Secret Dubai diary Intrigue and adventure in the United Arab Emirates





iPhone RPGs

Dubai Info

Best role-playing games
Spiderweb Software
for Mac & PC





29 September, 2007

The silent sheikhas

While Sheikha Manal bint Mohammed's words on the education of women are encouraging, the fact that one of Sheikh Mohammed's daughters has spoken publicly is far more significant.

Most UAE princesses are completely anonymous to the general public, or play very low-key roles compared to their brothers. In Al Ain museum there is a large Nahyan family tree. It shows the names and photos of all of Sheikh Zayed's nineteen sons. But not one of his daughters is even mentioned, not by photo - fair enough because of cultural taboos about depicting women - nor even by name or number.

Sheikh Zayed was highly progressive when it came to women's rights and education, and his own wife Sheikha Fatima frequently speaks to the media through statements. So it seems all the more sad that his daughters are barely acknowledged: will history even know their names?

Wikipedia certainly doesn't, at the time of writing it didn't even mention Sheikha Fatima or even a "wife", let alone any daughters. Perhaps these women have greater presence in the Arabic language press, but it is sad that western media are not more aware of them.

Labels: ,

102 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

During the Doha Asian games we did see His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai's daughter - without her head scarf (bidoon shayla) - in the regional press. She's a judo expert.

See: http://uaeinteract.com/news/article_pics/24375.gif

And here is a picture of another - maybe the same one:

http://www.gulf-news.com/images/07/09/27/28_ae_dubaicares_maitha_3.jpg

name: Shaikha Maitha Bint Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum

And here is the token female minister:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/11/world/11lubna.1901.jpg

29 September, 2007 21:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this person may have a crush on sheikh hamdan fazza, i don't know but take a look at these pictures of the UAE rulers:

http://flickr.com/photos/64066863@N00/page11/
(not sure if this is blocked for those not living in Marina area.)

This post is not really off subject as you'll see by browsing thorough this fascinating collection of photographs.

29 September, 2007 21:52  
Blogger Shaper85 said...

qJust looking through that flickr account, I see members of the royal family enjoying a truly hedonistic lifestyle.
But did anyone see the countless white/normal tigers and other animals? So much for CITES

30 September, 2007 02:38  
Blogger DUBAI JAZZ said...

Off the topic SD; why aren't your posts featured in the Global Voices website?

30 September, 2007 12:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will u guys understand that it's offensive in arabic culture to expose your women to the outside world.

They are to be protected and shielded.

Yes it's patronizing but I prefer it to women who grow up fatherless, unprotected and without value. Tomorrow's strippers and hookers...

30 September, 2007 15:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Protected and Shielded from what exactly?

30 September, 2007 17:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more you shield and protect your women the more aggressive they become ...some of them don't even mind turning strippers for a night!

30 September, 2007 21:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sheikhas are very active in the society but obviously you were never invited to any of their events.

01 October, 2007 09:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
When will u guys understand that it's offensive in arabic culture to expose your women to the outside world.

They are to be protected and shielded.

Yes it's patronizing but I prefer it to women who grow up fatherless, unprotected and without value. Tomorrow's strippers and hookers...

30 September, 2007 15:59


So, you're calling my wife, sisters, mum, cousins and friends strippers and hookers? And, for that matter, if a woman is a stripper or a hooker, does that mean they have no value as a human being? Idiot. Yes, you can look at TV and make the judgement that there is no morality in the West, that it is nothing but thousands of miles of red-lit, junkie and whore infested urban wasteland. Just like I could look at TV and make the judgement that the Middle East is a violent, repressive society full to the brim of rabid fanatics who lie awake at night dreaming of ways to make bombs. But that doesn't make either one of us correct now, does it?

01 October, 2007 14:45  
Anonymous SevenSummits said...

Who cares?????? Please, dudes/dudettes get a life!

Why should anyone be aware of them? Have they done anything “really significant”? Anything even worthwhile mentioning? (Like for instance Prince William’s voluntary engagement in Chile to help the local community)

For any “civilized individual” a hegemonic lifestyle as well as being born into wealth is certainly not enough to earn respect and to learn more about those tragic life stories of those that are exploited to finance those profligate lives, would be far more valuable. (Tahiya’s tale or Badal)

And BTW since when did theses “sheikhas” become “princesses”? I must have missed a self-appointed crowing of a king somewhere – ha, ha reminds me of Julius Caesar :-)

Fact is that basically no one in this world would either know or recognize any of the rulers of the smaller oil-economies in the Gulf. The estimate would be high to think that even 0.001 % of the EU population could name the current ruling person in the UAE. (even less in the States :- ) ) I wouldn’t recognize anyone either, to be honest and also couldn’t care less. Let them live their lives and try to be concerned about your own business. If, in case you are so bored to worry about who is depicted, covered, shopping, etc. the UN as well as many other organizations are still looking for volunteers to contribute to peace and development.

The only valuable comment was so far the remark about CITES!!!

PS: It seems that the extremely dumb and ignorant crowd is back from vacation – please keep that fundamentalist nonsense up, so that we can have a great laugh …

01 October, 2007 18:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the point of this post (or my interpretation anyway) is that in general the UAE is a misogynistic society.

One only needs a superficial knowledge of the Koran to work that out.

Women a la are second class citizens and that is clearly unfair and unjust.

There's no point trying to defend Islam - believe what you want, but don't try and tell us it respects woman's rights.

By logical deduction anyone who follows Islam, irrespective of gender, believes that man is first and woman is second.

I take the liberty of giving a Koranic quote:

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.
--Q 4:34"

01 October, 2007 22:02  
Anonymous Magic Bus said...

"They are to be protected and shielded."

'Protected and shielded' means 'exploited and abused' in Arabic.

01 October, 2007 22:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its seems some people here can't accept the idea of giving UAE credit towards progress made in women's rights. Since UAE independence, women got the right of education, and since then womens started to get important positions at different aspects of work, and are playing an important role in the society. So, in what way they are considered second class person? I know there are certain issues that are not in favour of women, especially the issue about not granting citizenship for the children of a national woman who marry from a foreigner, but Sheikh Zayed made order to grant the citizenship to them before he dies, but so far nothing happened, and this issue was (and still) widley discussed in local arabic news by the "sandal-licking" journalists but no action yet, sadly.

I think if someone should discuss the issues of a community, he or she should show some passion and care toward it. Unfortuanately, what I see is some comments that are just attacking this society without any indication that it matter to them. Please, if there is a problem try to discuss it with a constructive manner. We are living in one society. So, I " the sand man" and you should respect it equally.

By the way, SD, with all respect its not your business.

02 October, 2007 00:47  
Blogger secretdubai said...

By the way, SD, with all respect its not your business.

It's perfectly my business to have an opinion on anything I want to have an opinion on, and write about it.

02 October, 2007 00:56  
Anonymous Magic Bus said...

"So, I " the sand man" and you should respect it equally."

Nah. I don't think so. I don't feel like respecting it.

02 October, 2007 01:20  
Blogger Bemused said...

Please visit http://ramadan.nakheel.com and make a wish online – Nakheel is paying 10 AED for every wish made online.


A great initiative and a chance to do something good and it takes 20 seconds!!!

02 October, 2007 02:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's perfectly my business to have an opinion on anything I want to have an opinion on, and write about it."

I also said my opinion, and I have the right to say it!

02 October, 2007 03:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Magic Bus wrote "Nah. I don't think so. I don't feel like respecting it."

Well, I wish that you live in a place that you could respect.
Kind regards

02 October, 2007 03:30  
Blogger screwed.mind said...

Gimme a break! we're living in 2007!

I won't care less whose daughter is whom or spoken where. I guess it's us that feed them royalty! The very idea of monarchy in 21st century is just absurd and backward thinking let it be in UAE or UK itself.

02 October, 2007 04:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

screwed.mind said "Gimme a break! we're living in 2007!"

I totally agree with your comment.

02 October, 2007 05:09  
Anonymous tangocharlie said...

"... it's offensive in arabic culture to expose your women to the outside world."

i hope u dint take expose = strip ur females and display


"They are to be protected and shielded." - someone did ask, im repeating - shield them from what exactly?


"Yes it's patronizing but I prefer it to women who grow up fatherless, unprotected and without value. Tomorrow's strippers and hookers..."

dood just coz u grew up watching bold&the beautiful or some creepy porno, dont confuse it with life. then again this can be the molested sandman or the sandman with bdsm fetish who evaluates the market value of the average women ... lol

02 October, 2007 06:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a Muslim woman, raised in Dubai (16 years to be exact) by religious yet progressive-minded educated parents.

It was only when I moved to Europe for my Undergrad that I realized how petty, oppressive and backward Arab society can be.

It's sad. It's pathetic. But it's the bitter truth.


"Yes it's patronizing but I prefer it to women who grow up fatherless, unprotected and without value. Tomorrow's strippers and hookers..."

You are so full of shit, and you know it. People like you fear nothing more than women becoming independant and self-reliant. Thank God I'm Muslim but not Arab!

