Balash A7ki
I am completely sickened this morning after reading a number of things in the papers and other places online. Here is a tour of my revulsion:
1- Human Rights Watch published a report on the situation of Saudi Arabian women. The report argued, and correctly, that these women are systematically kept in childhood as by requiring guardianship and their guardians’ approval of every step they take in their adult lives (education, work, child caring, travel, etc.) while at the same time the socio-religious system held them legally accountable for their actions as true and actual adults. Most importantly, the report mentioned that women are portrayed and treated as fitna, sources of strife and moral decay, if they are allowed any share of public life or exposure.
This same treatment of women as the sources of malice lays the foundation for the belief that men, their supposed polar opposites, are gullible and easily swayed into vice. Indeed, it argues that for men to stay virtuous, women must be covered up and must not come in direct contact with any men outside their close familial circles lest all social and moral stability come crumbling down. The mere idea that men cannot control their sexual urges, which are oh so easily aroused at the sight of a woman’s ankle or at the scent of her perfume, is absolutely offensive to me and I am not even a man. It pictures men as horny animals and women as their helpless prey, and, ironically, it puts the burden of sustaining society at the shoulders of these prey.
What I have observed is that these arrangements, though meaning well in an incredibly skewed way, actually encourage vice rather than suppress it. Is it not vice that Saudi men seek when they visit Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon in the summer? Is it not vice that Saudi women must be in the company of foreign drivers in order for them to go places? Is it not vice that even women clad in black from head to toe do not escape sexual harassment in the form of pickup lines or phone numbers on small pieces of paper, or bluetooth messages sent to their mobiles, and this does happen in Saudi Arabia because the basic human desire to interact with others, male and female, is not satisfied? Is it not vice that women are placed entirely under the mercy of their male guardians in each and every aspect of their lives? Is it not vice that a human being can die and not be missed by authorities or relatives because she has no ID and only a select few can see her anyway? Is it not vice that the kingdom of hypocrisy imposes strict and sick faith on a number of people, I would argue mostly the women, while it lets others enjoy alcohol, sex, and drugs behind closed doors inside or openly in other countries?
A friend of mine brought it to my attention that the HRW report was funded by a number of Jewish organizations. I think that is significant but it does not change the reality of the situation conveyed in the report. I suppose HRW, like my friend said, should be more selective of its sources of funding especially in these types of reports. Simply put, these fishy sources of money only contribute to discrediting the reports by the Arab public, which is quite the contrary of what they hope to achieve.
2- Allah is everywhere. I read a couple of articles in Al Ghad newspaper today, one was about secularism in an Islamic context, and the other about islamophobia. What struck me as absolutely one-dimensional was the content of the two comments posted on these pages. The commenters contended the ideas present in the articles by invoking the holier-than-thou authority of Quranic and Hadith citations.
In the first article, a commenter argued that a Muslim cannot possibly live under any law except that of Islam, and yet he provided that he lives in Jordan. I don’t know about you, but I see an amazing paradox because Jordanian laws are not,for the most part, Islamic, but secular (and let’s thank whoever it is that runs the show for not letting the Muslim Brothers rule us, amen). Then in the other comment on the second article, the commenter called for a return to the Arabic language in deriving terms instead of arabizing foreign terms, and he cited the Quran as a linguistic miracle. Fine, that is a worthy cause, but please CUT THE CRAP and stop preaching from a pedestal just because you were born into a Muslim family. Did the Arabs have no culture, no language, no identity, before the Quran was born? They did, and they better stop crying over spilled milk and get their act together already.
3- A number of distinguished college students at Al Balqa Aplied University discovered that they had been awarded scholarships by the Ministry of Higher Education, of which their university did not inform them. They made the discovery only lately, while the scholarships were awarded a year or two ago.
In a string of corruption and embezzlement scandals, Al Balqa Applied University seems to have outdone itself this time. The students will be awarded the monetary equivalent of the scholarships, officials said. But nobody commented on WHERE the money was exactly, or WHERE it would have gone had not a random student discovered this theft-corruption affair by accident while applying to another scholarship which he was denied because, hey, didn’t he know he had been awarded one two years ago? I want to see people put on trial for this. I want to see the big heads at Al Balqa University pay a price for their negligence and downright corruption. Will anyone do anything though or will they pacify the public with tales about compensating the students? We must never forget that there will be other students in the future who will be robbed of their scholarships to fatten the pockets of a person or two at Al Balqa Applied University.
