Secret Dubai diary Intrigue and adventure in the United Arab Emirates

iPhone RPGs

Dubai Info

Best role-playing games
Spiderweb Software
for Mac & PC

20 March, 2006

Rights and wrongs

The US state department's 2005 Human Rights Practices report paints a sorry picture of abused women's situation in the sandlands:

"There is broad legal and societal discrimination against women. Shari'a, or Islamic law, governs the personal status of women, but civil law governs their activities in the civic and commercial sphere. The government was generally not effective in enforcing women's rights and protecting women from abuse."

This will come as a surprise to no one, given the lack of support for the Dubai women's shelter and comment from male authority figures that women are "rebelling" by escaping their abusive husbands. No wonder, given this:

"The law protects women from verbal abuse and harassment from men outside the family; however, male guardians within the family have a positive legal right, in the Penal Code, to discipline women and children family members at their discretion, including use of physical violence."

It's high time the situation was sorted out. It disgraces the UAE and the compassion and wisdom of its founder, Sheikh Zayed, that these injustices continue. There are plenty of educated, emancipated, empowered Emirati women out there. Why aren't they able to secure a better situation for their less fortunate sisters?

Labels: ,


Blogger Cokey said...

Inside problem: Have you seen the local women these days ?! Skin tight Abayas, dont know where the scarf is, legs all out in the open, driving around giving that cute smile to strangers and ofcourse flirting through sms.

Dont you think their husbands would abuse them for doing this keeping in mind the local men mentality?

20 March, 2006 13:53  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

With the dramatic shift in UAE social values taking place at such a rapid speed and international attention, I think the laws will be far more compassionate and logical towards women in distress, sooner than one would assume.

What I can’t get over is the blatant double standards. Did you know a woman can not divorce her husband, or even open a case against him in Dubai Courts even if she has proof (according to Sharia’a) that he is committing adultery on a regular basis?

20 March, 2006 13:56  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

Cokey, first of all not all local women are of the stereotype you've just described...

And those who are, given the local mentality would end up divorced never married to begin with and not necessarily in abusive situations like the ones secret is referring to here.

**I’m a non-local who has suffered extensive abuse at the hands of my X-husband only to have the police laugh at me. And you know what I did to get beaten by his shoe, in the middle of Ramadhan, out the driveway in front of my screaming 1 year old son? I appeared in his DREAM, telling him he wouldn’t get away with torturing me forever.

I called the police, they never came; never even called me back.

20 March, 2006 14:04  
Blogger secretdubai said...

One thing I have noticed, which is perhaps more a fashion thing, is that in the five years I have been here abayas seem to be a lot more ornate.

When I was first here many had subtle decorations: tiny embroidery just at the cuff for example. Now the decorations are much bigger and more flamboyant. I've even seen abayas that are patterned all over, and ones with big wide bands of sequins.

It's kind of nice if people are able to express themselves more. Possibly there have been shifts in male dress as well, but I haven't noticed them so much.

20 March, 2006 14:10  
Blogger Cokey said...

Dear Tainted,

Sorry to hear about your abuse. Seen in your profile too. Thats my point, the local men mentality. (I would like to stereotype please especially among locals since they only account for 20% of UAE population which is around 800,000 and 95% of those are more or less the same ((basically because of their restricted and small community ))

Moreover, its more of an arab mentality where they take there frustrations out on the women with or without an excuse. Just like a case we know in Psychology, The boss shouts at you, you go scream at the kid and the kid goes kick the dog. only here the dog is the women.

Would also agree with you that the police is very irresponsible when considering the women rights. Maybe they should have some 'only ladies police office dealing with no testesterone'

20 March, 2006 14:33  
Blogger Cokey said...

Also there was one case I had read in Gulf news maybe 3-4 months back where this Local man broke into a moroccon lady's home and raped her and yes he was punished.

Punishment: He was sentenced to WHOLE THREE MONTHS. I mean C'mon !! This person needs to be thrown in atleast for 15 years. Was it because she was moroccon and most moroccons in diera are call girls ?!

The worst part..We cannot ask the goverment any questions nor can have any answers! I guess they never heard of Spokesperson.

20 March, 2006 14:41  
Blogger MuFi101 said...

If sM1 aDDReSSes ShK MoHaMMaD diReCTLy maYB iT cuD heLP

oFCouRse hE kNoWs, bUT sMThinG foRMaL WuD heLP....

20 March, 2006 15:17  
Blogger samuraisam said...

Cokey: who cares if she was a call girl. It is still rape.

Anyway, I predict that someone will blame the west.

20 March, 2006 16:14  
Blogger John B. Chilton said...

"positive legal rights" : Very disturbing.

And yet, and yet look where the west was on some dimensions of women's rights not so long ago:
Vindication - Author's Introduction - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman - Mary Wollstonecraft

20 March, 2006 18:31  
Blogger the shadow said...

I've seen a new trend emerging: invoking the name of Sheikh Zayed to support one's side of the argument.

I wonder what would Sheikh Zayed think of that?

20 March, 2006 19:11  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

Secret, I'm sorry Balushi deleted his blog, so these fantastic fabled stories of his can no longer be placed in their proper home, and are now polluting an otherwise intelligent conversation in your blog...

