My Beloved's Fool

My heart bleeds as I hear news of my beloved. I stare on, listening while my heart is thumping in my chest, thinking to myself, where is this, this isn’t the beloved that I know. I don’t recognize this monster that is being described. This terror, corruption, greed and evil that has ingrained itself into the very fabric of this beloved of mine. What has become of my beloved and where is she headed to? Destruction, doom, and sadness seem to be the path she is heading off to. Fool that I am I fell for her. Drunk in her love, I swallowed all the lies and believed that a leopard can change its spots.

When Corruption Runs Rampant, and the Masses are Silenced...

When corruption runs rampant, the masses are silenced and transparency is nonexistent, anything can and does happen. They say pictures speak louder then words. My fellow bloggers, I leave you with this image.

Is Syria to Blame?

Reading Soul Search's Beirut Burning Again made me wonder at our state and that of our beloved countries. But it also raised an important question; who is responsible for Lebanon's latest bout of violence (the refugee camp)?

When asked, many people will say Syria. After all, any Lebanese will tell you of the Syrian army's shinanigans in Lebanon. However, Syria seems too easy a conclusion. I can't believe that the Syrian government would be that stupid. Not when it is already a target. A more likely scenario (and yes here comes the consipiracy theory) is that Syria is being set-up by groups sharing common interests. It is also a little too convenient or should I say inconvenient. All the violence breaking out right before the tourist season so that once again Lebanon's economy suffers and old grudges rehashed.

The Bush adminsitration are itching to silence Iran and Syria. Iran is getting too powerful in the region and must be taken out of the equation. Syria is a little fish but must serve as a lesson. The Bush administration admitted to conducting a cold war against Iran (and who knows maybe even Syria) which entailed supporting Afghani terrorists carrying attacks in Iran, negative and false publicity in American and Iranian newspapers, spies, stealing national secrets etc... What is happening in Lebanon validates Bush's assertion: ME needs US presence, Iran and Syria need to be taken out. US is the beacon of freedom...

Israel is definitely benefiting from this fiasco by sending out a clear message to the world thru biased media coverage:''look at these Palestinian terrorists, they kill their own people, we can't live with them. Our poor soldiers suffer too, we are all in this together, the wall is a good idea, the check points too." To the non-Arab/Muslim person, Israel and Lebanon are both victimized by the Palestinian terrorists.

Let's not forget the members of the Lebanese government who have been calling for disarmament of Hizballah. I have seen an interview of a high ranking official on Arabic and Western media and boy do the ppl in charge sing different tunes. It was obvious whose interests they cater to (ex. Siniora). That is not to say that they are behind this, just that they are benefiting greatly from it and milking it for all its worth.. What about Saad Al Harriri who rose to power riding his dad's corpse. In his case we are given a prime example of how political roles in our part of the world are inherited and not earned. Saad Al Hariri's benefited more from his father's death and Syria is the one most disadvantaged.

Also let's not forget the other Arab corrupt governments with their agendas and interests.

So who is responsible and who is to blame? The Lebanese people are partly responsible. Sectarianism is tearing them apart and unity is so fragile. The Arabs are also to blame, for standing idly by. But who is the head hancho of all this mess? The question is one that we will always speculate about and I don't think we will ever receive a definitive answer for.

Who are the victims? The average Lebanese is the victim, the one whose liveliood is now suffering and whose life is in danger. The Palestinians who are further victimized by being cast in the terrorist role while the world is oblivious to their plight and misery. And of course the Arabs and Muslims who now realize that there really isn't any functioning democracy among them.

And of course, with the pondering of the first question, others tumble out of pandora's box: When did Syria become the enemy? When, how and why did we become each other's enemies and are we turning on ourselves? Why are we idle while the world is watching us slowly implode?

Got Milk?

Idiocy has no limits; just when you think the latest batch of fatwas couldn't get any wackier, out comes a new one proving that lunacy and obsession w/ all things carnal are rampant among those issuing these fatwas.

