Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts

Friday, February 23, 2018

Sisters In Law

A good piece on Saudi women learning about their rights, & laws related to women, in the kingdom. The article brings forth quite a few issues & I'll analyse 2 of them here:
1. Saudi women, with whom the author spoke, kept saying that there's nothing wrong with the Saudi legal system or Saudi legal system in regards to women's rights is among the best in the world. Saudi legal system is primarily based on Sharia, Islamic legal jurisprudence, which has its bases in Quran, Prophet Mohammad's (Peace Be Upon Him) Sunnah, & the 4 main schools of thoughts in Islam (Saudis follow the Hanbali school of thought). So, the question arises, how can anything be wrong with a legal system, which has been made by the Creator, itself?
Now, yes, the monarchy does have its hand in the molding of the law in the way it likes, but it can only do so to a certain extent, & cannot do too much changes in the legal system, regardless of how much it wants to make laws in its own favour.
Islam gave women their legal & social rights back in 600 AD. They are perfect in every sense. But, today's Muslim women see the West & want to emulate their form of feminism in their homes, in their relationships, in their social circles & in their society. First of all, Western form of feminism & women's rights are not feminism at all. Making a woman dance naked in the middle of street is not akin to giving her freedom to do anything. Absence of clothes does not make a woman more powerful in the eyes of the society. Muslim women who are trying to follow the Western form of feminism are essentially going against the orders of their Creator, God (Allah), who they claim to love a lot (if you love your Creator so much, then you may not want to disobey its orders). That's why, the Islamic countries are being destroyed socially, culturally, & religiously, because women are making the Western feminism as their ideal form of liberation.
2. Now, part of the reason Muslim women are emulating Western feminism is their cycle of thought that Muslim men are so abusive & have so much power, because Islam gives them so much power, & hence, there's something wrong with Islam that it is not moving forward with the changing society & has stayed backward in the 600 AD.
As we can see from the article that even Saudi women have no knowledge of their rights in Islam & Saudi Arabian legal system. Quran is primarily written in Arabic language. The same language Saudi women speak in their society. So, a religious book, which is written in their own language, should be easily understandable to women, when they are reading it. But, it's apparent, that they never bothered to dig deeper in Quran & its legal jurisprudence to learn about women's rights in Islam, in depth.
That's a huge problem with Muslims, nowadays. Be it men or women, Muslims are not reading & understanding their own religious book, Quran, & Sunnah, to understand it in depth & learning what their rights & obligations towards Allah, towards each other in different kinds of relationships, & towards their society are. After all, even in secular / non-religious areas, ignorance of a country's laws can never be used as a defense in committing a crime. It is obligatory for each & every Muslim to learn what the Quran, Sunnah, & jurisprudence says about issues in their lives. As we learn from the article that once these Saudi women came to learn what are their rights in Islam & Saudi Arabia, they are talking about the laws are good, but their application is not, which is due to sheer ignorance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September, 2014, Mohra Ferak, 22 years old and in her final year at Dar Al-Hekma University, in the Saudi port city of Jeddah, was asked for advice by a woman who had heard that she was studying law. The woman was the principal of a primary school for girls, and she told Ferak that she had grown frustrated by her inability to help children in her charge who had been raped; over the years, there had been many such cases among her students. Regardless of whether the perpetrator was a relative or the family driver, the victim’s parents invariably declined to press charges. A Saudi family’s honor rests, to a considerable degree, on its ability to protect the virginity of its daughters. Parents, fearing ruined marriage prospects, chose silence, which meant that men who had raped girls as young as 8 went unpunished, and might act again. And for some of the girls, the principal added, the secrecy only amplified the trauma. She asked Ferak if there was anything that she, as principal, could do to help them.
I told her, ‘You can go to court and ask the judge to make the proceedings private and save the girl’s reputation,’ ” Ferak recalled one recent afternoon. ... The principal was amazed to learn that Saudi plaintiffs can request closed court proceedings. She began peppering Ferak with legal questions, many of them about how to advise teachers who were in abusive marriages, or whose ex-husbands wouldn’t allow their children to visit. The principal was in her early fifties, which meant that, as a school administrator, she was among the best-educated Saudi women of her generation. Well into the 1980s, according to UNESCO, fewer than half of Saudi girls between the ages of 6 and 11 had received any education outside the home. But, Ferak said, it quickly became clear that the woman knew little about the fundamental principles of Saudi law.
Ferak had been a middling student during her first 3 years at Dar Al-Hekma, an all-female university. A week after talking with the principal, she went to Olga Nartova, who chairs the law department, and described the conversation. Nartova, a 36 year old trade-law specialist from Moscow, had previously found Ferak to be bright but unmotivated, like many girls from well-off families. But Ferak spoke about women’s rights with a seriousness of purpose that Nartova had never seen in any student at Dar Al-Hekma.
...
With Nartova’s encouragement, Ferak began planning a series of free public lectures at the university, aimed at women and delivered by distinguished legal scholars and lawyers. The presentations were designed to provide basic information about Saudi women’s legal rights. “Since I was very young, and started noticing how women are treated in this country, I’ve had this feeling about women,” Ferak said. “I don’t like anyone to underestimate us.” But women’s rights aren’t a subject of mainstream public discussion in the kingdom, and she wondered whether anyone besides the principal would attend. She also worried about how the experts would react to being approached by a student.