02 October, 2007 10:49  
Anonymous Magic Bus said...

"Well, I wish that you live in a place that you could respect."

I do. I wouldn't call it respect though; more like appreciation.

02 October, 2007 10:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting u all ASSume i am muslim and arab. I am neither. I grew up in the lovely, liberal west where women are so valued and empowered they cant walk the streets at night. Where girls age 13 think its cool to be like the girls in 50 cent videos and putting out means being popular. Even putting out for a breezer. Im part of a generation of girls that are raised without father or male figures and look for them in all the wrong places. So excuse me for not taking offense to the arab tradition when i dont find the western one particularly great. And about womens rights in the koran, open a bible and get naeseated so really the muslims dont have sole rights to female oppression. And for all those western gunghoos, women received the right to vote in switzerland in the earl 70s. Yeah take that in for a minute.

For a bunch of anti middle eastern racists who visit this blog y'all seem like a contradiction to me. And actually SD come to think of it, stop filling ur pockets or living amongst these cretins if u have such trouble with their country and way of life. Work for change back home in the UK. Plenty to fix there too

02 October, 2007 17:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote:

"Anonymous said...
Interesting u all ASSume i am muslim and arab. I am neither. I grew up in the lovely, liberal west where women are so valued and empowered they cant walk the streets at night. Where girls age 13 think its cool to be like the girls in 50 cent videos and putting out means being popular. Even putting out for a breezer. Im part of a generation of girls that are raised without father or male figures and look for them in all the wrong places. So excuse me for not taking offense to the arab tradition when i dont find the western one particularly great. And about womens rights in the koran, open a bible and get naeseated so really the muslims dont have sole rights to female oppression. And for all those western gunghoos, women received the right to vote in switzerland in the earl 70s. Yeah take that in for a minute.

For a bunch of anti middle eastern racists who visit this blog y'all seem like a contradiction to me. And actually SD come to think of it, stop filling ur pockets or living amongst these cretins if u have such trouble with their country and way of life. Work for change back home in the UK. Plenty to fix there too

02 October, 2007 17:27"


Hmmmm, For some reason I don't believe you about you being from the west. Maybe it is cause you seem to be very good at stereotyping all girls in the west as hoes and strippers.

Speaking about the right to vote. The middle east (gulf) doesn't even give the right to vote to its men so can't expect them to give it to women. You bring up one of the worst examples in Switzerland. If you do want to look the worst lets go all the way and look the the Saudi and Iran. Those are some really peaceful and egalitarian societies - if you believe the PR bullshit from their govts.

And since you went ahead and brought religion into this discussion. Can you please tell me how many governments are based on the bible? And how many governments force their populations to follow the bible (even if they don't believe in it).

Now lets look at Middle Eastern govts. Most of their laws and constitutions are based on their holy book. These rules are enforced and even non-believers are forced to follow them. Disobeying their "diving and moral" laws results in violent punishments. Yep a very tolerant and peaceful bunch aren't they.

-DD

02 October, 2007 17:46  
Anonymous dana said...

Anonymous said...
When will u guys understand that it's offensive in arabic culture to expose your women to the outside world.

They are to be protected and shielded.

Yes it's patronizing but I prefer it to women who grow up fatherless, unprotected and without value. Tomorrow's strippers and hookers..


These are radical views. Please don't think all of us (us being arab people & muslims) think like this. And this is our culture-not islam. Islam and culture are very interwoven now a days, so are often confused.Culture IS stupid and backwards, but don't all cultures have their flaws? And not all of us agree with our culture, but we have to live with it. Right?

02 October, 2007 18:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And not all of us agree with our culture, but we have to live with it. Right?"

No you don't have to live with it. Culture keeps evolving. 100 years ago it was women recieved very little education and had very few rights. Now its different. It is in our culture to ensure that our sisters and daughters also get an education etc.

The thing is to stand up and voice your opinion against things that are wrong.

-DD

02 October, 2007 18:14  
Blogger Do.U.Buy.It? said...

There is no point in hiding behind political correctness when it comes to expressing personal opinions against the way Islamic culture (in general) treats women.

Islam sees and views woman as second class citizens.

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except that which ordinarily appears thereof and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment"

-- Like any odd Biblical quote the above can be interpreted in a million different ways. It could mean wear nothing more than a bikini (ços they cover your 'private parts') but as Imams (men only) are the sole legitimate Koran interpreters they pervert it to mean cover up completely.

Any way look at this pic. (Iranian religious policeman and his female side-kick harassing young lady):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Badhijab.jpg

who does your heart go out to the puritanical prude or the progressive young lady??

LoL to the free spirited.

02 October, 2007 19:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 02 October, 2007 17:27

Excellent!

Keep it up!

May you be blessed!

02 October, 2007 21:33  
Blogger al-republican said...

Back after a while and SD, I for one have lost interest in your blog not because of your writing (I think it's fantastic), but it's this crazy crowd that comes here. They just undo all your good work really.

In any case, I agree with Sevensummits - who the hell cares what shaykha fulan-bint-fulan or shaykh blah blah does? I actually thank God that we Muslims are saved from this tabloid junkie lifestyle (at least till now). I would be mad pissed and would hate on life if we had this crazy paparazzi telling us stupid stuff about our leaders. As it is, I am sick and tired of bollywood news and how much subcontinental Muslims are into it. Unfortunately, Indian Muslims have made it big in bollywood, too.

It was the crazy tabloid junkies that gave Diana a hard time and perhaps even caused her death. Media really makes us go gaga over these celebrities who in real life are worse off than any of us really. Beckham, Victoria, Britney, Beyonce, Abhishek, Aishwarya, et al. WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THEY ARE UPTO? I can't believe how Brits are so into what Princes Harry and William (I hope I got their names right) and whom they are dating! What is up with that? Why are they getting all this bloody coverage? Just because they are born in a royal family? And who exactly made them royalty? I really think a lot of you Europeans need to stop trashing royalty in the middle east because you have your own that you should worry about.

Sevensummits makes a good point about why should anyone get any coverage unless there is some credible achievement worth reporting about them? I dont think this is about taboo or anything. There are many other sons of the shuyookh and they dont get any coverage at all. I see more of bollywood in the newspapers than Shaykh Mohammed leave alone his sons or daughters!

DD:

Do you HAVE to paste an entire post again? Ajeeb!

And dont even start me off on how Biblical laws in the West are. That is one can of worms you don't want to open, Sir. And do you think Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only religions in the World? Can you please define religion for us? Western-styled democracy has become a religion in its own right. You just dont choose to call it "religion".

Thanks and goodnight.

02 October, 2007 23:21  
Blogger Qatar Cat said...

Yes of course, according to some commentators here, having Sheikhas' names written on the Nahyan family tree will ensure they will all become strippers and/or prosititutes.

However, I tend to agree with some other people who commented and say that I couldn't care less who these chicks are, how many of them exist or what their names are unless they do something that merits learning their names.

03 October, 2007 01:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Al Republican,

I was wondering when your intolerant comments would be making an appearance here.

Could you please give examples of the Biblical laws in the west? Please enlighten me.

-DD

03 October, 2007 08:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Republican is spewing shit in his mouth again...

03 October, 2007 09:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dear al

why are you always pissed off about something?
dont worry - thanks to the NEW LAW ON JOURNALISM, journalists will ALWAYS write GOOD about Royalty here. Things will be like they have always been. Unstirred. And you can go back to praying to your BELOVED royalties.
Surely they cant do anything wrong!

Tablodism exists because people want to read it. Dont blame the journalists, they are not thrusting it on the public, its the public that wants it. And if the West or India has tabloidism it also has the champions of media that every now and then expose anyone of everyone (including Government) of wrong doing - Bufors, Whitewater, Farenheit 911, etc. Lets see your turban head ideal caliphates swallow that (truth).

AD

03 October, 2007 11:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Republican said: " Unfortunately, Indian Muslims have made it big in bollywood, too."

Are your upset that others are better off than you?

Or

Are you upset that India provides pretty decent opportunities for their minorities (something lacking in most Muslim nations) thus giving you and your brethren less to complain about.

Or

Are you just an intolerant bigoted islamic supremecist?

Me thinks its the last one.

-DD

03 October, 2007 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*INTOLERANCE ALERT*

Al Republican is back.


:RB

03 October, 2007 11:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

al rep says..biblical laws in the west are not a can you want to open sir!

al rep..if you would get your head out of your ass you would see that the west you are poking at or any democratic country will have some 10% crazies who will interpret religion crazily and in a fundamentalist manner...be it america or europe or india. but this would largely be restricted to the poor and illiterate.

now my question is, in this region, how come the percentages are completely inverse...you have 90% fundamentalist crazies who jump up and down everytime someone raises a question or doubt about your faith. i would like to be magnanimous and assume there may be a 10% illiterate and poor here who may be more liberal in their views of the world and rest of us infidels.

now that..sir..is not an argument you would want to take on...would you

03 October, 2007 15:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Long live King Khan, Salman, Aamir etc etc. They atleast don't sound hypocratic like most of the arab leaders outta here!

