GCC rumour, & Muslims banned from doing Yoga in Malaysia

GCC date change due to Saudi's?
I was talking to my contacts in the Al Bustan about how the refurbishment was going, and we talked about the recent GCC date change and hotel grabbing. They were adament that the Al Bustan would have been ready for the earlier planned date last week or so, and that the word they had reeceived was the reason for the change was to accomodate the Saudi's, who said they couldn't make the earlier date after all.



Also, they commented that the pricipal driver for pretty much everything will be security, given the high profile gathering will offer an obvious target for terrorist nutcases. Thats why the whole hotel will be taken, even if they don't need all the rooms. Plus cancelling the plans of the tourists at that time will actually make it easier for the security services - because there will be less people to keep an eye on.

The bill for the refurbishment is over 150 million rials. Sweet. As an aside, the famous '9th floor' of the Al Bustan is guarded 24/7 - even from the main refurbishment contractors of the rest of the hotel. The super-royal suites are apparently being redone by a separate contractor and is totally top secret.

And from Malaysia: Stretching limbs and aligning chakras damages religious faith.
In another example of Islamo-silliness, a story from Malaysia about banning Muslims from practicing yoga. Earlier they finally got around to banning women practicing lesbian sex and dressing 'like a man'.

Its not too often you get to read the words 'lesbian sex' in an Omani newspaper, but I like the trend Essa - keep it up.


Photo: Not allowed in Malaysia, especially if you're a lesbian

Times of Oman

Yoga forbidden for Muslims in Malaysia
AFP Saturday, November 22, 2008

KUALA LUMPUR: Muslims in Malaysia should not practice yoga because it will erode their faith in Islam, a senior Islamic cleric said Saturday.

"Yoga is forbidden for Muslims. The practice will erode their faith in the religion," Abdul Shukor Husin, chairman of the government-backed National Fatwa Council, told reporters. "We advice Muslims not to practice yoga. It does not conform with Islam," he said in response to a call to ban Muslims from doing yoga.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, where more than 60 percent of the population of 27 million are Muslim Malays who practice a conservative brand of the religion.

Yoga, an ancient Indian aid to meditation dating back thousands of years, is a popular stress-buster in Kuala Lumpur. Zakaria Stapa, a professor at the Islamic faculty of the National University of Malaysia, recently called on Muslims to stop doing yoga as it could cause them to "deviate from their faith".

Abdul Shukor said yoga involved physical and religious elements of Hinduism including the recitation of mantras. He could not say how many Muslims were practising yoga but called on state authorities to punish those who do.

The fatwa council, one of Malaysia's highest Islamic bodies, recently banned women from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion.

Dutch in Oman brace for impact

The Dutch community in Oman is bracing itself for the expected reaction to the infamous Geert Wilders film 'Fitna'. Briefings from the Embassy have taken place, and emergency planning completed in Dutch-related businesses in the Sultanate (like Shell and KLM). After failing to get a TV station to air the film (which he says is now ready), he’s now just going to release it on internet. He has said he will release the film on 28th March.

This is one of those times I’m very glad that the ROP and Oman Internal Security are so damn good. Compared to many other Omani Government Departments, trust me, these guys are world class. Computerised and pretty much state-of-the–art surveillance of communications, good human intel, and a pretty sensible approach to their job too [a special thanks for that, guys]. There are good reasons why Oman spends more than 25% of the Government budget on Internal Security.

Interestingly, Omantel have yet to block the sites, http://www.filmvanwilders.nl/ or http://www.fitna.nl Perhaps they arte waiting for the film to be posted before acting? Although it seems clear that the press in Oman are being encouraged to not report the thing, which is probably a wise use of the considerable powers of censorship the Government have here. After all, freedom of speech in Holland is one thing, but there is also freedom to ignore him, and freedom to make it as hard as possible to get the Omani population to overreact.

There are also many anti-Wilders film sites springing up too, for example this one is pretty cute.

I’ve taken the liberty to post some pretty important facts that might help people that are perhaps less accepting of free speech understand what's going on.

Geert Wilders is an elected politician who does have a base of support. He is, however, not part of the Dutch government. During the last democratic elections in the Netherlands he received a minority vote and is therefore part of the opposition. The reason that Wilders received support is not only because of his critical view on the Islam. It can also be attributed to the fact that the electorate seems to miss an alternative in the current Dutch political landscape.

Unfortunately Geert Wilders has done something that we find unwise. He holds the nation hostage by announcing a film that, without even having been released, has begun to start planting hatred and conflict.

