There is no Honour in Honour Killing

From the northern UK cities of Bradford, Rochdale, and Manchester to the rural areas of Pakistan, the grisly issue of honour killing persists. This has recently surfaced in the media, with the savage killing of Farzana Parveen, a 25-year-old pregnant woman, literally bludgeoned to death with bricks and stones by family members, for having married the man she loved. It beggars belief, how anyone can do this to their own flesh and blood. What kind of values do these people carry? Whatever it is, I can see no reference in Islamic law, and the life of the Prophet (saw), to remotely endorse such barbarism and cruelty.

One of the first Quranic injunctions forbade the killing of daughters; the pre-Islamic Arabs used to bury them alive, because it brought shame. For that same reason of ‘shame’, family members of Farzana Parveen collectively plotted and murdered her. It gets worse, in another case, a couple in Pakistan, killed their daughter for allegedly looking at a boy, and another family killed two teenage girls for ‘dancing’ in the rain, yes like most 15-year olds, they were engaged in some form of frolic enjoying themselves; they were not stripping or performing some lewd dance in front of a group of rowdy men.   

Tony Blair - A War Criminal and an Intolerant Extremist

Tony Blair’s recent outburst on Political Islam sounds like an indirect confession. He has contributed towards its rise, and now wants the rest of the world to contain it. His message sounds like an intolerant person who cannot co-exist with an opposing view. If political Islam is the people’s choice then what exactly is the problem Mr Blair? Or Is Blair an intolerant extremist who wants to impose his ways on others?

He is also a war criminal; accordingly, he should stand for trial at The Hague. However, that is extremely unlikely, regardless of his crimes and the evidence presented, because leaders of a western block countries set the rules to subject others, whilst they have total immunity. The empirical evidence corroborates this; the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been largely applied on former leaders of African and Arab countries. In the spirit of equality and progress, we must break from our ‘prejudice’ and pluck out a leader for a trial from the Western block, be it Blair or Bush or even a second rate Dick Cheney will do. It is possible, the US produced a black leader, even though he may not be black enough for some, but at least it’s something.  Likewise, we may get to a point, where the international tribunals are applied to all war criminals, not just the non-white ones.   

Afghanistan in 2014: Peace or Civil War?

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, received a lot of flak in the press for declaring “mission accomplished” when he visited the troops in Afghanistan recently; it evoked memories of George Bush’s premature declaration of victory in May 2003, as Iraq was disintegrating into a quagmire.

What was the mission in Afghanistan? Initially, it was about removing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which was accomplished relatively quickly with Western firepower and money, as the loyalties of the Afghan tribes were easily purchased. In this sense, the mission was accomplished a while ago, but the Taliban and Al-Qaeda alliance could easily return if the US-led troops left, therefore, a long-term solution was required. Accordingly, the mission morphed into installing democracy, curtailing poppy production, and promoting women’s rights. The underlying reason is that a stable government would ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven for Al-Qaeda again. 

Read More .... 

Child Marriage: Is it an Afghan Problem Only?

The Islamophobic media of the far right, and the more subtle elements within the mainstream media, have continued to construct the view that child marriage is exclusively an Afghan problem, and the Islamophobic narrative given as explanation is - it stems from their Islamic heritage, and using crass language, they go on to cite the lone example of Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to Ayesha, and conveniently ignore all the other marriages to much older women.

Throughout large part of the history, this was not an issue; the Christian nemesis did not make much of an issue, as the mother of Jesus, Mary, at the age of 12-14 married Joseph, who was considerably older around the age of 90. Indeed, in the old days, marriage between an older man and a younger woman in her teens was the norm in most societies. In contrast, Western liberal societies view such marriages with scorn, instead the young ones gain the experience by having unlimited pre-marital sex with various partners, a bit like polygamy, but we dare not call it that! According to one government report [1], almost all Americans are engaged in per-marital sex and there are similar trends in Europe.

Read More ...