03 October, 2007 16:25  
Anonymous Bukowski said...

Al Republican -

I think you make a good point (although, as usual, mixed in with a lot of nonsense) about various monarchs, of any nationality...
In the UK, the monarchy are there as entertainment, and for the tourists. That's fine - I just don't read about them, just like I don't watch Pop Idol or Big Brother or Eastenders...

The difference out here is that they still have all the power - so, if you want to follow politics, or what's happening in the country, you HAVE to know who is related to who, whose family is close to whose, because that's the way power works out here - personal connections, behind closed doors, a bit of wasta.

And look, in terms of tabloid journalism - it's entertainment, the voice of righteous indignation, above all a readable STORY. Which can be very useful, and it can be shite.
BUT, the problem is that the press laws, and lack of press freedom, doesn't JUST stop tabloid paprazzi and the like. It also prevents (if you follow it to the letter, which of course is only done if it suits the powers that be) quality broadsheet journalism investigations in to corruption, or safety standards, or honest business reporting, or political analysis.
That's the problem - that without protection for ALL types of journalism - even the crap you don't necessarily want to read, and don't have to - you end up with nothing much good at all.

Anyway, I've careered wildly off point. Good to see the racists of of all persuasions are back with us.

03 October, 2007 17:53  
Blogger al-republican said...

AD:

What is it that you eat that makes you thick headed? Or do you wear a turban yourself that you dont know how to wear and blindfold your eyes? Where in my entire comment have I praised royalty? What is wrong with you, man? In any case, I know you long enough to know how terribly confused you are. You just like disagreeing for disagreement's sake.

As for truths then it is liberal wannabes like yourselves who refuse to see truth. You still are unable to see Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's subservience to the British Raj thereby harming Indian Muslim even today. Just because he happened to be from your part of town. How silly is that? It is the same mullahs who blame the Muslims for what they did to Hulgau Khan's ambassadors that brought about the loss of Baghdad. Again the turbaned folk lay the blame on Muslims for the fall of the Caliphate. So what are you going on about? Just stick to your "Chak de India" movies and don't try to get into stuff you have no clue about.

By the way, Australia murdered you guys in your own backyard yesterday, hehe.

Nice to see how no one had anything to say about Democracy becoming a religion in itself...

03 October, 2007 20:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Halo 3 is the ONLY religion.

p.s: Democracy maybe a religion but atleast its not a cult.

-DD

03 October, 2007 23:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islam's ultimate aim is to convert the whole world to Islam.

And they have the audacity to accuse others of imperialistic actions.

-RB

03 October, 2007 23:11  
Anonymous Bukowski said...

If democracy is a religion, at least it is one that doesn't force its people to believe. Participation in voting in most of the West is at an all time low, reflecting widespread disenchantment with what politicians can or will actually do about issues people care about. Apart from one or two exceptions, most countries don't force their people to vote - and if I chose to, I could walk down the street loudly proclaiming democracy to be a pile of crap, and not worry about the consequences - even if people believe in democracy, they recognise that other people can say what they like about it.

The difference? I'm an atheist - I have nothing against people who do follow a faith, but I choose not to. But try walking down the street here and proclaiming Islam, or Christianity, or any other faith to be full of shit, and see how far you get.

04 October, 2007 10:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

al rep the mother of all philosophers has had a serious brainwave and comes up with an outstanding piece of discovery : "democracy is a religion" buddy, for crying out loud, stop giving crap.

for some food is a religion, for others music is a religion, your religion can be what you are passionate about, since you want to use a loose definition for religion. except of course, you guys who know nothing other than repeat whatever crap has been written and given to you. repeated by rote. in fact if you had paused to think for one moment before you give your democracy is religion crap, think about how you got your religion. it is just a nomadic desert dweller lifestyle that became yours, and which idiots still think need to be practiced the same way. so, i make another pronouncement...your lifestyle is your religion.

nice to see you had nothing to say about my last comment to you on your highness and biblical west

04 October, 2007 13:21  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

You may be right about the celebrity cult that prevails today in western media but be assured this is only relevant to morons and secretaries.
Most people couldn't give a monkey's about Brangelina etc. and I'm positive most of us don't give a camel's about local royalty.

There's a lovely 'mot' by Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."


But that democracy is the new religion is BOLLOCKS, except perhaps for the fact that the majority of people in democratic countries do believe in democracy to be the best possible political system (albeit by choice of their own) - just like most Muslims seem to believe their religion is the best possible way of life.

But that's about where similarities end.

Democracy is the rule of the people, theocracy rule of god(s). All clear now?

The corner stones of democracy are e.g. free electoral process, equality before the law, majority rule AND at the same time political pluralism, i.e. the option of dissent.

If you applied that for a second to religion you'd see how flawed that comparison was. What political pluralism is for democracy is "heresy" for religion and leads to separation, not coalition.

No wonder that as soon as you apply democratic principles to religions they split; from catholic into protestant and anglican and latter day saints and whathaveyou, and orthodox into united and reform judaism etc. and let's not start about the twohundredfiftyseven buddhisms out there.

The difference is that 'the west' overcame inquisition fivehundred years ago and now everyone lives side by side and couldn't care less about others' beliefs - whilst the Sunni and Shia etc still kill each other, and themselves, over it.

So then: "Chak de democracy!!"

And, mind you, I'd rather my daughter (if I had one) became a stripper than not be able to speak her mind publicly or wear what she wanted or be seeing whoever or believe whatever she wanted at all.

04 October, 2007 13:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, mind you, I'd rather my daughter (if I had one)"

I love this comment that nick said. This comment symbolises everything about the difference in mindsets of different people.

The average local would rather lose all his children, then for his daughter to become a stripper, and to boot be happy about it?

People need to realise different people think differently. Its pointless trying to impose your culture on different people that do not share the same values as you do.

No point in denigrating people, I too believe in democracy, but I take it further. I believe in voting with your feet as well, so if you dont really like it here, despite this place being as hedonistic as its possible to be, then simply walk away. Catch the next flight home and with people who are like you.

If not then you just got to live side by side with people who are not like you, and it is their country.

As for the Royal topic, all local monarchs are just a bunch of corrupt officials looting their peoples money. The locals on this point are the true victims. They get pissed on big time.

04 October, 2007 20:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bukowski said...
If democracy is a religion, at least it is one that doesn't force its people to believe."

But it certainly can be exported!

Perhaps we forget ... Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine!

04 October, 2007 21:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick your are Sick!

Perhaps this where all the freedom, equality, development and being civilized takes you!
May heavens have mercy your children! What u have in mind for your sons? Male strippers?

04 October, 2007 21:41  
Anonymous Kyle said...

I think Dubai is/will be the first in allowing exposure of their Royal Women to the general public.

Much credit to Princess Haya, of course. As much as she's appealing, she's dynamic as well! And why the hell not, after all she's the daughter of the Late King Hussein, one of THE most dynamic leaders of the Middle East.

I credit her for the first instance of this exposure i.e. Maitha's PR gig in Africa all robed in a classy civilian dress.

Way to go Princess Haya!

04 October, 2007 22:13  
Blogger Qatar Cat said...

Dubai is not the first, look at Queen Rania of Jordan and Sheikha Mozah and her daughter Sheikha Mayassa of Qatar. And although Sheikha Mayassa is one name that I still can't pronounce without giggling, she is nevertheless a no-nonsense political figure in her country.

By the way, I think someone of some influence reads Secret Dubai - what a nice cover story in today's Gulf News! ;-)

04 October, 2007 23:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a piece about S.D not noticing the sheihkas, to a fanatical discussion on Islam and womens' rights. . .I shouldn't be so surprised at all the ignorance and hatred in this day and age, but I sadly am.
People still feel they can pass judgment on something they've never experienced. Are you a Muslim woman? If not, don't go around declaring that all Muslim women are opressed, abused,and violated. I am speaking as an Emirati Muslim girl here, so I think I can say this.

And now back to the original piece..
"Most UAE princesses are completely anonymous to the general public"
Quite untrue. They might be anonymous to the expats, but not to the locals. I went to school with a lot of them, and the public are *very* aware of who they were and what they were doing. Their families do try to protect them, although I feel it backfires majorly.

Oh, and 'sheikha' does not mean 'princess' in Arabic. English-speakers call them princesses for some reason, but we don't.

Final note: people please. We should have come a long way from persecuting people because of their religion (see: Christians and the Roman lions..) Open your minds up and stop judging.


-Ash

04 October, 2007 23:36  
Blogger al-republican said...

Nick:

You said, "Democracy is the rule of the people, theocracy rule of god(s). All clear now?"

I will generally agree to that statement. See, we always find reasons to agree!

Your next statement, "The corner stones of democracy are e.g. free electoral process, equality before the law, majority rule AND at the same time political pluralism"

But, you see, Islam stands for almost all of these points:

1- The beauty of Islam is that there is no set process for electing the leader of Muslims. This leaves room for Muslims to device a dynamic system of governance. However, the general instruction AND the corner stone of this process in Islam can be summed up with one word (that is also the Qur'anic injunction on the matter of governance)- SHURA. A good english equivalent of that would be "mutual consultation". Therefore the leader and the majlis ash-shura (what the european system would refer to as the "parliament") are to be installed by a fair and free process of election/referendum (or any other way devised to achieve "mutual consent").

