Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Banned as it contradicted the Quran and Hadith

    More squalid airless stupidity from Malaysia: banning Irshad Manji’s book and confiscating copies from bookstores.

    The Home Ministry has banned  the controversial book by liberal Muslim  activist Irshad Manji as it could cause confusion among Muslims.

    In a statement yesterday, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop said  the book Allah, Liberty and Love and its translated version Allah, Kebebasan dan  Cinta was banned as it contradicted the Quran and Hadith.

    The fact that a book “could cause confusion” is an imbecilic reason to ban it. The fact that it could cause confusion among a particular brand of theists is even more so. The fact that it contradicts the Quran and Hadith is an appalling reason to ban it. It represents obedience to arbitrary rules and demands written down many centuries ago in the guise of Roolz from Godd; not being allowed to contradict something so absurd at this late date is pathetic, tragic, horrible.

    He said the decision was made following a report by the Islamic Religious  Development Department (Jakim).

    “Based on the report, it says that the book promotes mixed marriages between  Muslims and non-Muslims. This could lead to pluralism.

    “It also contains insulting elements towards the prophet, which were  described in such a way that could pollute the sanctity of Islam.”

    The deputy minister also said that the book defended secularism by confusing  the Islamic faith.

    Worse and worse and worse. Religious xenophobia and anti-pluralism; brainless worship of a long dead man; brainless worries about pollution and sanctity (cue Jonathan Haidt explaining why it’s not brainless at all, only different); anti-secularism and dogma preferred to putative “confusion” (which clearly means just dissent).

    “The book also says the five fardhu prayers can be done in various movements  and languages more than five times a day. This statement may confuse the  public.”

    He said the ban was made according to Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses  and Publication Act 1984 as its content could cause disturbance to the  public.

    In a related development, Jawi enforcement division senior principal  assistant director Wan Jaafar Wan Ahmad said they would monitor book stores to  prevent them from distributing the books.

    I’m embarrassed to be a human being.

    And then there are the foul comments underneath the article…

  • Malaysia bans potential confusion

    The Home Ministry has banned  the controversial book by liberal Muslim activist Irshad Manji as it could cause confusion among  Muslims.

  • Malaysia bans and confiscates Irshad Manji book

    Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusop condemned the book for being blasphemous to Islam and Prophet Muhammad in  a statement released yesterday.

  • Alternative therapy for farm animals

    This is not from the Onion. Repeat, this is not from the Onion.

    With an agriculture degree from the Royal Agriculture College, Cirencester, and a qualification in homeopathy, it was only natural that Christine Lees of Homeopathy at Wellie Level should turn her attention to alternative therapy for farm animals.

    To…what?

    Alternative therapy for farm animals?

    Um…why?

    Well, because of the delusion that it’s better, I suppose, but why – oh never mind, no doubt it’s all explained if we just read the article.

    “I had already done part of a homeopathy course before I went to Cirencester,” she says. “And I liked cows. So I put the two together for my dissertation: The role of homeopathy in the treatment of farm animals.”

    During that time she says she talked with farmers and vets who were using homeopathy but not really knowing what they were doing. “There was very little support to go with it.”

    Oh the farmers and vets were using homeopathy but they didn’t really know what they were doing! Whereas experts on the other hand do know what they’re doing.

    Really? How? What is there to know? What is there to not know? What do the farmers and vets do wrong as a result of not knowing what they’re doing? What’s the difference between homeopathy done right and homeopathy done wrong?

    “We agreed every course needed to be taught by a vet who was a qualified homeopath along with a second homeopath. I ran the syllabus,” she confirms.

    “We felt three days was the maximum we could expect farmers to take off and the minimum we could give to the farmer given the size of this huge subject.”

    It’s a huge subject, but in a pinch it can be taught in three days.

    The courses are carefully planned. Day one is based around an introduction to homeopathy including key sessions on “the eight principles of homeopathy and the “big six” remedies,” plus on-farm practical animal observation.

    Day two looks at treating acute cases with day three building on the first two days, and focusing on chronic illness.

    Ooh, that is careful. I’m impressed. One day for acute illness, one day for chronic illness. Zip, all done!

    Hitherto, Mrs Lees has run the course as a non-for-profit business. “I only run courses when I have enough people to pay for the teachers. We do some advertising and when I have profit it’s ploughed back into advertising. Our rationale is not to make a huge amount of money but to help people use homeopathy properly.”

