I just had a thought! Sometimes I have them (thoughts that is) and on occassion I've had some good ones (thoughts that is).
But anyway I was thinking most rapes happen in the home. Yes the home. So when Hilali says that women should stay at home shrouded in darkness and hidden in the shadows he's actually setting them up to be raped!
It is obvious that despite his defence in his press statement that he is... wait for it because it is funny..."an advocate" for women (yes I laughed my arse off too), the whole purpose of Hilali's 'sermon' is not to protect women at all as he professes but to oppress women by keeping them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
If you look at the transcript of his sermon you will see that he not only blames women for rape but for every ill befalling the human race.
I went to the Koran this evening in an effort to make sense of it all. I felt like I had to do this. I felt that I had to find some comfort and some reassurance from somewhere that this is not Islam. This is not the religion that I have chosen to follow. I needed to remind myself that there was beauty in something that sometimes seems so ugly.
The first thing I read was that Eve was not blamed for the expulsion of man from the Garden of Eden. There is no reference to Eve being tempted by Satan in the Koran. Both Adam and Eve were held equally responsible. So I thought to myself, what is it in this sick man's head that makes him interpret the Koran in such a way that he can then turn around and say that women are to blame for theft, rape and crime.
He is sick in the head and that's it. He has an intense hatred of women. He is a fool. Pity the fool but pity more those who follow the fool!
Islam is being hijacked by fools. Fools who lead fools. Men of hatred who lead men into hatred. Who will stop this? Who will speak up when there are so many fools and so much hatred?
Friday, November 03, 2006
What Hilali said
Here's the transcript.
It seems we women are to blame for everything- rape, theft, global warming, the economy, war, famine, disease, natural disasters... I'll just leave it to you to read because I am actually speechless. Try not to choke.
BELOVED brothers and sisters, we have spent this good and blessed night kneeling and prostrating, worshipping God, Lord of the Universe, through the prayer of al-Qiam, listening to the most truthful of words. And from the Sura of Al-Ma'ida (The Table), I stand before you to discuss this legal, criminal, legislative position through a Koranic judgment issued by the Supreme Koranic Court of Justice for the crime of theft.
In it, God put forward man before woman. God says, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred" - an example from God, for God is ... What should it be, God is forgiving, merciful, or mighty, wise? No, it has to be mighty, wise, not forgiving, merciful. Not at all. No way. For God is mighty, wise.
So, we look at the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. In theft, the man was put forward before the woman. We come to the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. God says, "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes."
So why is the man put forward before the woman for theft, and the woman put forward before the man. In the code of what? Adultery.
Dear beloved, God called the Koran the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. He called it the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. A book whose verses are wise, a book whose verses are detailed. And who is someone wise? The one who prescribes the right medicine for the right illness, we call him wise. And the one who says the right word at the right time, we call him wise. And the one who acts appropriately on issues, wise. All the verses of the wise Koran, at their beginnings and at their ends, there is a connection between the body and the end. Between the context of the verse and its beginning, and then its closing, the end of the verse.
"Forgiving, merciful" has a meaning. "Mighty, wise" has a meaning. "Forgiving, patient" has a meaning. "Patient, forgiving" has a meaning. "Hearing, knowledgeable" has a meaning.
Every verse, when it ends with the mention of one of the attributes of God, has a wisdom that is legislative, rhetoric, in the body of thatverse.
This verse in particular, the verse in the Sura of Al-Ma'ida, when the Koran was revealed, and it used to get revealed to the Messenger of God, there were no recording devices to tape them. And they didn't have then telephones that can take pictures and record. And at that time, there were no cassettes, and even 99 per cent of the people didn't know how to read or write. So they relied on memorising. On intuition. On their memories. One would hear the verse spoken by the Messenger of God, so he'd recite it and chant it in prayer until he memorised it. Very few knew how to write.
One Arab man heard this verse by the Messenger of God, and while he was in his field, his orchard, at his work - he's a working man - he was reciting the verse: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful".
A nomad was passing by, he was a non-Muslim. The companion of the Prophet was reciting the verse, and the nomad was passing by. He heard the verse. Immediately, naturally, and with refined eloquence, he said that it was not right. Without hearing the full verse. So that nomad asked the companion of the Messenger of God what was he saying. He answered, "I am reciting something from the Koran". But the nomad said, "Your Koran is in Arabic, but you have never had such linguistic fault. Recite it again."
So the companion recited, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". He (the nomad) said, "That is not right". The man said, "You, a nomad, (inaudible). He answered, "It's not right. And I challenge you that it is not right. These words could never have been spoken by Mohammed son of Abdullah, the master eloquent. And they could never be words revealed unto him by God.."
He said, "Let's go to the Prophet." He then said, "Oh, Messenger of God, I have recited a verse but the nomad corrected it for me." He said, "Yes, your companion says, for God is forgiving, merciful". If God forgave and was merciful, He wouldn't command the 'cutting off'. But He is mighty, wise, which is why He commanded the cutting off. The verse should end with "For he is mighty, wise". The Prophet said to him, "The nomad has corrected your mistake with the eloquence and good style and beauty of the Arabic language."
Yes, the nomad is right. "For God is mighty, wise", not forgiving. "For God is forgiving, merciful", that's in another life where forgiveness and mercy is hoped for. But in a verse where there is "cutting off", and where there is a limit imposed, God is mighty and wise, so He commanded the cutting off. But if He was forgiving and merciful, He wouldn't have commanded the cutting off.
Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."
We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.
Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.
Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.
On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.
That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male thief and the female thief, cut off their ..."
But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.
But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.
Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.
If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."
It seems we women are to blame for everything- rape, theft, global warming, the economy, war, famine, disease, natural disasters... I'll just leave it to you to read because I am actually speechless. Try not to choke.
BELOVED brothers and sisters, we have spent this good and blessed night kneeling and prostrating, worshipping God, Lord of the Universe, through the prayer of al-Qiam, listening to the most truthful of words. And from the Sura of Al-Ma'ida (The Table), I stand before you to discuss this legal, criminal, legislative position through a Koranic judgment issued by the Supreme Koranic Court of Justice for the crime of theft.
In it, God put forward man before woman. God says, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred" - an example from God, for God is ... What should it be, God is forgiving, merciful, or mighty, wise? No, it has to be mighty, wise, not forgiving, merciful. Not at all. No way. For God is mighty, wise.
So, we look at the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. In theft, the man was put forward before the woman. We come to the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. God says, "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes."
So why is the man put forward before the woman for theft, and the woman put forward before the man. In the code of what? Adultery.
Dear beloved, God called the Koran the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. He called it the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. A book whose verses are wise, a book whose verses are detailed. And who is someone wise? The one who prescribes the right medicine for the right illness, we call him wise. And the one who says the right word at the right time, we call him wise. And the one who acts appropriately on issues, wise. All the verses of the wise Koran, at their beginnings and at their ends, there is a connection between the body and the end. Between the context of the verse and its beginning, and then its closing, the end of the verse.
"Forgiving, merciful" has a meaning. "Mighty, wise" has a meaning. "Forgiving, patient" has a meaning. "Patient, forgiving" has a meaning. "Hearing, knowledgeable" has a meaning.
Every verse, when it ends with the mention of one of the attributes of God, has a wisdom that is legislative, rhetoric, in the body of thatverse.
This verse in particular, the verse in the Sura of Al-Ma'ida, when the Koran was revealed, and it used to get revealed to the Messenger of God, there were no recording devices to tape them. And they didn't have then telephones that can take pictures and record. And at that time, there were no cassettes, and even 99 per cent of the people didn't know how to read or write. So they relied on memorising. On intuition. On their memories. One would hear the verse spoken by the Messenger of God, so he'd recite it and chant it in prayer until he memorised it. Very few knew how to write.
One Arab man heard this verse by the Messenger of God, and while he was in his field, his orchard, at his work - he's a working man - he was reciting the verse: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful".
A nomad was passing by, he was a non-Muslim. The companion of the Prophet was reciting the verse, and the nomad was passing by. He heard the verse. Immediately, naturally, and with refined eloquence, he said that it was not right. Without hearing the full verse. So that nomad asked the companion of the Messenger of God what was he saying. He answered, "I am reciting something from the Koran". But the nomad said, "Your Koran is in Arabic, but you have never had such linguistic fault. Recite it again."
So the companion recited, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". He (the nomad) said, "That is not right". The man said, "You, a nomad, (inaudible). He answered, "It's not right. And I challenge you that it is not right. These words could never have been spoken by Mohammed son of Abdullah, the master eloquent. And they could never be words revealed unto him by God.."