2- Equality before the law: Islamic Jurisprudence is based on the principle of `adl (justice). The verses of the Qur'an are crystal clear in connection to this foundational principle. Just because justice is not a salient feature of Muslim countries today does not mean Islam does not stand for it. The same can be argued for countries such as America whose Judicial system is slowly but surely becoming a farce. The United Nations epitomizes the Western perspective of Justice. Yet, America is a vehement opposer of the International Criminal Court. Moreover, America, UK and a few other countries enjoy judicial immunity and can get away with major crimes (Hiroshima? Vietnam? Or in the present context Iraq?).

3- Majority rule: Umm, that's what all systems stand for, I believe. It is in this key point that you raise that one can find the answer to how Biblical influences are to be found in Western laws as most people subscribe to a "religion" (which, I admit, are getting more and more humanist as time elapses).

I will not comment on political pluralism because that is a very subjective thought. In a system such as the American system, political pluralism is not a right per se, but rather a bidding competition where the highest bidder influences senators and representatives of the house to implement their agenda. At face value this is just simply legalized nepotism and bribery. They conveniently call such politics of bribery as "pressure groups".

Also, Nick, let me also say here (and I know you will be shocked when you read this) that maybe Islam isn't the best system out there. When did we Muslims EVER claim that Islam is THE BEST? You see, such statements are ALWAYS subjective so saying such things is just emotional outbursts. The value of Islam and its political connotations can only be understood if one is to accept the Islamic teaching of the temporal world and the eternal Hereafter. So, yes, if you look at Islamic laws and governance from the prism of temporal existence then it definitely is not the best system out there. However, viewing Islam from temporal AND eternal prism makes the picture a whole lot clearer.

Since the West has divorced itself from the concept of the Hereafter and the accountability of God, then naturally Islam will come across as a whole load of "bullocks".

Finally, I hope we can agree that 21st century democracy has become the most intolerant and vehement ideology today. What the West is doing by dropping democracy via "precision munitions" is a clear proof of that. Don't be surprised if your daughter (I hope she doesn't live up to daddy's dreams!) gets to hear from her friends in school that "democracy was spread by swords of the 21st century" (namely, weapons of MASS destruction).

05 October, 2007 01:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting of you to mention this topic. First off, it truly saddens me that none of Sheikh Zayed's daughters are in the spotlight. I am an Emarati girl so don't argue with me that they are mentioned in the Arabic press; because, even there, they are not mentioned. We usually hear of Sheikha Fatima accompanied by the wives of her sons. It is never her daughters despite the fact that she has two girls of her own let-alone their 10+ half-sisters from Sheikh Zayed's other wives. It is quite contradictary. I want to note that even though they are not mentioned in the press, most of Sheikh Zayed's daughters do have a presence in weddings, engagements, etc. But they are usually limited to Al Nahyan events or other royal family events. Some of Sheikh Zayed's daughters also have majlises where they recieve people. In these cases, many people both locals and expatriates do want to get a glimpse of them. They do want to meet them. What saddens me most is that most of them are young, strong, educated, and very aware of what's going on. I hope to see a day where they are engaged in official duties so that people, not only locals, will have a clearer and more optimistic view of our Sheikhas. God bless the UAE.

05 October, 2007 06:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The topic of "The silent sheikhas" (female members of society being hidden) Is inextricably linked to the region's religion - religions in general suppress women but Islam particularly so.

So there is a direct link with this post and the point that Islam subjugates woman, treats them as inferior etc. etc.

Just take a moment and think about this:

"Banaz Mahmod, 20, was strangled with a bootlace and her body buried in a suitcase in a back garden last January because her Iraqi Kurdish family disapproved of her Iranian Kurdish boyfriend, the Old Bailey heard."
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2100488,00.html)

You may blame this on culture/tradition but at the end of day Islam has either adopted this culture - turns a blind eye to it - or tacitly accepts it.

And anyway who exactly to women need to be protected from ... is it men? well, there's the problem: Men (some) can't control themselves.

05 October, 2007 07:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ash,

By your own logic (where you have told us to stop commenting about Muslim Women since we aren't muslim women) I hope you don't comment on anything or anybody else - for example christians and roman lions.

And by the way, the muslim/arab world is very good at persecuting minorities (non-muslims) - would you like some evidence?

-DD

05 October, 2007 11:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Republican,

How can you claim that Islam treats everyone equally when according to islam women are forbidden from doing certain things, non-muslims have to pay protection and their sentences are always harsher.

I can back these up with proof (quotes from your "holy" book).

So cut your crap saying Islam preaches equality and peace.

-DD

05 October, 2007 11:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al-Republican...having tried to read a number of your posts over the last couple of years...just wanted to say this one thing...

You are really boring.

Please take writing classes or something.

05 October, 2007 12:33  
Blogger Qatar Cat said...

Islam definitely doesn't preach equality! Men and women are not equal, Muslims and non Muslims are not equal, and even certain non Muslims (i.e. People of the Book) are higher in the list than other non Muslims. The practical applications of this inequality are numerous: financial (inheritance and blood money laws and so on), family (polygyny and marrying non - Muslims and so on), legal (evidence of a woman and/or a non - Muslim is of lesser value than that of a Muslim man), fashion and clothing and finally, social and cultural norms (men get away with WAY more than women). So don't tell me that Islam preaches equality, it does not, and never did.

Again, neither does Christianity, but there is a major difference between the application of Biblical laws (next to none) and Islamic laws (overwhelming). So although I can say that Christianity is as medieval in its core as Islam, it is culture and mentality of modern people that are responsible for upholding (or not) of the original rules and beliefs. It's up to the people to decide what is outdated and what is good to go. So lets not blame Islam for all the rampant inequality that we witness in the Muslim countries. It's the people themselves. They have a choice, and they choose to stick to the ancient practices. Well, it's their country!

:P

05 October, 2007 18:18  
Anonymous Magic Bus said...

"So although I can say that Christianity is as medieval in its core as Islam,"

Rubbish.

Christianity isn't 'medieval'. Islam certainly isn't medieval. Islam is a pagan desert hero-cult, that has absolutely nothing to do with the medieval period as defined by historians.

05 October, 2007 19:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is slightly off topic but still to do with the states's interpretation of Islam. Where in the Koran does it state that during Ramadan, eating in public is forbidden for those who are not fasting? I am a muslim and cannot find this 'rule' so I may explain it to my non fasting colleagues. They understand it is disrespectful to eat or in front of anyone who is refraining from sustenance but it is actually considered a crime? Does this rule also applies to those are sick and infirm etc?

05 October, 2007 19:42  
Blogger Qatar Cat said...

Magic bus - read the definition of "medieval" first, and reprimand me later:

Me·di·e·val also me·di·ae·val, adj.

1. Relating or belonging to the Middle Ages.
2. Old-fashioned; unenlightened.

05 October, 2007 20:53  
Anonymous Xalimah said...

The Shaikhas don't get special attention because in Islam we don't have this concept of idolising individuals. Just because they are in the ruling family doesn't make them special. We have a respect for privacy and that's something the west is in dire need of.

Secondly, there seems to be a lot of idiots that have taken it upon themselves to misquote the Quraan. The verse that procedures the one about woman lowering their gaze and guarding their modesty, says the exact thing to the men. Islam requires both men and women to cover up modestly and guard their chastity and modesty.

The second verse about men being above women, is with regards to as the verse itself highlights the domestic set 'because the men provide for the women'. In all cultures all over the world the man is seen as the head of the household.

The anon. above me brings a case of a 'honor killing' to bash Islam. If you read the Quran, you'll know that this is absolutely and totally forbidden.

Thirdly, many of the norms in the Arab world are cultural and not Islamic.

Finally, as a Muslim woman, I'd like to ask the self-appointed spokes men and women in her to stop speaking on my behalf! You clearly don't understand my motivations, struggles and believes, so bugger off!

It's a shame that you guys live amongst Muslims and still remain in your bigoted ignorance.

05 October, 2007 21:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nonesense.............all the way through this post. Islam this, Islam that. Just a bunch of wankers who cant appreciate a place that gives them a living. You dont like it here, get the hell out.
Take the next flight morons, dont stress here.

Personally I believe all this monarchy bull is just what it is, bullshit. I wouldnt shed a tear of they all disappeared tomorrow. We dont even have a reason to say they are tourist attractions, they are just blood suckers. Living the dream at the peoples expense. To hell with them.

05 October, 2007 21:05  
Anonymous Xalimah said...

"The verse that procedures "

I meant the verse the *proceeds.

05 October, 2007 21:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Xalimah,

Please explain these Suras then (the third one is the most relevant to your comment):

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

002.228
YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.



And Xalimah - please go and see the world. In many many countries and cultures men are no longer considered to be the head of the household. There are many laws in place as well giving both men and women equal rights in a household/marriage.


