their reputation by the failure of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006. Israel's cynical leaders could also count on apathy and impotence of the pro-western Arab regimes and on blind support from President Bush in the twilight of his term in the White House. Bush readily obliged by putting all the blame for the crisis on Hamas, vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and issuing Israel with a free pass to mount a ground invasion of Gaza.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted - a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath. The resort to brute military force is accompanied, as always, by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness. In Hebrew this is known as the syndrome of bokhim ve-yorim, "crying and shooting".

To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

The brutality of Israel's soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel's objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel's forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel's spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

A wide gap separates the reality of Israel's actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen. It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It di d so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel's objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers. And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel's insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash. After eight days of bombing, with a death toll of more than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis, the gung-ho cabinet ordered a land invasion of Gaza the consequences of which are incalculable.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

Article Obtained from the Guardian (UK).

The World Watches As Gaza Burns

2009-01-14T08:13:00.017-05:00

I can understand why so many people choose not to follow the news. Being oblivious to the pain and suffering of people so far removed would allow one to work, play and live psychologically unencumbered. But I am one of those who has to follow the news - in the past, staying informed was part of what I had to do for several reasons, partly educational and professional, now it's become a part of who I am.

So I am often haunted by horrific accounts of the injustice, turmoil and violence brought upon the innocent through the actions of humankind. And the images that stay in my mind are often the faces of the most defenseless - children caught in the middle of a strife they cannot comprehend. Be it the beseeching big eyes of the nameless Rwandan child on Time magazine way back then, or little Mohammad al-Dura's final moments as he huddled by his father amidst gunfire. God only knows how many other innocents suffer, robbed of a childhood, or are taken away in violence.

The continuing crisis in Gaza bothers me for many reasons - now I have to contend with new images to add to my already burdensome gallery of conscience. When people accuse the Israeli military of being baby killers, I do think, given the facts on the ground, it's a literal assessment of the reality.

It is difficult to rationalize the continuation of a mission with an aim of "preventing rocket fire capability" when it's still not achieveable after 19 days and nearly 1000 Palestinian deaths (most of them civilians, and over 300 of them children). By comparsion, deaths incurred by the Israelis through Hamas rockets is a handful (but apparently a handful too much in the unjust scale of human life value). The disproportionate death ratio should be evidence enough that the "weaponry" arsenal of Hamas is limited and out-dated, compared to the Israeli arsenal, which is the best and modern weaponry available (obtained from the US).

Depending on where you stand, the Israeli attacks can be viewed as an act of defense in response to rocket attacks, or an illegal act under international law, which requires the occupier (Israel) to maintain responsibilities and obligations to the people (Gazans) it is occupying; that is not do all the things Israel did prior to the attacks.

But one would be hard pressed to argue that Israel's defense argument is still valid given the situation unfolding - Israel has now committed blatant criminal acts, for example, through the use of chemical weapons (Human Rights Watch has reported that Israel is dropping them into Gaza's dense residential areas) and the preventing medical personnel from carrying out their duties in evacuating the wounded (Red Cross found barely alive children next to their dead mothers in a village).

Israel has argued that the continuation of the sporadic rocket fire is justification enough to carry out the war, never mind the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of their miliary actions. But to expect Hamas to stop their attempts at defense when faced with Israel's relentless onslaught is farcical. Like it or not, Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Gaza people - it is their duty to protect the citizens.

Someone (I would expect the more powerful nation) has to be the one to say enough is enough - but Israel has refused to step up to its obligations to be a responsible nation. What bothers Israel most is that Hamas is even attempting to fight back, posturing and showing defiance in the face of death. What Israel fears by withdrawing would be Hamas declaring a victory, by virtue of having survived the onslaught.

Israel desires an outright psychological defeat in the minds of the Palestinians more than anything else - but it fails to understand that a people with nothing to lose, have nothing to fear.

A Palestinian child, when asked by a reporter why he chose to throw stones at an unseen enemy, and not run to cover when the Israeli air strikes began, replied that it was pointless to run when the bombs would reach him faster than wherever he could run to.

Human Rights Watch: Israel Violating International Law by Using Chemical Weapons

2009-01-13T08:28:00.007-05:00

Have you seen the videos of air bombs falling ito Gaza and wondered what the whitish powder was? Well, it's not smoke from the fires apparently. Human Rights Watch have reported that the white powder is actually from the white phosphorous bombs that Israel is dropping into Gaza.

Well, this is a violation of international law (never mind the fact that the war was already a violation of international law).

While international law allows such chemical weapons to be used in battlefields as a smokescreen, the material is considered dangerous in residential areas due to the severe burns it inflicts, as well as its highly flammable quality.

From Haaretz:
"Based on his observations last week, HRW military analyst Mark Garlasco determined that the IDF is using the material, although the army has not confirmed its use.

In 2006 Israel acknowledged for the first time that it had attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells. Until then Israel had maintained that it only used such bombs to mark targets or territory.

Phosphorus has been used by armies since World War I. During World War II and Vietnam the U.S. and British armies made extensive use of phosphorus. During recent decades the tendency has been to ban the use of phosphorus munitions against any target, civilian or military, because of the severity of the injuries that the substance causes".

Using such chemical weapons in densely populated Gaza is a criminal act.

Seems that the rule of law is only for the select few.

This is how a dead victim of phosphorus bombs looks like.

If you are American, here is what you can do, as suggested by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

URGENT ACTION REQUESTED: (As always, be POLITE and RESPECTFUL.)

1. Call your U.S. Representative and urge her or him to ensure that any resolutions or statements coming from Congress are balanced and promote peace with justice. This will ensure that the international community does not perceive that the U.S. government is divided on the goal of bringing a just and durable peace. (Find suggested talking points below.)

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative's office.

2. Call the House Speaker and Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and urge them to ensure that any resolutions or statements coming from Congress are balanced and promote peace with justice. This will ensure that the international community does not perceive that the U.S. government is divided on the goal of bringing a just and durable peace. (Find suggested talking points below.)

(If you are not a constituent be sure to mention that you are calling them in their leadership roles. If you reach an answering machine, feel free to leave a message.)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House
Phone: (202) 225-0100
Webform: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
Phone: 202-225-4695
Webform: http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/
Berman is chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Call the committee at: 202-225-5021

Sample talking points:

I urge you to ensure that any congressional resolutions or statements relating to the Middle East conflict are balanced and promote peace with justice in the region.
Balanced statements will ensure that the international community does not perceive that the U.S. government is divided on the goal of bringing a just and durable peace.

As you may know, Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians block efforts to bring peace with justice to the Middle East, harm our nation’s image and interests worldwide and strengthen voices of extremism in the region.

The Palestinian people must be given some hope of freedom from Israeli occupation and domination and Israel’s immoral and illegal collective punishment of the Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip must end.

I also believe American taxpayer dollars should not be used to for weapons that kill civilians.

3. Sign CAIR's Online Petition urging our nation's leaders to speak "in favor of peace and justice for all parties in the current humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Gaza Strip." When completed, the petition will be sent to elected officials nationwide and will be given to members of the current and incoming administrations. Go to: http://petition.cair.com/

4. Pray for all those who are suffering and oppressed.

The Atrocities Continue in Gaza - The Children Suffer

2009-01-11T08:57:00.012-05:00

It is 15 days and counting. To date the Israeli military operation have caused 854 Palestinians to be killed in Gaza; aid workers say that one-third of that figure are children. Keeping in mind that more than half of the population in Gaza are children, that figure may be much higher than reported. There are also 3680 injured Palestinians.

