Seriously, let us ponder, does a society have the right to control what kinds of religious freedom is allowed? Should we allow witch burning, female genital mutilation, stoning of adulterers, widow burning and other such barbaric cultural practices under the guise of religious freedom?

My own personal opinion is, individual religious freedom that does not harm the society or an individual should be allowed. Additionally, one person’s religious freedom should not infringe on the rights of another person.

So, let us consider the case of the muslim veil:

Why did muslim women first wear the the veil?

Interpreting from Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148 -

The companions of Mohammad, the founder of islam kept badgering him to enforce the veil but he did not do so. One day in the evening one of his wives Sauda went to the field to relieve herself . She was a big woman and even in the dark was quite recognizable. One of the people nearby shouted out “Sauda, I know it is you”. Deeply embarrassed, the poor woman came home and complained to Mohammad. Very soon a  quranic  verse was produced -
33.59 -
(YUSUFALI): O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

In other words, the first verse in the quran relating to the veil was to allow a woman to defecate in a public place without being recognized. Think about this. Do muslim women need to defecate in public today? And if they did, would it not infringe on the rights of society to maintain a level of civic cleanliness?

The second quranic verse enforcing the veil is 24.31. -
“YUSUFALI: And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. “

This verse, instead of asking muslim men to develop some degree of self control, asks a woman to veil herself. Basically, this lays the onus on men’s deviant behavior on women. I am surprised that muslim men do not find this verse insulting because it implies that they are incapable of self control. Think about it – this is equivalent to saying it is the victim’s fault that he was robbed as he should not have been carrying a purse in the first place. Stupid, isn’t it? In fact modern democratic societies where men and women work side by side very productively is sufficient proof that this verse is nonsense. Are such verses that punish women instead of teaching men superior values really relevant to modern times. There are many cases (I personally know a few) where fathers and other male family members force girls to veil against their will. Is this really religious freedom?Is this not a case of one’s religious freedom causing harm to another?

On many internet blogs muslims claim that the veil is a show of faith. Excuse me, but, faith should be a matter between an individual and his/her God. The truly faithful, the truly spiritual do not need to “show” their faith to another human being. Showing off is not a spiritual value that needs to be cultivated.  The male muslim bloggers never try to show their “faith” by covering their face, do they? Their “faith” is mainly confined to harassing and heckling muslim women that do not comply by their rules of “faith”.

One muslim woman defending the face veil, stated (in a Washington Post article) “When I dress this way, you are required to deal with me intellectually and that’s it “. Well, dummy, you can deal with people at an intellectual level without covering your face. The rest of us are doing it all the time. An intellectual conversation does not require props, especially props that limit communication. Human beings use facial expression to communicate socially. Facial expressions convey a lot – whether the person is telling the truth, the emotional state of the person etc. What exactly are you trying to hide behind the veil and why should we trust you if we cannot read your expression? In fact, there have been cases of bank heists conducted by men in burkhas. There have also been cases of terrorists escaping by hiding under the full body veil.

Lastly, research has shown that the full body veil causes vitamin D deficiency especially in the West. This can lead to rickets, osteoporosis. There are also health risks to infants born to the affected women. Thus again, this is a case of a religious practice causing harm to individuals and others.

In short there are many reasons the veil is harmful and banning the veil is the right decision. To summarize:

• It is a vehicle of control of women and is a brainchild of seventh century primitive desert dwellers.
• It was created to hide an action that was shameful (such as defecating. As as aside, in certain cultures only prostitutes covered their faces so that they were not recognized).
• It teaches muslim men not to take responsibility for their actions or to exercise self control.
• It limits human social interactions and isolates the woman ( who would really want to talk to a walking bag)
• It is a security risk. A person needs to be clearly identifiable.
• It is a health risk.

Kudos to the French and other nations that ban the veil. We do not need the practices of ignorant nomads of the seventh century in the modern world.

I am sure that Christianity has offered forgiveness and redemption to many practicing Christians.  To  mention a few -

• Christian inquisitors in the middle ages who  carried out their campaign of torture and murder in the name of Christ under the banner of redemption and forgiveness.
• Christian invaders who rendered extinct indigenous tribes in North America and Australia.
• Hitler who surely must have gassed millions while being assured of Christian forgiveness .
• Pedophile catholic priests in North America preying on vulnerable young boys.

All the above mentioned souls are “forgiven” and  “redeemed” because of their Christian faith.

Moral learnt: You can be as criminal and  anti-social as you want to be as long as you belong to the Christian faith. (Nice going, Brit).