If pointing out hypocrisy is bigoted. Then I am the biggest bigot out here.

-DD

05 October, 2007 21:25  
Anonymous Xalimah said...

DD said: "Xalimah,

Please explain these Suras then (the third one is the most relevant to your comment):"

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


This refers to the jizya paid by the Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands who enjoy the protection of the Muslim state. If they don’t believe in Islam, they pay the jizya to enjoy the same rights as the Muslims. Muslims would be paying into the state through the compulsory zakat and sadaqah. You can’t just take random verses to derive meaning, read the whole Quran to get a full understanding of the religion. Anyway, I don’t know why this is so shocking to you, considering that you came from a tax-paying part of the world.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Urrm! The problem here is? Allah curses those who associate partners in worship with him, those who lie about Him. Errrm! The bible contains things far more colourful than this..

002.228
YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.



And Xalimah - please go and see the world. In many many countries and cultures men are no longer considered to be the head of the household. There are many laws in place as well giving both men and women equal rights in a household/marriage.

LOL! Which many parts of the world are these? England, Wales, Scotland, Europe and America… yeah..Many! That statement doesn’t even hold true [practically] in the liberal west.

What equal rights do you speak of here?
1. The right to divorce? Granted in Islam as stated in the verses you quoted above.
2. The right to own wealth and inheritance? Granted in Islam and not only that, women are actually given a preference in this regard- they don’t have to contribute their wealth as the men do and they are the first to inherit. Perhaps, your having difficulties comprehending the text.

You wait for divorce for three months to give the couple a chance to think it through and make sure that all the channels of reconciliation have been exhausted before the divorce is granted. In the west you go through a separation period.

Furthermore, there are verses in the Quran (that you seem to either missed or conveniently decided not to copy and paste.) that state that the man has to still maintain the woman in the waiting period (three months) and not kick her out of her house - this would obviously be useful to those women who have no wealth of their own.

Have I missed any other rights?

Going back to the husband being the head of house- there are limitations to this. Read the Quran!

If pointing out hypocrisy is bigoted. Then I am the biggest bigot out here.

No. The hypocrisy pointed to is a mere figment of your overactive imagination. You’ll first need to have a full understanding of what you speak off before throwing around foolish commentary.

If you want to talk of Arab hypocrisy - go ahead, have a ball.

Islam is different.

I called you a bigot because of your assuming that your narrow world view should be a global standard!

You proved that in assuming from reading just one post of mine that I’m not well travelled - and unaware of what goes on in the world.

05 October, 2007 22:11  
Blogger al-republican said...

Anonymous @ 05 October, 2007 12:33

I am glad you are bored. At least you are reading what I ink. The whole point of my irritating rant is to infuse some sort of Islamic perspective to people out there who are quite obviously unaware.

That is the beauty of writing and the jihad of the pen - somewhere down the road people reflect over what they read. It is only a matter of time when objectivity kicks in and someday that tiny voice inside of you starts bugging you to look for the truth.

Cheers.

06 October, 2007 01:24  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

I am afraid you missed the point by a mile.
The comment was about democracy versus religion, NOT democracy versus Islamic (religious) laws and provisions of governance and jurisdiction.

Democracy means that religions and their doctrines take the back seat - with regard to governance.

The moment you'd have one religion impose its system on the state, as you suggest by way of shura and so on, the door for other belief systems is shut. That's the exact opposite of political pluralism.

Your second point I have to ignore for now because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Foreign policy and democracy are two different things altogether.
History is replete with examples of truly democratic states waging war against other democratic states - for a myriad of reasons.

Lastly, political pluralism is not subjective. It's a key feature of democracy - which you choose to ignore because you well know that you cannot offer a working counter example in Muslim countries, i.e. that of a non-religious or even anti religious party coexisting as part of the political spectrum without reprisals. If you do know, name one.

Bollocks, Al. Lobbyism, to which you allude is part and parcel of democracy and pluralism. Kid yourself not, politics is all and only about the pursuit of vested interests, be they of material or moral nature.

06 October, 2007 10:59  
Blogger al-republican said...

Nick:

Just a little rejoinder vis-a-vis political pluralism. Kindly do go through Islamic history and you will see how there were all kinds of philosophies and ideas being disseminated and co-existing at the same time. This is exactly why Islamic history is fun to read! There is just so much literature on polemics of orthodox Islamic thought versus the different kinds of ideologies going around at the time. They were all existing peacefully.

Like I have also mentioned, Nick, Islamic governance is HIGHLY dynamic in nature. So I don't see a problem of minorities in case an Islamic system was established tomorrow. Minorites will, and are already, be integrated to the political system as part of the evolution of our system. There will be some no-go areas for them, of course, but their participation will become more and more necessary. This is just a fact of life and Muslims will have to adapt to them.

Cheers!

06 October, 2007 13:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Xalimah,

Someone got a little angry.

If you would like me to quote more I can. I have read and studied your book.

How can you make such misleading statements about equal rights for men and women.

Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portions to males. Their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s. Unlike a man, she must cover her head and often her face.


Would you like me to point out the sections on disciplining the woman (as per your book).

Nice try there tring to to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such interpretation.


You said:

"This refers to the jizya paid by the Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands who enjoy the protection of the Muslim state."

But you have conveniently not explained the following part: "until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This is not about protection, it is subjugation. "Feel themselves Subdued". Nice very nice.

There are about 500 verses in the Qur’an that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

And you accuse the Bible of the same. Please provide the quotes.

Even if the bible is more violent, the difference is the bible does not make the laws nor is it followed very passionately.

-DD

06 October, 2007 13:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Al republican sees no problem with minorities under Islam.

After all his idea of equality is taxing these minorities to death and denying them equal rights.

-DD

06 October, 2007 13:49  
Blogger nick said...

Al,
[o]rthodox Islamic thought versus the different kinds of ideologies going around at the time. They were all existing peacefully.

I am happy to hear that. But that was then, and 'then' was when 'Dhimmis' were indeed taxed and denied the same rights. But the question is really how peaceful do they coexist today? It may well be that a sura somewhere or some hadith suggests likewise, but what matters most is how religion is implemented today, how followers today interpret and live their religion. I have not seen peaceful coexistence in, say, Lebanon for some time. Or in Algeria. Or Iraq.

There are of course many reasons why Sunni and Shia kill themselves or at the very least accuse each other of heresy.
Religion may perhaps be one of them?

[M]inorites will, and are already, be integrated to the political system as part of the evolution of our system. There will be some no-go areas for them, of course

That's very magnanimous, thank you very much on behalf of the Pakistani Christian Party and the Iranian Gay and Lesbian Association.
But may I remind you that there are no no-go areas in a true democratic pluralist system.
'No no-go' means exactly what it says on the tin.

You are trying hard to prove to me that religion, namely Islam, can be as democratic and pluralistic as a representative parliamentary democracy.

I am happy to stand corrected when you show me one state where a Islamic majority governs alone, or in coalition and at the same time abstains from implementing shari'a as civil law and thus allows others, man or woman, to strongly and openly critizise or reject or renounce Islam or any religion per se, or conversly allows proselytizing for other religions, without reprisals or institutional intimidation but with complete freedom of speech, expression and association.

Then I'll believe you.

06 October, 2007 14:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Loooooool@Western style feminism? ARE.YOU.FOR.REAL?

I didn’t say anything about inheritance of the woman being equal to that of the man. I said women are in a better position because under Sharia - you first have to pay the deceased debts from the wealth the she/he has left behind, then you pay the female relatives get their share and the men get their percentage of whatever remains.

Again, the woman keeps her money, the man has to share it with the female relatives.

The woman’s witness is half of a mans in just one instance not all the time. There are times when her testimony is taken over the mans and many when their testimonys are equel. In a rape case for instance.

“Unlike a man, she must cover her head and often her face.”

And what is wrong with this? Your nuns cover their heads, jewish women cover theirs with a wig, you respect that as a symbol of faith, why can’t you respect our hijab as a symbol of faith? We wear it so that people recognise us as Muslims just as our brothers (who practice) wear their beards and shorten their trouser (to just above the ankle). The men can’t wear gold or silk. Why is it that you guys only look at the rules regarding women?


http://www.islamworld.net/compwomen.html

On the jizya. You didn’t read the Quran, you lifted that paragraph straight off an anti-Islamic website. LOL. You had me going there for a minute. Honestly, those websites will only give you a twisted version of what Islam teaches.

If you really want to learn about Muslim, Christian relations read the second and third Chapters of the Quran. Obviously, Allah will not promise paradise to those who do not believe in Him just as the bible doesn’t promise paradise to those who don’t take Jesus as their saviour.

As far as Islam being violent….The Quran commands that we only deliver the message, in the best way- that we fight those who fight us. The Prophet (saw) lived with jews in his time who were allowed to stay and practice their faith. The end of the verse refers to times of war- if you know Islamic history the Romans were trying to stomp the growing Muslim faith at the Prophet (saw). You have the hard history of peaceful Muslim Christian coexistence over many centuries in Muslim nations like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Malaysia and many places in Africa. Yes, we have a concept of jihad. Islam is not some hippy affair besides war is an accepted concept all over the world, no?