Ferak compiled a list of topics that she felt were of particular importance to local women, and she began contacting lawyers. The first lecture in the series, which Ferak called Hawa’a’s Rights (Hawa’a is the Arabic version of the name Eve), was publicized on Twitter and took place on the evening of April 15th. Several dozen attendees learned about crimes perpetrated against women on social media, a topic of special concern in a country where single people of opposite sexes cannot spend time together without risking arrest, and where pressure on women to cover their faces in public can be so intense that the most innocent head shot can serve as a tool of blackmail.
The second Hawa’a’s Rights lecture, on April 26th, addressed personal-status law, the category of Saudi law that governs marriage, divorce, guardianship, and inheritance. The lecturer, Bayan Mahmoud Zahran—a 30 year old Jeddah attorney who, in January, 2014, became the first Saudi woman to open a law firm—was scheduled to begin speaking at five o’clock, launching an evening of discussion that would run until nine. Late that afternoon, Ferak arrived at the university to find a long black line of abaya-clad women waiting to be seated.
Institutions and businesses that serve Saudi women are carefully guarded, so as to prevent ikhtilat, illegal gender mixing, and the only male employees of a Saudi girls’ school or women’s college are its security officers, who are stationed at the checkpoint outside, inspecting identification cards and keeping watch for male intruders. The security guards were overwhelmed by the turnout for the second Hawa’a’s Rights event. Ferak corralled several friends, and they spent the half hour beforehand rushing from classroom to classroom, looking for extra chairs to carry down to the space that had been reserved. They filled the aisles and the back of the room with additional seats, straining the hall’s intended capacity of 120.
There were students, mothers, teachers, lots of workers in shops—really, every kind of woman, even doctors from the university,” Ferak told me. “All of us were just looking at each other, thinking, Is this even possible?” When Nartova came out of her office, a few minutes before Zahran’s talk, she saw women struggling to find standing room in the back and on the stairs, while others sat on the floor by the dais. Ferak texted a photo of the packed hall to her father, who had shared her initial doubts about interest in the lectures. He teasingly texted back, “Are you trying to make women fight with their husbands?” The third Hawa’a’s Rights lecture, a practical introduction to Saudi labor law for women just entering the workforce, attracted a still larger crowd. The university did not schedule a fourth event.
In 2004, Saudi Arabia introduced reforms allowing women’s colleges and universities to offer degree programs in law. The first female law students graduated in 2008, but, for several years after that, they were prohibited from appearing in court. In 2013, law licenses were granted to 4 women, including Bayan Mahmoud Zahran. Journalists and legal scholars in the West wondered if a fresh contingent of female attorneys would champion women’s rights. But, of the dozens of female lawyers and law graduates I spoke with on a visit to Saudi Arabia in early November, only two would admit to any interest in expanding rights for Saudi women. So far, the greatest effect of the reforms seems to be a growing awareness, among ordinary Saudi women, of the legal rights they do have, and an increasing willingness to claim these rights, even by seeking legal redress, if necessary.
The lawyers conceded that, by international standards, these rights might not look like much. According to Saudi law, which is based on Sharia, a Saudi woman’s testimony in court is, with few exceptions, valued at half that of a man. A homicide case, for example, normally requires testimony from two male witnesses; if only one is available, two female witnesses may be substituted for the other. The guardianship system—which requires an adult woman to get permission from her guardian before travelling overseas or seeking medical care—gives Saudi women a legal status that resembles that of a minor. In fact, the male relative with responsibility over a Saudi woman may be her own adolescent son.
A Saudi woman cannot leave her home without covering her hair and putting on a floor-length abaya. She cannot drive a car. Since 2013, women have been allowed to ride bicycles, but only in designated parks and recreation areas, chaperoned by a close male relative. The marriages of Saudi women are usually arranged, and it remains extremely difficult for women to obtain divorces. Husbands, in contrast, may marry up to three other women “on top of them,” as the Arabic expression goes, and in some cases may end a marriage in the time it takes to repeat “I divorce you” three times—or to type the so-called triple divorce formula into a text message.
In December, 2007, I arrived in Saudi Arabia for the first time. Although I had read thousands of pages about Saudi laws and cultural conventions, it was a shock to confront the system as a lived reality. Abundant resources go into maintaining the women-only bank branches, government offices, shops, and other businesses that make up the infrastructure of gender segregation in the kingdom. ...
...
Today, several thousand Saudi women hold law degrees, and 67 are licensed to practice, according to justice-ministry figures released at the end of November. ... Two of the Jeddah firms where Ferak has applied for jobs in recent months indicated interest, but then told her that they lacked the license from the kingdom’s labor ministry which authorizes a business to let women work in its office. The labor ministry requires firms that employ women to build separate areas for female workers, allowing them to communicate with male colleagues without the risk of being seen by them. In supermarkets, which have employed women since 2013, low partitions suffice, because semi-public spaces are easily monitored by members of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the kingdom’s religious police. But businesses that operate from enclosed workplaces, such as offices, face tougher regulations. One result of these restrictions, Ferak explained, is that, at present, only the largest Saudi law firms employ women.