Reports by aid workers who have managed to enter the embattled areas have depicted the scenes as devastating - little children, weak and barely clinging on to life were found next to their dead mothers, little toddlers dead, and dead bodies of an extended family strewn in a village.

A UN aid worker described the Gaza civilians as being“the meat in the sandwich,” because they cannot flee anywhere since the borders are closed.

Here are some interesting facts obtained from a New York Times article - you can get a sense of how the atrocities are being perpetuated.

"The Israelis say they are also using new weapons, like a small-diameter smart bomb, the GBU-39, which Israel bought last fall from Washington".

"Israeli intelligence officers are telephoning Gazans and, in good Arabic, pretending to be sympathetic Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians or Libyans, Gazans say and Israel has confirmed"

"They aim the missiles at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the buildings, a tactic called a knock on the roof".

"The most important strategic decision the Israelis have made so far, according to senior military officers and analysts, is to approach their incursion as a war, not a police operation".

"Civilians are warned by leaflets, loudspeakers and telephone calls to evacuate battle areas. But troops are instructed to protect themselves first and civilians second".

"As the commander of the army’s elite combat engineering unit, Yahalom, told the Israeli press on Wednesday: “We are very violent. We do not balk at any means to protect the lives of our soldiers.” His name cannot be published under censorship rules."

"While The New York Times and some other news organizations have local or Gaza-based Palestinian correspondents, any Israeli citizen or Israeli with dual citizenship has been banned for more than two years from entering Gaza, and any foreign correspondent who did not enter the territory before a six-month cease-fire with Hamas ended last month has not been allowed in".

"Israel has also managed to block cellphone bandwidth, so very few amateur cellphone photographs are getting out of Gaza".

"In one widely reported episode, 43 people died when the Israelis shelled a street next to a United Nations school in northern Jabaliya where refugees were taking shelter. The United Nations says no militants were in the school"

The few pictures of the war in Gaza that have come out are horrific. It is all the more worse because Gaza has so many young children, and they bear the brunt of the war in more ways than just the physical risk of death. It would be easy to look away from such horror, but I think it is important to bear witness to the pain of the innocent.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Fear the cry of the oppressed, for there is no barrier between it and God."

Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Volume 3, Number 1

What CAN we do to stop this injustice?

We can pray for there to be peace, and for the innocent deaths to stop.

We can spread what we know about this conflict through our writing and speaking.

When we hear misinformation, we should do what we can to stop it from spreading. The worst thing you can do is to stay silent because you are afraid of speaking the truth for fear of being labelled "extremist", "anti-semite" or "terrorist-lover" when you know different.

Speak out against injustice, for your silence may one day come to hurt you too.

Dead Mother and her Dead Children

Grieving over a Dead Baby

Dead Palestinian Children

A Palestinian man carries his son wounded in Israeli army operations into Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Ashraf Amra)

Palestinians carry a boy into Shifa hospital in Gaza City, wounded during the Israeli army operation in Gaza, Sunday Jan. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Ashraf Amra)

A Child holds a banner reading, " Don't Kill the Children," during a protest after Friday prayer in front of the U.S. embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Jan. 9, 2009

Analysis of Israel's Motives in Gaza

2009-01-05T21:25:00.026-05:00

Israel's Motives

The following is my attempt at an analysis of Israel's motives behind the Gaza massacres.

Israel has said that the aim of its military operations in Gaza is to stop Hamas from launching rockets into Southern Israel. It is portrayed as a defensive act framed under "war on terror". Israel say it has tried to target key Hamas installations and infrastructures that enable the rocket attacks. So far, they have air bombed shopping centres, public squares, police stations, residential housings, mosques, universities and schools, and in the process also destroyed more than half of Gaza's ambulances.

That in itself shows the difficulty of Israel's attempt in achieving its objective in a place like Gaza: densely populated with little safe haven for civilians to run to when the bombs start falling. The UN has estimated that at least one-third of the casualities so far in Gaza are civilians. With the ground offensive underway, that number will only increase. As an indication of what may come to pass, Human Rights Watch reported that the last time Israeli tanks moved into Gaza, more than half of the Palestinian casualities were civilian.

Gaza by Latuff

There is no way Israel can limit its damage to Hamas installations or militants without adversely affecting the civilian population, and Israel knows this. Given the extent of the damage from Israel's military actions - the heavy costs bourne by the Gaza civilian population, the media reporting of the casualities that serves only to fuel public shock and anger against Israel's actions, and the eventual detereoration of Israel's public image worldwide, why would Israel even embark on such a mission? It is pure madness on Israel's part?

On the contrary, there is method (or a rationale) to this. Israel's military incursion is part of a broader plan to enforce a peace on its own terms. Yes, Israel is after peace (it needs peace), but it is after a peace that is established on its own terms.

However, Israel cannot achieve what it wants through an agreement with Hamas. Ever since Hamas was democratically elected by the Gaza people in 2006, it has been a constant thorn at Israel's side. Efforts to stymie Hamas' ability to govern under the mandate of the Gaza people had the effect of strengthening its appeal. Despite what Israel did (essentially turning Gaza into a prison camp through illegal blockades - Gazans had no control over its own borders - land, air and sea, and were reduced to begging for food, medicine and fuel) Hamas only grew stronger in Gaza, and this weakened the only other party in Gaza that Israel could negotiate with.

Negotiating with Hamas would have been unthinkable for Israel - not because of the rocket attacks, nor because Hamas was deemed a "terrorist group" (afterall history has shown that Israel negotiated with the formerly labelled terrorist group, PLO) but because it would have been perceived by people (especially Arab people) as having been forced by Hamas' militant stance. And that would not have bode well for Israel's future security - a country surrounded by a sea of Arab neighbors. Already Israel believes that the net effect of Israel's pull-out from Lebanon in 2006 was to embolden Hamas who had hoped to emulate Hezbollah's achievements in that regard.

Israel was widely perceived to have lost its teeth - and indeed the defeat in Lebanon showed the limits to the Israeli military. Compound that perception with the rise of Hamas in Gaza, who had effectively solidified its position in the past two years.

The Israeli military operations then aim to accomplish three objectives (1) the forcible weakening (or removal) of Hamas (2) demonstrating the might of the Israeli military (3) re-establishing Israel's deterrent power by signaling to Arab nations that Israel can act militarily under the frame of defense (or war on terror) if it chooses to, and it will not be reined in by the world.

How can Israel benefit from achieving the objectives above? Firstly, it re-establishes Israel to a position of power. Second, peace or cease-fire negotiations with the remmants of Hamas (whoever is left standing after the war) and the PA in West Bank would now be acceptable to Israel since it would be stemming from its renewed position of power, and also because Hamas would not be in a position to dictate terms, weakened as it is. The underlying assumption would be that the civilian population would be war-weary enough to support opportunities for peace, even if under terms that are undesirable. Already efforts are underway to turn the Gaza civilian population against Hamas - recordings, such as this one as reported on CNN, are played in phone calls to Gaza civilians:"Urgent message, warning to the citizens of Gaza. Hamas is using you as human shields. Do not listen to them. Hamas has abandoned you and are hiding in their shelters."

This assumption can backfire though because the Israeli operations have not discriminated between Hamas and the civilian population. Besides Hamas has had a track record of providing for the Gaza civilian population, and beleaguering Hamas might sway people to their side.

Still, any peace process (or any ceasefire agreement or truce) would likely be pushed by the world community under the guidance of the new Obama administration, compelled by the horrors of the recent war. But any peace that ensues from such an agreement though may be short-lived, especially if the terms are overtly favoring one party over another. And as a new generation of Palestinians form, the cycle of violence may begin once more.