20 March, 2006 19:55  
Blogger archer14 said...

Tainted Female, then how does a woman divorce her husband? Is it only possible the other way around?

20 March, 2006 22:04  
Blogger al-republican said...

Tainted female: You seem to have gone through a rough time with a (seemingly) uncaring and obnoxious person, may Allah help us all. I wish you well in your future.

Although Balushi might sound brash, he does bring up a good point: How does one delegate responsibilities and authority in a family/house?

Let me just start off by pointing out that domestic violence is carried out not because laws permit or dont permit you to do so, but because of individuals not getting along or reacting violently to disagreeable situations. It is a fact that domestic violence is found in "civilized" societies, too. And they are just as abundant (if not more) as what is going on in the "sandlands".

There are many reasons behind domestic violence, but for now it would be better to address the point Balushi brought about. I dont know if it is just me, but I have noticed that in a relationship, a man tends to head that relationship. This holds true for even educated women who might be earning much more than their men. This is a trait that is found in most animals, too, where the male tends to lead the family.

Yes, the Sharee'ah does give the man a higher role in the family, but that is just keeping in line with the inherent nature of mankind. Certainly, Islam does not condone a violent husband. One will not find a single instance of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) ever treating his wives in a rude/harsh manner. Indeed it is his sunnah (practice) and he preached "The best amongst you (men) is he who is good to his women".

I would like to know what is the proposal by people who would oppose men as being leaders of the house. Is there a problem with male guardians within the family havin a positive legal right, in the Penal Code, to discipline women and children family members? Or is it that the remainder of that sentence that bothers people (at their discretion, including use of physical violence.)

Please remember that this is NOT how the Sharee'ah speaks of authority and responsibilities in a family, rather this is the Human Rights' take on the Sharee'ah. By terming it the way that it has been, it appear as if this is what the Sharee'ah has to say. Unfortunately, such brevity with a touch of bias coupled with the inability (unwillingness?) to understand the Islamic Laws, does a dis-service to the actual spirit of these laws.

20 March, 2006 22:18  
Blogger al-republican said...


A marriage is annulled by "Talaaq". Since the English vocabulary does not have a suitable equivalent of this word and "divorce" is used for both the man instigating the end of a marriage as well as the woman ending it, the confusion arises.

"Talaaq" can only be given by a male. If a male gives a "talaaq" (3 times), he is not to take back the "mahr" (this is usually a mutually agreed sum of money that the groom gives the bride).

However, if a woman wants to end a marriage, she takes a "khula". The husband then has to issue her a "Talaaq" (3 times) and the woman has to return the "mahr" the groom had given her.

If the man disagrees to issue the "Talaaq" after the woman issues a "Khula", the case is escalated to the courts. The first course the court takes is to try and unify the couple and settle the matter that is making the marriage sour. If the matter is unresolvable (as are most cases of Khula), the court annuls the marriage by issuing the "Talaaq" for the man (again the woman is to return the "mahr").

I hope that explains it? I will try to look up an Arabic-to-English lexicon to find suitable words for all 3 terms: Talaaq, Khula and Mahr.

20 March, 2006 22:33  
Blogger al-republican said...

OK, I just clicked on the Human Rights report that SD quotes and realized this was the US State department's report! I feel like a complete idiot wasting my time even responding!

As Debbie Menon (a frequent contributor in the "letters to the Editor" section of KT) recently said about the US in one of his/her letters:

It has locked up more of its citizens than any other nation on the planet.

It has imprisoned its own citizens without any charges filed.

It has imprisoned its own citizens without access to legal counsel.

It has imprisoned its own citizens without any habeas corpus.

Almost all its citizens are in prisons run by corporations, not the government.

Incredibly, it refers to itself as ‘the land of the free’.

It has been proven to have ‘secret’ military prisons of torture in other nations.

It claims that its torture policy is ‘legal’.

Its citizens have seen visual proof of tortured and murdered prisoners, but they allow it to continue.

It spies on its own citizens without warrants.

Yet, when it’s exposed and proven to its citizens, they ‘allow’ it to continue.

It’s the only first world nation that still has a death penalty.

It’s the only first world nation without universal health care.

It has broken from every single international environment treaty.

It has the highest rate of poverty of all the industrial nations.

Yet, its military budget exceeds the total of almost all others nations combined.

It is the largest supplier of arms on the planet to other nations.

Absolute hogwash!

20 March, 2006 22:49  
Blogger Mohamed Elzubeir said...

SD, I would have to agree with 'the shadow' on the use of the name of Sheikh Zayed to support an argument. I think it is irresponsible to assume that he would support/not support any side of an argument.

Sheikh Zayed was certainly a legend, and it is unfair to him to attribute liberal (or otherwise) ideologies to him.

On another note, like I have said in the past, Islam gives the man the right to discipline his wife physically. So, the laws will not change until the country becomes secular (officially or otherwise).

Since it isn't my own country, it really is none of my business how they want to run it. If they are happy with their laws, let it be. If they are not, they will change it.

20 March, 2006 23:16  
Blogger the shadow said...

It's kind of ironic when the safest place for a Mulsim woman is in the Evil West, isn't it?