I do not blame zealots like Hume completely. After all, it is not their fault that their understanding of higher philosophical concepts is limited.   Consider a pagan African tribe where the son of the chief was beheaded to please the tribal God Eladrereiver.  Think that is silly and inhumane? Christianity too is based upon a similar pagan belief in human sacrifice.   Just replace the African tribal Chief’s son with Christ and the God Eladrereiver with Jehovah.   The way to redemption in Christianity is through the blood sacrifice of Christ to appease the God Jehovah.  Can such simplistic pagan beliefs lead to improvement of one’s self?

Other conservative news commentators jumped into the fray quickly to defend Hume’s stance. Hume’s cheerleader in chief – Ann Coulter – opined disparagingly in her weekly column that Buddhist faith is about making everyone a God.  Newsflash, Ann, Honey!  Buddhism is also about self control and moderation, something that many Christians would do well to incorporate.  Why don’t you and Hume try it out? In the process of discovering your inner “God” you may actually start taking sensible positions on many issues (something that I would count as a miracle akin to virgin birth)

Fast forward to Arabia of the 6th or 7th century AD. Another man came along that claimed to be a descendent of the man from Canaan. He too heard voices in his head that told him to do all sort of things. Heck, he was such a cool dude that the voices in his head pretty much gave him permission to indulge in anything he wished to indulge in – break idols, attack caravans, fight with his tribe (or other tribes), take slaves, torture or kill.  Today his followers are confused  zombies unsure about the question – to be or not to be  (as their great leader was).

There was a slight change of scenerio in the nineteenth century. Now the next great “prophet” turned up in America. In addition to hearing voices in his head, he also saw angels that led him to a divine book.  Amazingly, only he was able to  translate the book (hallelujah!). Amongst his many teachings was this pearl of  “wisdom” – the path to heaven for a man is to have as many wives as possible (and of course the path to heaven for the wives is to let her husband have as many wives as possible). Today his loyal followers obey him to the hilt. They spurn all fruits of human toil and genius except for the services of lawyers which they need to fight for their “rights”. The “right” to allow  little boys/girls to be trained/brainwashed (punished?) into following their leader’s dream.  The “right” to  sexually abuse girls routinely.   Sweet fellas, aren’t they?  They are so cute that if they are forced to expel any of the adult men that do not toe the line, they make sure that the man’s wives and children are redistributed (All for one, one for all etc.  Plus, remember, more the wives  better the chance to get to heaven). And who dare stop them, who dare defy the voices in the head of their great prophet.

Now we must move on to our own twentieth century “prophet”.  After all, humans are all thetans that have migrated from an alien planet.   Psychiatry is  a pseudo science but scientology is not a pseudo religion. How can it be? The voices in Ron Hubbard’s head declared it to be true. We also have a  famous actor jumping on a sofa proclaiming its “trueness”.    Just attend the meetings faithfully and you too will be convinced (but you are welcome at the meetings only if you have a few millions in spare cash). In fact the only thing better than scientology is the FSM (flying spagetti monster).

Voices in the head?  Prophets or charismatic snakes? Perhaps they were all simply billy goats. As Forrest Gump might have said – A prophet is as prophet does.   You decide.

To start with, natural conception, natural birth etc. are all highly over-rated. Ms. Suleman had the right idea. Why go through eight individual pregnancies when you can achieve the same goal at one shot? Why put yourself through all the humbug of a marriage and a husband when all that is needed is a sperm donor? Sure, she went overboard, she could have had five instead of eight. But then, how many of us who decide to limit our shopping budget stick to that. If every alcoholic could limit himself to just one drink, well, he would not be an “alcoholic”, right?  Since when is not knowing one’s limits held as a disqualification towards motherhood.

All, in all, in-vitro is without doubt to women what the wheel was to the human kind. Now even women of 60 and 70 years of age can dream of motherhood (like Sarah in the Old Testament). In fact women today can go one step further. They can even have twins and triplets at seventy (God let Sarah have only Isaac).

Granted, Ms. Suleman may not be completely of sound mind (why would any sane woman actually want to look like an anorexic Angelina Jolie?).  But if that is the only proof of her “insanity” then we would have to disqualify about three quarters of the entire human race. That you are upset at her choices in life does not necessarily make her “unqualified”. Do come up with some real proof (other than your sanctimonious opinions) that she is mentally ill. Until then this woman’s particular affliction – i-wanna-have-lotsa-kids-ophobia – is not evidence enough to judge her an unfit mother and take her children away.