4- Oy! Caramba! Nasser Judeh says relax, we didn’t sell the port you idiots, we sold the LAND. Wtf does that mean? Can someone translate it to me? Also, what does he mean when he talks about the Dead Sea Casino deal that “there was no sign of corruption, and the government and the investor agreed to exclude establishing a casino from the deal”? If it’s a “deal,” then there has to be SOMETHING in it for the investor, no? Otherwise what is he and the government agreeing upon? Let’s play a guessing game: it’s not a casino, what oh what could it be? Oh I know! Expanses of land in the Dead Sea area and in Shafa Badran in Amman. That way the government avails itself of the sin of agreeing to build a casino, a vice-house, on the holy lands of Jordan, and it also PAYS land-money to the investor at the expense of homeless and hungry, but entirely pious, Jordanians. I wonder why Judeh did not mention the one billion$$ worth of land that we are forking over to said investor at NO GAIN, and how he cites “complete transparency” at the same time. Does anyone else smell shit?
5- The Jordan Times will not be published on Monday April 28th due to Easter Holiday. As far as I can tell, newspapers run as usual on holidays. News still HAPPEN on holidays. The world does not simply stop because Jesus decides to rise.
6- Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves: “Under the measures, which came in response to Royal directives, around 40 essential commodities were exempted from customs duties and sales tax, while taxes on nonessential items like alcohol, tobacco, video games and satellite receivers were raised.” What 40 “essential” commodities have been exempted, I beg to know. How come they are never enumerated and explicitly indicated in such accounts? And how are alcohol and cigarettes and video games and satellite receivers not essential to us who are beaten down every day and find no console in a greedy system? At least neshrab meshan nensa, kill ourselves slowly with smoke, and indulge in HotBird fantasies. Give us that at least!
There’s still more where that came from. But I don’t feel like devoting any more of my time to this upsetting state of affairs. I do hope though, that the person who argued not so long ago that “Jordan isn’t so bad a country, and I want to live there,” would read this and be forewarned: be a rich foreigner in Jordan or an expatriated Jordanian abroad, and you will SWEAR by Jordan. Otherwise, run for your life.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Related Posts
- None Found

April 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
okays 2… the secularism article guy, he said that if a muslim is given a choice he won’t choose to live under any other law but islam.
what pissed me off more is the writers mangling of secularism and absolute misunderstanding of how absolutely incompatible the ideology of islam and secularism are and that a secular mulsim is term riddled in oxymora
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I am now officially depressed. Just one of these would have been depressing, but a whole string? Well, except the JT not publishing on Easter, it’s not such a huge loss. :)
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Sorry for depressing you Kinzi! :)
Bambam, lovely to have you back.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Why can’t there be a Secular Muslim? Secularism doesn’t interfere with Islam as a religion. In fact, it tells you, go do whatever you want to do with your religion away from the state
Now every religion wants to run the show. But Secularism says, keep it in your Mosque, Church, temple, home .. wherever you want it. But not in state matters
Secularism and atheism are not synonymous
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Tololy, just to quickly comment on point 6: “What 40 “essential” commodities have been exempted, I beg to know. How come they are never enumerated and explicitly indicated in such accounts?” This news was published earlier this week. If you go back to the papers published on April 16th, you will find full details of the news and what items where exempted and what were not. This is one sample of the papers: http://www.alrai.com/frame.php?type=PDF&id=174779
See, the government isn’t as bad as people think, you just tend to blame the government for everything. Just try to be fair and not too judgmental :)
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Regarding Balqa Uni, it is one of the most corrupted entities in the country.. They can’t mess with it because some figures are deeply involved in what is going on there..
As for the HR thingy, long time ago I realized that the society itself doesn’t want its rights. Who to blame for that? Well, go figure!
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
mm. I think i love you.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
since it would be too easy to tackle this from the shia islam point of view am going to attempt to entertain myself with the sunni point of view… either way its the most common one.
“Why can’t there be a Secular Muslim?”
Because islam by definition is the total submission of a person to allah’s (god’s) will… secularism means only submitting part of it which is his heart mainly.