He said, "Let's go to the Prophet." He then said, "Oh, Messenger of God, I have recited a verse but the nomad corrected it for me." He said, "Yes, your companion says, for God is forgiving, merciful". If God forgave and was merciful, He wouldn't command the 'cutting off'. But He is mighty, wise, which is why He commanded the cutting off. The verse should end with "For he is mighty, wise". The Prophet said to him, "The nomad has corrected your mistake with the eloquence and good style and beauty of the Arabic language."
Yes, the nomad is right. "For God is mighty, wise", not forgiving. "For God is forgiving, merciful", that's in another life where forgiveness and mercy is hoped for. But in a verse where there is "cutting off", and where there is a limit imposed, God is mighty and wise, so He commanded the cutting off. But if He was forgiving and merciful, He wouldn't have commanded the cutting off.
Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."
We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.
Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.
Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.
On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.
That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male thief and the female thief, cut off their ..."
But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.
But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.
Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.
If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Hilaly's Press Statement
I received these two press statements by email. The first was issued by Hilaly in defence of his comments. The second is from the United Muslim Women's Association Inc.
I'll start with Hilaly. First of all there's the high moral ground and insidious references to the "western mentality" as if it is somehow not as sophisticated as the warped Islamist mentality.
Then there is the inference that Muslim women who do not adopt so called "Islamic dress code" are destined to burn in Hell. And as if that is not enough he goes on to condemn those who do not tolerate the "moderate balanced way which I adopt to advocate for women’s issues, national harmony and co-existence, and to hold fast to the love of our Australian home, to protect it from all forms of extreme thoughts and to reject all acts of violence and any act that breaches the rule of law."
What a joke! Moderate? Balanced? Advocate? National harmony?
The fact is that this Press Release actually reiterates exactly what he said- that women should be covered lest THEY provoke men.
What's even sadder is that IT WORKED. The Press Release from the UMWA, who originally spoke out in full force against what he said, now appeases him and blames the media for blowing it out of proportion!
I agree to some extent that it has been blown out of proportion. The Sydney Morning Herald devoted a whole 8 pages to Hilaly's rant. A bit much really don't you think? But that is no excuse to appease him and accept his half arsed apology.
Read it and try not to laugh...
Explanatory Statement by the Mufti Al-Hilaly
Regarding the Recent Media Campaign
I would like to outline clearly and plainly some of the facts and basics that formulate my faith, belief and my understanding of the teachings of the true religion of Islam:
1-The crime of rape against any woman is an abominable crime; it has no justification, and the perpetrator deserves the severest punishment and would not deserve to belong to a religion or to humanity.
2-Women in Australia or any other western society are free to wear what they like, and no Muslim has the right to dictate the rulings of his religion on others. While non-Muslim women can cover or reveal whatever they choose of their bodies, Islamic Shari’a made it incumbent upon Muslim men to lower their gaze. It is prohibited for them to stare at the beauty of strange women.
3- It is my duty as a religious leader to advise Muslim women to adhere to and abide by the Islamic dress code. Having said that, Muslim women are free to comply with or reject my advice, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.
4-By saying the “exposed meat” displayed in a degrading way is a simile for a woman, making herself subject to abuse by men with diseased souls whose animalistic instincts will overcome them whereby they would abandon their humanity, mind and religion. These men are responsible for their crime.
5-The metaphor I used of the “exposed meat” was not appropriate for the western mentality. It has been quoted and misinterpreted by some groups with ill intentions. This metaphor was used in a private lesson given inside the mosque after the Taraweeh (optional night) prayers on the fourth day of Ramadan. It was meant for the Muslim attendees at the mosque and not the general public and particularly not the general women of our Australian society.
Apart from the above-mentioned facts, I would like to make it known to all my brothers and sisters in and out of Australia that:
After the Taraweeh (optional night) prayers on 27/09/2006, at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, Australia, I gave a lesson to the members of the Islamic community of Australia, the title of which was: “Why did Allah, the Almighty, mention ‘man’ before ‘woman’ in the crime of theft? as is quoted in the Quran: {[As for] the thief, the male and the female, …} [Al-Ma’idah 5.38] while He mentioned ‘woman’ before ‘man’ in the crime of adultery?, as is quoted in the Quran: {The woman and the man found guilty of adultery or fornication, …} [An-Nur 24.2]”.
This lesson lasted approximately 15 minutes; 10 minutes of these were spent on explaining the meaning of the first verse, and the remaining time was spent on giving advice and guidance relating to the way a woman dresses and the methods of seduction and the beauty given to her by the Almighty Allah. I emphasised that exceeding the limits in this regard is dangerous to both men and women; and that the devil exploits these charms of seduction to tempt both men and women to commit adultery and fornication. In this case, both men and women are committing a sin. So the topic did not deal with the crime of rape.
At the end of the lesson when I was explaining the reason why ‘woman’ was mentioned before ‘man’ in the verse dealing with the crime of adultery, I said it was because she possessed the charm, the methods of seduction and all similar devices given to her by Allah to tempt the man. For that I borrowed a metaphor used by an author called Ar-Rifa’i. He said exposing the meat in an illicit way would encourage the cats to devour it. I didn’t mean by that to humiliate the immodest women; I meant to censure the person who would abandon his humanity and turn into a vicious animal; and there’s a big difference between a cat’s behaviour and that of a human’s, as the latter is commanded and responsible for their actions.
I confess that this analogy is inappropriate and unacceptable for the Australian society and the western society in general.
I am deeply saddened and distressed by the acts of some devious groups which lurk in the dark watching me, and who cannot tolerate the moderate balanced way which I adopt to advocate for women’s issues, national harmony and co-existence, and to hold fast to the love of our Australian home, to protect it from all forms of extreme thoughts and to reject all acts of violence and any act that breaches the rule of law.
Yes, I feel deeply saddened that such an ordinary lesson has been used to slander and defame me after it had been translated with the ill intention of a dubious media that wishes to incite and they present an unfair campaign, the aims of which are very well known.
Once again, I turn to all the women of Australia and the world. You are the shining lights of the world, you are more than half of the society, and you are the daughters, the sisters, the mothers and the aunts. How could any sane person think of humiliating you?
You are the cherished pearls, the dearest thing in the world. So don’t be taken as offerings at the temples of the merchants of pleasure, or advocates of decadence and corruption.
Each one of us is responsible for accounting for his or her own actions before he or she is asked about them by the almighty Allah (on the Day of Judgment). Once again I am very sorry and apologize for what resulted from an unintentional analogy.
With all my respect to the women of the world.
In due course I will take the necessary decision that shall lift the pressures that have been placed on our Australian Muslim community and that which will benefit all Australians.
The pressure of the last couple of days has had an obvious effect on my health and well-being. I ask the public to give my family and I some privacy, time and space to recover. I have also asked for indefinite leave from my duties at Lakemba mosque.
Sincerely
Sheikh Taj El-Deen El-Hilali
Mufti Of Australia
PRESS RELEASE
The current situation involving His Emminence Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, Mufti of Australia, is of grave concern to the United Muslim Women's Association.
The collapse of His Emminence today highlights the stress that the media harassment of Sheikh Alhilali has placed him under. The United Muslim Women's Association sends its prayers and well wishes to His Emminence for a speedy recovery.
The manner in which this incident has been scrutinised and sensationalised by the Media has also placed all Muslim women under strain. The United Muslim Women's Association calls on all media outlets to show restraint and decency in the reporting of this matter. Regardless of the controversy itself the method of reportage has been grossly intrusive and inappropriate.
The United Muslim Women's Association further calls on all levels of government to show leadership during this critical time and to temper the language currently being used which is inflaming community ill will against Muslims generally and Muslim women in particular. It is disappointing to see our elected leaders using the current crises for political mileage at the expense of the Muslim community.
His Emminence, Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, has been a long term supporter of the United Muslim Women's Association and a Champion of women's rights generally, not just those of Muslim women. He has been unstinting and unselfish in his support for the betterment of women in our society. He has, and will continue to, enjoy the support of many women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, within our community.
The United Muslim Women's Association accepts the explanation provided by His Emminence, as outlined in his Press Release of today, as to both his words and his intent. The Association considers the matter to be closed and would urge all parties, media, government and community to show responsibility and restraint in allowing His Emminence to recover his health in private.
United Muslim Women's Association Inc.
30th October 2006
I'll start with Hilaly. First of all there's the high moral ground and insidious references to the "western mentality" as if it is somehow not as sophisticated as the warped Islamist mentality.
Then there is the inference that Muslim women who do not adopt so called "Islamic dress code" are destined to burn in Hell. And as if that is not enough he goes on to condemn those who do not tolerate the "moderate balanced way which I adopt to advocate for women’s issues, national harmony and co-existence, and to hold fast to the love of our Australian home, to protect it from all forms of extreme thoughts and to reject all acts of violence and any act that breaches the rule of law."