The Niqab Ban Furore, Miley Cyrus and the Silence of Feminism

“One of the major arguments being lobbed around this week as to why Muslim women shouldn’t be wearing veils in public is because they are a symbol of male dominance in society. As if knicker skimming dresses aren’t? ... On the streets of our cities every night of the year there are girls in outfits created purely for the pleasure of men.”                                           

 Alison Phillips Journalist

A woman’s right to choose is at the heart of feminism; also endorsed by the liberal ideology of ‘freedom’. So, they argue that Hijab or the Niqab should not be enforced in society, and it should be left to the prerogative of the individuals. But surely, the notion of choice also implies that women should not be forced to remove it either.  Accordingly, I was expecting to hear feminist voices coming to the defence of the right to wear the Niqab, along with the bare-breasted women from ‘Femen’ running through the streets of London, waving their fists, demanding the same. A disclaimer, I used the term bare-breasted as an adjective, and this should not be taken as my personal desire to see these semi-nude women behaving like cavewomen; it’s not dignified for any woman or man to behave in this way, in my book.

Would the feminist and the liberal camp have remained silent, if the situation was reverse, say a group of women in Iran or Saudi wanted to parade in their miniskirts or bikinis? I know it’s not as raunchy as Miley Cyrus, nevertheless, raunchy enough for a conservative Muslim society. You can bet on them coming out of their holes, waging a campaign to ‘save’ the Muslim women again, and the current fad of Zionist inspired Islamophobia would guarantee favourable and ample media coverage.  

Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria: Who Done It?

Like a real life game of ‘Cluedo’, we know the weapon, the victims, the place and the time. Only the identity of the perpetrator remains a mystery.   The primary suspects are the Syrian regime or the rebels; both sides have the capability to deliver these nasty weapons, as for motive, there is a degree of uncertainty.  The Syrian regime is winning the war on the ground, and the use of such weapons would only unify the rest of the world against them, thus, such an action looks irrational and counter-productive.  Especially in light of the fact that Obama already stated the use of chemical weapons was a line that could not be crossed. Moreover, the immediate and equivocal Syrian response, requesting an UN inspection team to verify the matter seems to point to their innocence.

Could the rebels have done this? One cannot imagine they would use chemical weapons on their own people, to perpetuate an uncertain military response, with an uncertain outcome, unless it was done by a lunatic fringe extremist group among the rebels.   

Let’s ask: cui bono (to whose benefit?).  An attack on Syria would benefit its rival, Israel. For sure, they have the experience (e.g. Lavon affair) and the capability to engage in a covert operation, if needed in collusion with the CIA, to deliver these weapons and manufacture a crisis. Of course, there is a difference between logic and truth, it does not always follow that the party who stands to gain the most benefit is automatically guilty.

Modern Day Feminism is a Fig Leaf for an Anti-Islamic Crusade

A picture is worth a thousand words is the age-old proverb; an image can certainly convey many ideas instantly. However, a deceptive image tells a bigger story, it spawns lies and disseminates hate on a larger magnitude. It is the hate-filled Islamophobic fascists that have been busy tarnishing the Muslims as a whole, by cherry picking certain actions, hiding behind certain political terms, and operating behind the ubiquitous mass media.  

Like most Muslims, I have become accustomed to seeing numerous anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim images appearing on social media networks, and the internet, such images would get censored if it were aimed at any other community. One would be hard pushed to find similar material appearing from Muslims; at most you see posters from victims and angry mobs on the streets demonstrating in response to an American-Israeli led atrocity or another video insulting Islam published in the name of free speech.  

The above image depicting a woman with an acid-burnt face along with an adjacent image of burnt pages of the Quran, implying the two are somehow connected, and the caption boldly suggests the two are alternatives. It alleges those who are busy protesting against burning of the Quran are the same people who implicitly endorse burning a woman’s face with acid, because they do not display the same reaction. What about those who are not protesting against the burning of the Quran, are they all exonerated?