Some guy I knew briefly a couple of years ago sent me Bryan Adams’ song “Inside Out” at one point in time and, in the folly of youth, I got excited. I thought the man really wanted to know who I was; my darkest hour, my hardest fight.

Do we ever really know the people around us? Do we ever know who our partners are? Yes, surely we know how they talk and how they behave, but that is only true for what they choose to reveal to us. We know only that much, and nothing else.

Read the rest of this entry »

People, I am not contemplating suicide. If I were, I wouldn’t announce it. I was merely presenting a philosophical point of view, which I happen to subscribe to, for debate. That said, judging by the cliches contributed (no offense, eh?), I bet Orwell is turning in his grave right about now.

We need a healthy dose of philosophy so we may be able to exercise our minds a bit, step beyond our mundane thought patterns– maybe even shock ourselves with our audacity. Imagine letting go of all of your preconceived notions and floating about naked in intellectual wonder. That’s what we should do every now and then: float about naked, uninhibited, unleashed, child-like. It is only then that we begin to learn who we truly are.

Thus spake Tololy.

The Israeli war on Gaza is the hot topic at the moment. It’s everywhere; in random chats, on TV, in the papers, in blogs, in the background of every daily activity of anyone who has seen the pictures of the bloodshed in Gaza.

A lot of what is being said about the situation is emotional. That’s understandable. It’s hard to restrain your emotions when you see your people being maimed by Israeli bombs, dismembered in the streets and killed in mosques, and when you hear the aggressive occupiers dismissing their crimes as if they were nothing. The damage does not stop at the physical destruction in Gaza, but is carved deep in the minds of everyone who sees it: this lust for blood which our “neighbor” periodically displays both frightens and angers us. The international official silence and our leaders’ utter failure to act burns deeper still.

How can you not be emotional when you experience all the shame and shock in the world; shame because you are part of the problem, and shock because the world is not doing anything to solve it?

Read the rest of this entry »

When I was a little girl I found a page torn from a book in the small book case we had in the “laundry room” on the roof. The page had the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme illustrated on it, very similar to this one:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men.

Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

- Source

In my childish mind then and up until today I can’t get over how tragic that story is, how morbid and heartbreaking. This is a cute character for children who is first seen smiling and then falls off a wall and shatters into pieces, it dies right there in the rhyme and nobody can help it. I have always found nursery rhymes to be generally inappropriate under the excuse of achieving music.

That said, I now love the metaphor in Humpty Dumpty. Think of Humpty as a negative concept of your choice, let’s say dominance or monopoly of power, then think: the fake image shatters and “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” cannot put it back again. That’s why fragile people like Humpty Dumpty should not sit on walls.

Caelum Moffatt reflects on this the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence/the Palestinian Nakba, in MIFTAH:

Following the Second World War, the holocaust and the termination of the British Mandate, UNCSOP passed Resolution 181 in November 1947 which called for a partition of the British Mandate into two bilateral states – Israel and Palestine. Even with a quarter of a decade of immigration and colonization, Jews still only comprised 30% of the population and owned just 7% of the land. Despite these facts, the state of Israel would be granted 55% of the former British Mandate. A war ensued firstly between Palestinians and Jews, then later between Arabs and Israelis after Israel had claimed independence on May 14, 1948.

The Arabs were defeated and by the time the armistice lines were drawn in July 1949, Israel had extended its territory to 78% of historic Palestine. 800,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, 530 villages were destroyed and 86% of the Palestinians who now fell within the 1949 armistice lines were displaced. Of the 14% that remained, 70% of their land was confiscated or made inaccessible to them.

According to UNRWA estimates, there are presently 5.5 million refugees spread across 58 camps in the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

These have been replaced by some 5.5 million Jews living in Israel flourishing in freedom, prosperity and international acceptance in what can only be described as obstinate blindness and pure disregard for the brutality they employed and still adopt today in order to sustain their existence. They maintain that their actions are justified after being subject to worldwide contempt, suffering years of persecution and anti-Semitism. It is as if their unwavering resolve to achieve their goal supersedes Palestinian claims and relegates them to the unfortunate byproduct or obstacle standing in the way of their destiny.

Source

I plan to commemorate the Nakba throughout this week. There are many events going on around town to mark the tragedy and I actually have someone to go with me for a change — progress!

Cultural Week

Guardians of the Memory — A week marking the 60th anniversary of Al Nakbeh. Starting May 10. Until May 16.

Tel: 079 5222512

May 10 Drawings Exhibition

Carlos Lattof, Naji Al Ali, quotes,

Ghassan Kanafani

Location: Al Hannouneh

Time: 7:00pm

May 11 Gallery

Tamam Al Akhal, Ismael Shamout drawings

Location: Directorate of Arts and Theatre – Jabal Luweibdeh

Time: 8:00pm

Screenings of short films

Location: Al Hannouneh

Time: 6:00pm

May 12 Poetry Night

Jerees Samawi, lute player Sakher Hattar

Location: Daret Al Funun

Time: 8:30pm

May 13 Bazaar

Traditional products, food and handcrafts

Location: `Ebaal Charitable Organisation

Time: 5:30pm-10:00pm

May 14 Al Hannouneh Folkloric Dance

Location: King Abdullah Cultural Centre – Zarqa

Time: 8:00

May 15 Al Hannouneh Folkloric Dance

Location: Radisson SAS Hotel

Time: 8:00pm

May 16 Concert

Sho Hal Ayam band

Location: Directorate of Arts and Theatre – Jabal Luweibdeh

Time: 7:00pm

I must say that I wasn’t always aware of the dimensions and the sheer injustice of the occupation of Palestinian land and the dislocation of its people until recently, and I am ever so glad I achieved that state of awareness. It is angering how the international community embraces Israel as a model of democracy and a shrine for human rights, when in truth the country’s history and current treatment of Palestinians testify to its violent and brutal ways. Remember, dear readers, if you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.