What a joke! Moderate? Balanced? Advocate? National harmony?
The fact is that this Press Release actually reiterates exactly what he said- that women should be covered lest THEY provoke men.
What's even sadder is that IT WORKED. The Press Release from the UMWA, who originally spoke out in full force against what he said, now appeases him and blames the media for blowing it out of proportion!
I agree to some extent that it has been blown out of proportion. The Sydney Morning Herald devoted a whole 8 pages to Hilaly's rant. A bit much really don't you think? But that is no excuse to appease him and accept his half arsed apology.
Read it and try not to laugh...
Explanatory Statement by the Mufti Al-Hilaly
Regarding the Recent Media Campaign
I would like to outline clearly and plainly some of the facts and basics that formulate my faith, belief and my understanding of the teachings of the true religion of Islam:
1-The crime of rape against any woman is an abominable crime; it has no justification, and the perpetrator deserves the severest punishment and would not deserve to belong to a religion or to humanity.
2-Women in Australia or any other western society are free to wear what they like, and no Muslim has the right to dictate the rulings of his religion on others. While non-Muslim women can cover or reveal whatever they choose of their bodies, Islamic Shari’a made it incumbent upon Muslim men to lower their gaze. It is prohibited for them to stare at the beauty of strange women.
3- It is my duty as a religious leader to advise Muslim women to adhere to and abide by the Islamic dress code. Having said that, Muslim women are free to comply with or reject my advice, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.
4-By saying the “exposed meat” displayed in a degrading way is a simile for a woman, making herself subject to abuse by men with diseased souls whose animalistic instincts will overcome them whereby they would abandon their humanity, mind and religion. These men are responsible for their crime.
5-The metaphor I used of the “exposed meat” was not appropriate for the western mentality. It has been quoted and misinterpreted by some groups with ill intentions. This metaphor was used in a private lesson given inside the mosque after the Taraweeh (optional night) prayers on the fourth day of Ramadan. It was meant for the Muslim attendees at the mosque and not the general public and particularly not the general women of our Australian society.
Apart from the above-mentioned facts, I would like to make it known to all my brothers and sisters in and out of Australia that:
After the Taraweeh (optional night) prayers on 27/09/2006, at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, Australia, I gave a lesson to the members of the Islamic community of Australia, the title of which was: “Why did Allah, the Almighty, mention ‘man’ before ‘woman’ in the crime of theft? as is quoted in the Quran: {[As for] the thief, the male and the female, …} [Al-Ma’idah 5.38] while He mentioned ‘woman’ before ‘man’ in the crime of adultery?, as is quoted in the Quran: {The woman and the man found guilty of adultery or fornication, …} [An-Nur 24.2]”.
This lesson lasted approximately 15 minutes; 10 minutes of these were spent on explaining the meaning of the first verse, and the remaining time was spent on giving advice and guidance relating to the way a woman dresses and the methods of seduction and the beauty given to her by the Almighty Allah. I emphasised that exceeding the limits in this regard is dangerous to both men and women; and that the devil exploits these charms of seduction to tempt both men and women to commit adultery and fornication. In this case, both men and women are committing a sin. So the topic did not deal with the crime of rape.
At the end of the lesson when I was explaining the reason why ‘woman’ was mentioned before ‘man’ in the verse dealing with the crime of adultery, I said it was because she possessed the charm, the methods of seduction and all similar devices given to her by Allah to tempt the man. For that I borrowed a metaphor used by an author called Ar-Rifa’i. He said exposing the meat in an illicit way would encourage the cats to devour it. I didn’t mean by that to humiliate the immodest women; I meant to censure the person who would abandon his humanity and turn into a vicious animal; and there’s a big difference between a cat’s behaviour and that of a human’s, as the latter is commanded and responsible for their actions.
I confess that this analogy is inappropriate and unacceptable for the Australian society and the western society in general.
I am deeply saddened and distressed by the acts of some devious groups which lurk in the dark watching me, and who cannot tolerate the moderate balanced way which I adopt to advocate for women’s issues, national harmony and co-existence, and to hold fast to the love of our Australian home, to protect it from all forms of extreme thoughts and to reject all acts of violence and any act that breaches the rule of law.
Yes, I feel deeply saddened that such an ordinary lesson has been used to slander and defame me after it had been translated with the ill intention of a dubious media that wishes to incite and they present an unfair campaign, the aims of which are very well known.
Once again, I turn to all the women of Australia and the world. You are the shining lights of the world, you are more than half of the society, and you are the daughters, the sisters, the mothers and the aunts. How could any sane person think of humiliating you?
You are the cherished pearls, the dearest thing in the world. So don’t be taken as offerings at the temples of the merchants of pleasure, or advocates of decadence and corruption.
Each one of us is responsible for accounting for his or her own actions before he or she is asked about them by the almighty Allah (on the Day of Judgment). Once again I am very sorry and apologize for what resulted from an unintentional analogy.
With all my respect to the women of the world.
In due course I will take the necessary decision that shall lift the pressures that have been placed on our Australian Muslim community and that which will benefit all Australians.
The pressure of the last couple of days has had an obvious effect on my health and well-being. I ask the public to give my family and I some privacy, time and space to recover. I have also asked for indefinite leave from my duties at Lakemba mosque.
Sincerely
Sheikh Taj El-Deen El-Hilali
Mufti Of Australia
PRESS RELEASE
The current situation involving His Emminence Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, Mufti of Australia, is of grave concern to the United Muslim Women's Association.
The collapse of His Emminence today highlights the stress that the media harassment of Sheikh Alhilali has placed him under. The United Muslim Women's Association sends its prayers and well wishes to His Emminence for a speedy recovery.
The manner in which this incident has been scrutinised and sensationalised by the Media has also placed all Muslim women under strain. The United Muslim Women's Association calls on all media outlets to show restraint and decency in the reporting of this matter. Regardless of the controversy itself the method of reportage has been grossly intrusive and inappropriate.
The United Muslim Women's Association further calls on all levels of government to show leadership during this critical time and to temper the language currently being used which is inflaming community ill will against Muslims generally and Muslim women in particular. It is disappointing to see our elected leaders using the current crises for political mileage at the expense of the Muslim community.
His Emminence, Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali, has been a long term supporter of the United Muslim Women's Association and a Champion of women's rights generally, not just those of Muslim women. He has been unstinting and unselfish in his support for the betterment of women in our society. He has, and will continue to, enjoy the support of many women, both Muslim and non-Muslim, within our community.
The United Muslim Women's Association accepts the explanation provided by His Emminence, as outlined in his Press Release of today, as to both his words and his intent. The Association considers the matter to be closed and would urge all parties, media, government and community to show responsibility and restraint in allowing His Emminence to recover his health in private.
United Muslim Women's Association Inc.
30th October 2006
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Letter to the Edior re Shiekh Hilaly's comments
My letter was published in The West Australian on Wednesday 31 October.
Dear Editor
For Sheikh Taj El Din al Hilaly to imply that Muslim women such as myself should stay at home, hidden behind their hijab or else expect to be treated as a 'piece of meat' is not only offensive but utterly disgusting. It appears the Sheikh would have us all shroud ourselves in black, walk ten steps behind our husbands and hide our faces in shame lest we unwittingly provoke lust in men who cannot control themselves. How, then are Muslim women expected to make positive contributions as Australian citizens in our society? How are we to excercise our right to education, to work, to life? Rights stated in the Quran.
I call for the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils to act on behalf of the people it is supposed to represent. I call for AFIC to publicly renounce the comments made by the Sheikh and to remove him from his role as spiritual adviser at Australia's largest Mosque.
To date, AFIC has proven itself to be nothing but a platform for individuals such as Ameer Ali to promote their own political agendas. It is time AFIC took some action and showed Australian Muslims where its interests really lie. It is time AFIC did something for the people it supposedly represents and sent a clear message to the broader Australian community that Australian Muslims reject the rantings of Sheikh Taj El Din al Hilaly.
Dear Editor
For Sheikh Taj El Din al Hilaly to imply that Muslim women such as myself should stay at home, hidden behind their hijab or else expect to be treated as a 'piece of meat' is not only offensive but utterly disgusting. It appears the Sheikh would have us all shroud ourselves in black, walk ten steps behind our husbands and hide our faces in shame lest we unwittingly provoke lust in men who cannot control themselves. How, then are Muslim women expected to make positive contributions as Australian citizens in our society? How are we to excercise our right to education, to work, to life? Rights stated in the Quran.