We believe in solutions and an open dialogue. We believe in talking with each other, listening to each other and respecting each other. Freedom of speech is a great good. Living together in peace and respecting each other are too.

We have set up this website to give Dutch people an opportunity to show the world that Geert Wilders does not speak on behalf of Holland, but on behalf of himself. So remember, 'Fitna' is not a Dutch Islam film, nor is it a film of the Dutch government. It is a film privately made by Geert Wilders and expresses his views, not that of the Dutch.

Basically, he's a right-wing populist politician, using this issue to polarize the Dutch electorate by making a grey issue into a black and white one. He’s also being, politically speaking, pretty cunning. If Islamists react with threats and violence, he is simply getting them to both prove his point and allow him to justify the broadcast with a huge See, I told you how violent they are! If they protest peacefully, he gets publicity; if there are no protests, he can continue and even claim tacit support!

However, if I was Dutch and living in Oman, I'd start stocking up on stroopwafels and Heineken now, before the bans come into place. At least they managed to hold the annual Omani Dutch Community OranjeBall earlier this month, as it was looking like a security nightmare waiting to happen…

I'm not Dutch!

It may soon be a rather bad time to be Dutch - or even blond and Dutch looking - in the Middle East. This has been going around the 'net for a while, (almost 2 weeks) but the response will probably make the Danish Cartoon issue seem trivial by comparison.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch leader of the PVV (a rather right wing) party, is supposedly about to publish a short video on the Quraan and Islaam, which he claims represents a fascist ideology, is not a tolerent or peaceful religion and that the Quraan 'should be banned'. Part of his purpose is to provoke the kind of violent reaction from Muslims to explicitly demonstrate his point that the underlying beliefs and their practice are fundamentally incompatable with Western (and especially Dutch) secular culture, freedom of sppech, and the principal of seperation of Church and State. He's already got 24/7 protection against all sort of death threats, so it won't make a big change to his lifestyle. But if you're Dutch and in a Muslim country, it may change yours!

In the case of Oman, any Dutch readers may wish to purchase key Dutch products they are particularly attracted to now, as it may be some time before they are back on the shelves! Also, if you need to visit the Dutch embassy, do it quick. The Dutch embassies around the world have already been put on alert.

Below is Geert telling his side on Fox News. One indication of his stance is that even Fox seems to find it pretty extreme. And that's saying something!

He essentially touches on issues that have been commented on in many blogs (including this one) about the implications of free speech, secularism and its problem with extremist Islam, political correctness, and what seems to be a firm commitment to religiously motivated violence on the part of many, including people who seem otherwise intelligent, peace loving and kind (but yet are firm belivers that 'mere' insults should be met with assassination).

You can read some right wing Euro-paper comment on his video here
Here's the link from Youtube with the interview with Geert. Caution: just watching this interview may be considered illegal in some countries. Follow the link at your own risk. If you are Muslim, you will find even this interview highly insulting. Don't blame me if you get offended.



part2

Yet again, No Moderate Islamic Response

Hey, Maybe its a measure of my readership, or my argument, but I admit I was surprised the previously 'vocal' Balqis didn't make any response to the Teddy Bear reprise story. Nor any one else... Especially those self-styled 'moderate' [but-please-don't-be-offended-that-I-also-want-to-cut-your-head-off -because-of-what-you-think] Teddy bear supporters at Sabla and Oman Forum.

It seems the Devil not only has the best music, but also the winning argument.

Free Speech, Teddy Bears and Islam's Response - reprise

Disclaimer: This post is intended to discuss aspects of free speech and international issues relating to free speech in the secular West and Islam. Readers must note that Omani Law is not in this regard based on Shari'a, but on English Common Law in line with His Majesty's 1996 decree, and there is no issue with the laws of the Sultanate. All religions in the Sultanate are afforded the protection of the law and respect is in all cases to be shown. Nothing in this post contradicts the social, cultural, political, religious or economical values of the Sultanate of Oman. I would ask any commentators to do the same.

So, here we are again. On a comment to my earlier post on the infamous Sudanese Teddy Bear incident and the lack of moderate Islamic reponse Balqis said there were (only) two opinions on the Teddy bear incident voiced from the Muslim people in Oman who wanted to make them in public on Sabla and Omanforum.
1/ those who actually agreed with the Sudanese (people I consider to be effectively living in the Middle Ages, ie The Wackos) and
2/ those who didn't agree with the punishment but thought she should have known better, or been more respectful, or punished more leniently, and who anyway viewed it was a good opportunity to show the world how easy it is to offend (precious) Muslim sensibilities and serve as a warning for them to be more careful. I'll label them The Apologists.
(OK, I paraphrased, go and check the comment in full if you’re curious).