A hefty price for strategizing toward the short-term gains.

Israel's Attacks on Gaza

2009-01-02T01:29:00.027-05:00

Israel has refused to cease its attacks on Gaza despite the massive humanitarian crisis unfolding there. Gaza civilians who had already been deprived of food, medicine and fuel for months before the attacks, are now overwhelmed by the carnage inflicted on them by Israel.

Gaza hospitals are unable to cope with the overwhelming numbers of injured people flooding the hospital. Hospital staff are overworked, and they also operate in fear of their own lives as even Gaza medical personnel are not safe from the Israelis bombs. Israelis are bombing ambulances. They have no way of alleviating the pain of those suffering, as they lack much-needed medical supplies. Not every injured Gazan is able to make it to the hospital anyway, some prefering to stay home and suffer for fear of being bombed on route to hospitals, or as an NYT article put it:"risk driving through streets of pummeled buildings and concrete shards".

But Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, has audaciously claimed that "there is no humanitarian crisis and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce".

The soon-to-be US president, Obama Barack has already happily set the tone for his new administration's dealing with Israel by giving the greenlight for Israel's continued genocidal acts now and in the future: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” Obama said. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Israel claimed initially that their attacks were a response to Hamas's act of sending rockets into Israel after the six-month cease-fire ended on Dec. 19. They claimed that their primary mission in the attacks is to stop Hamas from firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel.

But anyone who has been following the developments, know that Israel prevented open border crossings at Gaza to the detriment of its civilian population for long months.

Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, said in a statement that considering "the cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade ... it would seem mandatory for the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law."

He added: "Some governments of the world are complicit by continuing their support politically and economically for Israel's punitive approach."

Israel have tried their utmost since Hamas became the elected government in Gaza to weaken Hamas' position, prevent them from governing and providing for their people. Israel's main intention all along has been to topple Hamas, and futher weaken Gazans so that they remain unrepresented by a government that actually advocates on their behalf.

The lack of response from the world has only solidified Israel's murdereous intent.

Israel will continue until Gaza is sufficiently decimated. Israel does not want to deal with anyone on an *equal* basis, much less the Palestinians. The only peace acceptable to Israel would be the one dictated to by Israel.

Meanwhile, the weak, vulnerable and the most innocent of the Gaza population - the children - suffer.

"But there were several children in another intensive care unit on Tuesday. Among them was Ismael Hamdan, 8, who had severe brain damage as well as two broken legs, according to a doctor there. Earlier that day, two of his sisters, Lama, 5, and Hayya, 12, were killed.

“I prepared them breakfast that day in the garden,” said their mother, Ayda, 36. “They had the tea, bread and thyme. Lama wanted a second pita, but we all teased her saying, ‘Keep it for lunch.’ She told us, ‘Don’t worry, God will provide us with bread.’

“She made all of us laugh,” the mother said. “I cleaned after them and collected the garbage. Ismael volunteered to dump the garbage, but Hayya and Lama joined him. The garbage can is in front of the house, a five-minute walk away. All of a sudden I heard the news from a neighbor, and I ran barefoot to the hospital. A relative collected the bodies of Lama and Hayya on a donkey cart.

“The neighbors ran trying to save Ismael, who was the only one breathing,” she said. “They say my kids flew 40 meters before hitting the ground.”

Ismael died Wednesday night."

Source: NYT, Dec. 31, 2008

Ismael, before he passed away. Dec. 31, 2008.
Source: Mahmud Hams/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

These Palestinian children do not have the chance to live a proper childhood that so many of us elsewhere take for granted. Do they not have the right to grow up, to exist?

If Palestinian children are not caught in the crossfire first, they are forced to grow up faster than they should. The excerpted NYT news report below has a journalist obtaining comments from two young Palestinian boys on the political situation, as if they were grown-ups. How warped is that?

Approach two Israeli boys of that same age and you will see the vast difference - Israeli boys would be cocooned safely in their homes, coddled by their parents, and armed with video games as boys that age usually are.

Palestinian boys are forced to defend themselves with stones. That is unjust.

At the Shuafat refugee camp on the northern outskirts of Jerusalem on Sunday, masked Palestinian youths burned tires and used slingshots to hurl stones at Israeli soldiers.

Mohammed, 13, predicted bloody Hamas reprisals. “Hamas will be the one that will bomb green Egged buses, and we will go back to the way it was,” he said, referring to the Israeli bus carrier that is often a target of suicide bombers.

Others were more doubtful. Ahmad, 14, said he supported “neither one nor the other,” complaining that Hamas and Fatah spent too much time fighting each other instead of working for Palestinian unity.

Source: NYT, Dec. 29, 2008

Dead Palestinian Child Carried. Jan. 1, 2009.
Source: Ismail Zaydah/Reuters

Israel is always adamant that everyone acknowledge their "right to exist". But one only has rights, if one is responsible. When a murderer attacks with impunity, he is deemed a danger to society. When he is caught, his rights are taken away, and he is locked up. In some other societies, he is even put to death.

When Israel has reneged upon its responsibilities to be a responsible nation in the world, time and time again, one has to ask if it has come time for Israel's rights to be taken away.

No longer can I say with my conscience intact that present day Israel has the right to exist, in the manner it has been existing. I do not mean all Israelis should be put away in jails, or murdered. Rather perhaps a superpower should occupy Israel (much like the way US had occupied Iraq), disarm the state, and force it into compliance - that is, force it to accept a just two-state solution so that finally the Palestinians can have their turn to exist and live the good life that has been denied them for too long.

Of course, this will not happen.

But for the first time in my life, I think I can fully appreciate it when people state that Israel has no right to exist - certainly, Israel as it is today has no right to exist - it is nothing more than a murderous thug.

And murderous thugs should be restrained.

If enough of us in this world are vocal enough about our abhorence towards Israel's acts, then perhaps our leaders would be compelled to restrain Israel, and help it change its behavior.

Is that too much to hope for?

Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoe At Bush

2008-12-15T03:48:00.010-05:00

This would be funny, under different circumstances - an Iraqi man throws his shoes at President George W. Bush during a a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The shoes missed their target (sadly, I wouldadd) and instead landed against the wall behind the two leaders.

The room erupted in chaos and the Iraqi man was dragged away. Bush later claimed that the room (other Iraqi reporters) were shouting their apologies.

The assailant was later identified as television correspondent Muntadar al-Zeidi.

"This is a farewell kiss, you dog," he yelled in Arabic. "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

Excerpts from an AP report:
"The crowd descended on al-Zeidi, who works for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt. He was wrestled to the ground by security officials and then hauled away, moaning as they departed the room. Later, a trail of fresh blood could be seen on the carpet, although the source was not known. In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt."

The mass murderer gets shoes thrown at him. Big deal. Iraqi children, women and men have had to contend with shells, bombs, strip searches, imprisonment, humilliation and contempt as a result of Bush's pugnacious war policies. So kudos to the journalist who had the guts to do what so many of us wish we could. Throwing shoes is the least of what this man deserves.

It is not only the Iraqis such as al-Zeidi who are counting to the days when Bush will no longer be President. The world looks foward to it. Good riddance.

I hope that the Iraqi journalist is not tortured in prison by his fellow Iraqis.

One Jewish Suggestion to Counter Terror

2008-12-15T01:10:00.007-05:00

I received an email from CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) a few days ago with a link to an article published in an American-Jewish newspaper called the 5 Towns Jewish Times. The author of the article had advocated the killing of innocent Muslim civilians as an "appropriate response" to terror acts committed by those claiming to be co-religionists.

