Rant of the Day: HBS

I watched this video a while back and immediately regretted doing so. The HijabiBengaliSisters page kept popping up on my Facebook so I wanted to check out their videos, and I wanted to respond to it since the girl has brought up a sensitive issue and has gone about justifying it in a retarded way.

She starts off by saying how in Islam, women and men have different roles and both should be seen equally. She says women should not try to emulate men in the name of feminism etc etc, upto which I can moderately tolerate. Then she goes onto say that in Islam men have to provide for their wives and give them everything they wish for, and so women should not complain of 'marital rape' because they should reward their husbands for all that they do. At this point I just wanted to punch her in the face.

She just said that the duties of men and women are different but equally valuable, then she said a woman should never refuse sex because her husband does 'so much' for her. By doing that she has completely contradicted her own statement by downgrading the value of 'women's work' (cleaning, cooking, looking after children etc) in comparison to men's work. If a woman's work deserves equal treatment, then her unwillingness to engage in sex should be respected as much as a man's willingness to do so. She then says a woman should 'serve' and 'obey' her husband because she'll receive much more in return. So essentially a woman should exchange her servitude and obedience for love, home, money and gifts. How are the roles equal then? Sounds more like a master-slave dynamic to me.

This girl needs to learn that marital rape is not a joke. Rape, marital or not, is less about sexual desire than it is about “an abuse of power by which one person attempts to establish dominance and control over the other”. If this girl had done some basic research, she would see that marital rape is often accompanied by domestic violence and abuse, and because it occurs repeatedly over a long time the accumulated trauma may have greater impacts on a woman's psychology than being raped by a stranger. Allowing a man to have his way with you is not about giving him a 'break', it's about handing over your autonomy to the man. It's not about rewarding him, it's about making him feel more powerful. I feel no shame in repeating once more, that this girl's views are imbecilic of tremendous proportions. She should familiarise herself with legal definitions before posting a blanket statement about marital rape on YouTube.

She further contradicts her "women and men are different but equal" statement by saying men are stronger than women, (2 women equal to one man, apparently) and are therefore naturally a "grade higher" than women, because they can protect them. This is an absurd presumption, as strength has the power to both protect AND destroy. And if she has interpreted the 2 women = 1 men quote from the Quran in this way, then she hasn't read the verse properly, because it has nothing to do with strength, but everything to do with a woman's ability to testify in court.

I'm extremely saddened that young ladies brought up in developed, 21st century environments can openly hold regressive views like this and still attract admirers. I also had the pleasure of watching another video by her about how "women who don't cover up" have nothing to offer as they are submitting to the wishes of menfolk. 

HA! Oh the irony. 

Gender Segregation and Islamaphobia

A recent debate about gender segregated seating at university events organised by Islamic student societies has been sparked in the UK. I came across this debate on well known social activist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie's blog, and thought I'd share my thoughts to better elaborate the points Namazie has made.

I would like to make clear outright that I disagree with the point made my Dr Nazreen Nawaz regarding this being an issue of the UK being unaccommodating for "mainstream" Islamic practices. I am not saying that no Muslims wish to be segregated by gender, and some do voluntarily sit away from members of the opposite sex. However, in events such as the debate organised earlier this year at UCL between Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss, the audience was likely to be made up of both Muslims of various degrees of piety and non-Muslim groups, and therefore it was an unfair imposition to make all members of the audience sit in accordance with the wishes of only one of the guest speakers. This lacked accommodation on the Islamic society's part.

Leaving accommodation aside, let's break down why the segregated seating arrangement is not logical or egalitarian. There are a few main ways the auditoriums in question could be arranged with pros and cons for each. Let's examine them one at a time to identify the best possible solution.

