Secret Dubai diary Intrigue and adventure in the United Arab Emirates





iPhone RPGs

Dubai Info

Best role-playing games
Spiderweb Software
for Mac & PC





15 June, 2006

A hundred bucks to beat your wife

You couldn't make it up:

ABU DHABI — The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed a lower court verdict imposing a Dh100 fine on a husband found guilty of assaulting his wife.

In its verdict on May 20, the Apex Court said that the lower courts felt satisfied with the wife's statements before the prosecution that her husband assaulted her with both his hands and a head band, locally known as "Uqal" and that she received the multiple injuries described in the medical report. Accordingly, the court dismissed the husband's petition, and confirmed the earlier judgment.


A great and glorious day for wifebeaters throughout the sandlands.

Labels: ,

70 Comments:

Blogger Tim Newman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 June, 2006 15:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the $%^& tim newman i seriously hope u are trying to be funny or being sarcastic....honestly even if this is a joke comment its very distasteful! u should be ashamed of yourself!

15 June, 2006 15:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this blog being watched by anybody? very boring.

15 June, 2006 16:15  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

tim

you are obviously a very biased and prejudiced little man (woman?). educate yourself pal. or you'll go through life like a petty bigot....

15 June, 2006 16:28  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

tim

you are a bigot. read about Islam and Christianity and the other great world religions before you barf your venom please....rise above your sarcastic pettiness, if that is possible for you.

15 June, 2006 16:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tim,

I recommend you tread very carefully here. Such sarcasm is not taken lightly. You will end up in situations you would rather not be in.

If you must, find yourself a pseudoname and stick with it. As is, you are asking for trouble.

I tell you this as an atheist.

15 June, 2006 16:32  
Blogger gone2352352352345634 said...

ROFL Tim, your post just might get SD blocked. UAE will thank you if you manage to get this filth,(secretdubai), blocked by Eti-slack. Thank you for making sure that the jobs of the good people at Secure Computing are safe, by posting stuff like this.

Bad Tim.

Seriously though as desert_dude pointed out, be careful and I hope for your sake that you are not in the UAE. Bet someone somewhere is looking very carefully at everyone called Tim Newman in the UAE.

15 June, 2006 16:52  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Ah, the good old threats of violence, eh? Fine, I'll remove my comments.

Yet nobody seems to have noticed that what I write is simply a parody of those who hide behind Islam to justify stonings, beatings, and other gross violations of human rights, and dress such justifications up with false piety addressing God and other higher beings so that when their disturbing views are challenged they can simply respond that they are quoting God directly and as such we have no right to question them.

If you want to see Islam insulted, then you need do no more than allow such distortions of your faith to continue unchallenged.

15 June, 2006 17:49  
Blogger Jin said...

I sincerely hope tim is taking the piss here.

15 June, 2006 17:50  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Tim - there's the greatest QED this year.

Sheikh Mo's and Dr Hanif's education reforms can't come quickly enough.

15 June, 2006 18:00  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

tim,

No, a lot of us see your point, but you are completely oblivious of the cultural differences -- I would dare say, ignorant of them. People will NOT read your post as sarcastic, neither will they read them as you seem to have intended.

The arrogance you consistently display is a direct result of your complete oblivion to how people read what you write.

It doesn't matter what you mean, what matters is what is perceived.

Learn something.

15 June, 2006 18:10  
Blogger gone2352352352345634 said...

Tim the majority of SD readers see the humor ,(and enjoyed it too), some might even agree with what you said. But as you pointed out,they won't think twice before shipping yourself and the rest to some secret desert prison for voicing your opinion and humor. In case you remember the concept of free speech is pretty much an alien-idea there.

However I still stand by my previous post, your original post did make me go ROFL :D

15 June, 2006 18:53  
Blogger secretdubai said...

People will NOT read your post as sarcastic, neither will they read them as you seem to have intended.

I'm the first person to recognise this, given my blog was blocked over a satirical post.

However, I've now come round to the opinion of "tough shit". This is an English language blog written by an native-English speaking expat. If people come in and misunderstand and get offended, bad luck to them. I'm not going to extend any special tolerance for the badly educated, the semi-English-literate, or those that lack basic comprehension skills.

So, while for obvious reasons of legality and personal safety we have to take extreme care when referring to Islamic religious figures, anything else as far as I am concerned is fair game.

And if I wasn't living here, everything would be fair game.

15 June, 2006 19:39  
Blogger Minkey Chief said...

Oh man, I come in here after Tim has deleted his post and I'm burning with curiosity now!

15 June, 2006 20:25  
Blogger Shaper85 said...

Yeah! Me too. What did Tim say?!

15 June, 2006 20:41  
Blogger Cokey said...

Obviously, the judge was horny at his wife..oh sorry he was local. He was horny at the husband. So he gave him a light fine!

There you go. End of discussion!