“Secularism doesn’t interfere with Islam as a religion.”
Again, islam gave a complete way of life that is applicable outside of space and time. that righteous path is composed by punishments and rewards in this life and the next one. To foster that way of life in this life time islam focuses on cultivating religious consciousness with moral education of islam, and enforcing deterrent punishments based on sharia laws to protect five things; religion, intellect, property, offsprings and life. That at its heart is what interferes with secularism
“In fact, it tells you, go do whatever you want to do with your religion away from the state”
it tells me where ? i can recall dozens upon dozens of examples where it tells me legislations that deal with state affairs while i can’t recall one where it says what you are saying… be specific please in you reply (i.e. 2aya or hadith since u say it tells me)
A “had” in islam is not a matter of arbitration, their punishment is found in quran (four of them) so unless you are willing to forgo that … i guess you know what that means if you do …
“Secularism and atheism are not synonymous”
who said they are ? thats probably the only thing that the mentioned article got right.
As for secularism in jordan, there is none of that… we have a state religion and our laws are based on sharia laws. you only need to look at marriage, adoption inheritance to understand that.
So does that help in understanding why a statement such as “I’m a secular muslim” is riddle in oxymora and exhibits flagrant misunderstanding of the simplest cores of islam ?
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Bambam, you’re entitled to your opinions, that doesn’t make them right. I also like the idea that you’re enjoying this, although, I fail to see where your are getting your entertainment from, but, oh well, happy for you
First, read what I said again, I said Secularism doesn’t interfere with Islam, not the other way around. Everyone wants to rule the world and Islam is not different than anyone else.
Secularism can encompass provisions to allow even the most demanding of religions. There’s nothing that says that they can’t coexist. Except in the extremist minds of the likes of Bin Laden and the Wahhabi’s regimes.
The fact that Islam has actually a viable social structure, can augment secularism. For example, there’s nothing wrong with giving charity to the poor. Similarly, the same can be said about crime and punishment, although in certain cases we really need to be creative to understand the spirit of issue. For example, cutting off the hand of the thief. This is the Quranic rule, but these can be overruled by the proper interpretation. For example, in common Arabic language when we say “Okotlo” it translates directly to “kill him” when in fact it means “beat him”. The same context can be applied for cutting off hands. The interpretation must be acceptable in a contemporary sense.
Other very progressive Shariah rules include Marriage and inheritance, where there are very intricate details that can be applied to the social life of people
Secularism doesn’t mean that you can not take certain aspects of the religion and apply them as the laws. In fact, every set of people can have their own religiously inspired laws under secularism and it would still be fine
From my point of view, both can coexist, Islam under the Secularist government. They do intersect in the social areas, but we can leave the choice in these areas to the people themselves. Either one can borrow from the other, with absolutely no problems what so ever.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Secularism can encompass provisions to allow even the most demanding of religions. There’s nothing that says that they can’t coexist.
The operative word here is “allow”, you are allowed to carry whatever personal belief you like but when it comes to legislation all religions stand before the law in the same manner and their is no discrimination based on personal belief.
The problem in adopting legislation based on a religion like islam is the following
1. why pick islam and not any other religion if you are a secular system with affiliation to any religion ?
2. if you adopt a law based on islam, is there a space to abolish or change that law in the future ?
the first one you can’t answer it contently to convince people of other faiths and that was the impetus for secularism to arise.
as for the second, for certain aspects there is no room to abolishing or changing a number of islamic laws since they are not up for interpretation.
In fact, every set of people can have their own religiously inspired laws under secularism and it would still be fine
the whole point of secularism is to not have different laws for different people based on their culture and characteristic and that all people are under the authority of a single law, the civil law… you are talking about dhimmi courts there, hardly secular.
being a muslim under a secular system works being a secular muslim system is just trying to pay lip service to the ideology in order to sound contemporary when islam is a religion that rejects the concept of contemporary thought in matters of decrees since it’s for all times and places.