I call for the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils to act on behalf of the people it is supposed to represent. I call for AFIC to publicly renounce the comments made by the Sheikh and to remove him from his role as spiritual adviser at Australia's largest Mosque.
To date, AFIC has proven itself to be nothing but a platform for individuals such as Ameer Ali to promote their own political agendas. It is time AFIC took some action and showed Australian Muslims where its interests really lie. It is time AFIC did something for the people it supposedly represents and sent a clear message to the broader Australian community that Australian Muslims reject the rantings of Sheikh Taj El Din al Hilaly.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The Caliphate and You...
In anticipation of the reestablishment of the Caliphate what better way to
prepare for that coming paradise than with a quick quiz to help one get
acclimated to the new rules? This test was sent to me by email.
1. When the Caliphate is established, it will be run by which nationality?
a. Nigerians
b. Pakistanis
c. Saudis
d. Egyptians
2. Under the Caliphate, slave markets will return to what city?
a. Mecca
b. Dar es-Salam
c. Cairo
d. All of the above
3. Under the Caliphate, a woman is free to marry which of the following?
a. any man she chooses
b. any man her father chooses
c. any man her brother chooses
d. any man who offers the most money to the family
4. A woman becoming Caliph will happen when which of the following occurs?
a. hell freezes over
b. the 12th imam returns
c. the 1200th imam returns
d. one week after never
5. During the Caliphate Inauguration, Nancy Ajram will be stoned in what
city?
a. Beirut
b. Tripoli, Libya
c. Tripoli, Lebanon
d. Too close to call
6. During Caliphate Inauguration, Amr Khaled will be where?
a. Los Angeles
b. Las Vegas
c. Jet skiing in Sharm el-Sheik
d. Disneyworld
7. Under the Caliphate, South Asians in the Persian Gulf will be treated
how?
a. like human beings
b. like Africans
c. somewhere between Africans and Jehovah’s Witnesses
d. the same.
8. With respect to Darfur, the Caliphate will do which of the following?
a. not a damn thing
b. not a Goddamned thing
c. a & b
d. b & a
9. Please complete the following: It will take Turkey ____ year(s) to seize
control of the Caliphate.
a. 5
b. 10
c. 0, they already control it
d. However long it takes but there is no way Pakistanis will be allowed to
call the shots. Maybe a Sudanese, but that’s it.
10. Life in a Sharia paradise is
a. totally awesome
b. awesome for women since they can be fully protected
c. like Mardi Gras without the booze, boobs, and music
d. pretty chill but only if you get to wear the black turban, otherwise it
ranks below a root canal in Kinshasa.
The answer key:
1. d
2. d
3. b, c, or d
4. c or d
5. c
6. c
7. c
8. d
9. d
10. a
The breakdown:
If you got 100% correct congrats you are officially Caliphate ready.
80-90% correct you have achieved zealous convert status.
60-70% correct you are licensed to work Jeddah, Dubai and Khartoum
30-50% correct you are kafir scum. Get away from here.
0-20% correct you had better pray brother.
I got a whopping 60% correct. Was hoping to get lower!
prepare for that coming paradise than with a quick quiz to help one get
acclimated to the new rules? This test was sent to me by email.
1. When the Caliphate is established, it will be run by which nationality?
a. Nigerians
b. Pakistanis
c. Saudis
d. Egyptians
2. Under the Caliphate, slave markets will return to what city?
a. Mecca
b. Dar es-Salam
c. Cairo
d. All of the above
3. Under the Caliphate, a woman is free to marry which of the following?
a. any man she chooses
b. any man her father chooses
c. any man her brother chooses
d. any man who offers the most money to the family
4. A woman becoming Caliph will happen when which of the following occurs?
a. hell freezes over
b. the 12th imam returns
c. the 1200th imam returns
d. one week after never
5. During the Caliphate Inauguration, Nancy Ajram will be stoned in what
city?
a. Beirut
b. Tripoli, Libya
c. Tripoli, Lebanon
d. Too close to call
6. During Caliphate Inauguration, Amr Khaled will be where?
a. Los Angeles
b. Las Vegas
c. Jet skiing in Sharm el-Sheik
d. Disneyworld
7. Under the Caliphate, South Asians in the Persian Gulf will be treated
how?
a. like human beings
b. like Africans
c. somewhere between Africans and Jehovah’s Witnesses
d. the same.
8. With respect to Darfur, the Caliphate will do which of the following?
a. not a damn thing
b. not a Goddamned thing
c. a & b
d. b & a
9. Please complete the following: It will take Turkey ____ year(s) to seize
control of the Caliphate.
a. 5
b. 10
c. 0, they already control it
d. However long it takes but there is no way Pakistanis will be allowed to
call the shots. Maybe a Sudanese, but that’s it.
10. Life in a Sharia paradise is
a. totally awesome
b. awesome for women since they can be fully protected
c. like Mardi Gras without the booze, boobs, and music
d. pretty chill but only if you get to wear the black turban, otherwise it
ranks below a root canal in Kinshasa.
The answer key:
1. d
2. d
3. b, c, or d
4. c or d
5. c
6. c
7. c
8. d
9. d
10. a
The breakdown:
If you got 100% correct congrats you are officially Caliphate ready.
80-90% correct you have achieved zealous convert status.
60-70% correct you are licensed to work Jeddah, Dubai and Khartoum
30-50% correct you are kafir scum. Get away from here.
0-20% correct you had better pray brother.
I got a whopping 60% correct. Was hoping to get lower!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Australia's "Mufti" calls women "uncovered meat"
So, Sheikh Taj Il Din (Australia's so called "Mufti") has managed to get himself on the front page of newspapers around the nation again. This time, the man who can only be described as a moron at best, has caused an uproar by comparing women to a piece of meat in a sermon he delivered during Ramadan at Sydney's Lakemba Mosque which attracts perhaps the largest number of worshippers of any Mosque in Australia he blamed women who "sway suggestively" and who wore makeup and no hijab for sexual attacks.
Well Hilaly- guess that makes me a piece of meat!
Yeah right- seems he is now trying to justify his stupidity.
I find Hilaly's comments not only offensive but downright disgusting. I call for the Asutralian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC)to immediately demand that Hilaly step down from his position as Mufti. We cannot have this man professing himself as 'a leader'. Australian Muslims can no longer keep making excuses for him.
AFIC, I know you have been a notoriously useless body that has done nothing for the Muslims in Australia and have served only as a platform for individuals with their own political agendas- but now is the time to take action and do something for the people you claim to represent.
Get Hilaly out!
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," he said.
"The uncovered meat is the problem.
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib, no problem would have occurred."
Well Hilaly- guess that makes me a piece of meat!
Sheik al-Hilaly told The Australian that he only meant to refer to prostitutes as meat, and not any scantily clad woman without a hijab.
Yeah right- seems he is now trying to justify his stupidity.
I find Hilaly's comments not only offensive but downright disgusting. I call for the Asutralian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC)to immediately demand that Hilaly step down from his position as Mufti. We cannot have this man professing himself as 'a leader'. Australian Muslims can no longer keep making excuses for him.
AFIC, I know you have been a notoriously useless body that has done nothing for the Muslims in Australia and have served only as a platform for individuals with their own political agendas- but now is the time to take action and do something for the people you claim to represent.
Get Hilaly out!
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
HAPPY EID
Happy Eid ul Fitri everyone.
May the new moon bring happiness, prosperity, peace and love into all your lives.
Cheers
May the new moon bring happiness, prosperity, peace and love into all your lives.
Cheers
Saturday, October 21, 2006
HIJAB HYPE
Congratulations to the UK for dismissing the claims of discrimination from Aisha Azmi's for unfair dismissal because she refused to remove her niqab (face veil) while employed as a techer's assistant at a Church of England school.
Read the story here
She was asked by school administrators to remove the niqab after some of her students claimed that it was difficult to understand her during English language lessons.
I used to be an English language teacher (many many moons ago) and I know that, when teaching phonetics and pronunciation, it is necessary that students are able to see your mouth movements.
Her story has sparked a huge and timely debate in the UK about the veil. What is really interesting is that she did not wear it when she had her initial job interview in front of a panel of men!
Now, I've said before that I fully support a woman's right to choose what she wants to wear- be that burqa or bikini- but I do not support the objectification of the hijab in its various forms for political purposes or personal agendas. If she can take it off for her job interview, why can't she take it off to teach her young students?
The comments by Muslims on this issue has been refreshingly reasonable with many agreeing with the court's decision and stating that the niqab is not mandated by Islam. Yay!
What really irks me though is some of the high and mighty responses from some Western women who refuse to recognise that the veil is often a woman's choice. To them the veil stands as the single, most potent symbol of gender based oppression while failing to recognise that, in the West too, many women are still fighting for equal rights.