Only a few hours after the article was posted online (and after I had visited it myself), the article link on the website was no longer valid. A search of the 5 Towns Jewish Times showed that the article had been removed. However, the print version of the article is still available in a PDF format of the whole newspaper.

I thought I would post the article on my blog for readers to make an independent assessment of the thought-processes of this Jewish writer. And the thought-processes of the 5 Towns Jewish Times editor who had believed it was ethical to publish the article.

**************
The Appropriate Response To Islamic Terror
BY LAWRENCE KULAK

Some of the greatest discoveries of medical science, most notably penicillin, have been made by sheer accident. It is a signal tragedy of our times that, in the all too conspicuous absence of competent statesmanship among the leadership of democracies around the world, the solutions to certain international security issues must also be discovered by accident.

About six months ago, there was an article published in the New York Times about an incident in Afghanistan where the U.S. military, while attempting to take out a certain Taliban terrorist, dropped a bomb on a tent that was occupied by members of his extended family, killing several women and children. The particular terrorist that was being hunted was not home at the time, although there were several others that were part of the same terrorist network who were also killed. This story ostensibly was published for the purpose of demonstrating the "horrors" of warfare, focusing primarily on the women and children in the tent who were killed, by all accounts of the U.S. military spokespeople, unintentionally.

In our dangerous age of political tentativeness and compromised militaries, however, there is an overwhelming probability that even top-ranking U.S. military commanders were unaware that they may have accidentally stumbled upon the solution to international terror.

I’ll never forget how, during the last Lebanon war with Hezbollah, an Orthodox Jewish Russian immigrant who had survived Stalin approached me, gesturing with his hand while repeating the word "tzetlach" ("notes" or "letters" in Yiddish). He was referring to the pieces of paper which were dropped by the Israeli Air Force over Lebanon warning civilians of the bombs that were about to be dropped. In the process, the Hezbollah terrorists were also warned, which may have allowed them to escape to the north in large numbers and ultimately force Israel to belatedly engage its ground troops, leading to numerous casualties and the loss of the war.

"Did Stalin drop tzetlach when he bombed Berlin during the Second World War?" my Russian immigrant friend asked, obviously comparing the militant, pro-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians to the citizens of Germany during the Holocaust. The United States, it seems, did in fact originally institute the practice of dropping leaflets over an enemy population, as it did before it bombed Dresden and Berlin, but apparently Stalin had his own ideas.

Israel was apparently afraid to stray from the U.S. precedent even if it meant risking the loss of a war. In terms of Jewish law, I think that the issue is probably clear. While no army should go out of its way to harm a civilian population in times of war, during the legitimate pursuit of an enemy that has instigated an attack against its people, a nation may defend itself with whatever means necessary, even if it includes causing death to civilians. Those who are inclined to issue knee-jerk gasps to this common sense state of affairs that is etched in the Mosaic law are probably easily forgetful of the fact that Muslim countries are routinely targeting innocent civilians via their terrorist proxies and leaving the standing armies of nations alone.

This is more or less what recently occurred in Mumbai, India. Although the attack had all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda penetration into local Pakistani Muslim terror groups, there is ample evidence of complicity by the Pakistani Intelligence Service (known as the ISI.) which has a long and well-known history of facilitating acts of terror in Indian-held Kashmir. Reports indicate that a rogue element of the ISI recently forged a link with a local terrorist commander linked to Al Qaeda, which then embarked upon a plan to target Westerners in Mumbai. The Mumbai attack signifies a change of course for Al Qaeda, which until this point had refrained from attacking India because of India’s prior course of neutrality vis-à-vis Islam’s conflicts with the West, and because of the need for its use of India as a transfer point to fly undetected in and out of Pakistan and the Afghan regions. This perhaps explains in part why India’s naval security was in such a state of low awareness and why there was not a perceived need to update their police department’s anti-terrorist training. (The Jewish Center was allegedly targeted specifically for attack for reasons stemming from the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.)

Whatever the level or degree of the Pakistani government’s complicity in the attack that is ultimately that this operation could not have been accomplished without assistance from Pakistani Intelligence. This factor makes the Mumbai attack as much of an attack on India’s sovereignty as it was an attack on its civilians and foreign visitors. As such, it cries out for some type of retaliatory attack by the Indian government.

Aside from India, however, the attack on the foreign nationals of Israel, the United States, and Great Britain by proxy also constitutes an act of war against these countries and therefore legitimizes the infiltration of Pakistani territory for the purpose of pursuing the aggressors. While a generalized war with Pakistan should not be contemplated or pursued, it may be unavoidable, depending upon the vigilance with which Pakistan seeks to defend the terrorists within its borders.

The retaliation that is undertaken should strike hard at the training bases, madrassa schools, and homes of all the properly identified terrorist commanders and fellow terrorists of those identified in the attack, in a series of sustained surprise attacks over a period of time that is aimed at total eradication of the entire network that coordinated this attack.

Any and all collateral damage in the form of casualties to friends, relatives, or anyone connected to the lives of these terrorists should be swiftly ignored. Public opinion and what is written in the newspapers should also be ignored by nations seeking to avenge the death of its innocent civilians.

When terrorists undertake to hide behind a sovereign government and to attempt to hide within its borders, it becomes the responsibility of that government to take swift action to flush them out and to neutralize them. Pakistan has obviously not done this, and is itself responsible for failing to purge itself of rogue commanders who facilitated the carnage in Mumbai. It must now step aside and let the foreign governments whose citizens have been mercilessly attacked take the proper course of action. George W. Bush certainly knows how to do it, and if his heart will be in the right place, so does Barack Obama.

As for the Islamic terrorists themselves, there has been a universal ineptitude in understanding their mentalities and how they work. Primarily because of leftist leaders and public sympathy with revolutionary mindsets, which have in cancerous fashion infiltrated the efficient workings of Western governments and Israel, the tactics that are necessary to defeat Islamic terror have been suppressed and discarded as politically incorrect. Many will remember how before Shimon Peres encouraged Prime Minister Rabin to embark on his infamous peace process with Arafat, the latter advocated "breaking the bones" of Arab rioters in the West Bank and Gaza as a means of putting down the intifada. Those means were apparently used for a period of time by Rabin, with much success, until his government decided to embark on a seriously unwise course of conciliation with premeditated and avowed murderers. President Bush also delivered a setback to his own war on terror when, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he labeled Islam a peaceful religion that had been hijacked by radical elements. By making that statement, the president all but rejected the possibility of taking drastic action to eliminate entire terrorist networks that would of necessity cause the mass deaths of other potential operatives, and those others clandestinely associated with the actual terrorists, who provide means of support.

Contrary to all attention that has been given to the Muslim shaheed’s pursuit of the 72 virgins, the idea of martyrdom in Islam is really more of an exaggerated spin-off of good old fashioned American machismo and hero worship. A Muslim will seek martyrdom in order to bring honor to himself and to his family, just as a Muslim will kill others even within his own family to prevent or offset a similar association with dishonor or shame. If he knows that his family will all be killed, and there will be nobody left after him to claim that honor, he will be left with little reason to pursue his murderous mission.

One of the main daggers which Israel has thrust into its own heart was the government’s decision to abort the practice of demolishing the homes of terrorists. The prospect of rendering his own family homeless and desperate served to deter a potential terrorist from killing himself and anybody else by reducing the honor and machismo associated with the act. The notion of the 72 virgins is only a reward for the achievement of an act that brings honor to himself and his family, but there is nothing honorable in Islam about bringing harm to one’s family. Perhaps this is the underlying reason why, since the war of terror has begun, we have been unsuccessful in tracking down Bin Laden. And if, as many feared before the presidential election, Barack Obama is really sympathetic to the Muslims radicals, it might also explain why his main promise in continuing Bush’s war on terror was to pursue this archterrorist through the hills of Pakistan. If Bin Laden is killed and hence martyred, it will only bring honor to himself and his family, who will be very much intact and alive. That will only give rise to more militant imams and more terrorist leaders.