The latest fatwa comes from Al Azhar Dr. (I am wondering about his creditionals...you will too once you read what he has to say) stating that a woman can BREAST FEED her ADULT male coworker in order for it to be lawful (halal) for both of them to be alone in the office unchaperoned. This will by no means prohibit marriage should they decide to do so in the future. The boobie fest would last 5 sessions and would be formally noted down! Upon the completion of the wierdo porn sessions, the woman can take off her hijab around him showing her male coworker her hair. I do hope he can restrain himself and hold it together when he sees her oh so glorious hair!!! Although now that I think about it, seeing just her hair and nothing else may be a let down after feasting on her upper body. Or does the man feed with his eyes closed and hands tied????

Here is a few paragraphs from the news article from Al Arabiya: (sorry for the formatting)

اقتراحات بطلبات احاطة برلمانية وجدل داخل الأزهر

فتوى تبيح للمرأة ارضاع زميل العمل منعاً للخلوة المحرمة

لأربعاء 29 ربيع الثاني 1428هـ - 16 مايو2007م

دبي - فراج اسماعيل

احتدم جدل بين علماء دين في مصر ووصل إلى البرلمان بعد فتوى لرئيس قسم الحديث بجامعة الأزهر، تبيح "إرضاع الكبير"، في وقت انتقدت عدة صحف تدريس كتاب في هذا القسم يؤكد أن الارضاع يحلل الخلوة بين رجل وإمرأة غريبة

عنه في مكاتب العمل المغلقة

وقال عضو مجلس الشعب عن كتلة الاخوان المسلمين صبري خلف الله إن نحو 50 نائبا في البرلمان تدارسوا هذا

الموضوع مساء الأربعاء وأعربوا عن قلقهم من انتشار هذه الفتوى اعلاميا، واقترح بعضهم تقديم طلبات احاطة، لكنهم اتفقوا على ارجاء ذلك، واعطاء فرصة للأزهر والاعلام لوقف الخوض في هذا الموضوع الذي أثار حالة من اللغط الشديد في الشارع المصري خصوصا في أماكن العمل التي تضم موظفين وموظفات، وعندها قد يمتنعون عن طلبات الاحاطة منعا لحدوث زوبعة برلمانية قد تساهم في تضخيم المسألة وتضر بالاسلام.كان د.عزت عطية رئيس قسم الحديث بكلية أصول الدين بجامعة الأزهر فجر مفاجأة حيث أباح للمرأة العاملة أن تقوم بإرضاع زميلها في العمل منعاً للخلوة المحرمة، إذا كان وجودهما في غرفة مغلقة لا يفتح بابها إلا بواسط أحدهما.واكد عطية لـ"العربية.نت" أن إرضاع الكبير يكون خمس رضعات وهو يبيح الخلوة ولا يحرم الزواج، وان المرأة في العمل يمكنها أن تخلع الحجاب أو تكشف شعرها أمام من أرضعته، مطالباً توثيق هذا الإرضاع كتابة ورسميًا ويكتب في العقد أن فلانة أرضعت فلانًا.وفي تصريحات لـ"العربية.نت" قال عضو مجلس الشعب خلف الله: أن الخطأ في هذا الموضوع أنه لم يتم تناوله بطريقة علمية أو أكاديمية، فلو حدث ذلك لاختلفت المسألة، لكنها أثيرت اعلاميا بطريقة ساخرة كأن هناك من يحبون أن تشيع الفاحشة

إلا أن الشيخ السيد عسكر الوكيل الأسبق لمجمع البحوث الإسلامية، وهي أعلى هيئة فقهية بالأزهر والنائب عن جماعة الإخوان المسلمين بالبرلمان، رفض هذا الرأي مؤكداً انه خروج على إجماع علماء الأمة، ولا يجوز القياس علي حالة خاصة، ومطالباً بالتصدي لذلك لأنه يسهم في نشر الرذيلة بين المسلمين

وقال د.عزت عطية ل"العربية.نت" إن بعض الناس قد نظر إلى رضاع الكبير نظرة جنسية بحتة وتساءلوا: كيف يجوز لشاب أو لرجل أن يرضع من امرأة غريبة عنه، وفاتهم إن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم هو الذي رخص في ذلك. وأن من ينفذ أمراً شرعياً أو رخصة شرعية يقوم بعمل ديني في إتباع الشرع، وفي الأعمال الدينية يستشعر المؤمن عبوديته وخشوعه لله فتنمحي النواحي الشيطانية، وحينما يقوم الكبير بذلك للحصول على رخصة شرعية فإنه يتنزل منزلة الصغير في حالة الرضاعة، وإلا كان متلاعباً بالدين يستغله لأغراض خسيسة ويجرم في حقه