The Western feminist discourse largely portrays Muslim women as unable to speak for themselves because of the repressive regimes under which they live. Thus the Western woman is bound to speak on behalf of her Muslim sister. This has effectively reduced Muslim female identity to an article of clothing.
The imagery is powerful. The veil is the shroud through which the muffled voices of Muslim women struggle to be heard. The emancipated Western woman seeks to symbolically, but also literally, “unveil” Muslim women as if somehow the act of “unveiling” will free them of the oppressive shackles with which they are bound.
Ironically, by focussing attention on superficial symbols such as the veil, Western feminist discourse serves to distract attention from the feminist objective of achieving fundamental social rights for women.
I welcome the open dialogue and debate on the veil but let's get away from the moral high ground that Western feminism propogates- let's keep this debate about the responsibilities that go hand in hand with rights. Women have a right to choose what they wear but a responsibility to exercise that right in the appropriate context. After all, Aisha Azmi would probably have received the same fate had she shown up to teach her class in a bikini.
Read the story here
She was asked by school administrators to remove the niqab after some of her students claimed that it was difficult to understand her during English language lessons.
I used to be an English language teacher (many many moons ago) and I know that, when teaching phonetics and pronunciation, it is necessary that students are able to see your mouth movements.
Her story has sparked a huge and timely debate in the UK about the veil. What is really interesting is that she did not wear it when she had her initial job interview in front of a panel of men!
Now, I've said before that I fully support a woman's right to choose what she wants to wear- be that burqa or bikini- but I do not support the objectification of the hijab in its various forms for political purposes or personal agendas. If she can take it off for her job interview, why can't she take it off to teach her young students?
The comments by Muslims on this issue has been refreshingly reasonable with many agreeing with the court's decision and stating that the niqab is not mandated by Islam. Yay!
What really irks me though is some of the high and mighty responses from some Western women who refuse to recognise that the veil is often a woman's choice. To them the veil stands as the single, most potent symbol of gender based oppression while failing to recognise that, in the West too, many women are still fighting for equal rights.
The Western feminist discourse largely portrays Muslim women as unable to speak for themselves because of the repressive regimes under which they live. Thus the Western woman is bound to speak on behalf of her Muslim sister. This has effectively reduced Muslim female identity to an article of clothing.
The imagery is powerful. The veil is the shroud through which the muffled voices of Muslim women struggle to be heard. The emancipated Western woman seeks to symbolically, but also literally, “unveil” Muslim women as if somehow the act of “unveiling” will free them of the oppressive shackles with which they are bound.
Ironically, by focussing attention on superficial symbols such as the veil, Western feminist discourse serves to distract attention from the feminist objective of achieving fundamental social rights for women.
I welcome the open dialogue and debate on the veil but let's get away from the moral high ground that Western feminism propogates- let's keep this debate about the responsibilities that go hand in hand with rights. Women have a right to choose what they wear but a responsibility to exercise that right in the appropriate context. After all, Aisha Azmi would probably have received the same fate had she shown up to teach her class in a bikini.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
My Three Lives
Tonight I want to write about my three lives- the life everyone thinks I have, the life I think I have and the life I really have.- three lives.
Life 1- The life everyone thinks I have
This is my public life. A life where I am competent, diligent, professional, passionate, intolerant of incompetence and stupidity, prone to outbursts if work is not done properly, happy go lucky, committed to a cause. The life that people see at work, at University, at public functions.
Someone once told me that people find me intimidating because I seem to do everything so well- so perfectly. And yet- I don't feel like I do everything so well- so perfectly at all. I pond skim- that's what I do.
Life 2- The life I think I have
This is my private life. The life beyond the public gaze. Loving mother, devoted wife, dutiful daughter, caring friend, reliable sister.
It's the life of my waking day. My conscious life. My 'eyes wide shut' life. My driftwood life.
Life 3- The life I really have
This is my struggle. The life that creeps up on me in those minutes, hours, that I lie in bed at night before drifting off to sleep. The life of a thousand words, thoughts, ideas that live in the back of my head and that are screaming to get out. The life that hides in the shadows.
This life is full of self doubt, of questions I cannot answer, of memories that just won't go away and of secrets- big secrets- secrets too big for such a small life.
On my 25th birthday I cried. Not just shed a tear, I mean I really really cried. I cried because I realised that I had reached 25 and hadn't done any of the things I had hoped I would do in the heedy days of being a teenager, when I thought anything was possible. I hadn't written a book, I hadn't travelled the world, I hadn't forged a career in the literary world, I hadn't made my mark on anything. Instead I was in an abusive marraige, struggling with two young babies and emptiness.
Life happens. I know that now. And sometimes it gets in the way of all the plans you made when you didn't fully understand what life really was and how it could just happen right there in front of you and you'd never know. You'd never know until you woke up one day and thought to yourself 'how did I get here'.
I've embraced the tide of life since then and I've let the tide take me where it wants but I still struggle with a sense of urgency.
And I've started that book. The book about the life I really have.
Better late than never.
Life 1- The life everyone thinks I have
This is my public life. A life where I am competent, diligent, professional, passionate, intolerant of incompetence and stupidity, prone to outbursts if work is not done properly, happy go lucky, committed to a cause. The life that people see at work, at University, at public functions.
Someone once told me that people find me intimidating because I seem to do everything so well- so perfectly. And yet- I don't feel like I do everything so well- so perfectly at all. I pond skim- that's what I do.
Life 2- The life I think I have
This is my private life. The life beyond the public gaze. Loving mother, devoted wife, dutiful daughter, caring friend, reliable sister.
It's the life of my waking day. My conscious life. My 'eyes wide shut' life. My driftwood life.
Life 3- The life I really have
This is my struggle. The life that creeps up on me in those minutes, hours, that I lie in bed at night before drifting off to sleep. The life of a thousand words, thoughts, ideas that live in the back of my head and that are screaming to get out. The life that hides in the shadows.
This life is full of self doubt, of questions I cannot answer, of memories that just won't go away and of secrets- big secrets- secrets too big for such a small life.
On my 25th birthday I cried. Not just shed a tear, I mean I really really cried. I cried because I realised that I had reached 25 and hadn't done any of the things I had hoped I would do in the heedy days of being a teenager, when I thought anything was possible. I hadn't written a book, I hadn't travelled the world, I hadn't forged a career in the literary world, I hadn't made my mark on anything. Instead I was in an abusive marraige, struggling with two young babies and emptiness.
Life happens. I know that now. And sometimes it gets in the way of all the plans you made when you didn't fully understand what life really was and how it could just happen right there in front of you and you'd never know. You'd never know until you woke up one day and thought to yourself 'how did I get here'.
I've embraced the tide of life since then and I've let the tide take me where it wants but I still struggle with a sense of urgency.
And I've started that book. The book about the life I really have.
Better late than never.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Freedom of Speech????
The pro-Israeli lobby is at it again. This time successfully banning an Aussie publisher and a Jewish Academic from speaking because of their views on Israel.
Author shunned for Israel criticism
Ed Pilkington, New YorkOctober 12, 2006
Incidentally, the KISS concert was the first concert I ever went to at the ripe old age of 15 (am I showing my age now?)
Author shunned for Israel criticism
Ed Pilkington, New YorkOctober 12, 2006
AUSTRALIAN author and former publisher Carmen Callil has become embroiled
in a dispute over freedom of speech in America after a party celebrating her new
book was cancelled because of her opinion about the modern state of Israel.
A party in honour of Bad Faith, Callil's account of Vichy official Louis Darquier, who arranged the deportation of thousands of Jews, was to be held at the French embassy in New York this week but was cancelled after the embassy became aware of a paragraph in the book's postscript.
In the postscript, Callil says she grew anxious while researching the "helpless terror
of the Jews of France" to see "what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the
Palestinian people. Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel 'forget' the
Palestinians. Everyone forgets."
The embassy said the passage had been brought to its attention after a
guest declined the invitation because of it.
The row is the latest element in a dispute about restrictions on freedom of speech in the US in relation to comments on Israel.
A New York University academic had two speaking engagements called off
after criticism of his views.
Tony Judt, an American Jew who grew up in Britain, was to speak about the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby on US foreign policy and at a separate location on "war and genocide in European memory today".
The first lecture was cancelled by the Polish consulate in New York, which owns the venue, while Mr Judt pulled out of the second after organisers asked him to refrain from direct references to Israel.
In both cases, pro-Israeli organisations and individuals had raised objections to Mr Judt's views on Israel.
Mr Judt said his views had been misrepresented.