1. The Islamic way: Notable Islamic scholar Zakir Naik explains on this page what the Islamic tradition was with regards to seating in a Mosque. It states "During the Prophet’s (pbuh) time, mosques had separate entrances for ladies. Women filled the mosques from behind while men had separate entrances and filled the mosques from the front. In between the two sections were children." The reason commonly given for this arrangement was that the prostating and bowing movements performed by women during Islamic prayers would sexually tempt and distract men from their own prayers if women were allowed to sit before them. Now, even if we were to take this (ridiculous) claim seriously, the problem of prostating women can be easily solved by sitting segregated groups of men and women side by side, with children sitting in between. There is no doubt that the traditional arrangement is designed around gender inequality, as it definitely more difficult to see, follow and hear a presenter from the back of a room than it is from the front. Moreover, it assumes that men cannot control their sexual urges, and that women are not expected to be distracted by the men praying in front of them. Not only is it discriminating for the women, it is also a disadvantage for children to sit in between the parents as they tend to be shorter. 
2. The 'options for all' way: This is the variation some of these Islamic Societies have attempted to adopt, where they've split the seating into areas for men, women and "married couples". Firstly, there is really no polite way to determine whether a couple entering the room is married or not. Nor is it in anybody's right to make a couple feel uncomfortable by suggesting that it is only acceptable for them to sit together if they're married. Secondly, the question of disadvantaging a group resurfaces. If there is a couple's area, where will it be positioned? Would it not be unfair if attendees showed up the event early with hopes of securing good seats, only to find that their seats have been pre-allocated based on a condition beyond their control, such as their gender or marital status? 
3. The 'not segregated' way: Or in other words, the usual first-come, first-served principle. The attendees will arrive randomly and select their seats based on preference and availability. Of course, this does not guarantee that every person will find a seat they're happy with, but the reason for that won't be determined by a single individual, religious group or mindset. People cannot complain about a bad seat, as it is only natural that availability will decrease with later arrival times. And the only person responsible for arriving at the right time for the right seat is the audience member him/herself. Having said that, the world is not perfect, and the contest for a good seat is not always a fair fight for those that are disabled or elderly, but a decent auditorium will provide for the differently abled too.

Now comes Nawaz's point about how it is a double standard to allow other forms of segregation such as women only gyms, schools and toilets to continue in the UK. Lets examine each of these points. 

1. Women only gyms: A gym is a place where people work out and would therefore often wear unflattering clothing to keep themselves cool and comfortable. Women who require personal trainers may be reluctant about trainers of the opposite sex touching them or invading their personal space - neither of which are appropriate but still happen nonetheless. You cannot compare that level of close interaction with that of two strangers merely sitting side by side - sometimes not even that - in an auditorium for 2 hours. Having women only gyms is more akin to women preferring to see female doctors for the added comfort of being able to discuss their physical problems freely. And most importantly, women only gyms are a choice, not an imposition. 2. Public toilets: Again, a similar logic as above. Women not only use the toilet, but also change clothing, fix their makeup and hair and undertake other womanly activities in the bathroom which they would prefer to do in private. It is not the same as sitting in a room full of people who are engaging in an intellectual experience. Again, our society is not perfect, and there is debate around segregated toilets compartmentalising or forcing gender X to identify as either male or female. But segregated seating does the same.
3. Single sex schools: I personally prefer co-educational schools myself. But studies have shown that pupils flourish in single gender schools more so than their coed counterparts. Where I live, some of the best secondary schools are single gendered, but the number 1 school is co-ed. So it's not a necessary factor in children's learning. In fact, it is perhaps better to allow our teenagers to grow in an environment that matches the real world. So Nazreen cannot make the point that just because one less than ideal form of segregation exists another should also. 

There really is no substantial logic in Nazreen's points other than the usual Islamiphobia card. I acknowledge that there is a lot of ignorance about the Islam in the world and people do generalise Muslims in the wake of recent events and biased media reporting. But there should be no hesitation in highlighting discrimination because above all religious belief systems should be our humanity. And those who disagree with that are doing themselves and their religion a great disfavour.

Spoiler Alert - A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini

Oh dear, it's June! And I haven't written an article in almost a month. Things at work are getting more busy, and I've been trying to juggle a social life and work simultaneously. But I had to write something today.

I've been reading the novel A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini and trying my best to take it slowly. The story-line is so sad, and there are very few passages in the book which actually allow the readers to take a breath and enjoy a moment of peace or bliss with the characters. The writer almost guarantees that every happy moment will quickly turn into a heart-wrenching episode, so I've been finding myself holding my breath with dread during the good bits.

But I've arrived at a point in the book that has made me feel like someone has pulled the carpet from under my feet and made me fall to my doom in slow motion. The world around me has been put on mute, and my ears can only hear the sound of my insides screaming. I officially award Khaled Hosseini as the creator of the most unfortunate characters I have ever come across in my reading history.