Good luck ever changing the laws here. It's a male dominated heirarchy at all levels and most of the time, when those in power do not have anything to gain from change, then change never comes except by some outside force. Hopefully this outside force will be shame, as it continues to be blatantly obvious that more needs to be done to protect the rights of women here.

20 March, 2006 23:28  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Since it isn't my own country, it really is none of my business how they want to run it. If they are happy with their laws, let it be. If they are not, they will change it.

For my part, I don't believe in respecting anything - any law, ideaology, faith, culture whatever (so this includes religions that support slavery, or discrimination, or whatever - it's not an anti-Islam or anti-UAE thing) that allows the stronger to persecute or harm the weaker. And giving a husband the right to physically discipline a wife does this.

Therefore, I cannot accept or respect it. It's just as wrong as the stuff about slavery in the Old Testament of the Bible, or about black people in early Mormonism, or cultures that support "honour" killing (a tribal thing, not a religious thing, I am well aware). It needs to be excised from humanity.

20 March, 2006 23:31  
Blogger secretdubai said...

It's kind of ironic when the safest place for a Mulsim woman is in the Evil West, isn't it?

I suppose the most ironic thing is that the least safe place for any woman, east or west, is her own home. More women are killed by the men in their lives than by anyone else.

While we tend to have a greater sense of horror and dread about lone rapists lurking in alleyways, the reality is that most women are abused/raped/killed by men they know. The one exception to this may be wartime, such as the genocide in Rwanda etc.

20 March, 2006 23:34  
Blogger John B. Chilton said...

al-republican makes at least one point that I can agree with - no law is going to prevent domestic violence. But when a law gives the man a positive right to use violence that's wrong. In the west, are women more likely to suffer violence at the hands of husbands, fathers and brothers than in the Muslim world? My guess is not. But women in the west tend to be less shielded from the world including violence outside the family.

What sd says is quite true, that female victims of violence are most often victimized by husbands or boyfriends. That said, most husbands and boyfriends do not use violence, and many go further and reflect upon their own potential for violence and how to avoid that behavior in themselves by building a healthy loving relationship that can pass through rough times nonviolently.

Can we can conclude that women can avoid violence or reduce violence by staying single or celibate? Somehow I have to believe that women enter into relationships with men in part because in comparison to living in a commited relationship it's not safe to live alone. But I could be wrong on that one.

21 March, 2006 00:17  
Blogger Hot Lemon& Honey said...

The laws to protect women here are not clear to me and varies according who you talk to.
I had a client who was married to a man who had bipolar affective disorder (manic/depressive) with Alcohol addiction.
When he is manic, and drunk he beats that women infront of her children. I have called the police to find out how she can protect her self and wether they would arrest him or something. All they adviced me is for her to get a divorce (which she got), but after getting beaten on other occasions. The law could not arrest a man who they had no "evidence" that he hit his wife (apparently she had to be beaten and injured for them to be able to do something).
Now this scared me, cause I was expecting her not to show up for her next appointment, call her only to find out she was dead.
The law has to be clear about these issues...if we have any laws we are not aware of them...
So Tainted story is not a suprise...and the reaction she got was just expected...its shameful.
Mohammed Al Zubair...again be explicit on how the prophet desrcibed the "beating" you are talking about..cause with your life style and the knowledge you put on this blog..I am not sure if you understand Islam well enough to talk about it.
Cause as far as I am concerned and looking at other societies..Islam when practiced properly protects the woman like no other religion, culture or law.

21 March, 2006 02:44  
Blogger secretdubai said...

The problem is that many ancient religious texts, while their underlying message and truth may remain undeniable, contain details relevant to - or influenced by - the specific culture of the time and location they were written in.

This is why it is better (and a more proper use of the intelligence that God presumably gave us) to take an interpretive approach to any text, not a literal or fundamentalist one. Realise that the bits that "jar" with the underlying message are most likely the things best "de-prioritised" (or preferably cut out of normal doctrine) in today's more enlightened era.

We already see this happening in some areas: for example, observing the Ramadan fast by sunset and sunrise isn't feasible in the far north of Finland in winter, and is essentially pointless in summer (midnight sun, etc). There weren't any muslims in the far north of Finland when the fasting rules were originally set down. (Nor, of course, did people have clocks and watches and easy ways to accurately measure the time). So it has to be adjusted in a later era in a way that follows the intention of the rule, if not the specific wording.

21 March, 2006 03:30  
Blogger al-republican said...


Your point on interpretation is well-taken and understood. There is a term associated with it in Islamic theology called "ijtihaad". Ijtihaad is done when there is no Qur'anic text or sayings of the Prophet (SAW) that can help in a situation. However, since God knows the apparant harm in letting every tom, dick and harry use ijtihaad, He has regulated that only the scholars of Islam exercize this.

Again, there are guidelines to go by before one goes around issuing fatawa based on ijtihaad. Since the basic laws were set and put in place (and if anyone studies these laws, they would know that those laws dont ever need to be changed simply because those things will remain unchanged irrespective of time and age), the need to change those BASIC LAWS does not arise. It is this kind of Ijtihaad that the late (very well-known) Islamic Jurist, Imam Ghazzali, was known to famously write in his works, "The doors to ijtihaad have been closed". This was done by all 'ulama of the past (including the ones of today) because changing these BASIC LAWS not only go directly against established Divine texts, but also open the door to chaos. Islam will lose its essence/salient features and digress into any other secular legislature.