She also states 'There's no fear to speak about it, no need to do it loudly cause that's not Islamic etiquette'. Hmmm.

Firstly, I'm afraid I see no evidence what-so-ever that it is standard Islamic etiquette to be subtle and quiet. Whenever there is anything anywhere that can be portrayed as an insult to Islamic sensibilities, the extremely loud and vociferous calls for heinous punishment and retribution seem to be everywhere including the Omani Fora, and that also usually includes rioting in the streets of Pakistan and Iran.

But I am trying to be logical and, in true secular western tradition, actually think I can have a discussion based on observable reality and facts. It's too big a point to just comment back, hence this post. Note - I fully realise it is generally impossible to have such a meaningful discussion with those who are already totally convinced that they have all the correct answers nicely written down in a book from circa 1400 years ago. I would urge interested readers to look at the personal and poignant essay by the Iranian woman Azam Kamguian of the International Humanist and Ethical Union here . Her story seems to be more typical of what passes globally these days for Islamic etiquette.

But, what about those arguably more liberal Omani Muslims who thought the Sudan incident was a total joke, should have been no big deal at all, and who were in no way offended? (because, hey, they realise it was just a freaking teddy bear.) I think the tone of Balqis' comment (to say nothing of the crap I see regularly on Oman Forum) shows exactly why these really moderate people often don’t speak up - because they would be accused of not being good/true Muslims, and they really can’t be bothered arguing with such people. And I certainly would avoid at all costs being accused of 'not being a true Muslim' if I was such a moderate Omani. Why?

There are so-called Moderate Muslims (like Amjad seems to be) who actually say they believe that the correct and fair punishment for what someone merely thinks inside their head (ie denying one’s Muslim faith and therefore being considered to be an Apostate) should be death (and a death delivered by humans now rather than a punishment to given by God after a natural life). I find that extremely worrying. And it certainly doesn’t fit my definition of moderate. I think it borders on insanity, and is an attitude that would be right at home with those of the Spanish Inquisition, Stalinist Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia to name but a few.

In my opinion, it is this violent approach to the punishment of Apostasy (and blasphemy), and the extensive support throughout the Muslim world this approach receives, that is the No.1 reason for the significant problems between Islam and the secular West. It is an excuse that is often used to justify horrific acts of evil enacted upon perfectly good and reasonable people. I would be very interested in how many of the so-called moderate commentators Balqis refers to believe Apostasy and Blasphemy should be punished by violence.

Until the vast majority of the Muslim faithful change this extreme view, cease to act with violence upon it and cease to agree with those who call for violence in a religious situation, there will never be a reasonable and truly moderate accommodation between the secular West and Islam. In addition, the forces of true moderation within the Muslim community will remain vulnerable and at risk of violent persecution. This must never be allowed to happen in Oman.

You see, its not like the Teddy Bear case is rare, or unusual, or restricted to totally bat-crazy dark age shit-holes like Sudan. At present, the death penalty for Apostasy is the law in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan even 'simple' blasphemy is also punishable by death. And even where death is not the explicit law of the land, we hear reports of the calls from many Mosques and Immams for such extreme extra-judicial punishments to be delivered by the faithful anyhow, in places such as England, France, Bangladesh and Denmark. Salman Rushdi being a classic example. I personally know of people in Oman who have been arrested, had their life seriously threatened, and had to leave the country following the mere accusation of blasphemy.

There was the famous case recently of the man in Afghanistan who was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity, and even more shocking the Christian man arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. He was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his religious duty.

The Barnabas Fund report (admittedly a Christian Charity) concludes:

The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related 'crimes' is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place.

There are, of course, serious Islamic religious scholars – and by no means would all these scholars to be considered Moderates - who disagree that the penalty should be death, most especially because such a penalty is not actually part of the Qur'an at all, but is based on interpretation of the Hadith. It would unfortunately seem that these scholars are in the minority, as apparently all 5 major establishment authorities on Shari'a Law go with Death. There is some disagreement on whether death applies to men only or women too. Some kindly see women as only deserving of life imprisonment until they repent or die of natural causes. Some also differ slightly on the suitable punishment depending whether the person is born of Muslim parents or is a convert.

Oman has a potentially huge role to play in this global moderation, especially with the benefit of having a more reasonable Ibadhi interpretation of Islam as a national majority and a demonstrable tradition of religious tolerance. Oman's natural strengths of reasonableness, understanding and diplomacy could, under the guidance of His Majesty, provide for the whole world a light at the end of this tunnel of increasing darkness and extremism.

