The Code

Seeing as there has been much of a 'discussion' on twitter regarding a UAE Dress Code campaign, I thought it deserved to be written about. 

On Tuesday June 19th, The Minister of Culture, Youth and Community Development in the United Arab Emirates, Dr Abdul Rahman Al Owais was questioned over the possibility of enforcing a UAE Dress Code on a Federal level. An article by Khalid Al Ameri on The National newspaper accurately described the situation. The twitter account @UAEDressCode was created by two women @noonworld and @SimplyAsma to campaign for the cause of seeing more moderately dressed people in the UAE public. They came under intense scrutiny by members of the community who didn't agree with having a law nor a campaign. 

The previous Friday, a certain #StopBinThaneya trend began to emerge; what appeared to be a smear campaign against a Jalal Bin Thaneya over his comments on Twitter. This trend brought light to the issue as I realized that his comments and comments of others were being mixed and mashed into a catastrophic US vs THEM session on Twitter. People creating new accounts to dish out slander against the country and its people, whilst replies from others who took offence to this behavior by replying with the same vulgarity, others simply read what others had tweeted and decided to make a reply or baseless statement of their own. This I believe is a result of people not knowing how to constructively argue but also ignorance of the core problems in the issue and simply picking on what they don't like about the 'other' and saying it out loud as a reason for or against a dress code. As a result, the UAE Dress Code is branded as a campaign of hate and racism. I don't understand how certain comments makes the @UAEDressCode account representative of those (or ANY faction for that matter) individuals who threaten and slander as well; they are not an official account. 

A few things to keep in mind so as to not look like an idiot and get into senseless arguing:

Why people think it is necessary,

What the measure of decency is,

Where the code starts and ends,

How much of an effect it will cause on every individual,

Contrary to suggestions, it is not a case of Emiratis vs. Expats. Not all Emiratis agree with having a dress code, nor do all Expats disagree with a dress code but it seemed to bring out the racism that a minority of individuals on both sides of the argument have had bottled up. 

The reason it has come to wanting a law is that citizens of the UAE have tolerated enough of people not knowing or understanding their beliefs, and the tolerance has led to an ignorance of many whom by the way seem shocked that citizens suddenly want their beliefs implemented, which isn't a belief specific to the locals either, in fact a large Muslim majority want to see things implemented as well as many non-Muslims and expats. Some can say that its our (Emiratis) fault for not speaking at the time it was happening, and that maybe we shouldn't have resulted to gradually tell people but instead enforce a law to begin with, or even allowing the Emirati population to be outnumbered by those that don't agree with them. 

I certainly agree with having a public decency in dress code.Though I may not agree with some of the comments or attitudes, I certainly commend the people behind the @UAEDressCode account as well as @Binthaneya for their vigor and love for the UAE and its Islamic traditions which this country and its constitution are based on. 

Religious Freedom

An essay I wrote for a class debate. I couldn't pick a side, but the research I did for this essay gave me a better understanding.

The term ‘Freedom of Religion’ is a principle which allows the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to practice, manifest, change, or not follow any religion of their choosing. The principle is practiced by most democratic and tolerant countries, the issue of which is up for argument on whether a state should have the right to limit religious practices to conform to their form of government or to allow the practice of religion freely. Religious freedom for all is a methodology that is inconsistent with itself, imaginary, impractical, and in some forms oppression against religion as a whole.

The inconsistency of this principle comes from the fact that some religions do not allow the changing, manifesting, or renouncing of a religion. Abrahamic religions do not allow the renouncing of one’s religion for another and they do not allow atheistic beliefs. In Islam, one who renounces his belief after accepting Islam is to be sanctioned the death penalty. The Catholic Church considers ideologies which are inconsistent with its own, such as Calvinism or Protestantism, as heresy. To follow your rulings is to practice your religion and if changing and manifesting is to be supported by the principle of Religious Freedom then it works against these religions. Also, for such faiths which have practices which are clearly unacceptable to societies other than its own, such as Hindu breeding and worship of rats in public, as well as the Mourning rituals by Shiite Muslims, it is difficult to find societies other than those faiths and denominations that will allow such public practice.  Hence, it is not only inconsistent but impractical.   Atheism, as well, is considered a belief in its own accord and in essence any detriment to beliefs in God or Deities is beneficial to such a belief as Atheism. In such a case where in order to comply with the ‘Freedom Of Religion’ principle, all religions must make a compromise with their own beliefs, which is forced by the state, then it can be viewed as a denunciation of religion as a whole and a support of Atheism, such a case is contradictory to the principle where the state should not interfere with religious matters and should not be biased in its decision making.