There was a time when the bible was law and followed passionately. When the good Christian Europeans felt it would be good of them to colonise and educate and enslave the ‘savage African’ and barbaric Arab because the world is in need of Christianity. Christian nations (Bush had made many references to fighting evil) are still roaming the world, bombing and occupying nations to liberate and free them. You want to talk about violent faith, speak of the Spanish Inquisition, the Christian crusades (even Hollywood can’t make them look good).

*I’m not bashing the principles of the gospel of Jesus (peace be with him) for he was a righteous man of God.

I'm out! Xalimah.

06 October, 2007 15:01  
Blogger nick said...

Xalima dear,

1. In rape cases two/four womens' testimonies are equal to one man's.

2. The covering of hair predates Islam by a few centuries, dear. It's cultural in this part of the world and across Asia and existed even in medieval Europe. Islam didn't invent the wheel, you know.

3. Nuns have vowed celibacy and deliberatley removed themselves from society and are a very small number.

4. Only Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs and again, represent a small percentage of all Jewish women.

5. Inquisition and crusades happened centuries ago and have been renounced by subsequent (catholic) leaders. Jihad on the other hand is an ongoing affair and violently interpreted and applied by some of your 'brothers' TODAY.


You are making a fool of yourself.

06 October, 2007 15:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nick said...
Xalima dear,

1. In rape cases two/four womens' testimonies are equal to one man's.

That is so retarded! Think about it does it make sense to require two/four people to be witness to something as tragic as rape…what would the witnesses be doing when the rape is taking place. Retarded, I tell you. The four witnesses are required for the case of fornication and adultery. It doesn’t’ matter whether those witnesses are male / female. As for rape… the hadith where a woman came to the prophet (saw) accusing man of rape and he took her witness is the basis of the sharia law. Google it.. Since ya’ll are so good at that!

2. The covering of hair predates Islam by a few centuries, dear. It's cultural in this part of the world and across Asia and existed even in medieval Europe. Islam didn't invent the wheel, you know.

My point exactly! So Urrrm. Why are you guys taking an issue with the Muslim woman’s covering? Islam says, so it’s evil, eh?


3. Nuns have vowed celibacy and deliberatley removed themselves from society and are a very small number.
4. Only Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs and again, represent a small percentage of all Jewish women.

I spoke of their head covering as an accepted symbol of faith. They dress the way they do so that people know that they are women of faith and belong to that particular religion. Same with hijab.


5. Inquisition and crusades happened centuries ago and have been renounced by subsequent (catholic) leaders.

I was responding to DD’s claim that ‘even if Christianity is violent’ It was practiced and applied!

Jihad on the other hand is an ongoing affair and violently interpreted and applied by some of your 'brothers' TODAY.

My brothers? AlQaeda, right? I’m sure you know of the unanimous stance against the Usaama and his un-Islamic approach to jihaad. Their tactics go against every rule of jihad.

Also…do you know Muslims make up 20% of the world population, Bin Laden and his group cannot be made a representation. You‘re living in a Muslim country, that respects your religion and allows you to practice your faith…and yet.. You speak of Muslims being violent and oppressive of Christians. If you want to go around with a chip on your shoulder go ahead. I’m done with this discussion as you’re obviously not interested in understanding Islam.

Xalimah

06 October, 2007 15:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick.............

Would you please comment on yoor brethrens extermination of the entire americas, carribean, Australia, Newzelans and countless other places.

I would really like to hear your point of view on this. I would also like to have it detailed if you dont mind, just like your other posts.

Thank you in advance.

06 October, 2007 19:18  
Blogger nick said...

@ Anon at 06 October, 2007 19:18,

I am not sure if I understand your question. I think you just think of yourself as very clever indeed.

I mean If you tried to insinuate that I was of the opinion that democratic was infallible and always on the moral high ground then you shot yourself mightily in the foot, you dimwit, because I never said that and don't think so.

In democracy we merely reserve the RIGHT to vote morons or crooks into office and even make fools of ourselves with impunity. It's called CHOICE.

07 October, 2007 10:02  
Anonymous Navcity said...

Sheikh Muhammed's latest wife Haya is exposed to the public quite a bit and ironically she is the least traditional and supposed to be a hashemite! There is even a facebook group for her!

From what I understand many of the princesses in their 20s and 30s are suffering psychological problems because they are torn between cultures. I have a lot of respect for the women of the older generation though

07 October, 2007 17:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 06 October, 2007 19:18

Good comment.
Nick the Sick will not be able to write much.... selective inablity to recall these unimportant bits of history...

May you be blessed!

07 October, 2007 18:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick....

So all those crimes can be swept under the carpet because it was in the name of choice. Wow.

Serial killers have choice too. Which is what the society you trumpet is. Idiot.
You never even attempted to answer my question.

07 October, 2007 19:35  
Blogger al-republican said...

Nick:

I was never trying to draw a parallel between Islam and democracy; never have even. What we Muslims want is our RELIGION-GIVEN right of having a say in who leads us. Whether we vote for Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden is our problem. Clearly there is choice as is in your system.

However, I will agree with you that Islamic governance will not (and should not!) be like Western democracy. My point here is that while there are many things similar about Islam and democracy, one isn't a mirror image of the other. Pretty much like Islamic banking - a lot of it is similar to normal banking, but some of it is different.

We are not aiming to achieve Western-styled political pluralism by any stretch of the imagination. I hope you understand that. Also, Islamic Caliphate stands defunct so the problems faced by us today is anything but Islamic governance.

07 October, 2007 19:53  
Blogger ann said...

Human life on earth is constantly evolving. And thank god for that.

It's the reason this debate is happening online. It's the reason that you've probably been on an aeroplane to another country at least once in the past year. It's the reason almost everything you do involves electricity.

Unfortunately, religion often has as a point of departure the resolute belief that this is how things ARE - changing, questioning and evolving are seen as heretical.

This is true of many religions, and this is their fundamental weakness. I will go so far as to say that this makes religion, all religion, largely irrelevant today.

However, some religions allow more room for change than others. And what I'm seeing in the Middle East of the 21st century is that Islam is holding its followers back more than enabling them to live empowered, spiritual and moral lives.

This is also true of regions that are governed by fundamentalist Christianity.

I think the wisest way to live today is to assimilate the wisdom of age-old religions without being bound by irrelevant constrictions.

08 October, 2007 05:20  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

I was never trying to draw a parallel between Islam and democracy; never have even.

You have not? Let me jog your memory:
Western-styled democracy has become a religion in its own right.

How is that not a parallel?? You draw a parallel of democracy having become indisputable gospel, as it were, just like a religion , and that includes Islam as one of many.

Then you go on to say,

What we Muslims want is our RELIGION-GIVEN right of having a say in who leads us […] Clearly there is choice as is in your system.

There may be choice, as long it is green…?

Perhaps as you say, Islam is open and pluralist and tolerant in itself, but this is totally besides the point. The INHERENT characteristics of one religion or another are totally irrelevant to democracy.

You will have to accept that in a democractic world you DO NOT have RELIGION-GIVEN rights that prevail over other rights because religion is just one of many systems that are allowed to exist in a democratic environment.

State first, religion second (if at all).

08 October, 2007 10:58  
Blogger al-republican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

08 October, 2007 16:10  
Blogger al-republican said...

*modified comment*

Nick,

Hmmm, what did I say that you didnt get?

Yes, democracy has become a RELIGION. Does that mean Islam = Democracy? No, that means democracy = religion. Two very distinct equations.

Look at yourself defending democracy tooth and nail. And while you are it, look at yourself ridicule every other system EXCEPT democracy. You (and others who defend it) sound like REAL missionaries! You are unwilling to question the flaws and in no mood to hear any criticism. You are also willing to justify every excess democracy mets out - like you reduced an anonymous person's comments of how the West obliterated nations to choice!?

Please, we do not want western-styled democracy. We have faith only in Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him). I hope you understand this. The fact of the matter is that politics cannot be divorced from religion and vice versa. Anyone who says so is just fooling himself/herself. The state of Israel is a LIVING PROOF of this fact! And the West is unanimous in it's defence of a state it has created in the name of religion. So what is all this hypocritical talk of religion and politics being seperate??

In any event, if the anti-Islam brigade keeps accusing Islam of being a man-made religion then there is the evidence in itself of how democracy (being man-made) can be a religion as well. It is your "way of life" as that monkey of a president in the US champions.

Peace.

08 October, 2007 16:49  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

For crying out loud – what ever happened to your reading comprehension?!
Democracy by definition is not a religion. Religion and pluralism don’t go together. Religion is believing in one truth. Democracy is allowing many contradictory beliefs to coexist and managing them.

I believe in humanistic values. Am I therefore religious? No, for chrissake, I am just a decent person.