15 June, 2006 22:09  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

SD,

I don't think you have understood my point though. There is a fine line between offering a critical analysis of a culture, society and even governing rules and regulations.. and simply sprouting out rather insulting references.

I couldn't care what anyone prayed to, but I still do not unnecessarily call other people's gods degrading names. It's just not right.

I guess you can say it would be the difference between a respectful person and one who is not (Tim, here obviously is not). Most people are frustrated with those holier than thou, god says so, and no one can argue types of people. We just don't need to go out of our way to tell them that their version of god is this and that -- it automatically aligns those who were against them to be with them.

I think the problem is that Westerners in general, despite all their efforts, are still unable to grasp this concept -- very much the same way Middle Easterners are completely unable to understand the concept of free speech and democracy (and how they both fit together).

15 June, 2006 22:13  
Anonymous another athiest said...

Question for the athiests: How do you manage to maintain your sanity when being preached to by the religious?

Does anyone else think it's really rude when someone who assumes you share the same religion is giving you a monologue about X moral issue as instructed by Y god in Z book? Am I the only one whose blood quietly boils when listening to this sort of thing?

15 June, 2006 23:34  
Blogger Shaper85 said...

I just nod and smile when being preached to. That tends to keep their sermons short and for the most part they leave you alone after that, thinking they "got through" to you.

16 June, 2006 00:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[secretdubai] "So, while for obvious reasons of legality and personal safety we have to take extreme care when referring to Islamic religious figures, "

Too right...coz they'll just kick your black ass back to africa.

16 June, 2006 02:06  
Blogger Kiwi Boy said...

How much do I have to pay if I beat my sister up for losing my pen?

16 June, 2006 02:39  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

another atheist,

Oh I enjoy it when I have time :-) I especially have a lot of love for the mormons, because they are often so young and clueless (the ones that go knocking on doors). Of course the Muslim ones are a bit tough to deal with, and nodding in total agreement is probably best. It works with my family at least.

But, no, it never makes my blood boil. I just think that spirituality is a good thing.. prayers can only be good for you. I'm happy the way I am, but if people want to pray to a god, so be it. It's their business.

I am sorry, this post has taken a turn for the worst. It was a posting about a man beating his wife and getting off with a Dhs. 100 fine.

What a shame.

16 June, 2006 02:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking as a battered ex wife at least recognition he was guilty is a small step in the right direction. when i lodged a complaint against my husband i was told i must have done something to make him beat me up and i shd go back and "be a good wife" end of story. my crime was to complain about having no money for baby milk when he was out spending our money on women and drink (yes ina muslim country!)when he subsequently chased after my car and fell in the road then went to the police himself claiming i had "run him over" i had to endure much questioning by the police followed by going to court to which he brought his family to watch me " be put in jail for 6 months" giving no thought as to who would look after our 4 children. luckily, and much to my surprise, the court realised i was innocent and fined him Dh750 for wasting police time. A joke given what i had been thru. He wasnt even a local he was of arab origin with a uk passport courtesy of me.

16 June, 2006 03:42  
Blogger gone2352352352345634 said...

Oh1 I dont care....
kidding, sort of....
Well late as it is but here is our rendention of the whole mess

16 June, 2006 04:19  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

It’s fine for a writer (Tim or anyone) to dip his/her pen in the inkpot of sarcasm – that not the point. Tim’s extraordinary exposition on Islam (am I being sarcastic?) wasn’t so intellectually challenging that no one could possibly understand it. Again that arrogance and presumptuousness.

And it’s not a matter of being picked up by some local secret security forces and shipped out to a distant camp. If I recall that is something that another, ever soooo slightly larger country (one nation under Almighty God), does quite frequently to the dismay of Amnesty International, human rights groups and most of the (-rest of-?) the civilised world.

What is important Secret, is not to get mired in bigotry and arrogance. Otherwise what’s the difference between these blogs and the rhetoric emerging from any unhinged madman hiding in a cave running down people of different creeds and faiths?

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all preach peace. The massacre in Gujrat (India) in which scores of Muslims women and children were slaughtered doesn’t mean that Hinduism permits violence. In the same vein, Hitler’s wanton annihilation of 6m Jews doesn’t mean that Christianity advocates such hideous and gruesome acts. The systematic rape of hundreds if not thousands of Muslim Bosnian women and Croat women doesn’t turn all Serbs into certified rapists.

I don’t want to digress and drift into a much wider discussion but the point is that if someone does beat his wife, this has no bearing on Islam. Wife beating is common in OUR “English speaking” world too. And men get away with it all the time. MISOGYNY is alive and kicking in the “civilised world”, an expression that we English speaking expats just love to copiously use when they descend upon these primitive lands… (sarcasm?). Shame on us for being so high handed.

It’s not the sarcasm Secret, it’s the underlying, mostly latent and sometimes overt bigotry and holier than thou attitude which is annoying. As if these things don’t happen in the West, or South Africa, or wherever the writers are from.