Mariam and Laila, wives to a wretched old Afghan man named Rasheed, make a desperate attempt at running away from their mutual husband with Laila's baby girl Aziza. In a war-torn Afghanistan, crossing borders is near impossible for two women without a husband or mahram, a male relative. The women get caught out by a back-stabbing fellow traveler, arrested by police officers and  returned to Rasheed's home. Upon their return, Rasheed immediately punches Laila and drags her by her hair and her child into a room to lock them up. He then proceeds onto repeatedly beating a terrified and catatonic Mariam until she is bloodied and unconscious and locks her up in a small, dark tool-shed. Both women and the child are left to starve for the day.

It made me absolutely queasy to read this, so much so that I slammed the book shut and stared into space for a good few minutes with a lump rising in my throat. And to think, all of this could have been avoided if even ONE person, ONE man out of the traveler, police officer and Rasheed had even an ounce of compassion in their hearts. Below is a part of the conversation between Laila and the officer at the border to give an example of what I mean.

These people don't care about what happens to their women on a day to day basis. For them, being the ruling party is of utmost importance even if it's at the expense of innocent lives. You would think that after decades of fighting, they would come to realise that nothing has been achieved and instead their lifestyle has become progressively more unbearable.

In regards to domestic violence, I am often horrified by the fact that there is even a debate surrounding it.  The nonchalant response from the police officer to Laila's plea above is not just fictional, and is an attitude echoed by real-life Sharia enforcers including those residing in Western countries! A BBC Panorama program "Secrets of Britain's Sharia Councils" has found that clerics in certain Islamic family law courts in Britain often encourage women to remain married to violent men.

[An] undercover reporter [on the program]  is told not to contact police when she asks a senior cleric Suhaib Hasan (who has advocated stoning and amputation) whether she should report the violence she has suffered at the hands of her husband.  Mr Hasan also wrongly tells her that if she were to report the violence to the police, she “will have to leave the house”.  This is entirely untrue.  In fact, an abused spouse may apply to the Court for an Occupation Order, which can remove a violent spouse from the home – or a defined area surrounding the home – and can impose criminal sanctions if the order is not obeyed.  Mr Hasan’s advice is misleading and deliberately aimed at frightening women in to adhering to the Sharia Council’s authority.  Hasan also repeats the Sharia position that a man has the right to hit his wife provided he leaves no marks. He asks if her husband beats her “severely”.  When she questioned what was meant by “severely”, Hasan asks “it leaves some bruises on your body?”. 

Mr Hasan goes on to advise the undercover reporter to question herself as to what she had done to provoke this violence.  He suggests she ask her husband “is it because of my cooking?”, “is it because I see my friends?”.

Source: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/on-bbc-panorama-programme-on-sharia-courts-it-is-enough-now/

--- --- ---

It disgusts me to hear men attempting to pin blame on a woman for incurring the wrath of her husband. Her cooking? Seeing her friends? Seriously? And also, what does it matter whether she is being beaten severely or not. Even a light slap is a symbolic gesture of dominance if only one partner is given the right to do it. Sometimes, having your dignity and rights stripped away from you is more painful to bear than a bruise.

A person who needs to impose their authority through force, strength and violence exposes their lack of ability to reason and articulate their way towards a solution. Physical strength is not a criteria for superiority, because if that were true, men would submit to lions, bears, elephants and a myriad of other animals that out-do their strength many times over. Those who make up excuses which allow domestic violence to continue unbridled are cowardly, lowly individuals and deserve nothing but condemnation. If you don't like your spouse, don't live with them!

That's what divorce is for.

Selective Sensibility

Really enjoyed reading an article by Australian columnist Waleed Aly today. The article begins with examples of recent Hollywood movies (namely, Iron Man 3, Skyfall, Looper) in which filmmakers have been driven to acknowledge China as a rising superpower in the global market and therefore cater to its audience. Iron Man 3 premiered in Beijing with China-cised screenings of the movie containing extended scenes by the nation's actors and incorporated Chinese product placement.

Waleed Aly alludes to the turning course of globalisation as the West begins to include Asian/Middle Eastern cultures in the media. This can also be demonstrated by stars from Bollywood crossing over to Hollywood as well as figures such as PSY of Gangnam Style achieving incredible fame in the West. Waleed discusses how Western news headlines have sometimes depicted these events as representing the growing subservience of the West to Eastern sensibilities, which of course is a double-standard considering the obvious/widespread influences the West has had on the Eastern culture.