Did I say democracy was perfect? No, I did not and you won’t find anyone with more than one braincell who claims this.
I didn’t even justify excess (?is war excess or not simply human nature?) perpetrated BY democratic nations. I just explained that the two are not directly and necessarily pursuant to each other.
It happens in the best families.

Lastly, the fact that some democratic nations were founded based on religion doesn’t therefore mean that ALL democracies are like religions.

Quite apart from the fact (which you conveniently ignored) that Israel was firstly not founded exclusively on religious but also on nationalistic grounds (which had become detached over the centuries), and secondly has never been an exclusively Jewish democracy, but has had since its inception many Arab Muslim citizens who are even represented in parliament.

There you go. Pluralism beats religion.

08 October, 2007 18:52  
Blogger al-republican said...

Nick, sigh...

Arab Muslims represented in the Knesset?? You have to be kidding me! See that is the farce you guys hide behind! First you kick out an ENTIRE indigeneous population and take over their land (1948) and FURTHER continue with the expansionist ideology (1967). Then you guys make them refugees in their OWN homeland and COMPLETELY strip all their rights. WHAT RIGHTS DO PALESTINIANS HAVE IN THEIR OWN LANDS?

So you see the religion paradox here? So long as an Arab Muslim is willing to embrace Israel he/she has a place in Israel (that too with a bucketful of salt). Minorities right? You don't give rights to the majority! How's that for democracy?

Similarly, there is no place for any other ideology besides democracy in the West. Try being a socialist activist in the West and see how far you can go.

I am aware you are trying to defend your system, but what I fail to understand is why you would have problems if a Muslim does the same?

Finally, here is what you are not getting my point. It is fine to say "Democracy by definition is not a religion", but I am not contesting that. I am saying that democracy has BECOME LIKE a religion.

Hinduism didn't start out as a religion either. It gradually became one. The constitution of any country has taken the place of divine text - only that there is no claim of God's influence. But, it is a divine text nonetheless, which everyone in the land is expected and FORCED to follow. There are no 2 ways about it, Nick.

Democracy has, in fact, become bigger than religion. What confuses people is "Oh, look, christians and jews are both living in a democracy!" But, this is quite clearly a facade as is evident from the Israeli example (there are many others, but this one is the most distinguishable).

Ask yourself this question: Why is polygamy a sin in democracies? If democracies have nothing to do with religion then why are people who subscribe to this thought not allowed to practice their faith? BECAUSE IT CLASHES WITH THEIR SACRED TEXT (the constitution).

On the other hand, prostitution is legal, hehe.

08 October, 2007 19:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeez Al-Rep! Is this your idea of Jihad by pen?! Seriously dude, please put your head back in your ass because everytime you stick it out of your "comfort zone", you stink and talk crap!

09 October, 2007 10:23  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

Arab Muslims represented in the Knesset?? You have to be kidding me!

Kidding?? The Arab Muslim Raleb Majadele was not just member of parliament but was indeed appointed minister by the Knesset.
Tell me Al, on the other hand, of one Jewish person who can be and is not only a citizen but also a minister in a country like in Saudi Arabia, or Iran or Egypt or Pakistan or Indonesia?

Al, I don’t want to go into the Israel Palestinian question too much in this post, but you should stick to the facts nonetheless.
The expression “their own lands” has always puzzled me because I have looked up every historical atlas and never found a country called Palestine out of which the Palestinians were apparently “kicked out”.
Neither of the two peoples had a greater right to that piece of desolate shrubland than the other. It’s just that the Palestinians didn’t make anything out of it. Jews built a nation on it and turned the desert green. Way to go if you want to go somewhere, me thinks.

So long as an Arab Muslim is willing to embrace Israel he/she has a place in Israel (that too with a bucketful of salt). Minorities right? You don't give rights to the majority!

You lost me there. Of course a citizen has the obligation not to abuse his rights. So yes, one has to embrace the laws of his country to fully avail of his rights, and that applies to the 20% Arab minority as well as the majority.
The message is clear. Stop blowing yourself up in Pizzerias and you CAN even be part of the body political, as Raleb Majadele and other Arabs have proven.
He’s been called all sorts of names, a shill for the Jews. Bollocks. If at all, he’s a shill for democracy. And that’s not a bad thing at all!

Try being a socialist activist in the West and see how far you can go.

LOL!!
How far? Is foreign secretary far enough, like Joschka Fischer was in Germany? Massimo D’Alema? Ken Livingston?
I suggest you invert this rhetorical question. How far can you get today in Europe by being a libertarian with conservative family values!! Now that’s an uphill challenge against fucking PC.

I am aware you are trying to defend your system, but what I fail to understand is why you would have problems if a Muslim does the same?

Wrong. I don’t have a problem with the Muslim world being backward by being stuck in theocratic totalitarian systems. I don’t really care, suit yourself. I just said the syatems are different and not comparable.

After all, the reason I earn good tax free money here in Dubai is that there are no Arab/ Muslim guys good enough to do my job (yet?), and my wife certainly won’t have any serious contenders to her work from Muslim Arab women for the next two hundred years or so.

Thanks very much.The only other reason really the West wants to help economic advancement in the Arab Muslim world is to open up a two way market of 350million people.
We don’t need to engage with each other beyond that.

Be backward, by all means. Be totally lacking of scientific and technical innovation. Lock up your women. Don’t work at Spinneys where you’d have to scan pork products. Don’t work at all for an entire month each year.
But don’t fucking complain that your countries have problems. That your leaders screw you around and you can’t do anything about it because you brought that onto yourself with your idolatry of leaders and self-inflicted mass indoctrination and a total lack of individual inquisitiveness, critical thought and inability to challenge authority and religious dogma.

09 October, 2007 11:42  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

Read and learn

lone voice of reason - Ibn Warraq, secular Muslim

09 October, 2007 15:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick...........

You are so full of shit. Quit dissing the place and be gratefull. I dont know what you do, but I'd bet my grandmother that there are countless people who can do it. Just because you got it, doesnt mean nobody else can do it. Take your head off your arse for second.

I agree on the idolatory of leaders you mentioned earlier, thats a damn shame. Apart from that, everything else you've said is just shyte.

09 October, 2007 16:11  
Blogger al-republican said...

Nick:

I will ignore what I think is just your emotional oubursts and try to tackle the "facts" you point out:

1- Ibn Warraq: Is that ALL you have got? There are fringe elements in all societies whose views are asymmetric to the common held view. What you exhibit is what the western media machine is all about - projecting the fringe elements as the correct Muslims. And by what yardstick do you judge who is a good versus a bad muslim? Quite clearly, as long as a Muslim is willing to toe your system he is a "moderate" else he is an "extremist". We in the Muslim world actually laugh at your audacity! In any case, even the fringe elements in our society are not entirely on your side and your media knows it. This is very different to the fringe elements amongst you who actually, inadvertantly, end up becoming Muslims. Speaks volumes about which ideology has more appeal.

2- Your Palestine-stripped atlas: I guess the crazy atlas (pre-1948) you refer to has a country called "Israel"? I am just speechless at your gullible attitude! Have you ever read your Bible? Old or New Testament? It is full of references to a place called PALESTINE! Israel, on the other hand, is the nick name of Jacob (peace be upon him). "Israel" is not a place, but a person. Those who followed him are called "The children of Israel" (bani Israel). Please get your facts straight. Just to help you out, here is a good (christian source) to help you find your way in the Middle East that existed for millineas before World War 2.

3- Israeli Arabs: You actually prove my point here. Israeli Arabs are synonymous to American Indians (red Indian variety, please). The only difference is the Jews couldn't wipe out the Arabs as the "Americans" (they werent known as such at the time) wiped out the indigenous population of Northern America. I suspect that you are of the view that like the Red Indians, Muslims should submit to western hegemony and just move along, which is why you champion persons like Majadele. Very unfortunately for your kind, the Arabs are fighting on despite all odds stacked against them. History is an ongoing thing and we will just wait and see what future "israel" has in the Middle East.

Peace.

09 October, 2007 17:12  
Blogger nick said...

Al,


ad 1) Ibn warraq is as much a fringe element as you are, although he is 'only' a scholar and not a computer engineer.
You take it upon yourself to defend 'the muslims', 'islam'.
When will you come off your selfrighteous horse and acknowledge that there muslims out there who interpret your religion very differently than you and with a lot more credibility than you have. Your conceit is mindboggling.
Not everyone, thanks god, thinks like you.

ad 2) It doesn't matter where the name Israel comes from, that's comepletely besides the point. You right of course, it should have been called Judea...
You mentioned nation building. You said the palestinians were kicked out of their 'land'.
Assuming you didn't mean arable soil and flowering meadows I contended that there was no country, no state called palestine out of which someone could have 'kicked out'.

3) Are you serious?? The Palestinian population has dramatically risen over the last sixty years.
That's a fact, Al.
LOL - that surely is the most incompetent 'genocide' ever!

09 October, 2007 18:43  
Blogger al-republican said...

mNick-

Re: Ibn Warraq

He is no scholar of Islam. Perhaps he may be to you, but you see we Muslims have an entire process of Islamic scholarship, which requires a sanad/asaneed alongwith ijazah and I don't want to bore you endless with our academic nomenclature. Ibn Warraq has none of that :)

Re: No state called Palestine.