Despite her frustrations, Ferak pointed out that women’s efforts to gain more respect and influence in Saudi public life have been progressing rather quickly, considering the country’s relative youth, and especially considering the Arabian Peninsula’s tribal, deeply traditional culture. Ferak appeared to be echoing the “baby steps” theory of social progress, often put forth by Saudi leaders as a way of excusing rights abuses or the rhetorical excesses of government-backed clerics. It wasn’t clear how sincerely she believed it. ...
...
Nevertheless, Ferak, like every other female law graduate I spoke with, wanted me to understand that individual Saudis and local traditions, not Saudi laws, were the source of her struggles. Saudi laws, she insisted, were “perfect” (a word that I heard at least half a dozen times, from other women her age, in reference to the Saudi legal system). Saudi women’s woes were merely the result of the laws’ misapplication. The fact that I’d sought her out seemed to surprise her, and to raise concerns that foreigners might misunderstand. Although Saudi men sometimes mistreated women, the solution lay not in changing the system but in educating women about their rights within the existing structure.
Perhaps surprisingly in a country notable for its strict rules, relatively little of Saudi law is written down. The legal system has been augmented, during the 83 years since the kingdom was founded, by royal decrees, many of which overlap, or even contradict one another. This body of law is interpreted by senior clerics, who serve as judges, largely following the Hanbali School, the strictest of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. The notion of judicial precedent does not play a role in Saudi law, so judges enjoy considerable freedom of interpretation.
Yet the system’s ambiguities also preserve the need for a monarch with final authority, and this means that the personality, moods, and tastes of the head of state are felt in the lives of his subjects in ways that would be unimaginable to citizens of a modern democracy. Absolute power, Saudis say, has a way of trickling down, of turning ordinary policemen and public officials into petty tyrants. Justice is often situational; the law is what a person in a position of power decides it is. If devout Muslims openly question Islamic teaching, they are vulnerable to accusations of heresy, which is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia. And the risks of questioning have grown in recent months. The current Saudi king, Salman, came to power following the death of King Abdullah. Since then, accusations of heresy and of apostasy—also a capital crime in Saudi Arabia—have increasingly been levelled against government critics. ...
...
... Across the kingdom, the atmosphere is newly cautious, and a young law graduate who wishes to speak of her growing awareness of injustice in Saudi institutions knows that she must express herself with enormous care.
Several days after my conversation with Ferak at the Lebanese restaurant, I set out to meet Bayan Mahmoud Zahran, whose law firm has made her the most famous female Saudi lawyer in the world. ...
...
Zahran’s firm is expanding, with a half-dozen employees and a fledgling corporate department ... . But women with personal-status cases make up the majority of her client base. The judicial system puts women at a disadvantage, she said. “Women generally are more emotional, and they can’t get their rights because they’re so emotional, and they just cry,” she told me. She seemed to suggest that the main obstacle was not the legal system but a tendency of women clients to become overwrought. Female lawyers can help, she said, because they can “understand the emotion and translate it into something valid for the court.”
Some of the lawyers I met said that women increasingly insist on being represented when inheritances are divided. In early October, at the end of the Islamic calendar year, the Saudi justice ministry announced that in the past twelve months there had been a 48% increase in cases of khula, divorces initiated by women. A Saudi newspaper reported that such divorces now make up a “staggering” 4.2% of the total. ...
Yet in this privacy-obsessed society, with its weak traditions of individual rights, many Saudi women still struggle to obtain legal information. As far as any of the lawyers I interviewed were aware, the Hawa’a’s Rights initiative has been the only organized attempt to educate Saudi women about the law. Eight months after the series ended, Ferak continues to receive messages suggesting new topics and asking when to expect another event. Sometimes, Ferak said, her correspondents plead with her not to give up, telling her that the lectures changed their outlook—even the arc of their lives. During her last year at Dar Al-Hekma, Ferak found a new purpose in her studies, and her grades rose sharply. She told Olga Nartova, “I realized why I was studying law.” She hopes to continue the Hawa’a’s Rights lectures, but has not found a venue. Intrigued by the Western understanding of human rights, she has begun to explore graduate programs abroad, where she might study the subject.
On the afternoon of the first Hawa’a’s Rights lecture, Salwa al-Khawari, a teacher at a girls’ school, was heading home when her friend Nour mentioned the event. On learning that the subject of discussion would be women’s rights within the Saudi judicial system, Khawari rearranged her evening in order to attend, and later rallied friends to go to the subsequent discussions. She told me that it had never occurred to her that Saudi women had any legal rights, and she had resented the way that the legal system treated women. “I always thought that the flaw lay in the laws,” she told me. Now, like Ferak and many other lawyers I spoke with, she expressed new confidence in the justice of Saudi law. “Our laws concerning women’s rights are among the best in the world,” she said.
The real problem, she added, was lack of access to information. After the lecture series, Khawari began reading all she could about women’s rights in Islam, and sharing what she learned with her 12 and 13 year old students. Last spring, she gave up her teaching job to study full time toward a master’s degree in social work, with a concentration in human rights. Since then, she said, some of her former students have initiated discussions of women’s legal rights with older women in their families and among their neighbors, and they have asked Khawari to help them assemble leaflets on the subject. Khawari said, “They tell me they want to do something for Saudi society.”
Katherine Zoepf is a fellow at New America. Her first book, “Excellent Daughters: The Secret Lives of Young Women Who Are Transforming the Arab World,” came out in 2016.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