    Support for her initiative has come from various sources including the Prince of Wales who donated £5000 at the start. “That went towards the marketing,” she says.

    Fabulous. The prince of Wales is giving them money to persuade more people to learn magic ways of treating animal illness. Abs’ly brilliant.

  • “Alternative therapy” for farm animals

    Christine Lees says she talked with farmers and vets who were using homeopathy but not really knowing what they were doing.

  • Eroding Feminism

    When Adele Wilde-Blavatsky’s article ‘To be Anti-Racist is to be Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab are not Equals’ on the Feminist Wire garnered a storm of opposers angrily accusing her of everything from attacking the identity of Muslim women, to exercising white privilege, to perpetuating racism and Islamophobia, it led to the Feminist Wire censoring both Wilde-Blavatsky and its own subsequent response.

    The “Collective Response” removed from The Feminist Wire, but published later on Jaddaliya.com, is signed by a group of feminist writers, activists, and academics” fromdiverse racial, religious, economic, and political backgrounds.”

    But are the signatories really as diverse as they claim to be? It’s worth taking a closer look at the characteristics that can be garnered from the signatures.

    First, they overwhelmingly represent universities of the so-called Imperialist part of the world, the part that they claim is the harbinger of western privilege seeking to subdue and persecute the poor, non-white and Muslim of the world. Of the 86 signatories as of May 18, 2012, all but six specifically identity themselves with institutions, mostly universities, in the United States or Canada, and one in the United Kingdom. One is at the American University in Cairo, the closest to thing to anyone signing from a Muslim-majority country. The other five signatories don’t identify their locations.

    Who is represented among the signatories is also demonstrated not so much in who signed, but in who didn’t. The complete absence of signatories from universities (or otherwise) in parts of the world that form the epicenter of the debate’s topic, might cause an anti-imperialist to argue that ‘privileged’ women at western universities are speaking for the silenced women of the Muslim world, therefore perpetuating hegemonic discourse.

    I actually don’t really care where people live or work, or where they were born, when they opt to protest something. But it’s not lost on me that those who have attempted to vilify Adele Wilde-Blavatsky were quick to focus on her “whiteness” as a characteristic that automatically makes her a paternalistic western feminist. Hence, the above is simply an exercise in the game that Wilde-Blavatsky’s detractors are playing. If you’re white, you dare not speak about issues that don’t concern you. It’s a refrain I’ve confronted often enough myself, and at the risk of belabouring this controversy further, it’s worth examining more closely given that the Feminist Wire censorship incident is hardly unique as a case of those labeling themselves “feminist” misusing the race card, and in the process, trumping real struggles over rights and freedoms that face women.

    But first, allow me to point out one other feature of the signatories. The bulk of them represent Women’s Studies Departments, at western universities. This is telling, and sad.

    Where are all of these voices when horrific incidents of violence occur against women in Afghanistan? When dissenters are censored in Saudi Arabia? When women’s rights defenders are raped inside Iranian prisons? When 12-year-old Yemeni girls have their insides torn open when they are raped in their marriages to adult men?

    In the world of urgent action for women who are under siege in a plethora of deadly situations, in the realm of courageous and outspoken responses to the misogyny that festers under the purview of male rulers that deem women akin to cattle—whether the rulers of governments or the rulers of families—Women’s Studies departments in western universities have simply been non-players.

    They are too busy, it would seem, investigating intersectionality, avoiding being seen as patronizing westerners, deconstructing dominant discourses, challenging hegemonic “narratives”, labeling all action for women abroad as Orientalist, and fighting the murky imperialism that lurks everywhere, threatening to colonize and subdue exotic cultures at any moment.

    But out there, in the real world, the most pressing issues facing women are all too often ignored by those studying questions of gender from the confines of Women’s Studies departments. Research agendas seem more determined by deep-rooted biases favouring relativisms and a post-modernist view of the world, than by the empirical evidence that everywhere around us, women are getting mutilated, maimed, raped, beaten, prostituted, set on fire, drenched in acid, and murdered because they are women, and a disproportionate amount of this takes place in Muslim societies.

    The destruction of women’s bodies is the most violent manifestation of systematized male control over women, and this systematized control uses culture and religion as its primary vehicle. And no matter how hard you try, you just can’t pin it all on American foreign policy in the Middle East, on neoliberal economic policy, or on colonial legacies. The justifications vehemently given for the subjugation of women in so much of the Muslim world come from within those cultures, and typically, from the men. Referring to local “tradition”, religion or culture, such men don’t even blame their treatment of women on the outside world or on American policies, so why would foreign scholars do so?