"The only thing I have ever said is that Israel, as it is currently constituted as a Jewish state with different rights for different groups, is an anachronism in the modern age of democracies."
GUARDIANThey sure are a powerful group. Just look at what Mel Gibson had to do to regain some credibility after his comments on Jews. Former KISS band member, Gene Simmons (the one with the tongue) made some really nasty comments about Muslims when he visited Australia in 2004, even going so far as to say "Islam was a "vile culture" that treated women worse than dogs."
Incidentally, the KISS concert was the first concert I ever went to at the ripe old age of 15 (am I showing my age now?)
Friday, October 13, 2006
Oops I (almost) did it again...
I almost did it again. I almost got really narky when someone told me I look like Nefertitti. But it is Ramadan so I held my tongue, smiled sweetly and said thankyou.
Now, it's not that I don't like Nefertitti or anything like that- it's just that I don't see the resemblance and don't understand why people always tell me that I look like her when they find out my origin is Egyptian.
The same with "exotic". Why do people alwways call me "exotic"? What's so 'exotic' about Egypt? When I think exotic, I think clear blue seas, palm trees and relaxation- not an overcrowded Metro car in downtown Cairo!
I don't know, why don't you guys make up your own minds.
Here is Nefertitti....
Now, it's not that I don't like Nefertitti or anything like that- it's just that I don't see the resemblance and don't understand why people always tell me that I look like her when they find out my origin is Egyptian.
The same with "exotic". Why do people alwways call me "exotic"? What's so 'exotic' about Egypt? When I think exotic, I think clear blue seas, palm trees and relaxation- not an overcrowded Metro car in downtown Cairo!
I don't know, why don't you guys make up your own minds.
Here is Nefertitti....
Here is my idea of 'exotic'...
And here is me....
What? You can't see the resemblance either? I thought so...
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Secularism in the Middle East- an impossible dream?
I've been checking out some Middle East blogs lately- Sandmonkey, Big Pharoah, Hossam. I have to commend these bloggers on their vision for secularism in the Middle East but at the same time I have to wonder about the ability of Islamic states to embrace secularism.
It's something I've been thinking about lately because I have an upcoming public lecture and my topic for the talk is Islam and secularism in Australia.
The basic premise of secularism is a separation of the private (religion) from the public (affairs of the State). A nice idea but is it really possible? Although countries like the US and Australia define themselves as secular liberal democracies- just how secular are they?
Last night I watched an interview with Rupert Everett, a gay actor, who said that it is very difficult for gay actors in the US because the US is a very Christian nation. In Australia, the right wing Christian presence is becoming increasingly visible in the political arena as witnessed by the recent debate on the abortion drug RU486.
For secularism to be truly successful, religion must be wholly and solely a private affair. There can be no blurring of the boundaries between private and public. The notion of religion upon which secularism is based is one in which religion is defined as a spiritual practice- one that can be confined to the private and separated from the public. But what if a broader notion of religion is present- where religion is seen to be more a way of life than a private practice? This is precisely the dilemma facing Islam and secularism.
Secular Muslims, like myself, have no trouble confining religion to the private realm. Indeed, I have grown up with the notion that my religion was purely a private affair- something between me and God- and I thank my parents for instilling this in me.
But for many other Muslims it seems that Islam cannot be a private practice- it is, for them, a "way of life". Islam is the lens through which they view the world, the lens through which they articulate their needs, their views, their opinions- their world view is "I am Muslim therefore..." They define their identity wholly and solely as religious. But religion has no place in the public sphere of the secular state. So where does that leave them? and more importantly what does that mean for a secular experiment in the Middle East?
Secularism is brought into question where the state favours one religion over another- as Christianity is in both the US and Australia. If countries like the US and Australia are operating as pseudo-secular, how can we expect Islamic states to embrace secular democracy? There is no doubt in my mind that should secularism be introduced anywhere in the Middle East, Islam would be the religion of favour.
Is true secularism in the Mid East a pipe dream?
It's something I've been thinking about lately because I have an upcoming public lecture and my topic for the talk is Islam and secularism in Australia.
The basic premise of secularism is a separation of the private (religion) from the public (affairs of the State). A nice idea but is it really possible? Although countries like the US and Australia define themselves as secular liberal democracies- just how secular are they?
Last night I watched an interview with Rupert Everett, a gay actor, who said that it is very difficult for gay actors in the US because the US is a very Christian nation. In Australia, the right wing Christian presence is becoming increasingly visible in the political arena as witnessed by the recent debate on the abortion drug RU486.
For secularism to be truly successful, religion must be wholly and solely a private affair. There can be no blurring of the boundaries between private and public. The notion of religion upon which secularism is based is one in which religion is defined as a spiritual practice- one that can be confined to the private and separated from the public. But what if a broader notion of religion is present- where religion is seen to be more a way of life than a private practice? This is precisely the dilemma facing Islam and secularism.
Secular Muslims, like myself, have no trouble confining religion to the private realm. Indeed, I have grown up with the notion that my religion was purely a private affair- something between me and God- and I thank my parents for instilling this in me.
But for many other Muslims it seems that Islam cannot be a private practice- it is, for them, a "way of life". Islam is the lens through which they view the world, the lens through which they articulate their needs, their views, their opinions- their world view is "I am Muslim therefore..." They define their identity wholly and solely as religious. But religion has no place in the public sphere of the secular state. So where does that leave them? and more importantly what does that mean for a secular experiment in the Middle East?
Secularism is brought into question where the state favours one religion over another- as Christianity is in both the US and Australia. If countries like the US and Australia are operating as pseudo-secular, how can we expect Islamic states to embrace secular democracy? There is no doubt in my mind that should secularism be introduced anywhere in the Middle East, Islam would be the religion of favour.
Is true secularism in the Mid East a pipe dream?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Lifting the Veil
Ok. It had to happen sometime. I've been thinking about writing about the hijab, burqa, nikab and various forms of Islamic women's dress for some time and now's as good a time as any.
I am a Muslim woman- nobody can deny me this part of my identity. As far as I am concerned, the hijab, in its various forms, is a choice. It is not mandated by the Koran. I choose not to wear it. I believe that modesty can be displayed in many forms. I believe that I do not need to cover my hair to be modest.
I have, in the past, toyed with the idea of donning the hijab. At that time, I was feeling particularly angry and distressed by the acts of violence directed at women wearing the hijab in Australia. But when I really thought about it, the reason that I would have put on the hijab would have been to assert my identity- an act of defiance really- a statement. In doing so, I would have been guilty of what I have accused Western feminists of doing- of objectifying the hijab and reducing it to a symbol. So, to wear the hijab because I was angry would not have been the right reason.
I listened to and read the stories of hijabi women who declared that they rejoiced in covering their bodies, that the hijab gave them a sense of control over their bodies, that they felt they were being appreciated for their brains more than their looks. As much as I tried, I simply could not relate to this notion. Even when I was disturbed by the comments of some men in my workplace about my looks, I still could not relate to this notion. Even when a male colleague told me that I should "uglify" myself to be taken more seriously, I still could not relate to the notion of having to cover myself to be respected. I simply could not relate the problem back to me- if men cannot conduct themselves in a professional manner- that is their problem, not mine.
I visited Egypt earlier this year, and it was this trip that cemented my decision not to wear the hijab. It seemed to me that I was the only Muslim woman who did not wear it. Whenever I had a conversation with someone where I revealed that I was indeed Muslim, invariably I was asked why I did not wear the hijab. At first, the question threw me and I simply could not offer an answer other than that I lived in a Western country and that my work demanded a lot of public appearances where it was easier for me to get people to relate to what I was saying if I appeared to be like them.
But the more I observed the phenomenon of the hijab in Egypt, the more I rejected it. The hijab has become a fashion statement. Young women wear nude coloured body hugging tops underneath revealing halter necks, tight jeans, a brightly coloured scarf on their heads- this is the new 'hijabi'. They, like the Western feminist discourse on the veil, have objectified the hijab- it is not about maintaining any semblance of modesty or being appreciated for their brains.
I started asking women why they wore the hijab. Their responses varied:
I did not want to be mistaken for a Christian
The girls at school teased me
My hair is difficult to manage and I am too busy to go to the hairdresser every week
The cost of hair products is too high
Not a single woman I spoke to mentioned it as a religious choice. Not a single woman I spoke to "rejoiced" in covering her body.
My friend gave me some words of wisdom for which I am grateful. She said "Whenever anyone asks me why I do not wear the veil I simply reply that my hijab is in my heart"
I like that. My hijab is in my heart. And for now at least, that's where it is staying.