An Occupier's Peace or a Just Peace - Shir Hever on RAI

The decades-old conflict in Middle East, between Israel & Palestine, won't end so easily, as the Global West perceives it to be, because a "just peace" have to be brought in for everyone living there. In a society, where there's "just peace," people need to have equal rights & obligations.

The current conflict will continue on until the occupying force, Israel, only wants peace on its terms, & of course, the conflict itself is helping to line the pockets of influential people in Israel & around the world. Political & military elites, & esp. the conservatives in North America & Europe want this conflict to continue on because they are profiting from it immensely. Of course, the average joe in Israel & the occupied territories of Palestine merely wants peace where everyone has equal rights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: So if you're going to talk about what the future might look like, what a peace, if possible, might look like, you've first got to talk about, well, who actually wants peace, and on what basis do they want peace? ... There are a few people in Israel who are doing extremely well out of the current situation. There's a stratum of multimillionaires and billionaires, a political stratum. I mean, why would they want anything other than what they got?

SHIR HEVER, ECONOMIST, ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION CENTER: I think the vast majority of the Israeli public wants peace. But a famous German military thinker, Clausewitz, has once said the occupier always wants peace. Peace means the status quo. That's why Palestinians don't call for peace, they call for a just peace. And that's also why the Israeli peace movement has collapsed because the peace movement had this kind of idea that if Palestinians would be offered peace, they would just accept that the current situation will continue. And, of course, that's a completely false premise.

But there are, of course, people in Israel who do have an incentive to end the occupation and to end the injustice. A lot of Israelis are suffering because of the massive cost of security that is needed to repress the Palestinians. I would say the majority of Israelis are losing in their standard of living because of this continued repression of Palestinians, because of the continued conflict. So they have a real interest even in a just peace, but their voices are not heard and they cannot be heard within this kind of colonial system, which is dominated by those elites who are actually profiting.