Orientalism by Edward Said, necessary reading for us Western folks spreading our civilisation to the savages. (oh darnit, sarcasm again rearing its ugly head).

16 June, 2006 07:21  
Blogger Taunted said...

Kiwi Boy, Under the laws of the land, she must pay you!

16 June, 2006 09:55  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

desert_dude,

I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the point of this blog is to hold the UAE (and Dubai specifically) accountable by the image it is attempting to project about itself.

There is a difference between what goes on here and what goes on in different neighboring countries (larger or smaller). However, only the UAE made the claim of being the most modern, the best, the , the, the... This is not to say that those claims are completely unfounded, but an open forum to discuss its failings (and successes) are a fair and good thing to do.

Had Dubai said, let's keep things like they were 1400 years ago, it would have been a different story. Such a blog and commentors here may be taken as bigots and whatnot.

And for your information, there are many people like myself, who are not from the West. As of a matter of fact, people like me who come from Muslim backgrounds in the Arab world. I do find posts like Tim's to be tasteless (perhaps it's not his fault that he is a bit rough around the edges).. but this blog speaks to me most of the time.

16 June, 2006 10:43  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

In the same vein, Hitler’s wanton annihilation of 6m Jews doesn’t mean that Christianity advocates such hideous and gruesome acts.

No, it doesn't. But it does teach us that time after time, totalitarian systems of government - be they based on facism, Nazism, communism, Islam, or any other ideology you care to mention - almost always results in such hideous and gruesome acts.

And, in my opinion, a person stating that his own interpretation of Islamic teachings is the word of God himself and must be obeyed without question is a totalitarian ideology which must be countered at all costs.

And if reasoned debate cannot be held - and I think it is self evident that those who espouse this divine totalitarian ideology are incapable of reasoned debate - then as with the Soviets of yesteryear, this ideology must be countered with sarcasm, laughter, parody, and any other non-violent means in our armoury.

16 June, 2006 11:30  
Blogger gone2352352352345634 said...

damn it, it seems like I effed up the link up there well here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnG51kEhOwU

16 June, 2006 12:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am just waiting for al republican to come in now and give all sorts of religious excuses blah blah.

The fact is this is not islamic justice at its best- someone should have thrown it back at him asking how is this justice.

16 June, 2006 16:31  
Blogger moryarti said...

There is nothing Islamic or manly about beating a woman, let alone beating a wife.

The wife beater must've had mega vitamin w.. end of story

16 June, 2006 17:45  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

Tim, I am not an apologist for radical Muslims, our own Christians (and believe me the Christian world has its fair share of holy and born again types wanting to sort out the world in the name of the divine) or any other extreme followers of any faith, dogma or creed. Similarly I do not care for totalitarianism and I am not sure why you brought it up because Islam is far from being such – in fact it is perhaps the most egalitarian of religions. Yes hard to believe for the biased and prejudiced but it is a fact. Again, refer to Karen Armstrong who has done some seminal research into the worlds great religions.

Notwithstanding this gratuitous reference linking Islam to totalitarianism, note that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Hideous and gruesome acts are NOT just perpetrated by totalitarian regimes. Consider the use of atomic (nuclear) weapons on innocent civilians, and the ruthless bombardment and subsequent desecration of sovereign states and their citizens under fallacious pretexts to mention just a few acts of horror and terror. Under the guise of civilising others hideous crimes have been perpetrated by so called democracies. The Brits did it when then conquered a good portion of the planet, and economic and military imperialism disguised as “for the good of man” continues to this day.

I am all for dissent, freedom of expression and the right to choose my way of life. But my basic issue is with the hypocrisy of many of our “English speaking” expats who love to make ourselves sound like we are here to civilise others (usually people of other faiths and darker skins), when we are barely educated ourselves. You for one may be an intelligent man but there are numerous western nincompoops running around here who don’t know the difference between suffrage and roughage, or perspicacity and perspiration. It goes to Secret’s credit that in the past she has taken an occasional dig at such people.

I respect Secret D but occasionally an element of arrogance in the form of the rather puerile “tough shit” approach creeps into her commentary. On balance this is understandable as I doubt that she is a scholar of history.

Criticise all you want, but don’t get condescending and respect others’ cultures. Above all don’t blame any religion for the failings of a some scums whether they are Eastern or Western please.

Read Edward Said if you can.

“Orientalism is the unconscious, untouchable certainty about what the Orient is. Its basic content is static and unanimous. The Orient is seen as separate, eccentric, backward, silently different, sensual, and passive. It has a tendency towards despotism and away from progress. It displays feminine penetrability and supine malleability. Its progress and value are judged in terms of, and in comparison to, the West, so it is always the Other, the conquerable, and the inferior.”