The Ijtihaad that is STILL permitted is known as "Ijtihaad fil-madhhab". A madhhab is a school of thought (such as Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali etc). And these individual madhhabs go around setting rules and regulations on how to issue fatawa based on ijtihaad.

The fasting times in Finland you allude to come under "Ijtihaad fil-madhhab" which is why all 4 schools have their takes on this issue (based on their rules and regulations). Laws such as those pertaining to inheritance, taxation, marriage, divorce etc are those BASIC laws that I talk about. These laws cannot be changed and do not need to be changed. Since the West primarily started changing these basic laws such as marriage, we are faced with a situation where marriage between 2 persons of the same gender is becoming legalized! This is the problem that Imam Ghazzali and other refered to. And who knows, with the passage of time, bestiality and other ills will become legal, too!

May Allah keep us Muslims safe from such a predicament!

21 March, 2006 09:09  
Blogger Dubai Paddy said...

hello SD,

I want to back to a point you made earlier about hijab and decorated abayas.

My understanding is that hijab protects women in that it stops men from lusting after them. The idea of hijab is that the woman be covered so that they are not conspicious and therefore do not draw any unwanted attention from men.

I am also confused about decorated abayas, is this not missing the point completely. If you have a line of women in the normal, dowdy abayas and one woman in a sparkly detailed and figure hugging number then surely this woman will be the one who stands out in a crowd. Will this not lead some men into a debauched fantasy session and therefore compromise the womens virtues?

I have spoken to some female friends about this and they feel that the decoration is intended for the females eyes only and would not evoke any interest in men. I still think the whole idea of Hijab is compromised if the abays are adorned, sparkly or in any other way decorative.
I do not believe that a woman should be covered up in the first place but this seems a bait paradoxical.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

21 March, 2006 10:27  
Blogger al-republican said...

dubai paddy-

Yes it is paradoxical and it is also true how some of these women (who wear these modern abayas) carry a peculiar attitude, which really is all about attracting attention.

Even then, I think, this is much better than women exposing what they shouldn't. In a place like Dubai it is hard to expect women to be dressed up humbly. Clearly Muslim men dont dress up half as decently as their religion demands them to. So, I think, I give props to the ladies who at least hold their religion dear and wear the abayas in the first place.

Piety is a very relative thing and it is something that grows in an individual. These women and men have their hearts in the right place and as they get older (and presumably wiser) they will observe better and more modest clothing, in sha Allah!

21 March, 2006 10:43  
Blogger secretdubai said...

From a western perspective, I would have to point out that no matter what a woman wears, she can be looked at lustfully and even assaulted. Remember that old ladies and young girls get assaulted (in all countries) and they are presumably not dressed for the disco.

So as I perceive it, the abaya and hijab are more a symbol of modesty, of "covering", than a kind of actual wall against lustful reaction. With a decorated abaya the woman looks presentable and fashionable, but it is still clear that she is a muslim and covering herself.

At the end of the day, there is surely some onus on men to contain/control their reaction, and lower their eyes or look away if they feel an inappropriate response. And we should also remember that the response itself is a natural part of the human condition, we are all physically animals after all: it is control of it that is required, not never having it in the first place. This goes for both genders ;)

21 March, 2006 11:12  
Blogger Balushi said...




21 March, 2006 11:27  
Blogger Harsha said...

I think it was better for Balushi to have his blog. The totally uncalled comments that he passes would then reside in their home as Tainted said earlier.

As for the abaya's , I think its ok for the abaya's to be decorative, its pointless when the abayas are merely clinging on to ones body by one hook and females in Dubai impersonate Batman.

Every woman likes to dress up. decorative abayas takes them away from the boring attire they have to don everyday,be it by choice. As long as they are covered and look decent, I dont think that should an issue.
Though I have seen such horrible designs lately!

Never been to saudi but heard women there wear colourful and patterned abayas - true?

21 March, 2006 12:22  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Never been to saudi but heard women there wear colourful and patterned abayas - true?

There were reports a couple of years ago that the muttawa had confiscated 80,000 "flimsy" abayas that year but this may have been only in Riyadh.

Also the muttawa power is waning, so I expect the women are becoming more expressive.

I kind of wonder how the "confiscation" works - presumably they aren't expected to disrobe in the streets in front of the muttawa? Perhaps they are taken to a police station and given a thicker, looser abaya and told to change. Who know?!

21 March, 2006 12:31  
Blogger Harsha said...

maybe confisticated them from the ppl making them. but 80,000! wonder what they did to/do with them.

21 March, 2006 12:38  
Blogger al-republican said...

I am just going through the US State Department's reports on various countries and I can't help noticing the tongue-in-cheek reports on Iraq and Afghanistan!

The report goes on forever trying to explain why things are bad in Iraq in an apologetic tone blaming the insurgency (and you thought the Muslims blamed the West for all evil?) and calling the elections held in Iraq and Afghanistan as free and fair! What Balderdash!