JAY: So talk a bit about the elites because it's a very small group that own the dominating, commanding heights of the Israeli economy.

HEVER: Yeah. And I would say the major forces that push Israel in this direction of continued conflict and continued occupation are actually outside of Israel. These are the forces--the U.S. government and right-wing groups within the U.S.--that fund the most extremist and violent political movements inside Israel. Sheldon Adelson in the U.S. has opened up a free newspaper in Israel in order to make sure that Netanyahu keeps winning the elections with a massive investment that no one on the other side can match. So that sort of support makes sure that the hawks continue to dominate the political structure.

Sure, there are also Israeli security companies and military companies that are very powerful and very influential. In fact, there was a meeting in 2011 of 80 of Israel's biggest capitalists but not from the security sector, which said, if Israel will continue on this path, we're going to get to the situation of South Africa, we're going to be boycotted by the world, we have to do something. They had this emergency meeting. But they couldn't actually do something. It shows that even capital has its limits. They couldn't find a way to convince the government to act differently because there's just no historical precedent for that. There is no historical precedent of a colonial power which just stops in its tracks and says, this is wrong, we should allow these people freedom and equality.

JAY: Would you say if outside of the security-military-industrial complex, if you will, the rest of the majority of big capital would actually like to see a resolution of this?

HEVER: Yes, yes. And they've tried a couple times to fund their own candidates for prime minister and spent a lot of money on that. The public didn't vote for these candidates. The public wants a strong leader that can say--a sort of security person who can say--I will be a representative of your national pride, I will make sure Israel is safe, I will fight Iran, and so on. And when somebody says, if we end the occupation it's actually good for the economy, this sort of argument doesn't get--.

JAY: But if their heart was really in it--and they being these other big capitalists--I mean, they could match Sheldon Adleson and they could have their own TV stations and their own newspapers. I mean, they could really go at it. Is their heart really in it? They're doing so well the way things are.

HEVER: I think they estimate that if they do that, people will not see that, won't watch that television or will not read the newspaper. And they're right because people don't like to read that they're in the wrong, and that things have to change, and that political power has to be shared. They don't want to read that.

JAY: Alright. ... what is a model that if you could even think ten, twenty, thirty years out, if you were going to try to create a model that would be, one, sellable, not just just. I mean, you can imagine a just model, which is pretty straightforward. It's a Democratic, single secular state and everybody gets to vote and it's a modern country. But right now that's not a sellable proposition. So some people have talked a possible federated state, where you have a province or a state within a Federation which is primarily Jewish. Hebrew would be the language. You would have another one, another state, which is primarily--Arabic is the primary language, and so on, or some configuration. You must have thought about this. What might be possible?

HEVER: It's not only that I've thought about it, that this is also almost an obsession, but not just for me, but for political activists, for leftists for years.

But I want to answer you in two parts. The first part, I have to say, again I have to be very sensitive to my own position of privilege. Being an Israeli Jew and saying well, this is the solution is not going to work, and it shouldn't be, it shouldn't work. Palestinians should not get their solution from some Israeli. They have to come up with their own platform for political change. And therefore, I have to be very careful in how I answer that sort of question.

Having said that, let me tell you what voices I hear from my Palestinian friends about what they're saying. And among these voices, you can hear a lot of those ideas of a federation, a confederation, two separate states, three separate states, one democratic state, joining with Egypt. You can hear a lot of interesting ideas. But the voice that comes out the clearest in the last few years is the voice that says, we don't care about that. All of these ideas are legal demarcations, are some kind of--where you put the border here or there. That's not important. The important thing is to talk about rights, talk about how we have the right to move wherever we want, to say whatever we want, to have a government that represents us, to organize, to practice our religion, to trade freely. That's what it means to be free. And then it doesn't matter so much exactly how many borders you're going to stretch across this territory. If we're practical about it, historically Palestine is a country that was divided by the UN, but in fact there has never been a Palestinian state there. There's always been one powerful force of Israel and some areas that were temporarily held by Egypt and Jordan, and then Israel occupied these parts as well. Now we have a situation in which there's one state under Israeli domination with a population of 12 million: 49% Jews, 49% Palestinians, 2% others. And it's an apartheid state.
...