16 June, 2006 17:58  
Blogger Insipid Chagrin said...

Desert Dude,
brilliant use of Said there. Of course, the point you make is true not only of the "Orient", e.g as portrayed in Lost in Translation?? but more wide ranging.
As per Focault, media develops a hegemony as one discourse is accepted over the other, and the alternative discourses are subdued. For example, Heather Mills Mcartney these days....the media is on a lynching spree, with each publication borrowing words liberally from others- it's a domino effect.

N'ways...the topic at hand. 100 Dhs for wife beating is absurd at best and downright mysogynistic at worst.

But this isn't an Islam/Christian issue at all. Early Christianity, for instance, borrowed liberally from Greek misogyny, and led to deplorable treatment of women. Fact.
This Judeo-Christian tendency was only overcome with the advent of modern society and movements championing women's causes.

The Judaism-Christianity-Islam trinity of Abrahamic religions is paternal, and all three religions can be accused of religious bias.

The fight, i'm afraid, isn't between East and West or Islam and Christianity , but between myopic ignorance and a drive towards egalitarianism where treating women as punching bags is not an option.

16 June, 2006 18:41  
Anonymous albob said...

desert-dude, I read tim's original post and I really don't think he's trying to link islam with totalitarianism or do anything of the sort. All he was doing was making fun of the guys running the show, who often use islam as an excuse for doing certain things that aren't normally acceptable.

He's not attacking islam in general, far from it. It's those few who abuse islam that he's making fun of.

16 June, 2006 19:05  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Tim, I am not an apologist for radical Muslims,

I never said you were.

Similarly I do not care for totalitarianism and I am not sure why you brought it up because Islam is far from being such – in fact it is perhaps the most egalitarian of religions.

Islam itself is not totalitarian, but there exists a totalitarian ideology which is based on Islam. It is the latter which I object to, not the former.

Again, refer to Karen Armstrong who has done some seminal research into the worlds great religions.

I don't care two hoots about the worlds great religions, nor any others for that matter. As I've said above, it is totalitarianism supposedly based on Islam which I object to, not Islam itself.

Notwithstanding this gratuitous reference linking Islam to totalitarianism, note that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Hideous and gruesome acts are NOT just perpetrated by totalitarian regimes.

True, but the very worst of the 20th century's hideous and gruesome acts were. You may if you wish do your bit to counter other hideous and gruesome acts, but I am most concerned by those perpertrated by totalitarian regimes.

Under the guise of civilising others hideous crimes have been perpetrated by so called democracies.

That's right. But should we excuse barbaric behaviour today because it has occurred in the past?

But my basic issue is with the hypocrisy of many of our “English speaking” expats who love to make ourselves sound like we are here to civilise others (usually people of other faiths and darker skins), when we are barely educated ourselves.

Speak for yourself. I could not care less about how civilised people are, but when their own flawed interpretation of an ancient text is cited as being God's own instructions and is therefore used to oppress others, I feel compelled to tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. If this makes me a colonial overlord in the eyes of some, then so be it.

Above all don’t blame any religion for the failings of a some scums whether they are Eastern or Western please.

I am unaware that I have done so.

Read Edward Said if you can.

Forgive me, but I won't. As the reading of history is one of my most treasured pastimes, I am rather fussy about my sources, and I have been advised to avoid Edward Said's political writings by several people whose judgement in such matters I trust. He was, I understand, an excellent literary critic though.

16 June, 2006 19:06  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

It's always nice to read someone outright refusing to read something that could potentially change his/her views.

Tim, once again you demonstrate that you are an absolute idiot.

16 June, 2006 20:03  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

Tim

Edward Said was a renowned professor at Columbia U and an extremely erudite Christian Arab. Interesting that you don’t want to read what he says simply because you have been advised against it. That’s very intellectually insular if not feeble. I would have thought that a free mind would explore new ideas, but then again perhaps you were groomed in a totalitarian culture. So much so for the whole notion of open-mindedness and the blog milieu!



Insipid Chagrin

Violence against women is revolting and unacceptable. Period. People who use religion to justify their violence and misogynist behaviour would use some other pretexts even if religion didn’t exist at all. And the 100 dirham penalty is totally sad…agree.

16 June, 2006 21:37  
Blogger Shaykhspeara Sha'ira said...

Extremely tragic and draining to read.

17 June, 2006 00:46  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Edward Said was a renowned professor at Columbia U and an extremely erudite Christian Arab.

He may well have been. But I have it on good authority (in my opinion) that his political writings are fundamentally flawed and that my time is better spent reading historians more worthy of note. My time is limited, and I can't read every book in order to judge for myself, so I rely on certain individuals to point me in the right direction. Sadly, nobody I know and trust in such matters has recommended Edward Said.

17 June, 2006 01:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*Yawns*
I agree with Desert_dude n fellow atheist.

SD.
What message are you trying to convey throughtout your blog? Just wondering? 'cos you only pinpoint one side of dubai..