So, step up and help. Help get rid of the justifications for violent retribution for simply being insulted. Help push back hard against those who want to drag us all back to the Dark Ages, threaten us into the Sudanese/Saudi/Iranian/Pakistani version of Islam and to an interaction based on isolationism, fatwas, jihad and hatred. Or you're part of the problem.

Background: There is an excellent discussion, many more links than I can be bothered to copy here, and several enlightening essays on being an Islamic Apostate [and being an Apostate in general] in Wikipedia

Balqis also highlighted an interesting comment piece in the International Herald Tribune as an example of, albeit international, moderate response IHT comment

The Teddy Bear Saga and Islamic Response

An Oman based blog I like to read by Suburban Other Oman recently mentioned surprise at the lack of responses by Muslims criticising (or even questioning) the obviously wacky verdict in Sudan on the infamous Teddy Bear case. Especially absent were such comments on the great 130+ blog comments that were sponsored by Amjad on the topic Amjads Teddy Blog

I think this is exactly symptomatic of the growing problem Islam has with regard to Free Speech. Many, many Muslims thought the verdict in Sudan was totally crazy and bad for Islam [or even not Islamic at all], and were more than willing to explain that in private. But they are in fear of saying anything in public, or even on-line, that could possibly be construed by anyone as being even slightly anti-Islamic. Very afraid.

The reason, of course, is that if any crazy long beard accuses you of being blasphemous, even if the accusation is totally unfair and untrue, you are at serious risk of having crowds of baying 'faithful' demanding your death. So, obviously much better and smarter to just keep your head down, shut up and keep such toughts to yourself or people you can trust.

This is perhaps one reason why the comparison is being made between the actions of such extremists through the new phrase 'IslamoFascism'. One similarity being pointed to is with the early days of the 3rd Reich in Germany, when no-one spoke out about what was going on for fear of being arrested, beaten or killed themselves. The famous quote attributed to the Irish born British Politian Edmund Burke seems most appropriate in this situation: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

IMHO its about time reasonable and mainstream Muslims retake their right to speak their opinions and have respectful discussions and debate without fear of such accusations. Before its too late. The alternative is to leave the space to the extremists and give everyone the opinion that all Islam is as crazed as they are. Which is certainly not true.

There are just not enough well spoken, intelligent, sensible, moderate (and preferably who look good on TV) Muslims making their case in the public forums of the West in a form that is politically smart. And that hurts the case of reason everywhere.

Aside: An excellent essay here casts doubt on whether this was an actual quote from Burke or is a self purpetuating myth. The quote's popularity does say something about the power and resonance of this particular meme.

Free Speech and Blasphemy

On my earlier post on Free Speech and Islam, and the importance of being able to offend people to protect the right of free speech, Blue Chi made a good point, 'What about blasphemy then?'

It is true that in some European countries Blasphemy (though you should note, usually only against the Christian faith) is, in theory, illegal, but it is usually because of very old laws that would not be used today and have just never been formally repealed. As you'll detect, I'm more in favour of the USA system, which is more liberal and you can be as blasphemous as you like.

To the question of making blasphemy illegal, my response would be:
1/ Why? I'd have thought that God was big and powerful enough to defend him/her self. What's wrong with good old lightening bolts for christ's sake?
2/ Exactly what is blasphemy? Who decides? You? Some judge? The head Mullah of Iran? Or Sudan? My crazy neighbour? How offensive do you have to be to be officially blasphemous?
3/ Which religions deserve such protection? Just the big 3 of Christianity/Islaam/Judaism? What about Mormons? Hindus? Or Scientologists? Or Moonies? Rastafarianism? Or just the one that is true?
4/ What about the intra-religious schisms? Is a Shiite follower allowed to call a Sunni an apostate and state his religion is total crap and point out the prescribed penalty for being an apostate? What about Protestants who don't agree with the Catholics that the Holy Mass transmogrifies bread into the physical flesh of Christ? Is being atheist a religion?
5/ Is legalising homosexuality blasphemous? Abortion? Sex education? Evolution? What about a really good joke about 'a Priest, A Rabi and an Immam'?
6/ What's the punishment for blasphemy? Death? Fine? Lashing?

It's a total mess of a law and of an idea.

Much better, IMHO, is that people who choose to believe in supernatural beings [or who choose to believe in an absence of supernatural beings] get a thicker skin and have faith that their god (or gods) can look after themselves. The Christians seem to have taken this approach over the past few 100 years, and thus today content themselves with peaceful protest. For example, as the Catholics did over the movie 'The last temptation of Christ' or 'The Life of Brian'. Can you imagine the reponse to a muslim version of the Life of Brian? I’d predict a serious lack of humour.