Moreover, the only way to deal with Islamic terrorists is the same way in which they deal with their victims. Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an eye for an eye, and they do not have respect for anything perceived as a lesser standard of justice. They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah, however, preaches a doctrine which, if implemented by the West, could finally put an end to all Islamic terror: If somebody is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first.
**************

Israeli State Terrrorism - What do you think?

What do the Mumbai Attacks Mean for India?

2008-11-28T00:55:00.011-05:00

Shown on the left a picture of one of the Mumbai gunmenn, as he walks at the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station.
Photo by Sebastian D'Souza / AP / Mumbai Mirror

The attacks that started Wednesday night took everyone by surprise. It became apparent soon enough that this attack was different from the previous ones that had occured in Mumbai on other occasions. There appeared to be coordination between the gunmen as they fanned out to specific locations, shooting at anyone in their paths. To compound the situation, the gunmen attempted (and were successful) in taking hostages.

The situation (today is Friday) continues to unfold as I write this. Check out Vinu's Flickr for photos of the blast and navy activity.

The identity of the gunmen remains a big question, but already ideas are floating around. First, the gunmen were reported to have asked for Western passport holders (namely American and British) at the two hotels they had stormed. Second, the gunmen were reported to have asked for the release of Islamic muhajideen held in Indian jails. And one of the locations a group of the gunmen had stormed was a Jewish cafe and synagogue run by an American Jewish man and an Israeli woman (husband and wife). And a group called the Deccan Mujahideen had claimed responsibility for the attacks. It follows that Islamic radicals are responsible for the attacks.

The Indian government has also stated that "foreign" elements had been involved in the attacks, in a thinly veiled accusation at Pakistan. Indian police are investigating a mechanised fishing boat that had gone missing along with five of its crew from near the Pakistan maritime border 13 days ago.

All things considered, people are pointing the finger at Islamists.

Fareed Zakaria from the Newsweek suggested that these could be outsiders (with some home-grown recruits):

Any insight into where the terrorists might come from, then?
An Indian businessman who says he heard the attackers said he didn't understand the language that the young men were speaking. That means that it wasn't Hindi or Urdu… most Indians would recognize the major languages even if they couldn't speak one of them. But most Indians would be unfamiliar with what's spoken in parts of the Kashmir. That's a source of much of the terrorism. My guess is that ultimately this will turn out to be some outside jihadi groups who might also recruit among disaffected Muslims locally.

But there has been many other reports that indicated that the gunmen spoke in a language that was understood by the Indians - and many said they were speaking Hindi.

Before people rush to conclusions, we should keep in mind that there is much uncertain about the identity of the attackers.

Even if the gunmen were outsiders, they could not have operated as efficiently as they have without some local support. The question would

The attacks were horrifying, but not surprising at all.

India has a record of discrimination towards its Muslim minorities(which btw has the second largest Muslim population the world after Indonesia). Discrimination is putting it lightly, and it is probably an inadequate word - for instance, it does not convey the 2002 Gujarat massacres, which should more appropriately be called a genocide. It has been shown that the Gujarat government, with Narendra Modi, was complicit in the Gujarat masscares.

Funny thing is, Indians recently voted Modi back into office! He was elected again for a third term on December 23, 2007 with an emphatic win in the state elections, which he had cast as a "referendum on his rule". So much for the Gujarati sense of justice.

After a series of bombings in western India in July 2008, emails were sent out by the alleged perpetrators, which claimed that the attacks were "the revenge of Gujarat".

Simply put, Indian Muslims are disenfranchised citizens. It will not be surprising that if it does turn out that the gunmen were Indian citizens.

Again Fareed Zakaria, himself an Indian Muslim from Mumbai, now in the US as a political commentator):

Muslim militants have been responsible for much of the violence that has plagued Mumbai in recent years. But these attacks seem to be of a different magnitude.
One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last ten years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted. There's enough alienation out there that there are locals who can be drawn in to plots. That tends to be a pattern, from Madrid to Casablanca to Bali — some hard-core jihadis who indoctrinate alienated locals they can seduce.

Too many people are quick to shout out that absolutely nothing justifies violence. But such an attitude will never rid the world of violence. It is human nature to lash out against injustice - certain individuals are more apt to be susceptible to violence to correct injustices. Case in point, South Africa's fight against apartheid, Palestine's struggle against Israeli occupation. The weak and the oppressed fight to make a show of defiance - who would want to remain under the foot of another?

If you want to rid the world of violence, remove the underlying factors that provoke it.

It is not an impossible task - and it only becomes so, if you believe it so.

Hopefully, the world (or at least India) heeds the call.

But the chances of that happening are minimal.

One reader comment from an Indian woman named Neha was calling for an Indian Bush to attack Pakistan so as to prevent further attacks on India.

Rational heads should prevail, but sadly, the Indian government is only too keen to play the blame game than make a move towards real positive changes that uplift their disenfranchised Muslim citizens.

Worryingly though, once this is over, the rabid backlash can be quick and vicious - and the oppressed Indian Muslims will be more vulnerable than ever....

Viva La Vida | Live the Life

2008-11-23T05:55:00.004-05:00

Another weekend has passed. And tomorrow the work week begins - five more days of absolute mind-numbing drudgery.

The odd thing is, all of this occurs in an "intellectual" environment. Thr process of generating intellectual ideas and thoughts, though can be tedious,and at times (lately, more often than not), creatively stifling.

This is a problem for free-spirited individuals like myself. If I were given a choice, I would spend my days dreaming up of stories, and then writing them down. Sadly, I have not done that in years.

I have to work to earn a living - and I cannot afford to stay home and write, in the off chance that I might actually earn a living out of it.

My compromise has been to sneak a few hours off my "intellectual" work during the work week, to work on my creative stuff.

Believe me, it is not an easy process. There are days when it is impossible to switch roles. I find myself staring at the computer unable to put down in words my thoughts.

Then I say I'll do it later. The usual cop-out.

But later never comes, so I never do get around to it.

Before I know it, days have passed, then weeks and months.

How much longer will I keep telling myself, later?

I feel a deep sense of restlessness.

I ardently wish I could just take off to a remote island, where I can focus on myself and my dreams.

It is difficult to do that with people and responsibilities milling around you.

But this life is the only one I have got. I will not be able to retrieve the time I have let go so carelessly. I just have to live life the way I want to live life.

I have to stop thinking about the how, the why and the way. Just live.

Now. Today. This very minute.

The Obama Administration

2008-11-20T20:58:00.006-05:00

The euphoria over Barack Hussein Obama's election to the United States of America's highest political office has more or less settled down. People are now back to worrying about the economy, and the recent dives in the stock market has not helped stem the overall gloomy mood. The new President will have his work cut out for him when he takes the office in January.

I hope things turn around, and that his administration will not be ineffectual. Some of his recent moves have given me pause. Only days after his win, he rebuffed Iran's attempt at opening a dialogue between the two countries. It was disappointing.

He had ran his campaign under the slogan of 'change', and people voted him in thinking that his victory will bring about a new approach to US foreign policy; to have the world regard the US government favorably again. And the reason why so many foreigners welcomed his election was that they too envisioned a leader that would be open to resolving problems through dialogue and positive influence (soft power) rather than hard power (force).