17 June, 2006 03:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 1:15
So what do you suggest? Want to run KT /GN out of business?. If I say, voice for voiceless, social injustice, goes it ring the bell?

17 June, 2006 05:16  
Blogger A Yahya said...

A great and glorious day for wifebeaters throughout the sandlands.

*shines belt and polishes agil*

17 June, 2006 10:40  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

Tim

"Sadly, nobody I know and trust in such matters has recommended Edward Said"

"My time is limited..."

That one Mr. Tim Newman, so erudite and short of time, doesn't want to even remotely consider the writings of an Arab scholar like Said (while living in the ME), is not particularly sad for humankind. Enjoy your precious time on this blog making sarcastic (yet we are led to believe, utterly profound and enlightened) remarks. There are sadder things happening on this planet and even in this region. Enjoy.

17 June, 2006 12:11  
Blogger al-republican said...

Tim says,

"Forgive me, but I won't. As the reading of history is one of my most treasured pastimes, I am rather fussy about my sources, and I have been advised to avoid Edward Said's political writings by several people whose judgement in such matters I trust. "

And you talk of totalitarian mindsets and bigots exploiting yet other bigots? Amusing! It seems you have a new church of bigoted pundits who tell you what to do, what to read and what to believe. Oh, wow, now you sound like EVERYTHING you love to hate!

Why does this sound like a case of "my bigotry is better than yours"!

17 June, 2006 12:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Newman's remarks about not wanting to read a certain writer disgusts me to no extent. An enlightened individual or moreover an educated one is he who not only is open to critisism but has an open mind to any kind of literature...!!!

17 June, 2006 13:35  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

You've got to love this.

I take issue with people adopting an totalitarian ideology based on Islam. Somebody then wrongly interprets this as me attacking Islam and accuses me of being an ignorant Westerner who doesn't understand other cultures:

Above all don’t blame any religion for the failings of a some scums whether they are Eastern or Western please.

I am then told to remedy the situation by reading a certain author on the subject of orientalism, which is not actually the subject under discussion.

I am told that the writings of Edward Said could potentially change my mind on this othe subject. In fact, it is quite obvious that the assumption behind the recommendation is that Edward Said's writings are so convincing that I cannot fail to be swayed by them, and I clearly haven't read his works or I wouldn't hold my current views. This, I'll remind you, is coming from somebody who accuses me of arrogance in my own writing. The notion that a single book on a very complex subject could change my mind says much about those who are suggesting that I read it.

Edward Said is well known for adopting an extremely partisan position on the subject matter, and as such many people do not consider his writings to hold much merit. Those who sing the praises of Said, and indeed those who recommend that he should be read at all costs to open ones mind, are usually those who have simpy had their own prejudices confirmed by Said's writings. No doubt these same people would also urge me to read Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Robert Fisk and react with the same hurt feelings when I give the same reply.

Having politely declined to read Edward Said on the basis that people who I know and trust to recommend good history books have advised me to avoid him, it is apparently a sign that I am as totalitarian and bigotted as one who justifies stonings and wife beatings, and in the words of another:

Mr Newman's remarks about not wanting to read a certain writer disgusts me to no [sic] extent.

Yet nobody seems as disgusted by my unwillingness to read a particular author as they are by certain individuals stating that wife beatings and stonings are compatible with Islam in the modern world.

You really couldn't make this up.

17 June, 2006 13:58  
Blogger Asian Dude said...

Tim read this, maybe this will get your mind straight about Islam and facts:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11534962&postID=115000398526104549
Read the last post from me..

17 June, 2006 14:00  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

An enlightened individual or moreover an educated one is he who not only is open to critisism but has an open mind to any kind of literature...!!!

You may remove all quality controls from your choice of historical readings, but I'm a bit more selective.

And given that we're all being so open minded here and open to all sorts of ideas, shall we have a lively online debate as to the existence of God and what She looks like?

17 June, 2006 14:04  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Tim read this, maybe this will get your mind straight about Islam and facts:

Nope. It didn't. I am still none the wiser about Islam, but to be honest it is a subject which bores me rigid. This bit is more interesting though:

And remember, just because some people thing some things are "barbaric", they dont become barbaric. In Islam, the standard is set by Allah, not by what people "think"...

And herein lies the trouble. When a group of individuals decide that they alone are the ones who have interpreted Allah's standards correctly, they use this interpretation as justification to carry out acts which are barbaric by anyone's standards, man's or Allah's.

17 June, 2006 14:09  
Blogger al-republican said...

Asian dude, you ask for too much! Don't ask Mr. Tim Newman to read because he clearly is under STRICT guidelines as to what he needs to read or not.