JAY: What I'm getting at, ... if there's going to be rights, there's going to have to be at some point some kind of buy-in by enough Israeli Jews to go along with this, I mean, unless you think there's going to be some military defeat of the Israeli state, and it's hard to imagine that right now. Even if the American policy was to significantly shift, you still have a mass of Jewish-Israeli public opinion that is where it is. I mean, it's in not a very good place. There's got to be some kind of understanding of how that's going to be dealt with to create a model that's at least the next step.

HEVER: There's this famous British general that once said in Zimbabwe, whatever happens, we have machine guns and they don't. And they lost. So the military defeat is not so unimaginable, but, of course, it'll be further down the road. It's not going to be in the next few years.

I think the fact is that a Jewish state is not sustainable. It's a concept that doesn't fit the 21st century. It barely fits into the 20th century. It's a racist idea.
...

JAY: Well, I was about to get to that, 'cause then you get to the campaign for boycotting, disinvestment, and sanctions. It's clearly having some influence. It's hurting the Israeli economy. If it was stronger, it could precipitate more self-interest in some kind of change in Israel. But don't you then still have to have--okay, then what does that look like? 'Cause if you get to a point of real rights the way you're talking about, this can't be a Jewish state anymore.

HEVER: Exactly. Yeah. It cannot be a Jewish state. It's going to be--I mean, even if there will be a separate Palestinian state according to what we call the two-state solution, then the battle will continue. The struggle for equal rights in Israel will continue, because Israel cannot be a Jewish state; it has to be a state for all its citizens, one way or another. And the way that this defeat comes, it comes very suddenly. And, of course, the model is South Africa, where one week before apartheid collapsed, 90% of white people in South Africa supported apartheid. One week after apartheid collapsed, they all say we were always against it. And the Israeli minister of justice, Tzipi Livni, just said a couple of weeks ago, in response to the BDS movement, she said, I went to South Africa and spoke to some Jewish people there about their experiences from this era of the fall of apartheid, and the main thing they told me is it came unexpectedly, it came suddenly. There is a moment in which you lose courage, you lose your faith that you can continue to repress other people forever. And that moment may not be as far as we believe. I'm hopeful.
...

Sunday, April 19, 2015

So, when do we start caring about privacy?

So at what point does the public mobilize? Privacy should, by every right, be the essential debate of our modern digital era; it is the newest & most pressing issue on our plate. ... Yet stories & revelations of our fumbling & slouching to Bethlehem—or, in some cases, our government’s rather insidious machinations—continue to earn yawns & swipe-pasts.
 
We are convinced, of course, that privacy is a matter that affects other people. R v. Fearon? That guy deserved it, because he... committed a crime; I don’t commit crimes. Breaking European law? Well, that’s not in North America! And government emails? So what? I don’t send them anything incriminating!
 
Except that creating caveats for our standards in these early days of an entire field is profoundly problematic. If Canadians don’t set the tone for what we want in our privacy, we will allow companies & governments to set the rules for us. This is indeed a problem, then, of other people—that is, the fact that other people will be setting the agenda for our own privacy.
 
Good thing there’s no upcoming bill in Canada that could set the stage for a genuine debate over our country’s privacy rights.
 

Thursday, March 5, 2015

NOT Practicing Islam in short shorts

This is becoming a very common scenario in our Muslim societies or even among individual Muslims. Excuse: I am a Muslim in my heart. I don't need to dress in a certain way to show that I'm a Muslim.
 
Let's forget about religion for a minute at all. Let's look at this trend (& this article) from 2 real-world examples.
 
Scenario 1:
She becomes a consultant at IBM. Now, the IBM "dress code" is to look professional in front of a client. It's not different or unusual from any other professional firm's attire; Deloitte, KPMG, Grant Thornton, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Accenture etc. Now, when we think of a female consultant's professional dress, we think of proper attire in a nice colour, covering her from neck to knee, at least, coupled with a nice pair of heels (arms can be bared ... for those people who may start to split hairs).

 
Now, imagine if she wears the dress what this girl describes, into a client meeting, as a representative of IBM, as an IBM consultant. Would her manager give her a warning? Would she be disciplined more severely if she keeps ignoring those warnings? Would she be fired ultimately if she keeps coming to office in sandals, short shorts, showing her navel ring, & heck even drunk, to the office & at the client's premises?
 
Would IBM be considered a very harsh, controlling, "patriarch" of an employer? Can she say about IBM that IBM is a very "patriarchial" employer (you are not my father to tell me what can I wear to office or not)?
 