    As a Caucasian woman fighting for the rights of women in Afghanistan, I’ve had many experiences where my race was brought up as “problematic” as it relates to the legitimacy of my right to speak out against the atrocities I’ve witnessed against women here over the past 15 years. It’s been implied that as an outsider from a western country, I could only be some kind of zealous missionary bearing “my” message of rights, or the specter of a neo-colonialist simply extending imperialism by other means over a resistant people. I’ve been called a racist more than once, and only ever by individuals who reside comfortably in the West and consider themselves to be of the political left, that is, to be “progressive”.

    The casual misuse of a term that has a very precise meaning and is among the gravest accusations one can make towards another person is an indicator that those conflating the advocacy of women’s rights in the Muslim world with racism simply have no idea what they’re talking about or what they are fighting for anymore. They’ve drifted so far off a genuine social justice agenda, that they’ve found themselves shipwrecked on the shores of the fascist, patriarchal and hate-filled political ideologies that work to keep the female sex securely in submission. They invoke the racism card to shut down dialogue, pushing out of the conversation anyone they can associate with whiteness, making the ridiculous assertion that just by existing, just by speaking, any white person perpetuates inequalities. As Adele Wilde-Blavatsky asks, “Are you seriously suggesting that we can only debate an issue if we have first-hand experience of it? Do I have to be a porn star to critique pornography?” As she experienced,

    To claim, as one woman did, that I used the ‘ties’ of ‘non-white bodies’ to ‘obfsucate my whiteness’ not only reduces me and my family to the level of our skin colour but also categorically ignores our intimate connections and unique personal experiences and cultural and religious backgrounds. Most importantly, it denies us the experience we share as human beings in terms of genuine love, care and compassion. The very thing you accuse me of doing in relation to Muslim women.

    And like the boy who cried wolf, when accusations of racism are blatantly and routinely misused, it’s easy to then miss or ignore real instances of racism.

    Where inequalities are truly being perpetuated is by those who have co-opted the language of feminism, but really work to preserve the status quo of misogyny by giving credence to cultural relativism, and by letting an indelible paranoia of imperialist identity override the need to speak out against the real perpetrators of abuses against women. Similarly, Wilde-Blavatsky referred to a “fear of Islamaphobia so intense” that it risks shutting out dissenting Muslim voices calling for more freedoms, such as the freedom of choosing how to dress.

    Too much of the western academic world has consistently ignored the homegrown voices courageously demanding the kinds of rights and freedoms we have come to take for granted. I still have faith in feminism, because I’m fortunate enough to interact with real feminists every day—women in Afghanistan who aren’t willing to compromise on their demand for rights in the name of culture or identity—and who risk their lives every day to express their belief in the idea that human rights are universal.

    In the west, we have forgotten that the rights we enjoy today were not granted, they were taken. Now it’s the turn of others to take theirs.

    I may be Caucasian, and I may be non-Muslim. It would hardly even matter if I were also a man. I’m calling a wrong when I see it, and if you want to box me into a corner based on the superficialities of 21st century identity politics as defined by post-modernist Women’s Studies Departments far removed from the real battlefields for women’s rights, so be it. But I will speak out whatever the skin colour and whatever the religion of the victims of misogyny. If those who profess to be scholars confuse that with racism, by god, scholarship is in trouble. Civilization, indeed, is in trouble.

  • Egypt: leading presidential candidate promises sharia

    The Muslim Brotherhood candidate who came first in the opening round of the Egyptian presidential election is “promising” to implement sharia.

  • Keep the harlots occupied

    Oh good god – what a clusterfuck it is when reactionaries co-opt the jargon of liberation to decorate the chains.

    A new Islamic tv station is launching in the Middle East, an all woman station. Progressive, huh?

    Its pilot broadcasts will start towards the end of this month, where all the staff including the broadcasters will be veiled women. No men or non-veiled women will be employed says Sheikha Safaa , the manager of the channel.

    Oh. Not so progressive then. Kind of brazenly discriminatory, actually.

    [Safaa] has made it quite clear that the objectives of launching this channel is to offer veiled women the chance to appear on the screens and to empower other veiled women by activating their roles. She claims veiled women suffer marginalization.