SD, firstly, why single out only the womens' issue from the report on UAE and then secondly (and most importantly) why quote the US State department's take on this when they have recently rejected the UN Human Rights Commission Report for human rights abuses in their own country? This is also the same country that has rejected the International Criminal Courts? I trust your intelligence and hope I dont have to remind you of other human rights abuses that the US condones.

Please, for God's sake, dont try to mock us or insult our intelligence by quoting hypocrites on how our human rights record is bad!

21 March, 2006 13:11  
Blogger al-republican Nemesis said...


I have read a few of your comments about Islam, and I must say that you have quite often twisted issues to achieve mostly political favors. I know that you come form Pakistan and your tendencies towards the Talabans is quite evident – I have nothing against that.

For example, when you say that Islam stipulates a dress code for men in reality it only represents a school of thoughts and not a ‘Nis’ in Quran – just like the Wahabbies think smoking cigarettes is a sin.

Also, you spoke of Al Mathahib, through which, I have noticed your dislike towards the Shiites – quite understandable for a Talabans supporter.

21 March, 2006 13:23  
Blogger al-republican said...


You can view me however you like. Branding me a Taliban supporter or Northern Alliance supporter is not going to make any difference to what I say or do.

Could you explain how you read my statements on the Madhhahib as unfavorable towards the shi'ites? Are you unaware of the different madhhahibs in the shi'ites? Or are you not aware that the shi'ah are also a madhhab, which they themselves refer to as "Ja'fari" or Ahl at-Tashee'? They trace their madhhab to the 6th Imam of the shi'ites, Imam Ja'far as Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him)?

Please do not talk about things you do not understand. First of all the word is "Nass" and not "Nis" and I will leave you the embarrassment of getting you not just any NASS but QAT'I NASS (categorical and indisputable text) regarding mens' clothing.


21 March, 2006 13:45  
Blogger secretdubai said...

One thing I have absolutely no time for is the excuse "but they are worse". Yes - the US may not have a perfect human rights record. Does that mean that anything they say about the UAE is false? No. Does that mean they they don't have a right to say it? No.

Everyone has the right to criticise poor human rights, both in their own countries and other countries.

You'll need a better excuse that "wah! but the US is so nasty!" I'm afraid. Middle Eastern whining about the West as a veil for their own problems holds no court with me.

21 March, 2006 13:59  
Blogger Tainted Female said...


…the court annuls the marriage by issuing the "Talaaq" for the man (again the woman is to return the "mahr").

The courts awarded me ‘Talaaq’ after battling my case for more than 2 years, and ‘Talaaq’ 3 times after the appeal. They awarded me my mahr (which my husband hadn’t already given me), along with back-payment of support for the duration of the legal battle, and child-support.

I think it’s an important note to mention that if the courts justify the request for ‘khula’ by the woman, it is the woman’s right to keep her dowry’s (both of them, as there are actually 2 of them).

21 March, 2006 14:29  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

As Debbie Menon (a frequent contributor in the "letters to the Editor" section of KT) recently said about the US in one of his/her letters:

There are numerous errors in here. I'd find a better source to support your claim that human rights in the US are inferior than those on the UAE.

21 March, 2006 14:37  
Blogger al-republican Nemesis said...


[First of all the word is "Nass" and not "Nis" and I will leave you the embarrassment of getting you not just any NASS]

Perhaps you have certain fetish towards literal translation, but you certainly have tendencies towards diverting issues for the same purpose (common practice on this blog). However, I am sure you would not be able to write Arabic perfectly – the Quran language. But that’s a different topic.

[Could you explain how you read my statements on the Madhhahib as unfavorable towards the shi'ites? Are you unaware of the different madhhahibs in the shi'ites? Or are( ..) Imam Ja'far as Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him)?]

The fact that you have quoted Imam Ghazzali as a reference shows that you have bashed away a period of the Shiites’ political struggle – I am not a Shiite. That door you have ‘famously’ closed was done during a political maneuver by a certain Caliph. And later you hid away the Shiites’ “Al Marrjia” as yet another form of Fatwa like Zawaj Al Mut’a (marriage for pleasure). Beside, there are no ‘ulama’ in the Islamic religion. There are only Sheiks. ‘Ulama’ is an insult terms to Islam.

[Please do not talk about things you do not understand.]

Why doesn’t surprise me that you are purely a judgmental person

[QAT'I NASS (categorical and indisputable text) regarding mens' clothing.]

No it’s not. If you think you know what it means, then look it up in the Arabic language – if you can, and I will dispute it

Also, for 3 times Talaag, the Hanafi & Jafarie stipulate that the woman should marry another man before she goes back to her first husband. The Sunni requires an ‘intercourse’ during the second marriage too. Women can call for talaaq also, through Ghal’a.

From what I read I really think you have even went to a Talaban school (Talaban comes from the words Talab – student) and I think it’s quite fascinating to read what they have taught you there

PS, please humor me further by correcting my Quranic ‘spelling’ in English!

21 March, 2006 15:20  
Blogger al-republican said...


Stop being silly and making this a shi'i vs. sunni contest! Imam Ghazzali's words have nothing to do with the shi'ah! He was the leading faqeeh of his madhhab (Shafi'i) of his times and I dont know what rubbish you are talking about "closing doors" by a Caliph and what not?? What tripe is this and where did that come from??