Why all of us in this world when sign on the dotted line of an employment contract are then beholden to the rules & regulations of that company or employer? We all have had to sign papers about our internet usage, attire, behaviour in office etc. If we don't abide by those rules, what does the company warn us about?
 
If we don't abide by the company rules, we will be let go. There is not even partial acceptance of the company rules. You have to accept either all or none of the company rules. Company is like, if you don't like our rules & want to do whatever you want to do, you are free to go anywhere else. Heck, you don't even need to give a 2-week notice.
 
Scenario 2:
It's Friday night in June. Very nice weather outside. You are a parent of a 16-year-old girl. As we all know, teens are usually rebellious. She has just started dating this guy with a hot rod & tattoos & definitely looks like much more older than her, perhaps 24-year-old.

 
It's 8 pm. You are at home preparing dinner with your spouse in the kitchen. You suddenly hear a motorcycle horn from outside. You instinctively know who that is. Your hear your sweet daughter bouncing down the stairs from her room upstairs. You step out in the foyer / vestibule to wish her goodbye & to tell her to take care.
 
But, wait a minute. You are shocked with what she is wearing. She is wearing a skimpy shirt, covering her neck to breasts area, a short denim short, & a pair of platform heels (tummy & legs are all bare). Of course, she has lots of makeup on her too.
 
Would you allow her to go like that on her date? She is a free person & living in a free country. If you will, then you are a dream of a parent to any teen. BUT, most concerned / good parents won't.
 
They will scream at her to go back upstairs & change into something more appropriate. She shouts back into your face, "why?" & "you are a horrible mom/dad," & "she hates you."
 
Your response: "as long as you are living under my roof & eating my food, you will follow my orders, otherwise, you are most welcome to leave this house & live anywhere else & do whatever you want to do."
 
Aren't you a very harsh or "patriarcial" parent? Would you be awarded a Parent of the Year award? You seem to be a horrible person since you are ordering around a free person in a free country.
 
However, other concerned parents will congratulate you for what you did & said. You said that as long as she is living under your roof, she needs to follow your orders / house rules / customs etc. She is always welcome to leave the house & not follow your orders. Doors are not locked on her.
 
Let's link these 2 real world analogies with religion now:
 
It's the same rule with religion. No religion is forcibly holding anyone in it. You don't want to believe in it or believe in it partially, you are always free to pack up & leave. BUT, when you sign on that "dotted line" (by entering in it whichever way a person enters in that religion, whatever that religion might be), then either you accept all of it or none of it.
 
It is clearly stated in chapter 33, verse 33 of the Quran that wives of the Prophet, stay in your houses & do not display your finery to everyone outside. Muslim women are supposed to follow the wives of the Prophet, so that's an order to all Muslim women to cover up & stay in your house. It is not anyone's interpretation or hadith; it is stated right in the Quran.
 
Problem is we are afraid of our employers & even our parents to do what they tell us to do. But when it comes to religion, we are not only oblivious to what the Quran & Hadiths say but we will believe anyone saying anything about it. How many people have actually read the Quran with translation in their own language? They've read Quran in Arabic when it's not even their language, which is like reading that French novel without knowing a word of French ... I don't think you will understand a word of it.
 
Quran is a book of message or even Hadiths & you are supposed to read it & understand it. People are not even curious enough to know about the religion they are following. But they don't want to leave Islam. Do you become an accountant without reading an accounting book? or become a medical doctor without reading a medical book? or become an engineer without reading an engineering book? etc but when it comes to Islam, that person has never opened the Quran or even a book of Hadiths but have become a master in religion to comment on women's dresses, & prayers, & women's rights etc.
 
Can you do you an audit of a company & issue an opinion without an accounting certificate (CPA)? You won't be allowed to do it. If you want to audit a company's F/S, & issue opinions, then you are required to go through the professional accounting body's whole exam & become a proper accountant.

Similar to prescribing drugs (medical doctor) or performing surgeries (surgeon) or selling a house (realtor) or building a house (engineer) or designing a house (architect). Then why all of us become such masters in Islamic theology that we issue our opinions like this girl so easily that I will wear short shorts & drink whisky & party it up in a club but still be a Muslim & even worse, other so-called Muslims wholeheartedly support her. Idk who to call a moron here; that (& other) girls like her or other Muslims who support her in doing this.
 