So you have a problem that this woman is on welfare.  Why is it such a big deal? I do not recall this concern when my tax dollars were spent on a bankrupting war in Iraq. Nobody protests when our tax dollars are being used by Nancy Pelosi and her chums in congress towards a “stimulus” that Pelosi herself stated as helping achieve her long term liberal agenda (rather than actually stimulating the economy).  But no, we are not to focus on unimportant things like that especially when there is a woman with the octuplets to hound.

Everyone needs to take a step back and take a deep breath. Stop trying to dictate how other people should live their lives. She has not killed, robbed or harmed anyone. Until she does so, what stupid choices she makes is nobody’s business.

But this post is not to lament that. Nor is it my aim to bemoan the politicians whose crisis management skills mainly consisted of visiting the attacked sites  (after the terrorists were subdued) in the latest “Armani” (which of course needed to be changed every hour for the photo ops) and who needed public anger to rouse them to a sense of their moral responsibility.  No, this post is to discuss the mindset of people who would show no mercy even to a child and how to deal with them.

The philosopher Santayana once said “Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It”.  So let us look at these terrorist attacks from a historical context.

A study of terrorist activities in the last decade shows that the attacks are usually aimed towards the following.

• Monetary gains
• Political gains
• Ideological/religious beliefs

Let us consider the cases of the 9/11 attacks, the Karachi Marriott hotel attack, the Madrid train bombings and the Mumbai terror attacks of last week. All these attacks have a few things in common:

• No ransom was demanded.
• No noticeable political demands (such of release of political prisoners, rollback of particular pieces of legislation etc.) were made. The targets were not specifically military or political personnel. (And there is nothing to be gained politically in shooting people randomly in a railway station or supermarket).
• The majority of the victims were innocent and defenseless people (travelers/tourists, business people etc).

Were these attacks simply to instill fear in the enemy? But who is the enemy here? The answer to this lies in the profile of the attackers and the victims:

• The perpetrators were young muslim males subscribing to a particularly fundamentalist branch of Islam and were from muslim nations that mostly have good relations with the West at the government level (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc.). The targets were a diverse group mostly non muslim (Christians, jews, hindus etc.) or muslims considered as heretics  (apostates, reformers, ahmadiyas, shias and those cultivating a friendly relationship with non muslims ).

So now without any further ado and without any attempt to fool ourselves or be politically correct, let us address the cause. I charge that the ideology of Islam is directly responsible for the activities of these terrorists.

Now,  many will claim that this is not so and that the terrorists are simply subverting the message of Islam which is peaceful. I submit that this is not true. Islam from its inception has been military, conquering and fascistic in nature.   The word “Islam” means submission not peace.  The quran makes it very clear that Islam is to be established all over the world and the enemies of Islam killed.  Over time attempts to reform the religion by forward thinking muslims have met with resistance and failure.

Survival is the natural instinct of human beings and is deeply ingrained in our nature. A nineteen year old does not become a suicide soldier for a religion without a steady diet of religious concepts intended to brainwash him.  A twenty year old will not simply throw away his life if he did not believe that he will receive a great reward for such an act.  These boys were  neither “misguided” nor did they “misunderstand”  Islam. They followed Islam in its pristine form.  The ambushes, skirmishes and wars detailed in Islamic texts on the life of Mohammad, founder of Islam,   provides the blueprint for the activities of these youngsters fifteen centuries later. Unless nations rise up to the realization of the true danger such fascistic and totalitarian ideologies pose to the free world, we will continue to face more such attacks.

You may say that all religions have violent passages embedded in their texts. You would be right in saying so. The only difference is that most other religions have evolved and violent passages are now only taken in a historical or allegorical context. The reason why Islam has not evolved is that muslims are extolled to follow the word of the quran and the life of their prophet quite literally.  As a result, reform minded muslims  are routinely murdered by the hardcore followers.  Those who have no hesitation in murdering their own kin for their beliefs will have no compunction about attacking us who refuse to capitulate. Therefore we have no choice but to fight  militant Islam militarily, economically and philosophically until it evolves into a more benign form or is completely subdued and defeated. Our own survival depends upon it.

What intelligence agencies around the world have to consider and prepare for is that the Mumbai attacks may have simply been a test run for  a future  operation of a grander scale.  It is important for ordinary people to remain alert and not simply depend upon armies and intelligence agencies to protect them. The way for evil to win is for a few good people to remain silent and afraid.  Let us therefore remain forever vigilant and ready.