وأضاف: إن أحدا من دارسي الحديث وعلمائه لا يمكنه أن يشك في أن حديث إرضاع الكبير حديث ثابت وصحيح، أما المشكلة في تطبيقه فهي التي انتشرت في كتب الشروح، وكانت خاصة بأم المؤمنين عائشة رضي الله عنها وهي التي يحرم نكاحها على أي مسلم لقوله تعالي "النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم وأزواجه أمهاتهم" وقوله "وما كان لكم أن تؤذوا رسول الله ولا أن تنكحوا أزواجه من بعده أبدا".ويشرح ذلك بقوله: مع حرمة النكاح من السيدة عائشة شرعاً، فإن دخول الأجنبي عليها ممنوع وقد استخدمت رخصة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت تأمر بنات أخيها وبنات أخوتها بإرضاع من تحوج الظروف إلي دخوله عليها ليكون محرماً لها من جهة الرضاعة، وما فعلته عائشة رضي الله عنها استثمرت به رخصة الرسول في دخول سالم مولى أبي حذيفة بعد رضاعه وهو كبير من زوجة أبي حذيفة وهذه الرخصة مقيدة بالحاجة أو الضرورة، وشرعها الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لإباحة دخول من ترغب الأسرة في دخوله بغير تحرج شرعي

جميع الحقوق محفوظة لقناة العربية © 2006

Is the Law failing Mahmood?

Reading Lulu Bahrain’s Minister v. Blogger thread has led me to do thinking and searching. If you don’t have a clue to what the fuss is all about, I recommended Lulu’s legal analysis of the case.

Borrowing from Lulu’s post:

Based on the Press and Publications Law (PPL) & the Penal Code (PC), a libel occurs when all of the following conditions are met:
1. The offender has published a criticism of a person holding a public office which includes slander, unless the criticism is proven to be factual and is related to the claimant's public duties (PPL 72); or
2. The offender has publicly associated a person holding public office with an occurrence that can make him subject to punishment or ridicule (PC 364); AND
3. The offense must have taken place publicly or published on a public forum (PPL 72, PC 364, 365).

Here is how libel reads in the US laws (I’m only using the US here because the information is readily available).
Defamation, Libel and Slander:
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff.

Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

Our good old Bahraini law fails to address one important point: were the statements made in actual malice (hatred, spite)?

And another point becomes glaringly clear, while the Publication and Press Law and the Penal Code seem to protect public figures the American Laws applies to regular people and provides additional requirements to be met for public figures. Moreover, the additional requirement for public figures in the US defamation and libel law places the burden of proof on the public figure him/herself. After all the government official is a public servant with the duty to serve the society the best way he/she are able to.

So what you have here in Wonderland is a law that protects public figures from scrutiny. You cannot criticize a government official, candidate, etc for not doing their job because you will get sued!

In the case of the MP of municipalities, the criticism is valid. Having lived in Riffa this past year or so, and having relatives there, I can testify to the puddles of sewage that decorated the streets. The stream of refuse and what not that would run through the ‘ferjan’. Men walking with their thoubs hiked all the way up to their knees because they could avoid stepping in puddles only for so long. Having to change outfits a couple of times because the minute you step out of the door, you get sewage stuff on your clothes. Kids playing out with rats and cockroaches all around them. Calling the baladeeya (municipality) never helps. The trucks are too busy cleaning richer more privileged areas, making sure not a spot remains while the everyday people are left to sink in refuse. Complaining on the local programs achieves little or nothing.

So given all this, is it fair to assume that the municipality and by extension its MP are not doing their job well? Yet for some reason Mr. MP is offended at such honest criticism. Instead of doing something about the sewage situation, he runs to sue. Yet the great MP is not at all offended by the sewage and rain puddles.

My fellow readers I leave you with this gift.