Timmy, for all the sarcasm you try to throw at others, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you have not ever read - by your own admission, I might add - anything from Edward Said (I wonder if you have ever read anything!) yet you make sweeping statements about the man like, "Edward Said is well known for adopting an extremely partisan position on the subject matter, and as such many people do not consider his writings to hold much merit. Those who sing the praises of Said, and indeed those who recommend that he should be read at all costs to open ones mind, are usually those who have simpy had their own prejudices confirmed by Said's writings." What a bloody joke, hahaha!

You are no better than the "bigots" you love to hate, Sir. Another blinded soul who leads his life according to how others dictate you to do so. So what is all this hypocrisy? A deluded person like you resorts to petty insults and mud-slinging because you are hollow from the inside. You have no arguments or literature to base your stupidity. So you are left with "smart" comments that are at best laughable!

You want a debate? How sincere are you about this, Sir? Does your godless church allow you to debate even? Clearly, you are NOT allowed to question your beliefs, which is why you have been told what to read and what not to? What a shame, Timmy, what a bloody shame!

17 June, 2006 14:58  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Another blinded soul who leads his life according to how others dictate you to do so.

Beg pardon? From what I can gather, people on here are telling me to read Edward Said in order that it may change my views. I've declined politely, yet somehow this equates to leading my life according to how others dictate I do so. Coming from someone who lives his life according to an flawed interepretation of an ancient text, I find this highly amusing.

You want a debate? How sincere are you about this, Sir? Does your godless church allow you to debate even?

Yes, very much. We are allowed to debate any subject we please. Choose a topic, and I will gladly debate with you.

Clearly, you are NOT allowed to question your beliefs, which is why you have been told what to read and what not to?

Erm, as I've said: the only people telling me what to read are those posting on this thread. And don't you find it somewhat ironic that this is coming from you who believes that the Koran is the true word of God and you follow it without question? Perhaps not. But as I said, I find it highly amusing.

17 June, 2006 15:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what was tim newmans comment, that he deleted

17 June, 2006 15:20  
Blogger al-republican said...

Give it up, Timmy, your dug yourself a hole and are stuck in it now! No one asked you to read Edward Said to "change" your views. Please dont flatter yourself! You were only asked to read Edward Said to understand the other side. But, your blatant arrogance does not accomodate understanding the other side. You live in a simple world - reject and ridicule.

What do you want to debate about, Sir? What is the point of debating with someone who bases his views on a simplistic ideology of oppose-whatever-God-says? Had you been looking for answers and sincere, you and your ilk would not be believing half the things you believe in because they fall short of your own vectors! What proof is there for darwin's THEORY? What is the genetical proof for homosexuality? Clearly, your belief system is not based on reason and proofs!

And you ask me why I dont question the "Koran"? Why don't you try questioning your mentors who tell you what is right and wrong for you? Stop being hypocritical, Timmy! It's very tempting to get into this debate with you, but clearly the outcome of this "debate" is known. I dont want to give you your opportunity of using your potty mouth to badmouth the sentiments of the majority of mankind that believe in a Supreme Being. Tough luck!

17 June, 2006 15:29  
Blogger Insipid Chagrin said...

Ack! This isn't going to be resolved, is it? We've all turned towards gratuitous slurs.

Can we just say, in keeping with the original issue at debate,

1) 100 Dhs for wife battery is a mockery of women's rights, and there needs to be immediate redress

2) It is generally suitable to disassociate religion and state, because attributing laws to divinity means that they can't be questioned. Anything that can't be questioned has no part in any progressive society

3)God and her nature, creed, colour and ethnicity is not a matter of debate for this forum - we'd all just get slapped with a ban, and there would go another avenue for discussion

4)I don't believe that not reading an author based on peer reviews is very conducive to debate - shouldn't one read it to diss it? But reading preferences are personal. I don't read the BNP manifesto, for instance, though i know i should- just to find out what i'm criticizing.

5) Arguments aren't zero sum, and a plurality of viewpoint is always guarenteed.

6) There is, to a degree, a Messiah complex at work in the West's dealings with the East (my opinion). The point was reflected in Said, but is also made very humourously in Susannah Clark's latest novel, "jonathan strange and mr norrell" :

They thought the facades of the houses were magnificent - they could not praise them highly enough. But the sad decay, which buildings, bridges and church all displayed, seemed to charm them even more. They were Englishmen and, to them, the decline of other nations was the most natural thing in the world. They belonged to a race blessed with so sensitive an appreciation of its own talents (and so doubtful an opinion of any body else's) that they would not have been all surprized to learn that the Venetians themselves had been entirely ignorant of the merits of their own city - until Englishmen had come to tell them it was delightful."

I need to find this book :)

C'est la vie

17 June, 2006 15:36  
Blogger al-republican said...

insipid chagrin:

With reference to the following point you make:

2) It is generally suitable to disassociate religion and state, because attributing laws to divinity means that they can't be questioned. Anything that can't be questioned has no part in any progressive society

What is the basis of rejecting Divine law? Is it that you dont believe in God? Is it that you believe in God, but not in Scripture? Or is it that you believe in God and Scripture, but just dont like doing what anyone tells you to do be it even God?