The question is, will there really be change, or has he been just talk?

To see him, spout the same old line as the previous administration AFTER Iran made the first positive move is inexcusable. Did he even accept the congratulations from the Iranian President? I didn't see any report that indicated so.

Despite the whole hoo-ha made over Obama's "link" to the Muslim world, him having lived in Indonesia for sometime, I believe that an Obama administration's dealings in that part of the world would be no different than any other previous Democratic administration. Do not expect any miracles in the Palestine-Israeli issue. Still, better than a Bush administration though, most would agree.

I am aghast that he is actually considering Senator Hillary Clinton for the secretary of state position.

Tom Friedman of the NYT wrote this that sums up exactly why this would be a bad idea:

“It takes America’s friends and adversaries about five minutes to figure out who really speaks for the White House and who doesn’t,” wrote Aaron D. Miller, a former State Department Middle East adviser and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land.” “If a secretary of state falls into the latter category, he or she will have little chance of doing effective diplomacy on a big issue. More likely, they’ll be played like a finely tuned violin or simply taken for granted.”

When the U.S. secretary of state walks into the room, Miller added in a recent essay in The Los Angeles Times, “his or her interlocutors need to be on the edge of their seats, not comfortably situated in their chairs wondering how best to manipulate the secretary. If anything, they should be worried about being manipulated themselves.”

My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don’t know.

I don't know how well an Obama administration would fare. I would wish it does well enough for him to be re-elected for a second term. But that depends on a multitude of factors - the economy, Iraq, Iran, terrorism, minimising polarisation between Republicans and Democrats etc......

He won people's hearts - let's just hope he keeps it, and surrounds himself with good advisors and capable people.

Rest in Peace Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam - A True Singapore Lion

2008-10-11T13:34:00.013-04:00

Rest in Peace JBJ

When I was little, back then in the early 1980s, I recall my parents speaking of Mr. Jeyaretnam in admiration. I also recalled in later years, my father telling the story of when he gave a lift to Mr. Jeyaretnam one day when he saw him walking in Tanjong Pagar. I did not understand then who he was, or why he was a figure of importance in our lives. After all, I never saw him, only heard of him.

My father, like the many other Singaporeans, respected Mr. Jeyaretnam for his honest idealism. And my father did the little he could that day when he gave Mr. Jeyaretnam a lift to his destination so as to show him that a Singaporean cared; people appreciated him knowing the full personal sacrifices he endured in order to pursue the political goals on behalf of Singaporeans.

Many years on, I finally understood why people so admired him. It's the David vs. Goliath pull that draws us all in awe and hope. We dare not articulate our own opinions for fear of the consequences, so we leave it up to someone else, and hope against hope that he somehow manages to break through. And when he doesn't, we remain silent choosing to gripe behind closed doors, or through pseudonyms on the Internet.

I have no personal stories of myself to tell of Mr. Jeyaretnam. The few times I saw him were at political rallies in 1997, and at a political forum - I think it was at NUS. Once I saw him selling his book along Orchard Road. I bought the book, shook his hand and thanked him for his political work. That was all I did to show that I cared - my miserable few bucks that went towards clearing his forced-upon bankruptcy debt.

I always believed that Singaporeans never much appreciated him for who he was. So I was heartened to read the Facebook comments in a group created in his memory. Many of the comments came from the younger generation, showing a willingness to think and articulate better on political issues than those of us from the previous generation. Maybe they are sick and tired of being told what's best for them; maybe money's not all-important any longer that they are willing to sacrifice their principles and freedom; maybe they they're no longer willing to self-censor; maybe they want a say in how their country develops.

This, I think, bodes well for the future of Singapore.

Here are some comments on JBJ's passing that I came across while surfing the Economist recently. Since these posters have articulated it much better than I could, I am re-posting some here....

"Singaporeans do not deserve someone like JBJ. The majority accepted a trade off, allowing a despot to run their lives in return for economic benefits. Does not matter if the majority are aware that the despot is self serving, conceals the truth, manipulates the elections system and MSM, influences the judiciary, abuses the ISA to intimidate citizens, appoint stooges in key positions. This begs the question, what kind of people will overlook such grotesque behavior in return for economic benefits ? JBJ never did and he stuck to his principles to the very end.
He was indeed a true Patriot."

"To conceive of what JBJ meant and how he connected with the ordinary Singapore, his son, Philip Jayaretnam cites why he always took public buses whenever possible, it was perhaps embarrassed that taxi drivers often refuse his fare. And to say he did little to dent PAP's power might be premature, like Che Guevara, his image more than his ideals will be the legacy that serve Singapore's civil rights progress."

"Singapore needs more brave souls like JBJ, but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I guess he'll be remembered as the heretic who preached democracy and rights while the rest of us were eating out of the PAP's hand. As for Lee Kuan Yew, he's a brilliant man, but nonetheless only human, and the demise of one of his fiercest political opponents should remind him that his time is drawing to an end, too."

"The epitaph should say "Here lies a man who fought for every Singaporean who has no spine of their own. One who stood up in face of hoodlooms, when eneryone else was ready to prostrate; one who spoke out when everyone else wagged; abd one who held the mirror when everyone else was singing paens to the Royal family." Dear Jeyaretnam! You were born amongst thankless spinessness people, would have loved to have you as one of my own countryman instead of seeing you getting wasted in Kingdom of Singapore."

Rest in peace JBJ. You will be missed.

Global Financial Crisis and Its Effects in Asia

2008-10-10T13:35:00.015-04:00

Panic Attack As Investors Sell Off Shares at Any Price

Hell in Asia - Panic Attack As Investors Sell Off Shares at Any Price. This was the headline in the Straits Times that I woke up to on Thursday morning. The previous day's trading amounted to a sell-off in Asian markets, despite the coordinated rate cuts in the US, Europe and China. Herd mentality had set in - fearful retail investors (the bag holders mainly) rushed to stem their losses. So while the headline might have been shocking to those not following the financial news, the sell-off reaction in Asia was actually anticipated and in accordance to technical analysis.

When the newspapers start their massive moanings, and everyone is talking about the stockmarket, then expect there to be a rebounding in the markets. It will happen in the US first, then followed by the Asian markets (which will react accordingly as they usually do).

Now having said that (savvy traders actually trade in the up and down swings of the market, and make money doing so) , this financial crisis (mainly the problem with the availibility of credit for economic sustenance and growth) is not something that will easily be sorted out.

Small businesses will suffer because of the slowdown in consumer spending. Americans caught up in debt, are not likely to spur the economy any longer by buying items they do not really need - be it furniture to plasma tvs. Asian imports will decline, and their profits will decline leading to a slowdown in Asia. Asian jobs will be lost, and smaller business will find it harder to expand as credit have all dried up. No jobs, no income, no buying power....See where that leads to....

But some people are actually hoping that the markets will go down futher, so they can do bottom-fishing - that is, buying up expensive items, such as property or formerly high priced stocks at low prices. One writer from the Today newspaper quipped that she wants "a sharp enough drop so that her dreams are within reach". She called this a "slight correction". She also wrote that she felt no sympathy for those hit by the credit crunch because they are the ones who had earned loads of money for taking risks with other people's money. In her opinion, it's fitting that they pay the price.

Ok, she may be able to bottom-fish for property (in certain sectors). If I had more money, I would be buying into property too. And hold it for long-term, and forget about double digit growth that we got used to in the 90s. And definitely forget about bottom-fishing stocks unless one really knows how to read the fundamentals of a company. Too often people buy stocks on the way down, thinking they are getting a deal, and those companies never recover, and the investors who bought the stocks at a seemingly bargain price are left holding an empty bag.