Thanks for letting us know that you are not a shi'ite. But, why then did you HAVE to talk exclusively about shi'ism and zawaj al-mut'ah? And you say others beat about the bush over here?

And, yes, I have some errata for you: it's TalaaQ (its the letter QAAF not GHAYN); and I don't know what Ghal'a is?? Maybe you meant KHUL'A, which I have already talked about in my very first posting to Archer14. Your pronunciations smell awfully Farisi to me. I hope you aren't indulging in "taqiyah" about your religious inclinations just to show how fair and balanced you are :P I have read way too much literature to fall for such kiddish tricks.

Then you get more idiotic and start talking about Halalah! When did anyone talk about this? Please grow up.

Tainted Female: thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that the court could grant the mahr to the woman in case of Khul'a. I just checked up and it seems that can be the case.

21 March, 2006 16:22  
Blogger al-republican Nemesis said...

> al-republican

[Stop being silly and making this a shi'i vs. sunni contest!]

I wish I could, but with a Talaban like you it seems there is no end to it.

[Imam Ghazzali's words have nothing to do with the shi'ah! He was the leading faqeeh of his madhhab (Shafi'i) of his times and I dont know what rubbish you are talking about "closing doors" by a Caliph and what not?? What tripe is this and where did that come from??]

Of course you don’t know because you simply DON’T know. It suits the Takfiris quite well when they don’t know!

[Thanks for letting us know that you are not a shi'ite. But, why then did you HAVE to talk exclusively about shi'ism and zawaj al-mut'ah? And you say others beat about the bush over here?]

Because you simply relay your views of Islam from one perspective, which happened to be that of the Talabans'.

[And, yes, I have some errata for you: it's TalaaQ (its the letter QAAF not GHAYN); and I don't know what Ghal'a is?? Maybe you meant KHUL'A, which I have already talked about in my very first posting to Archer14.]

Well, I have to keep a sturdy leash at all times, but then it’s quite enjoyable to converse with a Mulla Omar rep. like yourself.

It simply meant that the woman can initiate the divorce (Talaag, Oops, Talaaq) even if the man does not agree to it. Talabans’ teachings do not cater to this part of Sharia!! (Ghal'a is pending your translation approval lol)

[Your pronunciations smell awfully Farisi to me(...)literature to fall for such kiddish tricks.]

Well, let’s not act like wretched western racists, which you are so found of vilifying. No, I am not Farsi.

[Then you get more idiotic and start talking about Halalah! >When did anyone talk about this<]

This is exactly the point. Why some things are intentionally left in the dark.

And lastly, you have not replied to all the points that I have raised about your previous arguments, which shows that you are simply being feed pabulum of Quran verses like children at mulali schools. And that certainly is kiddish stuff!

PS, I have visited your beautiful country, and ran into some Talabans there. They are much more relaxed than you! Have a nice life.

21 March, 2006 17:36  
Blogger al-republican said...


It really helps when someone is as rude as you are. Your verbal diarrhea and your obsession with the Taliban (whom you even took the effort of meeting in flesh!) make it abundantly clear that you are only interested in petty mud-slinging.

The little sense you made, I tried responding to it. As for your Marji'i and other tripe, please save us the headache. You may continue to wait for the appearance of an Imam in hiding for the last 1200+ years, I have absolutely no qualms with that. How you blame Sunni theology for your alleged Imam's occultation (by the way, no one even knew he existed till the death of the 11th Imam who died SINGLE)is beyond any sane person.

Thank you for the wishes for a happy life because I am sure as heck not going to waste my life in petty mud-slinging as yourself!

21 March, 2006 17:46  
Blogger al-republican said...


Also, I had thought of talking at length with you about your infatuation with the Taliban and the Marji'iyyah, but i dont know, it would take too much effort to remove the zebra line to bring out the real ass out of you.

21 March, 2006 18:00  
Blogger ssosw said...

Yes - the US may not have a perfect human rights record. Does that mean that anything they say about the UAE is false? No. Does that mean they they don't have a right to say it? No.

Yes SD it does mean that they(US) do not have a right to say it. It is hypocrisy at its worst. Just imagine you blaming someone for theft and asking him to stop stealing when you are the biggest thief.Also what you consider Human Righs violations is the Islamic Law .No one has the right to change it.It may not be applied perfectly sometimes and there may be judges who are prejudiced against women but that does not mean the system is totally wrong. And do you think the US really cares.What they are doing is using these allegations to paint the Arabs as barbarians and once established they can play God and invade , presumably "not for their own benifit" but "just to liberate the poor suffering masses".

22 March, 2006 08:49  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Yes SD it does mean that they(US) do not have a right to say it. It is hypocrisy at its worst. Just imagine you blaming someone for theft and asking him to stop stealing when you are the biggest thief.

Only an utter moron would make a comment in public that the US has the world's worst record on human rights. Their record is light years ahead of any country in the Middle East by any objective measure.

22 March, 2006 15:11  
Blogger al-republican said...

Tim Newman-

Forget lightyears, you only have to travel as far Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Ghuraib, Iraq, to see your beautiful human rights record!