By the way, charging 100 dirhams for wifebeaters is not Divine Law :P

17 June, 2006 15:57  
Blogger Insipid Chagrin said...

Al Republican:

No, the 100 Dhs is certainly NOT divine law in any form that I know of.

But my argument for keeping religion and state seperate is that religion is a matter of personal belief, which will certainly differ from person to person.

If a state bases its laws on Divinity, then whose divinity? And whose Scriptures? And whose interpretations?

Further, seperating state and religion means that the state can be criticized for its policies without involving religion in the picture .

This entire debate that this post has seen stems partly from the religion vs state confusion.

Another example - it is hard to criticize Israel without accusations flying rampant about anti-semitism because of the inextracable positioning of Zionism and Judaeism, whereas the two are in fact, seperate. Pakistan is similar - some hardliners are keen to tar opinion, criticism and conflict with a very religious brush. Not recommended.

17 June, 2006 16:17  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

No one asked you to read Edward Said to "change" your views. Please dont flatter yourself! You were only asked to read Edward Said to understand the other side.

Erm, no. I am well aware of the other side of the argument, but the arrogance of the person in question assumed that I was not, and hence recommended I read Edward Said - the logic being that should I read Said, I would be be more accommodating to the poster's point of view. Clearly you believe that the works of Edward Said to be so vital to the understanding of the issue that they cannot be ignored, whereas others (who I trust to a far greater degree than you and others) believe his work to be highly politicised and of little value to somebody wishing to reach an objective conclusion.

True, I could read all his stuff to decide for myself, but I am unable to read every book in the world due to time constraints: so I must choose a select few, and to assist in this I use a variety of tools such as recommendations from those who I trust on such matters, peer reviews, and editorial reviews amongst other things. And sadly, the only people who recommend Edward Said to me have been on this thread immediately after an accusation of colonial imperialism, and other such nonsense. Forgive me for not considering the recommendation to carry much weight.

17 June, 2006 16:54  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

What do you want to debate about, Sir?

Ooh, since you mentioned it, shall we start with whether there is greater evidence in support of Darwinism than creationism?

17 June, 2006 16:58  
Blogger al-republican said...

Tim Newman-

I would love to. Unfortunately, you don't have a very record of either being objective or respecting peoples' sentiments in debate/polemics. Like I said, I am not willing to give you even an inch where you can use your potty mouth to throw slander on my account!

Insipid-

Thanks for making it a bit clearer, although you left some things vague. I would say that (and excuse me for using this term) "bastardization" of the language of revealed scripture has led to a lot of confusion amongst the Westerners. So much so that the original scripture, in it's original text does not exist any longer. This is where the Qur'an is unique, but let's leave that aside.

The Old Testament was revealed in Hebrew and the New Testament in Aramaic, yet we don't have these scriptures in their original language of revelation. This is problematic because a lot of confusions that came into the West was because of "language barriers". Hebrew to Aramaic (and some Arabic) to Latin to English. The term "religion" in its original sense means AN ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE. This encompasses everything from dietary laws to marriage laws to what-have-you. So in order to understand the matter, be very clear with the nomenclature. Clearly, "religion" is not just a "personal" thing. It encompasses all spheres of life.

Because you ask a question that I think depends on many precursors, I dont know how to go about answering this (ref: whose scripture and whose interpretations). But, if those precursors are accepted (such as the confusion that "religion" is not a personal thing rather a complete code of conduct for society) then it would follow that the majority would decide, which scripture and what interpretation. Please be reminded at this point that in Islamic law, we dont have these complexities of variant denominations having differing interpretations. The different schools of thought agree on the basic principles so there is no major problem of "interpretation". Like I said, this confusion is non-existant in Islamic law due to the preservation of the Qur'anic text in its original language of revelation. This really does help!

You also state how involving religion could make it hard to criticize policies and laws due to the divinity aspect. As far as policies go, they are very dynamic in nature. Policies are NOT made on divine decrees, rather on prevailing situations. If religion is involved in policy making then it is only on levels where criticism would not be a problem. For example, having a foriegn policy not based on "national interest" (as is the norm these days), but HUMAN interests. If my policy affects my neighboring country adversly, Islam would guide me to reject such a policy.

As far as law goes then please understand that Divine Decrees are mostly non-problematic. Criticism of those laws is certainly objectionable if the criticism is coupled with malicious intentions. But, most divine laws are peaceful (if you will) in nature: inheritance; marriage; dietary etc. None of these laws would lead to hair splitting and jaw drops. Unfortunately, Western media outlets have very conveniently constricted divine laws to harshities (like I mentioned, the raison d'etre behind these harsh laws NEEDS to be studied). All you hear of is stoning to death, chopping off of hands and such things. Yes, these punishments are harsh, BUT the overwhelming part of sharee'ah is full of compassion and mercy. The harshness and strictness is only found where it is warranted (and I know you might disagree a bit with this).