Now to be fair to the Somali islamists, they are not the only ones living up to their reputation of being idiotic thugs. They are not unique in their adherence to archaic laws that were originally followed by uneducated and primitive nomads. These scums of humanity whose brains and buttocks are anatomically interchangeable, also reside in other places such as Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan, Sudan to name a few.

Many people will decry the title of this post with “stoning is not islamic” or “this is not true islam”. (Interestingly, that is the same argument offered when a group of young men behead people shouting “allah-hu-akbar”. Funny how Islam produces so many “misunderstanders of islam”.)

Let us call the spade a spade.  Why be bashful in calling this what it is – “islamic stoning”? Currently only Islamic adherents and Islamic nations have the unique distinction of still following primitive laws such as stoning people to death. Therefore let us brand them with a title that they are ashamed of.  Maybe  their shame will stir their conscience and  force them to make some important changes in their customs.  Then perhaps, someday, thirteen year old Somali girls will be cherished and protected and not stoned to death. Until they do so,  let us refer to this again and again as “Islamic stoning”.

To be fair Joe made no mistakes. He had no embarrassing moments. He did not get shot at in Iraq, his plane did not crash land in Afghanistan after being fired at and he managed to remember that he was the vice presidential not the presidential candidate. Too bad for him that with his many years of service to the nation, he had to defend a senator with very little experience and one who has shown in recent times a proclivity to flip flopping (Anybody remember his position on FISA during the primaries?). Good going, Joe!

Nobody is questioning that after 30 years in Washington Biden is knowledgeable. Well, otherwise, we will have to call him incompetent and stupid which, by the way, is what mainstream media has been calling Palin after a couple of bad interviews. Unfazed by the relentless media onslaught Palin held her own, and she did it with grace, wit and charm.

The mainstream media appears to have already picked its winner in Obama. (If you remember they picked Bush over Al Gore eight years ago and look where it got us). But I cannot help recalling those first primary debates in 2007 when Hillary Clinton cleaned obama’s clock. And last night all I could think was that Palin would have run circles around Obama inspite of his “presidential experience” (Ahem!). Obama after all, has been (in recent history) the only person to claim “running for president” as experience to be president. Sorry, Barry, but Sarah actually has some executive experience! How you can claim superiority in experience over Governor Palin is what I call sheer chutzpah.

It is true that I belong to a very small minority of pro-choicers who believes that
a. A woman’s has absolute right over her own body and uterus
b. A man must remain forever silent on the subject (how about – no uterus, no opinion)
c. A legislature has no right to legislate on the subject (a woman owns her own body etc.)
d. A judiciary has no right to pass judgment on the subject (same as c. above)

Being a pro-choicer I also respect the right of a woman to be pro-life. Hence my defense of Sarah Palin’s pro-life stance. Sarah Palin exercised her choice in giving birth to a child with disability. I applaud her choice. I respect her for it. I admire her for it.

But, Sarah Palin’s choice will not be every woman’s choice. Special needs children require a different kind of care. Pro-lifers need to respect the choice of a woman who is unable to take on this challenge and does not wish to pass the buck on to the society.

A pro-lifer needs to respect the choice of a rape victim that does not wish to be left with a living breathing reminder of the assault on her.

A pro-lifer needs to respect the choice of a woman who simply made a mistake and does not want a lifetime’s regret.

My camaraderie with the pro-lifers ends when their “choice” includes ways and means to end a woman’s choice. That is when the term “pro-life” becomes a misnomer for “anti-choice”.

Governments, religious bodies and other over zealous crazies go into a hyperdrive mode when it comes to a woman exercising her right to control her own body. I mean, just think of it – when was the last time any government legislated to gain control over a man’s testes? (Now, of course I am talking about democratic governments. What those idiot mullahs in Iran or Saudi may do or not do is irrelevant to the question). So how about it, fellas? Why not allow the government to come in and castrate you???

How would you like us to assist you, Mr. Zardari? Can the American military personnel now enter Pakistan in pursuit of the said “cancer”? But then… what about those shoot at sight orders that were issued a few days ago? Are you prepared to rescind them? Or perhaps you would simply like us to pour more money down the bottomless corrupt pit that is Pakistani politics? Don’t hesitate to let us know.

Anyway, one of our presidential candidates McCain has promised to pursue Bin Laden to hell and with Laden in Pakistan he just might get that wish.

What is the take of glamor boy Obama on this, anyway? Did he not promise to pursue militants into Pakistan territory with or without the Pakistani consent? Has he developed cold feet now?