    They will empower other veiled women! Kind of like the way Michelle Duggar empowers other Quiverfull women, and those four women married to the one guy empower other Fundamentalist LDS women. Solidarity, sistas! Good luck with activating their roles – whatever that means. Reminding them that only whores don’t wear hijabs, probably. You go, girl!

    “The affairs of the channel will be handled by the sisters who will be running the television channel, since women are more qualified to address and talk about their own needs”. She added Sheikh Abu Islam Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah, the owner of the “Al Ummah” channel and the new “Maria” Channel, said in a statement that “God willing, the channel will employ Muslim women graduates of various departments of media collages and institutions. This project aims at protecting women from temptations by finding them suitable work opportunities .”

    Oh that’s kind. Women are such feeble-minded sluts, you know, that it’s pretty much impossible for them to resist temptations. They keep flinging themselves down in the street and spreading their legs in a hopeful kind of way, because they just can’t help it. It’s super-nice of Sheikh Abu Islam Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah to make up some pretend jobs for a few of them so that they’ll be too busy to fall down and spread their legs. It’s hugely empowering, too, that reason for giving people jobs. “Here, honey, this will keep you busy so that you don’t run around grabbing every penis you can reach.”

    Abu Islam confirmed that the pilot will start with a broadcast of 6 hours through ‘Al Ummah’ channel, until the time of actual broadcast. He also made it clear that this channel will not host guests who are men or unveiled women, but telephone interventions from both will be permitted.

    Makes sense. Spread your legs all you want, but it won’t do you any good over the telephone, so interviews with men (with penises!!) and unveiled women (who wear their vaginas on their heads!!) will be safe.

    Allah is wise, merciful.

     

  • The expansion of Steiner schools in the UK

    It’s much harder to make up lost ground in physics or maths than it is in the humanities.

  • It’s not all about you

    Department of Bad Ideas: the idea that vaccination is “a personal decision.” Vaccination is a personal decision the way texting while driving is a personal decision. That is, it’s not.

    And it’s exponentially less so when the non-vaxxer is somewhat famous, and has published a book that includes her views on non-vaxxing, and talks about non-vaxxing on NPR’s Science Friday.

    In certain circles, especially in the [Attachment Parenting] community, there’s huge pressure to reject or at least delay vaccines. (While a delay is better than not doing it at all, it’s still dangerous.) You then show by your personal meddling with the schedule that you care, that you’ve paid attention and done research. Hey, we haven’t all gotten degrees in epidemiology and studied the schedule, but we can all scowl at it skeptically, right? Following the recommendations of the scientists who research this stuff for a living is for sheep. They must all somehow be in the thrall of large pharmaceutical corporations. Or so the thinking goes.

    It’s time for a little social pressure of our own. It’s time for us to tell Mayim to take this one back. Stop being responsible for the measles or pertussis revivals. Once you blog about it and talk about it on interviews, like the one you did recently for Science Friday, you’re no longer just influencing your friends. It’s no longer a private, personal decision. You’re influencing everyone within earshot. Stop being a disease vector. Stop pretending like the only person affected by your decisions is you. Start acting like the role model you aspire to be.

    But Mayim Bialik – Amy Farrah Fowler on The Big Bang Theory, which is why I know who she is – is firm that it is indeed personal. I find that kind of imperturbable selfishness deeply irritating.

  • Jesus and Mo ponder the moon

    They are not impressed.

  • Charles Freeman on the shroud of Turin

    What Ian Wilson   has done is to follow in the steps of medieval chroniclers and create a   legendary account of the origins of a relic cult.

  • Suspicious fire at Georgia clinic

    Investigators are still trying to determine what caused a fire at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic — the second suspicious fire at a Georgia reproductive clinic this week.

  • Mayim Bialik PhD should know better

    Than to evangelize for anti-vaxxing.

  • Suck out that moisture

    How about the Zimbabwean senator from the Movement for Democratic Change who thinks the way to prevent AIDS is to vacuum all the disgusting goo out of women?

    He also thinks they should stop taking showers so that they’ll be too smelly to fuck, and shave their heads so that they’ll be too bald ditto, but the disgusting goo idea is more sciency than that.

    He also gave an interview in which he stated that “Women have got more moisture in their organs as compared to men so there is need to research on how to deal with that moisture because it is conducive for bacteria breeding. There should be a way to suck out that moisture.”