But what bewildered me the most was the story of Australians' outrage at Qantas's changed menu for flights into and out of Dubai, as a part of their new partnership with Emirates. Qantas will now be serving 'halal' accredited meals on flights through Dubai, and leaving pork and alcohol based items off the menu. For this they've attracted nicknames like 'Al-Qantas' or the 'Mosque-a-roo'. The comments made by readers of the Daily Mail reflected a shocking intolerance towards anything Islamic, especially for a matter so silly. Here is a screenshot of the top comments by readers:

I am not here to discuss whether the Islamic (or Jewish) tradition of not eating pork is justifiable by logical reasoning or modern science. It probably is not. But I believe this outrage is somewhat biased, based on racism, ego and to a degree, ignorance. Let me give some reasons why I think it's unreasonable to be protesting about this:

• Firstly, it is common practice for airlines to adjust their menu according to their fliers' dietary requirements and/or tastes. Qantas itself does not serve pork en-route to Jakarta, for example. I have traveled on airlines on which they've served Bangladeshi specials such as kichudi and beef curry. It's a nice gesture to consider the sentiments of customers and there's nothing outlandish about it.
• In my opinion, it would be annoying for stewards working on such flights to be constantly bombarded with specific requests for pork or alcohol to be excluded from meals. Not serving it at all is the most practical solution, especially considering that they don't offer a diverse menu on planes anyway!
• Waleed's article quoted one reader saying "[our] religion has been disrespected by removal of pork products" - Waleed rightly points out that eating pork is no "religious sacrament" for any religion, so it's ridiculous to claim that their religion has been disrespected. This is tantamount to accusing Indian/Pakistani/Indonesian/Middle Eastern restaurants of disrespect for not serving pork. It is simply better business for them as it attracts a larger pool of customers.
• On objecting halal slaughtering methods - I understand why this might be concerning. In Australia, animals are stunned by electricity or a captive bolt in the brain before slaughtering so that the animal does not feel pain. In halal slaughtering, or dhabihah, the animal is conscious. Although common sense will tell you that the stunning system is probably more humane, surprisingly, the matter is subject to research and debate which can conclude that both methods are suitable if performed correctly. In essence, the process of farming and slaughtering animals is inevitably cruel regardless of the method used. I am sure the airlines will have vegetarian alternatives for those concerned.
• And finally, the fear that Qantas is bowing down Arab sentiments is an unfair assumption, since almost all Middle Eastern flights serve alcohol to it's customers, counter to their religious customs. So dropping pork from a menu of a few items is really not that big a deal.

I think it's a great thing the West is taking Asian cultures seriously. People should really let go of their double standards and embrace the multicultural world we live in. I strongly agree to condemning the practices of any culture/religion that is oppressive, discriminatory and inhumane, but there are many traditions that are relatively harmless. So to violently oppose them is a somewhat unnecessary and only fuels the growth of racism and intolerance in a world where there is no shortage of it.

Scholars

Was scrolling up and down my news feed on Facebook today and came across a status update that bothered me. I was going to comment on the status, but I knew that it would probably lead to a debate and end with a bad feeling overall.

The quote said:

Ibn Mas’ud –(radiyallaahu ‘anhu) – would advise his students, “If your intention is one of these three, do not seek knowledge: To shame the ignorant, or to argue with the Fuqahaa’ (scholars), or to cause people to turn their faces in your direction. Intend with your actions and words that which is with Allaah, for indeed that which is with Allaah shall remain and everything else shall perish.”

If I had commented on the status I would have simply and politely pointed out that the advice given by Mr Ibn Mas'ud was very poor, and wasn't very encouraging of a healthy, dynamic and versatile learning platform for students. How someone can post a quote like this as though it is some great piece of wisdom is beyond me, that too in this day and age.

Clearly the speaker believes that children should be seen and not heard, and that they should refrain from questioning their teachers and challenging them to reconsider their views. It asks people to not criticize ignorance, which basically means anybody can propagate false or harmful information and/or ideas and just get away without being condemned for it. This is PRECISELY why humankind fails to make progress, because people latch onto old, obsolete ways of thinking only because they were left behind by some epic scholar who cannot be disrespected.

I'm NOT against being respectful, or acknowledging those who have studied and gained expertise in a particular field. But every person must be prepared to face and ask questions, then only can they take their knowledge and their student's knowledge further.