Nobody stopping you from getting out of Islam. But when you want to be called a Muslim, then you do have some rights & obligations. As my real-world examples above show that what Quran is asking Muslim women to do is no different than a country, or a state, or an employer, or a teacher / principal or a good parent ask people under their care to do; follow my laws, rules, & regulations. There is no partial acceptance of the rules. You can't pick & choose & interpret rules yourself as you like. If you want to be an American, then you must follow American laws; no ifs & buts. Otherwise, you are always welcome to get out of America & give up your American citizenship. Similar to Canadian, or French, or Turkish, or Saudi Arabian, or South African, or Brazilian laws.
 
But why is it when it comes to religion, we like to follow our own interpretations of beliefs, or pick & choose or distort the rules as per to our liking? Why don't we do this same thing in the secular, non-religious, real-world? Why do we have double standards? Why do we not call that cop or Judge that I am as much as an American / Canadian / British as that other person; you can't judge me since my intentions were not to harm other Americans / Canadians etc (like this girl says that Islam is looking at her intentions & not how she dresses).
 
One more thing I want to add here is that what Dalai Lama said that our "best religion is our heart." You know this PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), which is becoming very much prevalent in NATO soldiers, esp. American soldiers. They go through therapy but PTSD is still on the rise. What's the essential problem here? PTSD is essentially their hearts & minds being in conflict; heart says what you did in the war is wrong (whatever that may be) & the soldier tries to rationalize it through his/her mind that what he/she did was correct. Similar problem is here. In most cases, other Muslims are not judging these Muslim women who like to dress in such way as this woman described in her blog. I've been told this excuse even in conservative countries like Pakistan. It's not anyone's judging them but it's their own heart is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, so they try to rationalize it by deflecting what their heart is saying to them to what other people are thinking or "judging" them.
 
I can say a lot more on this topic but then the classic, nonsense reply would be, "you don't know me & what I've gone through in my life so keep your opinion to yourself."

 
 

Sunday, March 1, 2015

2014: A degrading year for women

A good column from Dec 2014. This column is great for me to blog on the popular topic of "equal pay", as Patricia Arquette has again put the spotlight on it in her Oscars' award acceptance speech, but that one saved for another time (actually, this one also mentions this hot topic).
Very hard to choose excerpts from this column to put it here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has there ever been a more depressing year for feminism than 2014?


... it seemed the world’s most famous women - whose every move is avidly followed by millions of impressionable girls on social media - were busy throwing buckets of ice over themselves or posting ‘brave’ pictures without any make-up on.
Ostensibly, this was for charity, but it was really to show off how much better they look in a wet T-shirt or without cosmetics than the rest of us.
 
It was also the year when every B-list celebrity, from Kelly Osbourne to Kelly Brook, started taking risqué pictures of their cleavage or bottoms & posting them on Instagram & Twitter, with legions of fans inevitably following suit.
Meanwhile, a cartload of over-paid, under-fed & perma-tanned supermodels rolled into town, courtesy of lingerie store Victoria’s Secret, & proceeded to prance around semi-naked... .
 
Not since the slave markets of Ancient Rome have women been judged so blatantly by their appearance, analysed so openly as little more than a collection of body parts. And the worst part is this: the sisters are doing it to themselves.
 
For women - & women alone - are responsible for this rampant self-objectification. This time, we really cannot blame the patriarchy.
 
No one is forcing young women to have their breasts enhanced (one of the most popular plastic surgery procedures of 2014) or to leave the house trussed up like living, breathing blow-up dolls.
 
From the preoccupation with ‘thigh gaps’ (that faintly obscene obsession of super-skinny models) to a seeming inability to pose for a photo without pouting like a demented trout, all too many women seemed to engage in ever more vacuous vanities. Eyelashes were so over-the-top that girls were straining to see past the end of their noses & cleavages had more suspension than the Severn Bridge.
 
So there you have it. Decades of feminism & it seems the best use we can find for equal pay is to spend it on buying ourselves a body like Barbie’s & a wardrobe like Katie Price’s. Was it really for this that Emily Davison fell under the King’s horse?
 
And if all of this is confusing for a woman like me, who thought the whole point of equality was that I could at last be judged on my ability to converse fluently on foreign policy, not how I look in a bikini, imagine how unfathomable it must be for the poor male of the species.
 
If I could wish for anything in 2015, it’s for this insanity to stop. For women to stop making such fools of themselves, to rediscover some dignity. Above all to stop frittering away the freedoms so hard won by our predecessors & that, let’s not forget, are still denied to many.