I am a Muslim woman- nobody can deny me this part of my identity. As far as I am concerned, the hijab, in its various forms, is a choice. It is not mandated by the Koran. I choose not to wear it. I believe that modesty can be displayed in many forms. I believe that I do not need to cover my hair to be modest.
I have, in the past, toyed with the idea of donning the hijab. At that time, I was feeling particularly angry and distressed by the acts of violence directed at women wearing the hijab in Australia. But when I really thought about it, the reason that I would have put on the hijab would have been to assert my identity- an act of defiance really- a statement. In doing so, I would have been guilty of what I have accused Western feminists of doing- of objectifying the hijab and reducing it to a symbol. So, to wear the hijab because I was angry would not have been the right reason.
I listened to and read the stories of hijabi women who declared that they rejoiced in covering their bodies, that the hijab gave them a sense of control over their bodies, that they felt they were being appreciated for their brains more than their looks. As much as I tried, I simply could not relate to this notion. Even when I was disturbed by the comments of some men in my workplace about my looks, I still could not relate to this notion. Even when a male colleague told me that I should "uglify" myself to be taken more seriously, I still could not relate to the notion of having to cover myself to be respected. I simply could not relate the problem back to me- if men cannot conduct themselves in a professional manner- that is their problem, not mine.
I visited Egypt earlier this year, and it was this trip that cemented my decision not to wear the hijab. It seemed to me that I was the only Muslim woman who did not wear it. Whenever I had a conversation with someone where I revealed that I was indeed Muslim, invariably I was asked why I did not wear the hijab. At first, the question threw me and I simply could not offer an answer other than that I lived in a Western country and that my work demanded a lot of public appearances where it was easier for me to get people to relate to what I was saying if I appeared to be like them.
But the more I observed the phenomenon of the hijab in Egypt, the more I rejected it. The hijab has become a fashion statement. Young women wear nude coloured body hugging tops underneath revealing halter necks, tight jeans, a brightly coloured scarf on their heads- this is the new 'hijabi'. They, like the Western feminist discourse on the veil, have objectified the hijab- it is not about maintaining any semblance of modesty or being appreciated for their brains.
I started asking women why they wore the hijab. Their responses varied:
I did not want to be mistaken for a Christian
The girls at school teased me
My hair is difficult to manage and I am too busy to go to the hairdresser every week
The cost of hair products is too high
Not a single woman I spoke to mentioned it as a religious choice. Not a single woman I spoke to "rejoiced" in covering her body.
My friend gave me some words of wisdom for which I am grateful. She said "Whenever anyone asks me why I do not wear the veil I simply reply that my hijab is in my heart"
I like that. My hijab is in my heart. And for now at least, that's where it is staying.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Dead or not?
Reports of OBL's death from Typhoid are causing confusion:
SPECULATION about the death of Osama bin Laden continued to swirl across
the globe last night, but in the three capitals most likely to be the first to
know if and when he dies - Riyadh, Islamabad and Washington - there were
blanket denials of any knowledge of French reports that the al-Qaeda leader
had succumbed to typhoid last month.Significantly, in view of claims that it was Saudi intelligence that was said to be the original source for the report, an official statement issued by the Government in Riyadh said: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no evidence to support recent media reports that Osama bin Laden is dead.
"Information that has been reported otherwise is purely speculative and cannot be independently verified."
Internet monitors who track terrorist chatter also said they had come across nothing to support the reports. The Washington-based IntelCentre, which monitors terrorism communications, was quoted as saying it was not aware of any similar reports on the internet.
Officials in Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be based in the remote North Waziristan district, insisted they knew nothing that would confirm the reports of his death on August 23. Pakistan's Interior Minister, Aftab Sherpao, said: "No, we do not have any such information." The French regional daily L'Est Republicain reported on Saturday that Saudi intelligence first got reports of bin Laden's death on September 4 and that last Thursday this was passed to the French DGSE foreign intelligence service, which relayed it to President Jacques Chirac's office. Australian officials were treating the claim cautiously, with Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile warning against premature celebrations.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20469613-954,00.html
Bugger! Guess I have to cancel the Ding Dong the Witch is Dead Party I was planning!
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Enablers
I'm angry.
I know that's not unusual but I really need to vent.
There are a lot of Muslim community organisations here in Australia that claim to work for the well being of the Muslim communities here. One of them is a Muslim women's organisation that gets government funding to provide services to Muslim women.
While these kinds of organisations may do some good work, they are often staffed by inexperienced women who have a particular view of Islamic teachings. Very few are secular Muslims. Most wear the hijab or the burqa. That's fine. I have no problem with that- while I do not agree with it I will always defend a woman's right to wear it if she so chooses- just as I would defend a woman's right to wear a bikini if she so chooses.
The problem is that these organisations often only provide services to like minded women. Often the kinds of 'services' they provide serve, not to assist women to integrate and participate in the broader community, but to keep them in their place. I call these organisations The Enablers.
They advocate for Sharia divorce courts. Why? We have a legal system in Australia to deal with divorces regardless of religion.
They advocate for Muslim women only swimming sessions at local pools. Why? Most pools have women's only sessions but they will not mix with Western women.
They advocate for Muslim women only English language classes. Why? Nearly all higher education institutions are mixed sex.
But what really pisses me off is that they often have first hand information about women and young girls being beaten by their husbands and fathers. And they do nothing about it. They work under a shroud of silence and enable these abusive conditions to continue. They prefer to deal with problems themselves and will not admit that they simply do not have the capacity to find solutions.
I've met a lot of Muslim women who do not wear hijab and who have gone to these kinds of organisations seeking assistance. They have been treated as outsiders, as somehow less Muslim and therefore less worthy.
It's not unusual for Muslims in the diaspora to take the moral highground. Heck! Every Muslim I meet tries to make out that they are more Muslim than the Muslim I met before them! But it really starts to get serious when there are women and girls being beaten and the only people offering assistance are there to keep them where they are. It's shameful.
I know that's not unusual but I really need to vent.
There are a lot of Muslim community organisations here in Australia that claim to work for the well being of the Muslim communities here. One of them is a Muslim women's organisation that gets government funding to provide services to Muslim women.
While these kinds of organisations may do some good work, they are often staffed by inexperienced women who have a particular view of Islamic teachings. Very few are secular Muslims. Most wear the hijab or the burqa. That's fine. I have no problem with that- while I do not agree with it I will always defend a woman's right to wear it if she so chooses- just as I would defend a woman's right to wear a bikini if she so chooses.
The problem is that these organisations often only provide services to like minded women. Often the kinds of 'services' they provide serve, not to assist women to integrate and participate in the broader community, but to keep them in their place. I call these organisations The Enablers.
They advocate for Sharia divorce courts. Why? We have a legal system in Australia to deal with divorces regardless of religion.
They advocate for Muslim women only swimming sessions at local pools. Why? Most pools have women's only sessions but they will not mix with Western women.
They advocate for Muslim women only English language classes. Why? Nearly all higher education institutions are mixed sex.
But what really pisses me off is that they often have first hand information about women and young girls being beaten by their husbands and fathers. And they do nothing about it. They work under a shroud of silence and enable these abusive conditions to continue. They prefer to deal with problems themselves and will not admit that they simply do not have the capacity to find solutions.
I've met a lot of Muslim women who do not wear hijab and who have gone to these kinds of organisations seeking assistance. They have been treated as outsiders, as somehow less Muslim and therefore less worthy.
It's not unusual for Muslims in the diaspora to take the moral highground. Heck! Every Muslim I meet tries to make out that they are more Muslim than the Muslim I met before them! But it really starts to get serious when there are women and girls being beaten and the only people offering assistance are there to keep them where they are. It's shameful.
Ramadan Kareem
Well, it is a bit late (oops) but a blessed and prosperous Ramadan to all.
This year my Ramadan resolutions are:
I shall contemplate the meaning of my life on this beautiful Earth
I shall pray for peace in the Middle East
I shall empathise with the millions of people in the world for whom no water and no food are part of the everyday challenges of life
I shall call my parents more often and break fast with them as often as I can
I shall thank Allah each and everyday for my family and friends
This year my Ramadan resolutions are:
I shall contemplate the meaning of my life on this beautiful Earth
I shall pray for peace in the Middle East
I shall empathise with the millions of people in the world for whom no water and no food are part of the everyday challenges of life
I shall call my parents more often and break fast with them as often as I can
I shall thank Allah each and everyday for my family and friends
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Why oh why
Why do I have to read Focault? Have been avoiding it all this time and now can no longer do it. This is particularly harrowing considering I have just returned from a conference where the snotty nosed academics with oh-so-proper British accents began every paragraph with a quote from Focault or some long dead obscure French philosopher.