    Yes indeedy.  There should be a way to suck it out, and a way to make it mandatory for women to have it sucked out. Sounds kind of rapey, but think  of the upside – for the first time in human history, women who aren’t all slimy and disgusting. Booyah.

  • Austin Dacey on Alexander Aan and blasphemy law

    The Indonesian legal system is designed for unequal treatment of unbelievers. The constitution  stipulates that every citizen must believe in a supreme being.

  • Pro-life arson

    Good old “we are pro-life so we try to kill women to show how pro-life we are.”

    Investigators are still trying to determine what caused a fire at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic — the second suspicious fire at a Georgia reproductive clinic this week. No one was injured in the Wednesday morning fire that started on the third floor of the Cobb County clinic, which anti-abortion advocates regularly protest, according to local news reports. Employees told a local TV station they saw “suspicious activity” before the fire:

    Clinic workers believe the fire started on the third floor. They said two unknown men went upstairs and left shortly afterward, minutes before the fire was discovered.

    “We have patients here. They’re under anesthesia. This could have been life-threatening,” employee Angela Buckner told Channel 2’s Ross Cavitt.

    That’s unpossible, because pro-life people are pro-life.

     

  • You are not the boss of me

    Ah-ha. Saudi woman in shopping mall is told to leave by some thugs. She tells them off.

    Yes do more of that please!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpUUOYRLW3k

    H/t Tarek Fatah.

  • From Sile Lane, about Rothamsted this Sunday

    A message from Sile Lane (Sense About Science):

    Many of you have asked how you can personally show your support for the GM wheat scientists at Rothamsted Research who face the destruction of their trial site by Take the Flour Back this Sunday. The team of scientists will be at Rothamsted Park, Harpenden AL5 2EF to answer questions from 11.30 on the day, where the protesters are apparently planning to gather. This is where you can show your support, but please do NOT attempt to go to join the anti-GM activists in moving to the trial site itself, for obvious reasons.

    It is regrettable that the Green Party’s Jenny Jones has confirmed that she will be there to support direct action against publicly-funded research, particularly given that the wheat trial is expressly aimed at reducing the use of broad-spectrum insecticides which can damage farmland biodiversity.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of you responded to the call to email Take the Flour Back with your request that they should call the protest off. To date no response has been received, so we can only assume that the attempt at a “mass decontamination” that the group has proposed will go ahead as planned.

    Best wishes,

    Síle Lane

     

  • Avicenna says

    UK blogger Avicenna writes about the murder of Shafilea Iftikhar Ahmed.

    It is alleged that on September the 11th, 2003. Shafilea was picked up from her part time call centre job, driven home where an argument broke out.

    At some point in this scenario, her mother pushed her onto the sofa and ordered her husband to “Finish it Now”. Farzana and Iftikhar Ahmed were then alleged to have held her down, forced a plastic bag into her mouth and covered her airways till she suffocated. Shafilea fought to live, struggling against this assault. Her father had his weight over her chest. Alesha described her final moments as a struggle to breathe with her eyes bulging in strain for a single breath of air and wetting herself as the life was choked from her. After she died her father struck her a single hard blow to the chest before getting up.

    This was done in front of her four siblings. She was allegedly executed in such a fashion for bringing dishonour to the family. By not conforming to her parents “Pakistani Villager” ideals of what a girl should behave like. If this scenario did happen, then this was a calculated plan by parents to murder their child. What drove her parents to do this was a lot of things but on that day it was because Shafilea went out wearing a white t-shirt and trousers. She was allegedly killed because of the clothes she wore.

    It’s culture, Avicenna says. Criticism of a culture is not racism, Avicenna says. (Avicenna is “Asian” aka Indian.)

    Shafilea was killed by her parents because they belonged to a rural islamic culture which placed an inordinate amount of value on “familial honour” and treated women as property or livestock. Her tribal culture played a part due to the idea of honour. Islam played a part as it doesn’t treat women as anything but a set of reproductive organs. Our culture played a part because it is unwilling to criticise real things that need criticism.

    Shafilea to her parents was nothing more than a brood cow that wouldn’t birth. It is wrong, it is not cultural imperialism to point it out. It is common sense. It is like a MRA suggesting that women are all bitches or cunts. It is like the Stormfront suggesting that all black people are superhuman crime and rap machines. It is empirically a bad viewpoint and we are not racist for calling them out on it and actively seeking to destroy that bit of culture.

    It’s a bad viewpoint based on othering and dehumanizing, contempt and hatred.