But never mind all of that, let's go back to the Today writer. She chooses to avoid the bigger picture, which is far more dire. A protracted financial downturn will affect everyone - we saw a prelude just months ago with oil and rice price increases, and the effect it had on the poorer people in this world.

The hedge fund managers, bankers and the rich (those people the Today writer was scoffing at) will manage somehow. The rest of us will also manage by tightening our belts and reducing our spending. We will make different lifestyle choices - eat in, instead of out at a fancy restaurant; shop only when necessary; drive less etc.

But it's a different story for the poor who are already struggling to make ends meet. Increases in food prices can literally make a difference between life and death.

It's those people I am thinking about. And that's why I hope there is NO sharp drop that shakes the markets. A sharp drop is not a slight correction. When there was a sharp drop in 1929, it started the Great Depression, which lasted for years leading to misery for many people. The global consequences of such a drop would have far-reaching adverse impact given the connectivity of our economies today.

Would you want that to happen just so your dreams are within reach? Shame on that Today writer for such irresponsible hopes.

Women, Vanity and Cosmetic Enhancements

2008-10-09T13:49:00.004-04:00

Botox, Dermal Fillers, Chemical Peels Etc

Women are vain creatures. It is a stereotype that some women may oppose vehemently, but a statement that hold true for many people in general. I am one such woman. I do not have perfect flawless skin, which I so ardently wish for.

As soon as I reached that age when looks began to play an important part of my social life (that is, the teenage years), I looked for solutions to imperfection in my facial skin. I endured numerous painful sessions at spas, where my facial skin was picked clean of impurities (acne). I endured it all, believing in the words of those inflicting the pain - that my face would soon clear up. But this only led to injuries (read scars) in my skin.

Many years later, after the acne cleared up, with multiple vists to this and that dermatologists, age began pulling my facial skin down leading to the dreaded nasolabial line (unwanted "parentheses" on the face).

A small poll amongst my friends have shown that the perception of what constitutes as perfection is really dependent on one's self. Maybe even related to one's self-esteem.

For instance, one friend insisted she needed further cosmetic procedures done to even out her skin tone, and flatten the scar damage from acne flare-ups years ago. But to the rest of us, she looked fine.

But I can understand why she would feel the need to continue the procedures, having been through years of battle with acne myself. It is partly healing (emotionally) to undergo procedures because it keeps the hope alive that at the end of it, you come out looking better. So the more procedures, the more better you end up looking. So even if the visible improvements are small, the emotional improvements are huge!

The group of us are not yet into Botox - I think we are not in the right age group yet. But we have tried TCA chemical peels, microdermabrasion, and now....

Dermal Fillers is the next new cosmetic enhancement we would like to try.

This is what I found out about dermal fillers:

"When we age, we lose firmess (through fat loss) in our skin; this leads us to have a droopy effect. In the face, we get those "parentheses" around the naso-labial area. The skin loses stucture and volume, forming lines and wrinkles.

Juverderm corrects this by injecting materials called "demal fillers" into the skin, to achieve a temporary effect on smoothness. The dermal filler used in Juvederm is called hyaluronic acid (HA).

HA is a natural complex sugar found in all living cells, and one of the major components of the skin tissue. HA retains water and hydrates the skin to increase volume and density.

Since Juvederm uses a naturally occuuring substance that is already present in the skin, this is a safe procedure that has no advserse long-term effects. The benefits from the procedure though are temporary, lasting anywhere from 6 months to a year".

Sounds good to me. Who's up first, gals?

Finance | Credit Card Rate Increases

2008-10-08T12:31:00.014-04:00

Credit Card Increased Its Interest Rates For No Absolute Reason

I am one of those obessively punctual people who make sure to pay all of their bills, mortgage and credit card payments on time. I even do it the old-fashioned way with a checklist, even if I can automatically schedule recurring online payments. Somehow, going through my checklist, logging online and double-checking that the right amount was paid on the right date, then placing a check mark next to the creditor in question makes me feel good. Something accomplished!

Now, I wish I had paid as much attention to reading the now and the notices regarding card agreements that these credit cards like to send out ever so often. Typically, I throw those out without much thought!

Anyway, I am almost never late. The one or two times I have been late on a payment were due to unavoidable circumstances.

Therefore, when I checked my statement for a business credit card recently, I was shocked beyond words to see that the APR interest rate has been increased to 21.19% from 7.99%! What????

My first thought was that I had made a late payment the previous month, and the credit card had automatically done a default APR. So I quickly checked my 'checklist' to see when I made the payment. It showed that I did it on time. Then I logged to my online credit card account to verify what I had noted in my book. Yup, I had not been late.

When I called the credit card - Advanta Small Business Credit Card - they told me that they had sent out a mailer with the notice of an amendment to their interest rates. Well, it had been sent to my residence in the US and since I was here in Singapore, I did not read it.

This is what I found out - so please those of you who have credit cards with sizeable balances on them had better beware. Credit card companies can magically increase the APR with advance notification through mailers of the impending changes. They will give you a period of time (short!) to dispute the changes. And you have to do this in writing. If you dispute the charges, the most likely scenario is that you have to clear the balance and close the account. This may not be helpful if you have no way to clear the balance, so disputing it may not be an option to begin with.

Now, I am quite angry about this situation. My solution is to completely transfer off the entire balance to another business credit card with a lower fixed APR - and find someway to quickly bring that balance down, in case this other credit card decides to magically increase its APR to an exorbitant figure as well.

I try to pay more than the minimum monthly payment suggested by the credit card company. Why? Because the minimum payment required only stretches out the debt nearly indefinitely. These two charts below show the difference between what happens when one pays only the minimum monthly and when one starts making bigger payments to bring down the debt.

Source: Consumerist

You know what I think. Things have gotten so bad that credit card defaults must be on the rise, and the credit companies are pushing the buck to those of us who have been managing their debt well. People just like me, with excellent credit scores and a clean credit record, and who want to keep things that way. Such people are the ones who will have to pay the high price because we will always find a way to keep up the payments.

But this APR increase from Advanta is complete madness. As soon as I transfer the balance, that card is history! That's one customer you have lost Advanta.

Religious Faith Discussions and The Question of Tolerance

2008-10-07T07:58:00.019-04:00

Religion and Tolerance

I read with amazement Monday's Straits Times article on "How far should discussions of religious faith go?". I haven't been around Singapore for a long time, but I guess kudos are in order that the topic is even partially discussed in the Singaporean print media. Back then (one or two decades ago), any mention of religion and tolerance was considered tabboo.

The article was basically five brief commentaries from Singaporean youths. The general theme of most of the comments was that there should be more of an emphasis on understanding each other's differences rather than simply tolerating. I agree, but I would add that respect is even more important.

Sometime ago, I had written a research paper on the question for religious tolerance and understanding in multi-cultural societies such as Singapore. The research paper was for a graduate seminar class in an ivy-league school in the US, and I had written it just after the hijab ban in Singapore schools fiasco.

I cannot remember what I wrote exactly - if I were to post excerpts here in this blog, I'd have to do some digging into my old files (in my old laptop!). But the thrust of my argument was simply that without respect underlying any attempt in fostering proactive interactions between ethnic (and religious) communities, there would be no genuine understanding. And without genuine understanding amongst the citizenry, you merely have different groups co-existing within the same society.

This ties into the whole question of nationhood. What ties us (all of us from the different ethnic and religious groups) to Singapore? Are our loyalties stronger to our group than the nation?