I would strongly recommend you peruse through the link I gave you. If you are talking about defined borders under a flag etc then why do you forget Jordan, Syria, Saudia Arabia et al didn't exist as countries either! These borders are a gift from the retreating British colonialists. So I don't see your point here?

Re: Miserable genocide

Finally! You and I are on the same page. I second your opinion that the creation of Israel was a pathetic attempt at genocide. It has been stretched way too long (the project continues to this day) and the resilience of the Palestinians isn't dying out. Yes, the palestinians are coming back and you just wait and see who else is coming to "Israel" once the Americans are out of Iraq and the "terrorists" have a "safe haven" in an oil rich Iraq.

I trust you can put the remaining pieces of this jigsaw puzzle.

10 October, 2007 16:56  
Blogger nick said...

Al,

Ibn Warraq may not be a scholar in your book, but he makes a hell of a lot more sense than you, and people listen to him with interest.

No state called Palestine. It's quite true that Britain and France carved up the region. You forget though that the Balfour declaration was reneged on and the Jews were left out in the wet to dry before they took it into their own hands to create a state and the Arabs lost the ensuing war despite the fact that Israel wa actually embargoed for some time by the British.
Look it's tough losing wars but that's history. Get over it.
Why don't the Palestinans don't blow up British pizzerias for a change if they have such grievances against Britain.

Oops, they are already at it...

Lastly, 'genocide' was ironic. We are not on the same page. We are not even in the same book, Al.

10 October, 2007 19:24  
Blogger al-republican said...

We're not on the same Atlas at least, Nick! heh€e

10 October, 2007 20:48  
Blogger nick said...

Enough already Al! Khallas. Buss. You are just bickering.

You sound like an idealist. One is supposed to respect that. Idealists became extint in the West in 1973...
But you have stooped to the next level already, ideology.

It's impossible to discuss anything with ideologists. You say green, I say red.

It must have occurred to you that there are in fact several parallel worlds of thoughts out there. We constantly talk cross purposes and past each other. Forget the Atlas, we don't even live in the same age, Al.

The UAE communityblog and blogs like this, Secret Dubai are living proof of how he DO NOT understand each other, and eventually give a toss and retreat into our own cosy worlds of navel gazing and end up despising each others beliefs for being intransigent and intolerant.

My best hope is that we may live side by side ignoring each other, because peace it ain't and we never will understand each other.

11 October, 2007 10:46  
Blogger Japonica Julia said...

I find Dubai’s sense of morals and values (in this case, attitudes toward women) rather schizophrenic. To some, these are quite confusing periods of time. To be seen or not to be seen, to be humble or to not to be humble (and to promote one’s achievements on every possible occasions).

I suppose it is a matter of necessity.

13 October, 2007 17:46  
Anonymous Muslim_European said...

Hi. It seems every comments thread on this blog eventually slides into East vs West, with each side professing its superiority. There are things both cultures can learn from each other, let us not childishly bicker.

Also, I will ask for commentators to stop mentioning Islam or the Koran when attacking the Eastern culture. It is disrespetful to arbitrarily copy/paste verses from our holy book to support your culture-bashing arguments if you are not a theist or an expect in religious studies. Remember, Arabs only make 13% of Muslims, and Islam is different in every culture it inhabits. Please note also, that Muslims rarely bash Christian religion in response, as we have a high regard and respect for your religion.

Thanks. And as for the original topic, I would also love to know more about the young royal family, I was impressed that one of the sheikhas is an avid judo fan for example. I hope to see more Muslim women put in positions of power.

Thanks, keep up the good work!

20 October, 2007 10:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can Middle Eastern Muslim Men protect their women when they can't keep or get white America men out of Iraq?
The only woman that has that kind of protection on earth is the white woman. Why? because the white man is a real ass man and he gets on his knees to no one.
He takes what he wants and right now he's taking Iraq.
and the Iraq war has not stopped the wealthy Arab woman from shopping at American stores for Gucci or her underwear. Just think, God bless you with oil in the ground and your woman needs to go to a white man and his mama to buy her underwear, but you're going to protect and shield your Muslim wife. For lack of a better statement "Negro Please".
Only the white man has the power to kick your ass, take your oil and the arab woman, your" shielded and protected woman", still show up to buy victoria secret in his stores.

The Sheikh's know what i'm talking about, because he pays top oil dollars $$ to sleep with white women all over Europe and America in victoria secrets.
I know a white woman that put her family in business with the money she made from sleeping with these sheikhs. But meanwhile their people toil away in taxi cabs and deli's while the White prostitute picks her teeth and rub her full belly thanks to his oil $$$$. Talk about getting ya freak on!
Arab men prefer the white woman over the Arab woman in his bed. Ask him. That's a fact.
This fact is the real problem,
the Arab woman wishes she was Pamela Anderson and her man wishes she was too.

America has won people and he took her ass out with a photo in a fashion magazine.
How else to explain Muslim women that wear skin tight jeans with Hajab? I can't see your hair but I can see the shape of your Vagina.
Girlfriend please....

All races( black,asia,arab,latino,etc..) need to bow down, because you all love white people, you want to be them and you will die so that they can live.
you believe everything they tell you and you really believe they are God. You value their white skin, just ask Helen Wang,Tom Patel and Bob Muhamed.
But I haven't met the white woman named Mei Wah McDonald.

03 December, 2007 20:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dubai should have been built for the Palestine people, not wealthy sex-freaky tourist.
It could have been a safe and business haven for these poor people until the issues between israel and palestine could be worked out.
But dream on.... Arabs are not unified and they do not love or care about one another in this way.
Islam has not taught them to unify, love and help one another in this way.
The sheikhs and sheikahs could care less, Chanel is having a sale.
The real muslims were Africans.
and Bilal ( The call to prayer) was a Black man.
The middle east will never produce dynamic men like Malcolm X or Minister Farrakhan. Never.

03 December, 2007 21:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DEAR ALL, WHAT A FUNNY COMMENTS LEFT BY ALL OF YOU HERE. VERY SAD TO KNOW THAT HUMANS MULTIPLY FASTER THAN LEARN. WE ALL GOING TO DIE,AND PERHAPS SOONER THAN WE THINK. TEHREFORE, DNT EVEN BOTHER ABOUT ARGUING ABOUT WHO DID WOR SAID WHAT, BECUSE NOTHING IS CERTAIN,NO SCIENCE, NO CALCULATION, NOTHING IS FOR SURE.TIME WILL SHOW US ALL WHAT IS NEXT. WHY DNT YOU ALL JUST TRY TO THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE MOSTLY ROOTED AND PROBABLY HARD TO SOLVE FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CURRENT IMAGE OF ISLAM, AS THIS IS THE WAY GOD WANTED IT TO BE, AND LEAVE IT ALL TO GOD,AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AS TIME GOES BY. EVERYONE OF YOU WILL DIE, AND YOU BETTER HTINK WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE WITH YOURSELF? YOUR LAPTOP AND WHAT YOU HAVE BOUGHT ONLINE? OR MAYBE YOU WILL GRAB YOUR MOBILE PHONES WITH YOU... YOU CAN ONLY TAKE YOUR SOUL TO THE AFTER LIFE, AND FOR ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE AFTER LIFE: I WILL SEE YOU THERE, AND WE ALL GOING TO WATCH AND KNOW WHO IS GOING TO GO UP OR DOWN... :o) ENJOY YOUR PRESENT LIFE, BE THANKFUL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE NOW, AND TRY TO FIX YOUR OWN ISSUES AT HOME, AND SOLVE THE ISSUES IN YOUR HEADS AND WITHIN YOUR SOULS MOST IMPORTANTNLY,YES EVERYONE OF YOU GOT SOULS, AND GOOS SOULS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF LEADING YOU TO YOUR HAPPY BALANCED LIFE AHEAD.... AS FOR ISLAM AND ARABS AND THE MIDDLE EAST, AND DUBAI--- DONOT WORRY ABOUT AL OF THESE, AS GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF THEM,AND YOU SHALL SEE HOW THAT YOUNG HAMDAN WILL RISE TO REAL POWER, WHEN HIS FATHER WILL TRULY GIVE HIM FREEDOM TO ACT, HAMDAN WILL TEACH A LESSON TO ALL THOSE DECADENT PEOPLE SURROUNDING HIM AND AND SURROUNDING ISLAM,HAMDAN WILL LEAD ALL MUSLIMS OF THE WORLD TO UNITY AND PROSPERITY, AND GOD ONLY CAN HELP HAMDAN TO ACHIEVE THAT MISSION, THAT EVEN HAMDAN IS NOT AWARE OF RIGHTNOW. WAIT AND WATCH, AND THE WEST AND THE EAST AND THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, WILL EMBRACE ISLAM TRULY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY, BECAUSE THIS IS THE WILL OF GOD. YOU WILL SEE...

10 January, 2010 13:42  

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