If a state is not allowed to limit the practice of religions in accordance with its own form of governance, then it creates tension between parties of different faiths or denominations. Even democratic countries today are realizing that they want to enforce their own form of government and that Freedom of Religion is not something they want for a certain number of faiths. We can see this trend in France with the banning of the ‘Hijab’ and other head-wear, such as Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulke (skull cap), in schools, and the banning of Minarets in Switzerland. This is contradictory to the Religious Freedom principle as wearing such apparel is part of practicing religion and not simply a form of worship. In such a case, there needs to be a clear definition for “Freedom of Religion”, is it Freedom to practice or freedom to worship? The United States itself does not fully practice this principle when it follows the motto ‘In God We Trust’ as a state motto. It is a form of ‘double-standards’ for a state to follow a motto of Monotheistic belief while trying to preserve the Freedom of Religion; towards people of polytheistic beliefs and atheists especially.  We can see that the United States is moving towards the same measures as France, Belgium, and Switzerland with President Obama clearly avoiding the term “Freedom of Religion” and using “Freedom of Worship” in his speeches. The United States has also, until recently, regulated and limited the door-to-door proselytizing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which their faith requires them to do so, by forcing them to gain permits from the government; which they didn’t always get. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been in and out of The Supreme Court with similar cases. This shows that the principal of limiting practices is present even in the secular government of the United States. Iraq, now a democratic country, still does not allow laws to be passed which are against basic Islamic laws. They allow the full practice of the religious denominations and this has caused sectarian violence.

No state can satisfy all faiths without enacting a compromise on them; this in turn defeats the purpose of ‘Freedom of Religion’ therefore making it impractical.

Your thoughts? 

Join the Navy!

Long time no see! Well, finding content was difficult, but here's something to take into perspective.

The timing of the film I will mention is absolutely uncanny. It emphasizes my belief of how the US government loves to use Hollywood as a brainwash army recruitment agency. Now bear in mind that I have yet to watch this film, but seeing the trailer has made me want to write about it already. It seems the United States really is getting ready for a war with Iran.

If you've read my previous blogs concerning some films out there, you'll notice how I mention military propaganda in Hollywood movies; sometimes specific to contemporary issues. I believe that Hollywood uses military scenes (sometimes useless for the plot) in order to brainwash the youth into regarding the military highly and therefore make it a favorable move to join it. If we look at all the Marvel movies so far we can see the military involved in all of them. Even the past few Transformer movies have not been left alone. Mohammed Ali's draft evasion and public refusal signaled the path to ending conscription and army drafting. The United States needed a new way to keep people joining the army. This movie, 'Battleship', seems to do the same thing, except here it focuses mostly on the US navy.

Now probably the one thing that the US army flaunts is its marine corps, and then the air force. The navy very rarely get a focus in films. How likely is it, knowing the ideas I brought up above, that the United States is looking to recruit more people for the navy knowing it will need a large human capital to face the Iranian Navy that would allegedly block the Strait of Hormuz? "The Battle for Earth begins at sea" really? Make a whole movie about the US Navy fighting an Alien race? Aliens couldn't think of a better way to invade earth?

Let me know what you think!

Made us proud!

Last night's Arsenal performance was sublime! It's just real sad that they couldn't go an inch further and go through. Man of the match for me had to be Tomas Rosicky, he was the real engine in the midfield and every time he had the ball you felt something could happen. A very close second has to go to Alex 'The Ox' Oxlade Chamberlain. I just wish we could play with the same passion and focus at every game. 