It seems that these are essential questions that need to be addressed in schools. It is impossible to inculcate a sense of responsility, awareness and respect once a person has attained adulthood - this needs to be done from young.

This is an excerpt of the comment from Ian Poh, a 21 year old NUS first-year law student that was published in the above-mentioned article.

"It is asking for a lot for frankness and tolerance to co-exist - there will always be someone taking issue with your opinion. I base this on my experience in mission schools. Even among peers, there were frequent disagreements arising from interpretations of weekly sermons delivered at chapel services, mostly from the freethinkers and those of weaker faith. Many take these differing opinions personally, adopting a hostile attitude after these debates. The situation might have even been worse had students of other religious faiths not been excused from these services. In my opinion, when it comes to religion, silence beats the discordance of open discussion".

Wow! The above is an example of a dangerously naive way of viewing the world from a future Singaporean lawyer.

I'll give you my take on why the above thinking is so flawed.

First, there will always be individuals around in this world who will take issue with your opinion on a whole lot of topics. Somehow the idea that only religion has the ability to inflame people to irationality has been perpretated so much in Singapore that is has become an accepted truth. I fear of this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy!

There are Singaporeans who know that there are minority groups here - Singaporean Muslims for example. But they have never interacted with Muslims except for the cursory social interaction at work and school. Such people are prone to believe stereotypes when they encounter them. To prevent that, there has to be a proactive push towards respect, which leads to understanding; not just tolerance.

Second, a telling sign of how progressive a society is, is in exactly how differences between people are aired out. In such societies, there is an underlying respect for the right of that individual to state his position, and to listen to counter-positions.

In fact, this mode of discussion is one of the first things university students in the US are taught. The exchange of ideas then flows easily because there exists this attitude of respect and acceptance, which is critical in fostering creativity and innovation. You cannot pick and choose which topics are acceptable and which are not.
But you can have guidelines for kind of speech is acceptable and what is not. That is why there are such laws as hate speech laws in many progressive countries. And if you educate people from young to have respect for differences, then there will not be an attitude of hostility for those different from yourself.

Only a stagnant society prevents open discussion. Sad to say, the writer's experiences at his school must only be a reflection of the state of the intellectual development in Singapore.

Third, is on a personal note. For all of my formal education in Singapore, I was in Catholic mission schools. I am a Muslim, and on hindsight, I must congratulate the educators at my school for fostering an attitude of openness amongst its students. During my later years, the non-Catholics were excused from Mass services, but prior to that I had attended enough of them to understand the ceremony, which I feel makes me closer to my Catholic friends.

Knowing and understanding the many differences between us, I respect the right for them to believe and worship in the things they do, and I also choose to focus on our many commonalities.

Home Alone on a Rainy Day

2008-10-07T03:31:00.013-04:00

At Home On A Rainy Day

I am a homebody. I can entertain myself at home alone with absolutely no problem. I think this charecteristic of mine developed from my years of living abroad and by myself. I had roomates during the early years, but as I got older, I got my own apartment. And that has been my lifestyle eversince.

I cannot envision my having to share my beautiful apartment with someone else. I mean, a someone else that I cannot order around. Heh. My family, or future significant other is a different issue.

I know women who need to have people around them all the time. Some cannot sleep in empty apartments, if they are all alone. I just cannot fathom living a life in their shoes. It must get awfully scary because no one can be with people all the time. There will always be situations when you will find yourself alone.

I think such people are afraid of themselves more than anything else.

I am not saying that one should not need others. Rather I believe that if you are comfortable with yourself, you'll always find things to occupy your mind when you find yourself alone. So that you are, in fact, keeping yourself company.

So I am at home alone today. I have been so used to living by myself for years, that it has taken some getting used to being in a house full of people (my family). So today, I am quite relishing being by myself. Watching the heavy rain fall from my window.

There is nothing quite like rain in Singapore. I have just come from the East Coast of the US, and it never ever rains the way it does here. I just love the rumbling thunder, the occasional lighting, and the heavy relentless rain. Then that earthy smell, most noticeable in the air as the rain dies out.

Of course, this is best experienced on a leisurely day at home, just where I am today!

This led me to remember Surah Ash-Shams (The Sun) from the Quran. I came across this when I was reading the Quran during Ramadan (the month that has just passed). Order and proportion in the world, order and proportion even in our soul. And if we cannot see or feel the order in our soul, that must mean we are failing in someway - that our souls are not as purified as it should be.

This worldly muslimah thinks that the soul does become tainted when forced to tackle so many of life's issues. I am not talking merely of sins. But the usual hustle and bustle of life - rushing to work, worrying about paying bills on time, taking care of loved ones etc. All of these occupy our energies, and sometimes we forget to tend to our souls. And this makes it get darker (tainted). But the Quran says that it is important to purify the soul, that means we should give it time, that is, time to ourselves that we can spend on reflection, studying the Quran and remembrance of the frailty of life in this world. Only then, the Quran says, will we truly succeed.

By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour;
By the Moon as she follows him;
By the Day as it shows up (the Sun's) glory;
By the Night as it conceals it;
By the Firmament and its (wonderful) structure;
By the Earth and its (wide) expanse:
By the Soul, and the proportion and order given to it;
And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
Truly he succeeds that purifies it,
And he fails that corrupts it!
(Quran 91:1-10)

Just Another Worldly Muslimah

2008-10-07T03:09:00.002-04:00

Thoughts, Observations and Ideas

I am just another worldly Muslimah who wants to share her thoughts, observations and ideas with interested readers out there. I chose the word worldly not to convey the idea that I am one of those devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual, nor am I overly concerned with the secular issues in my life over the spiritual ones.

Instead, I chose the word worldly because I think I understand the ways of this world and its inhabitants - the positives, the negatives, all of its manipulations, and all of its attractions. Ok, maybe I am exaggerating a tad bit.

But I have lived around the world, mostly in cosmopolitan cities that has enabled me to meet and interact with different kinds of people from different cultures. I think I have developed a kind of worldly understanding of how things and people function.

Now, being worldly is not necessarily a bad thing. It has made me sophisticated in my ability to react to the world, and it has helped me advance in the secular world.

Still, I think it is time to focus more on my spiritual development. And since I have more time on my hands these days (I have just returned to the country of my birth, Singapore, after 13 years away, to try and spend some months taking stock of my life), I thought it would be a good idea to document my various thoughts, observations and ideas in a blog.

Please feel free to leave your comments. I am always interested to know what others think. However, I do not appreciate anonymous comments so I am restricting the comments to those who have OpenId. If you prefer not to leave me a public comment, please feel free to email me at amaryllisma [at] gmail.com

Enjoy.

Site Policy

2008-10-04T05:16:00.000-04:00

Since I have ads displayed on this blog, I have to dish out the site policy. Please read then following.

The privacy of visitors to WorldlyMuslimah.Blogspot.Com is important to me. I recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. The following contains information on what types of personal information this site may receive and collect when you use visit StocksUniversity.Blogspot.Com, and how this site safeguards your information.

Log Files

As with most other websites, this site collects and uses the data contained in log files. The information in the log files includes your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.Cookies and Web BeaconsCookies are used to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a pop-up once in your visit, or the ability to login to some features, such as forums.

This site also use third party sponsored advertisements. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.

A word about cookies:

There is a lot of fear out there about cookies. Cookies are small text files that allow websites to track purchases or improve your website browsing experience. These files are typically not harmful and can be disabled through your browser if necessary. However, doing so may impact how you view some sites and may make completing purchases with some companies difficult. Disabling cookies is generally unneccesary even for security purposes.