22 March, 2006 15:44  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Forget lightyears, you only have to travel as far Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Ghuraib, Iraq, to see your beautiful human rights record!

The US human rights record ain't too pretty, and I'll be the first to admit it. But even with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib it is a human rights utopia compared to the Middle East and Pakistan.

22 March, 2006 19:51  
Blogger al-republican said...

Tim Newman-

I have seen some pretty nasty stuff that the Pakistani police (mind you, these guys are absolutely uneducated folks who are not professional worth a rupee) does to its own citizens, but I still havent seen the intensity of humiliation that was witnessed at Abu Ghuraib by professionals who represent the cream and "civility" of the lone super-power in the World today. After all, you guys were in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis, so why did anything like Abu Ghuraib happen in the first place? May I also add, Tim Newman, that most of the persecuted in the Middle East and Pakistan are people who oppose the puppets that America defends with its bottom dollar. That is exactly why it is absolutely insulting and hypocritical for anyone to quote a US State department's human rights report when people in this part of the World know America's contribution in this mess. Call it whining or whatever, but that is the truth.

These guys (US soldiers) have years of training and yet they turn out like this? I would in the same breath like to acknowledge the good souls in the US army who wouldnt do such things. But, war takes out the worst in the best of people and I guess this is one place the Westerners will also blame the West for - starting a useless war based on absolutely false evidences and pretexts and turning their own people into mental wrecks! America will have to pay a dear price for this illegitimate war.

What no one in America is calculating (for now at least) is how the Iraqi forces that America is training and arming to the teeth can one day turn their guns around on the US. Don't forget the old adage of biting the hand that feeds. That, too, when you have the example of Afghanistan! You armed and trained the Usama bin Laden's of today, didn't you? In your lust for power and ignorance, you are happily training and arming a thousand more "terrorists". Good luck!

22 March, 2006 22:44  
Blogger ssosw said...

There is no point in blaming the Americans for not remembering all that.They have been tricked by their own greedy power hungry leaders , blinding them by showing them that the rest of the world is dangerous and that everything is being done for their own safety.Even when they know what is actually going on they are totally comfortable with it .They even feel proud and patriotic about the atrocities that they commit.Never has there been such a stupid people that hasn't been overcome by their own doings .

23 March, 2006 10:32  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Never has there been such a stupid people that hasn't been overcome by their own doings .

I'm not sure what source material you and al-Republican have been using to form your opinions, but if you want to be taken seriously by anyone discussing global politics and political history, I would change them fairly quickly.

23 March, 2006 11:56  
Blogger ssosw said...

Who's discussing global politics and political history.I was just saying what I think is also the opinion of most of the people the world over( Non US of course).And for your info I am not posting to convince you or anyone else.And I dont give a shit if you take me seriously or not.Don't consider that everyone has to have the same opinion as you do.

23 March, 2006 13:56  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Okay, fair enough. I had assumed that you would object to being viewed as a moron, but now I know you don't I will leave you be.

23 March, 2006 14:12  
Blogger ssosw said...

funny guy :-).If only I had as much expertise making witty comments in English..How long did it take to come up with that :-)

23 March, 2006 14:30  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 March, 2006 14:56  
Blogger Tracy M. said...

Debbie Menon's comments are true.
If you think the US is a great country. Check these facts out.
Facts are little "important" things, inconvenient and absolute hog wash to Al-Republicans.
Not being a citizen of the USA I have often wondered how citizens of the USA can make the claim to be from the greatest country in the world. What criteria would those people have used? How do you measure greatness?
To my mind one measure of a country should be the way it treats its citizens. To that end, one of the marks of a great country would be the level of corruption displayed. In terms of that, the most corrupt country in the world is adjudged to be Bangladesh, followed by Nigeria, Haiti, and Burma. The USA is located at number 112th most corrupt. The least corrupt countries in the world are Finland, Iceland, and Denmark in that order. Of the other major western nations, England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all rate as less corrupt than the USA.

In terms of health care, those countries with the best health care should exhibit the highest longevity of their population. In that respect, Andorra, Macau and San Marino have the longest living population at 81+ years - the USA is at number 48, beaten out by England, France, Canada, and Japan. The probability of a female reaching 65 in the USA is 85.7% giving the USA a ranking of 33 in the world. For males the figures are 77.4% and 32 respectively!

Education would also serve as a good indicator, based on reading tests administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the USA ranks a dismal 15th, surpassed by Finland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia in that order. Mathematical literacy ranks the USA at 18th in the world, surpassed by Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Finland. In scientific literacy the USA again trails at number 14, beaten by South Korea, Japan, Finland, and England. These are all based on mean value of performance scale at the age of 15.

US citizens should take some heart though- the USA ranks fourth in tertiary education (post high school, 20 year olds enrolled).
But is 14th in the most educated category based on time spent in school.

What about sanitary facilities? Well, the USA is again at 14th, Holland is first, followed by Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and the Barbados.

A second measure of a countries greatness might be its contribution to science and technology. In that respect, based on marketing hype, the USA should be expected to outperform all others - the statistics again tell a different story.