As they so eloquently rambled on about something that I am sure is of no consequence I looked around the room thinking I was the only stupid one who didn't understand a word of what they were saying. Then I spotted them. The Colleagues- there they were in full force to support the speaker, nodding their heads in unison like a flock of silly pidgeons and frowning where appropriate as if on cue.
Why do academics do that? Why do they take their little posse with them to their presentations and why do they talk only to their posse as if nobody else in the room is allowed into their own little world? And why do their posse have a series of prepared questions that only confound the whole bloody thing even more? Do they mean to make me feel stupid? Is is a conspiracy aimed at eradicating all the dumb asses from academia?
Gladly, I was not the only one who left the room feeling even more confused than when I had entered. A few people spotted the bewildered look on my face (was I that obvious) and mumbled as they walked past "what was that about?" Should I be taking comfort in the fact that I am not the only dumb ass?
As they so eloquently rambled on about something that I am sure is of no consequence I looked around the room thinking I was the only stupid one who didn't understand a word of what they were saying. Then I spotted them. The Colleagues- there they were in full force to support the speaker, nodding their heads in unison like a flock of silly pidgeons and frowning where appropriate as if on cue.
Why do academics do that? Why do they take their little posse with them to their presentations and why do they talk only to their posse as if nobody else in the room is allowed into their own little world? And why do their posse have a series of prepared questions that only confound the whole bloody thing even more? Do they mean to make me feel stupid? Is is a conspiracy aimed at eradicating all the dumb asses from academia?
Gladly, I was not the only one who left the room feeling even more confused than when I had entered. A few people spotted the bewildered look on my face (was I that obvious) and mumbled as they walked past "what was that about?" Should I be taking comfort in the fact that I am not the only dumb ass?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
YEPP- I have now officially joined the 21st Century...
I am now the proud owner of an MP3 player! For someone who only got a mobile phone about six months ago (yes it's true- my excuse was I didn't want people bothering me all day), this is actually quite a big feat! Feel so ooooooh technologically savvy now, especially because it is such a tiny little thing that's able to do so much.
I bought it for work so that I could make voice files but I was even more excited by the fact that I could download all my daggy music and listen to it through headphones and no-one will ever know. Here are some of the songs I downloaded- sing along with me if you know the words (and you know you do)...
Nutbush City Limits
Supernatural Thing
Bat out of Hell (awesome to work out to)
Picture of You (yes, the old Boyzone song!)
Let it Flow from the Waiting to Exhale soundtrack
Water Runs Dry (Boyz to Men- aaaaah)
No Diggity- a Blackstreet classic
Mr Boombastic
Now all I have to do is to learn how to not sing loudly along with the music coz people are starting to look at me funny...
I bought it for work so that I could make voice files but I was even more excited by the fact that I could download all my daggy music and listen to it through headphones and no-one will ever know. Here are some of the songs I downloaded- sing along with me if you know the words (and you know you do)...
Nutbush City Limits
Supernatural Thing
Bat out of Hell (awesome to work out to)
Picture of You (yes, the old Boyzone song!)
Let it Flow from the Waiting to Exhale soundtrack
Water Runs Dry (Boyz to Men- aaaaah)
No Diggity- a Blackstreet classic
Mr Boombastic
Now all I have to do is to learn how to not sing loudly along with the music coz people are starting to look at me funny...
Friday, September 22, 2006
On Speaking Out...
There are many calls for 'moderate' Muslims to speak out against terrorism. In fact, Letters to the Editor and Editorials in most of our popular newspapers often ask "why don't Muslims speak out and condemn terrorism and violence." Silence is often interpreted as a sign that Muslims the world over condone terrorism and is used by some to further support the stereotype of the ugly, violent Arab.
I came across this interesting piece in "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley...
I came across this interesting piece in "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley...
"...the late I.F. "Izzy" Stone, a widely respected author, commentator, and self-styled radical, told me why many of his fellow Jews work so
aggressively to stifle free speech. He explained that, because Jews in
Israel seem constantly at war with Arabs, Jews in America feel that they are in the same war. To them, free speech is a luxury that can be
sacrificed where debate might weaken US support for an Israel at war."The same can be said of Muslims in the West. TheMilitant Islamists not only know this, but use this to their full advantage. Bin Laden's continual reference to the "Islamic nation" is not by accident. His carefully selected words are designed to
exploit the notion that Muslims around the globe are involved in the war
with Israel. And it's working.When Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the London bombings, a British born, second generation Pakistani said in his video message "I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters" he was not referring to Muslims in Pakistan or Britain. He was referring to Muslims at war with Israel and the US in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
In my experience, everytime I've met a Jewish person, he or she will sooner or later bring up the Palestine/Israel issue. The first time this happened I was surprised. Why should I want to discuss this issue with anyone? Why should I have any interest in this issue at all? I'm not Palestinian. I'm not Israeli. But I am Muslim.
And therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies the crux of the matter. Because I am Muslim, it is assumed that I have something to say on the issue even if I'd much rather talk about the mating habits of the African sand fly!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Three Lives
I have a theory. Actually I have many theories- but just one will do for now.
My theory is that everyone has at least two identities-
The one you give to yourself- I am an Australian Muslim who advocates for a progressive interpretation of the Koran and Islamic teachings.
And the one everyone else gives you- I am a Muslim and therefore a terrorist sympathiser who wants to wipe out the heathens.
Scenario:
I walk into a coffee shop downtown to get my 'must have or I will be a bitch all day' morning coffee. I'm dressed in my usual corporate uniform- pencil skirt and blouse. It's packed as usual only because they make the best bloody coffee on this earth! The girl behind the counter and I start chatting- it's usually a guy there who always tries some lame pick up line on me, but today he's graduated to making the coffees.
She says "You look so exotic. Where are you from?"
I say "Sydney", but she's not buying it- she wants to know where I'm REALLY from.
So I tell her I'm originally from Egypt.
Lame pick-up line guy overhears this and looks up from behind the coffe machine.
He asks "Are you Muslim?'
"Yep" I answer
Suddenly he starts seething "So what do you think of terrorism?"
I'm thinking 'whoa! what happened to lame pick up line guy? are you his evil twin or something?'
Instead I say "Well are you asking me because you really want to know- because I've been coming here every morning for 6 months and you've never asked me that? But I will tell you that I absolutely do not condone the murder of innocent people for any cause"
He's still seething and the nice behind the counter girl takes my money but doesn't look at me or say a word.
As I make my way out of the crowded cafe, he yells:
"Look out everyone. She's a Muslim terrorist. She's gonna blow up the cafe."
Everyone stops and stares.
So, what do I do?
a. Cry into my coffee cup
b. Play along and make a loud BOOM sound
c. Turn to him and say "Right mate, you've just blown your chance of ever getting my number"
d. Walk out silently seething and vow to go through the painful process of wheening myself off this fabulous coffee so that I never have to step foot in there again.
My theory is that everyone has at least two identities-
The one you give to yourself- I am an Australian Muslim who advocates for a progressive interpretation of the Koran and Islamic teachings.
And the one everyone else gives you- I am a Muslim and therefore a terrorist sympathiser who wants to wipe out the heathens.
Scenario:
I walk into a coffee shop downtown to get my 'must have or I will be a bitch all day' morning coffee. I'm dressed in my usual corporate uniform- pencil skirt and blouse. It's packed as usual only because they make the best bloody coffee on this earth! The girl behind the counter and I start chatting- it's usually a guy there who always tries some lame pick up line on me, but today he's graduated to making the coffees.
She says "You look so exotic. Where are you from?"
I say "Sydney", but she's not buying it- she wants to know where I'm REALLY from.
So I tell her I'm originally from Egypt.
Lame pick-up line guy overhears this and looks up from behind the coffe machine.
He asks "Are you Muslim?'
"Yep" I answer
Suddenly he starts seething "So what do you think of terrorism?"
I'm thinking 'whoa! what happened to lame pick up line guy? are you his evil twin or something?'
Instead I say "Well are you asking me because you really want to know- because I've been coming here every morning for 6 months and you've never asked me that? But I will tell you that I absolutely do not condone the murder of innocent people for any cause"
He's still seething and the nice behind the counter girl takes my money but doesn't look at me or say a word.
As I make my way out of the crowded cafe, he yells:
"Look out everyone. She's a Muslim terrorist. She's gonna blow up the cafe."
Everyone stops and stares.
So, what do I do?
a. Cry into my coffee cup
b. Play along and make a loud BOOM sound
c. Turn to him and say "Right mate, you've just blown your chance of ever getting my number"
d. Walk out silently seething and vow to go through the painful process of wheening myself off this fabulous coffee so that I never have to step foot in there again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