since you mentioned the matter of cutting the hand of a stealer and it’s one of the hudood that don’t fall under interpretation and are stated clearly in the quran to remove any confusion (labs)
this is a hadeeth about challenging the legitimacy of that had…
حدثنا قتيبة. حدثنا الليث، عن ابن شهاب، عن عروة، عن عائشة - أن قريشا أهمتهم شأن المرأة المخزومية التي سرقت. فقالوا من يكلم فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا من يجترئ عليه إلا أسامة بن زيد حب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكلمه أسامة. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “أتشفع في حد من حدود الله؟ ثم قام فاختطب فقال: إنما أهلك الذين من قبلكم أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه. وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد. وأيم الله لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها”. وفي الباب عن مسعود بن العجماء ويقال ابن الأعجم وابن عمر وجابر. حديث عائشة حديث حسن صحيح.
so yeah …. it can hardly be taken figuritively, and if you do as you did you might as well take prayer as figuratively meaning the connection between god and the muslim since thats what the word salah literally means and the procedure for salah is not explicitly stated in the quran…
While you are entitled to think what you like, when it comes to issues of religion you have to back up what you think with texts and scriptures not just thought especially on an issue as widely encompassing as the one you suggest.
So i leave the door open to you to give me some evidence that backs your idea otherwise its just an idea that has no practical substance and is moot
April 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I booby trapped you with that specific rule so to show your prejudice and your narrow vision. In fact, Omar ibin el Khattab was the one who actually abolished the cutting off of the stealer’s hand specifically when there are reasons for it. Which means there’s a precedence in one of the most uptight Islamic Khalifa’s where he actually preempted a rule in the Quran
The moral of that hadith is to lay the foundation of social justice. Where there is no preference based on class, wealth, influence ..etc
I think you already have your mind set and I think no one will change it. But allow me to tell you that you have completely wrong ideas about both Islam AND secularism..
There is such a thing as religious preemption and as long as it doesn’t interfere with the law, it’s usually allowed under secularism.
Islam as religion has in it the seeds of change and progress more than any other social system. And I’m not here defending Islam or bashing anyone else, but the fact remains that there are many things that are up for interpretation, even things mentioned in the Quran. For Quranic rules there is Interpretation and Explanations. These were eluded to by Ibin Rushed.
I think Freedom of religion under secularist regime can work and be very successful. Because if you ctually realize what you’re saying it is actually way worse than enforced secularism. It’s closer to Stallinic communism being shoved down people’s throats
Over here in the US, the state allow people to get married however the hell they want to get married. Most opt for a religious ceremony, which is to be authenticated by the state. This is an example of something that worked well between the state and the people.
Apart from declaring holy war at other people for desecrating a religious figure, there isn’t a single reason ANY religion can’t coexist under any umbrella that doesn’t call for restricting the freedom of belief, which is a basic human right.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:20 am
ook plainly and simply, while i use the quran and hadith as my reference, you use your shaky opinions. then you tell me that i don’t understand islam or secularism.
obviously you have a lot of confusion when you point out a ceremony as an official legislation when its a ceremony that is not recognized with out the official papers
for the case of omar, since you think you are such a smarty pants, he suspended the” had” because it would never be met during the time of famine and poverty since the stealing “had” is not applicable on those who do it out of need. so yeah he didn’t do anything but observe it actually.
and in case you are in doubt the view of islam(god) on those who overstep the decrees:
تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ [البقرة : 229
[وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَقَدْ ظَلَمَ نَفْسَهُ لَا تَدْرِي لَعَلَّ اللَّهَ يُحْدِثُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أَمْراً [الطلاق : 1
Never mind that what you are saying puts the timelessness of the quran under questionable ground which is the miracle of quran as they might say…
Either way i’ll keep on calling people who adopt the secular muslim label as oxymoronic fools that attempt to pay lip service to modernity and you can keep on calling me wrong. with that we can call it a truce…
although my offer still stands for you to find grounds for ur opinions in quran or hadith, i made my case while you haven’t :D
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 am
Bambam you’re more delusional than I thought! You have not made any case and what I have told you constitutes a precedent. This is what I established beyond any shadow of a doubt. There are cases and occasions where conditions are considered and they appear to overrule a shariah law. When in fact, it’s just an alternative interpretation.
As for marriage, you’re really way off. In the US as you probably already know, there’s common law marriage where a clerical certificate isn’t even required to establish marriage has occurred and consummated.
There’s no use arguing with you, you are bent on one thing only, and I’m not going to continue to “entertain” you.
[Oxymoronic] fools??! Says who? You’re not even worth an answer on that one!