I hope this much is clear before we make any progress on this.

17 June, 2006 18:29  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

I would love to. Unfortunately, you don't have a very record of either being objective or respecting peoples' sentiments in debate/polemics.

"Peoples' sentiments" in this context being the religious dogma you use in place of scientific evidence to argue that Darwinism is false. Roughly translated, you are saying you have no evidence but your faith, and as I don't share your faith debate is not possible; yet if I shared your faith, there would be no debate.

How predictable.

17 June, 2006 18:53  
Blogger al-republican said...

Timmy-

Sure, anything you say, friend. I will let you have the last laugh on this one :)

17 June, 2006 22:26  
Anonymous desert_dude said...

Insipid

You are anything but insipid ! ;-)

Susanna Clarke's knack for pastiche is exceptional...what a great book. Strongly advised. But we mustn't advise Tim, maybe Susanna is on his blacklist along with poor Professor Said, who died of cancer some years ago.

Tim

That you have dismissed Robert Fisk and N. Chomsky so effortlessly is a tribute to your incredible intellect. Fisk is an award winning war correspondent for the Independent(UK)and Chomsky is a fiercely independent intellectual at MIT. Of course there is absolutely no possible chance that a man of your depth may be intellectually eclipsed by these two individuals if you ever met either of them (I dare say!). And of course certainly not Said, for he is dead and gone.

Your blinkers serve you well Mr. Newman. Carry on.

By the way you keep reiterating that you have no time but you must have spent a good portion of today typing out your patronising desert sermons.

Get a life pal and broaden your narrow, monolithic perspective on this part of the world. While you're at it consider the doctrines and manifestos of the neocons and born again fundamentalist leaders of the free world who claim that God has personally asked them to invade sovereign countries.

“….there exists a totalitarian ideology which is based on Islam” … well what do you call this pal? The mind boggles as your hypocrisy.

17 June, 2006 23:36  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

So in conclusion, we have the right (al-republican) and left (timmy boy). Of course it's not fair to the leftists to count timmy boy, since he is more of a neocon right winger. Did I say winger?

Timmy boy, I have read a few books and believe it or not, I seldom find myself in total agreement with the author. The exercise of understanding how others view things, in detail, is in itself, enlightening. Not reading something because of time constraints is completely understandable. Not reading it because someone said something about it is at best, stupid.

By the way, I don't agree with most of what Said says in his writings. Hell, I have read stuff for Bin Baz, whom I despise, let alone disagree with.

Your interests are obviously not in this region (appears to be more of a former-Soviet fascination).. does that explain that poor Ukranian girlfriend (if she indeed exists).

As for you mr al republican, give it a rest. There is no such thing as divine word. Sadly, one must agree with Timmy boy here on your holier than thou, god-says-so-and-everyone-shut-up.

Between the two of you, I can see why we have problems in this world.

Jeez.

18 June, 2006 01:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not that I agree with Mr Newman - but Said does and did write with a slight agenda. However, his work is very important.

Fisk writes historical polemic - something that even he admits. As someone who has enjoyed his company on many occassions I would have to say that he is also someone everyone should read to get the bigger picture.

Interesting to note if anyone also reads right wing political authors to get the opposing point of view?

18 June, 2006 02:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, now we have to choose between the devil & the deep blue sea. I’m bored, hearing all these divine sermons by our learned friends. Here is my two cents.

11 Satanic rules, from Wikipedia.
1.Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2.Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3.When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4.If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5.Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6.Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7.Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8.Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9.Do not harm little children.
10.Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11.When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Needless to say, despite of our claims as whatever…, many of us live & die by these rules. Now you do your math.

18 June, 2006 04:41  
Blogger Asian Dude said...

Tim!
"When a group of individuals decide that they alone are the ones who have interpreted Allah's standards correctly,". Wow! Can you please enlighten me who these "lonely group" is? I would love to know.

18 June, 2006 08:39  
Blogger al-republican said...

Hehe anonymous and fellow atheist. Yeah, it can get boring, plus this thread is not about the issue I started discussing with Insipid.

Thanks for the reminder! End of "discussion" from my side at least! I can see so many people breathing easily now, hahaha!

18 June, 2006 17:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will be posting a transcript of Tim's original comments on ebay shortly. Bidding starts at USD100.

18 June, 2006 19:03  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

Anon @ 18 June, 2006 19:03

I hope you do realize that anything you write on Blogger is now property of Google.

18 June, 2006 20:56  
Blogger Harsha said...

Anonymous said...

i am just waiting for al republican to come in now and give all sorts of religious excuses blah blah.



LMAO

20 June, 2006 16:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home



next issue is no. 12




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

Powered by Blogger




StatCounter stats