The USA is 59th in terms of research personnel per capita. Top research countries in the world are Iceland, Estonia, Slovenia, and Norway. England rates number 43.

In terms of patents per million people; Mongolia, Luxembourg, Georgia, and Latvia lead the pack. The USA is a distant 50.
But in terms of R&D spending per capita the US is 56th, and 2nd in terms of technological achievement. Surprisingly Finland scored highest in the tech achievement category.

A third measure might be how well a country treats other countries, in that respect in terms of real aid the USA doesn't even rate, the leaders here are Luxembourg, Norway and Denmark. This category is based on economic development with at least 25% of that being a grant. In other measurements though the USA is 11th in terms of social net expenditures.

Mind you the USA doesn't really distribute wealth well internally! Here is proof that in the USA the rich get richer.
The above shows that in the USA the richest 10% control 30.5% of the gross income.

In terms of wealth measured in GDP per capita, the USA does not rank number one either, that spot is reserved for Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, and Ireland respectively. The USA places seventh.

I have heard several bloggers here say that the USA must be the greatest country because so many people try to get in - well the statistics tell another story! Canada has the highest number of new citizens (immigration based) per capita, followed by Belgium, Sweden, and Luxembourg - the USA is 8th.
In asylum seekers (per capita), the USA is ranked number 22.
This next graph though, tells an interesting story! In terms of NET migration rate (a negative number meaning outflow), the USA is ranked at #31, meaning 30 countries have higher immigration intakes than the USA per annum!

To continue, we might measure environmental impact. The USA is ranked number 1 in waste generation per person (municipal), a 10% higher level above the nearest competitor Australia!

The USA is also number 1 in oil consumption!
However, to be fair, in terms of oil consumption PER CAPITA, the USA is not the highest user, it's 5th followed immediately by Canada.

Continuing, the highest Coal user is Australia, the USA is 5th per capita however, in total consumption the USA ranks second, China is first.

Energy useage per person ranks the USA at number 1, followed by Canada and Finland. It should be noted though that Finland and Canada are both significantly colder than the USA and Canada has a much lower population density for a greater land mass.

In terms of Environmental Agreement Compliance the USA ranks 20th (China is 21), well below the rest of the western countries!

Finally, in terms of Ozone depletion units the USA isn't too bad although in the highest 30% of the countries.

To find areas where the USA excels, we must turn to cultural things. Patriotism? The USA does pretty well...

In terms of pride, well, that should be quite obvious, yes the USA tops the charts! However, in terms of net "happiness" the USA is #13...

As we examine the above information, what should become clear is that the USA is not the greatest country in the world. In fact, no single country can lay claim to that title as each has areas of speciality and competence that others lack. What makes a country great in the eyes of their citizens is the act of being born there. Therefore, when somebody says, "We're the greatest" it's a slap in the face to all other citizens of all other countries. When somebody says, "God Bless the USA" and fails to include everybody else it's another slap in the face. In fact, a recent survey ranked Ireland and the Nordic countries as the best places to live - the USA was rated 13th.

Perhaps it's time to rise above petty tribalism but before we do here are a couple of last stats! The USA is not the most militaristic country in the world! Eritrea and Isreal are! The USA is number 57 in terms of military people per capita, although in defense spending the USA is far ahead of everybody at 495% above the nearest competitor! In terms though, of military dollars per capita the USA is only third, Isreal and Singapore are first and second respectively ... In terms of most trigger happy, the USA is rated at number 8 (firearm murder per capita)

Tracy M.

28 March, 2006 11:20  
Blogger al-republican said...


You misunderstood me; I actually support Debbie Menon's claims! I termed the US State department's report as "hogwash". Given their history and gross violation of human rights, they are in no position to go around preparing such reports on others.

Hope that clears it.

28 March, 2006 13:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow.. i just sat here glued to the screen reading this page! Some very fundamentalist views on here! god protect all women who have faced domestic violence, and curse anyone on this blog who is condoning this violence against women! I was disgusted to read some blog entries by islamic women who have accepted that women are the 'lesser sex'. There must have been some serious brain washing in your lives in order for you to think this way, and also to beleive that men may 'discipline' you. It seems to me that many have been brainwashed so much that they no longer respect themselves (and no, respect isn't only about conducting yourself in a modest way, respect is also about loving one self). I may only be 17, and i know that i don't know as much as ,most of you on this blog, but i do know that women need to look at this page, and realise that if other women aren't on their side, what makes them think a fundamentalist, hypocritical male would support them!

and a word to al-republican, i can see you have not come from an arabic speaking background, so let me point out something to you, there is no correct way to spell arabic words in english, so it would do you best not to comment on other people's spelling of arabic in english as it looks somewhat ignorant! bless you for supporting your religion and having deep faith in it, i admire it alot being what i would like 2 think a strong egyptian christian! However, please have faith in ur religion, but not at the expense of pushing your religious views down other people's throats! this blog space isn't about fighting and being defensive about one's religion! it is about supporting these poor women who have suffered hardships!

yours sincerely

23 January, 2007 22:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

next issue is no. 12

Google Secret Dubai, The World's Blog Aggregator
 Blog Top Sites

Powered by Blogger

StatCounter stats