The effort put in was stupendous and I couldn't believe there were no critics on that night. The players did us proud despite the exit. They must be ruing the performance they had away and it will be difficult to find the spirit needed for the next couple of days after an effort such as that. It's been a great past month for Arsenal. Let's hope they can keep it up til the end of the season; got to get on ahead of Tottenham.

Swans soar as Arsenal slump

Honestly, I don't know what to say. Going one-nil up at the 12th minute and the pressure that was being played showed that Arsenal might have a stroll in the park with this game. Maybe that was the problem. Arsenal ended up losing the game away to Swansea City 3-2 with a good display of football from the home side.

After a penalty for the home side, and by the time they were 2-1 up, Arsenal seemed to have some tired legs in midfield, which is astonishing considering they've had a week to prepare. Song was below par, and with the absence of Arteta due to injury, Ramsey was unable to shoulder the entire midfield. The men in front of the back four were exposed and made it difficult for the defence; especially considering our full backs are not accustomed to their positions. You can tell Ignasi Miguel was struggling with the pressure from the, not surprisingly, dangerous wingers that Swansea has. Ignasi's continuous clearing of the ball in simple situations showed he wasn't prepared to handle the ball under pressure. Arshavin's substitution with Henry was a mistake in my opinion, a man who has a "20 minute fitness" , as he put it, is not the kind of player you want to be pressing the ball up front, least not with a team that was running as if they had weights on. Even Walcott's goal for Arsenal seemed like he was struggling to speed up.

For the first time in my life as an Arsenal fan, I'm pissed off more than sad at a loss. Is it a question of the quality of the players? or is it just the problem of full backs we've been having? or maybe it all comes down to the management. If things don't improve for the next game, we might see another thrashing from Man Utd; this time at the Emirates. Credit goes to Swansea though, they were into the game more than we were and certainly played better.

New posts coming soon...

I know it has been a while but I just haven't been in the groove lately. Ranting about movies isn't cutting it for me. I'm trying to figure out how to start a proper podcast and place it here. I've ordered some of the equipment so let's see how it goes.

For those of you who keep coming back to check new stuff, THANKS ALOT! Really appreciate it.

For now, its a see you soon!

France bans all public prayer

It has become state law in France to ban all public prayers. As of Friday 16th of September 2011, no prayers shall be conducted in public. This move has brought up a lot of controversy in the country as the main religion affected is the Islamic faith; a faith that is widely believed by its followers to be targeted by right wing European governments.

A link to the Al Jazeera coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ne-pT9XjnE&feature=feedu

Muslims gather to pray 5 times a day, their maximum numbers are often during Friday noon prayers; the numbers which exceed the capacity of their masjids and thus pray outside in public. The move is seen by many to be targeting those who over-flood the masjids and pray outside, many feel the move is trying to prevent people from praying. Many "religious leaders" have asked the government for more space as the worshipers would not be flooding the streets should there be enough space to pray in. This brings up the notion that if the government does not provide the space nor allow prayer outside then they are effectively preventing people from praying. This along with other moves such as the banning of 'burkas' "for security reasons" is creating a feeling of defensiveness against Islamophobia.

In my opinion, I don't believe that the Muslim community should be bothered too much by this just as they were not bothered by the Burka ban. The move has been placed on all forms of worship and thus should be assumed that other religions must comply. Also, the move is not a direct prevention of prayer. I feel the same sentiments that my brothers and sisters feel: "they're trying to stop us" or "they hate that they see us praying in numbers", this may well be true, but we should not let it get to us. Simply follow the proper procedures and ask for more space, wouldn't it be great to get a grand masjid in the middle of Paris? That seems far-fetched but if that is blocked the true intentions would be clear. European governments as a whole need to understand that Muslims are part of Europe now, the governments are the ones that invited the immigrants! Live together or turn into the Nazis and treat Muslims like they treated the Jews.