In fact, maybe it's just the atheists and the Buddhists who need legal protection, as after all, they are the only ones without an activist superpowerful god to protect them. ;-)

Similarly, some European countries make it illegal to 'Deny the Holocaust', mainly as a way of more easily controlling those pesky neo-nazis (who do admittedly have a history of acting in rather problematic ways, like shooting people and taking over the country and invading their neighbours). Again, rather than extending such restrictive laws to such dubious realms as religious protection, I would rather repeal them.

I'll repeat – I do not think that protecting everybody from being offended is a basis for controlling people's speech. And that includes religion. Any religion. Including yours Blue Chi.

Free Speach and Islam (1)

One of the biggest cultural differences I’ve come across in the Middle East is the huge problem of getting across to locals what freedom of speech means in [most of] the West. In many ways the tradition is strongest in the USA and to a certain extent the UK, and their cultural derivatives NZ, Australia, Canada, etc. When combined with the principal of separation of Church and State, it leaves many Muslims baffled (as the Danes discovered recently).

Caution: If you’re reading this, please ensure you’ve first read the bit here on the right hand side of this blog about not being easily offended. You’ve been warned.

Free Speech means, of course, many things and has wonderful complications and subtleties, but to me it means that one is generally free to criticize public officials or Government policies, free to voice opinions about, say, human behaviour, science, religion or politics, and basically being free to offend people.

Now, that doesn’t mean I think you can or should get away with saying [or printing] whatever you want. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema, urging a crowd to commit violent acts (who then go and commit such acts), or knowingly and purposely defaming someone (lying) to the extent that they suffer damage and can demonstrate that what was said or printed are untrue and damaged them, are some classic examples of common limitations. Pornography has always been a tough call, as have politically extreme views [we must kill all the XXXX for example].

But simply offending people, even knowingly, is not commonly illegal in the West. After all, it’s so butt-fuckingly god-damn easy to do. [see?] Comedians would be out of business for a start. And artists. And opposition politicians. And anyone whose religion is at odds with the majority, or the ruling class, or even the self appointed leaders of that religion. And usually the people concerned have to actually try to get offended anyway, by going to the comedy club, or watching the programme, or going to that website, etc. Essentially by choosing to seek to be offended.

And it seems someone is always being offended by something, somewhere.
Want to discuss the morals and legalities of homosexual men and gay marriage in a grown-up and dispassionate way? That gets you offending the Muslims, Christian fundamentalists, homophobes and various others right away by even suggesting that one should have such a debate in the first place.
Want to give good advice, especially to young people, on how to avoid getting HIV/AIDS that goes beyond ‘don’t exchange bodily fluids at all ever’ and might mention condoms, or oral sex – there you go, lots of people offended.

Want to name your cat after your best-friend who lives down the street? Probably OK, as long as he isn’t called Mohammed, (although he might be offended personally if it’s an ugly and or female cat).

Anyway, it seems many people just don’t get it – the protections we have as a society (in the West at least) against tyranny, oppression [both political and religious] and invasions of privacy are founded on the fundamental right to offend people. And that includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Evolutionists, Liberals, right wing nutters – everybody.

All these arseholes who I’ve seen recently trying to justify the lashing/deportation/guilt of this teacher in Sudan (who named a teddy bear Mohammed) are good examples. They offend the hell out of me with their stupid, parochial, bigoted, arrogant, dark-ages, nonsensical, finger-pointing, and supernatural attempted justifications. Saying things that will unfortunately have a real impact, not just for these children and their poor teacher, but for people in Sudan who need aid and help and possibly even for totally blameless moderate muslims elsewhere.

But I don’t see that my being offended is a good reason, or even a kinda-valid reason, to stop them saying it. Lots of things offend me. And in some ways I’d rather we all get to know what totally whacked-out fuck-up idiots are out there thaks to their transparent display of the crazy ideas they believe to be logical or justifiable.

Worst thing? They probably have driving licenses too. Evil Bastards. Just to be clear - those of you who think the teacher deserves any punishment for calling a teddy bear Mohammed are in my opinion totally insane.

To Quote Wikipedia:
The most important justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However, a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed. For example, Justice McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech:

Free speech promotes: "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms.
It promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth.
It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners.
It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.”
End quote

More research and debate on Free Speech and what it means can be found at the excellent website of the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU_Free Speech