I am completely sickened this morning after reading a number of things in the papers and other places online. Here is a tour of my revulsion:

1- Human Rights Watch published a report on the situation of Saudi Arabian women. The report argued, and correctly, that these women are systematically kept in childhood as by requiring guardianship and their guardians’ approval of every step they take in their adult lives (education, work, child caring, travel, etc.) while at the same time the socio-religious system held them legally accountable for their actions as true and actual adults. Most importantly, the report mentioned that women are portrayed and treated as fitna, sources of strife and moral decay, if they are allowed any share of public life or exposure.

This same treatment of women as the sources of malice lays the foundation for the belief that men, their supposed polar opposites, are gullible and easily swayed into vice. Indeed, it argues that for men to stay virtuous, women must be covered up and must not come in direct contact with any men outside their close familial circles lest all social and moral stability come crumbling down. The mere idea that men cannot control their sexual urges, which are oh so easily aroused at the sight of a woman’s ankle or at the scent of her perfume, is absolutely offensive to me and I am not even a man. It pictures men as horny animals and women as their helpless prey, and, ironically, it puts the burden of sustaining society at the shoulders of these prey.

What I have observed is that these arrangements, though meaning well in an incredibly skewed way, actually encourage vice rather than suppress it. Is it not vice that Saudi men seek when they visit Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon in the summer? Is it not vice that Saudi women must be in the company of foreign drivers in order for them to go places? Is it not vice that even women clad in black from head to toe do not escape sexual harassment in the form of pickup lines or phone numbers on small pieces of paper, or bluetooth messages sent to their mobiles, and this does happen in Saudi Arabia because the basic human desire to interact with others, male and female, is not satisfied? Is it not vice that women are placed entirely under the mercy of their male guardians in each and every aspect of their lives? Is it not vice that a human being can die and not be missed by authorities or relatives because she has no ID and only a select few can see her anyway? Is it not vice that the kingdom of hypocrisy imposes strict and sick faith on a number of people, I would argue mostly the women, while it lets others enjoy alcohol, sex, and drugs behind closed doors inside or openly in other countries?

A friend of mine brought it to my attention that the HRW report was funded by a number of Jewish organizations. I think that is significant but it does not change the reality of the situation conveyed in the report. I suppose HRW, like my friend said, should be more selective of its sources of funding especially in these types of reports. Simply put, these fishy sources of money only contribute to discrediting the reports by the Arab public, which is quite the contrary of what they hope to achieve.

2- Allah is everywhere. I read a couple of articles in Al Ghad newspaper today, one was about secularism in an Islamic context, and the other about islamophobia. What struck me as absolutely one-dimensional was the content of the two comments posted on these pages. The commenters contended the ideas present in the articles by invoking the holier-than-thou authority of Quranic and Hadith citations.

In the first article, a commenter argued that a Muslim cannot possibly live under any law except that of Islam, and yet he provided that he lives in Jordan. I don’t know about you, but I see an amazing paradox because Jordanian laws are not,for the most part, Islamic, but secular (and let’s thank whoever it is that runs the show for not letting the Muslim Brothers rule us, amen). Then in the other comment on the second article, the commenter called for a return to the Arabic language in deriving terms instead of arabizing foreign terms, and he cited the Quran as a linguistic miracle. Fine, that is a worthy cause, but please CUT THE CRAP and stop preaching from a pedestal just because you were born into a Muslim family. Did the Arabs have no culture, no language, no identity, before the Quran was born? They did, and they better stop crying over spilled milk and get their act together already.

3- A number of distinguished college students at Al Balqa Aplied University discovered that they had been awarded scholarships by the Ministry of Higher Education, of which their university did not inform them. They made the discovery only lately, while the scholarships were awarded a year or two ago.

In a string of corruption and embezzlement scandals, Al Balqa Applied University seems to have outdone itself this time. The students will be awarded the monetary equivalent of the scholarships, officials said. But nobody commented on WHERE the money was exactly, or WHERE it would have gone had not a random student discovered this theft-corruption affair by accident while applying to another scholarship which he was denied because, hey, didn’t he know he had been awarded one two years ago? I want to see people put on trial for this. I want to see the big heads at Al Balqa University pay a price for their negligence and downright corruption. Will anyone do anything though or will they pacify the public with tales about compensating the students? We must never forget that there will be other students in the future who will be robbed of their scholarships to fatten the pockets of a person or two at Al Balqa Applied University.

4- Oy! Caramba! Nasser Judeh says relax, we didn’t sell the port you idiots, we sold the LAND. Wtf does that mean? Can someone translate it to me? Also, what does he mean when he talks about the Dead Sea Casino deal that “there was no sign of corruption, and the government and the investor agreed to exclude establishing a casino from the deal”? If it’s a “deal,” then there has to be SOMETHING in it for the investor, no? Otherwise what is he and the government agreeing upon? Let’s play a guessing game: it’s not a casino, what oh what could it be? Oh I know! Expanses of land in the Dead Sea area and in Shafa Badran in Amman. That way the government avails itself of the sin of agreeing to build a casino, a vice-house, on the holy lands of Jordan, and it also PAYS land-money to the investor at the expense of homeless and hungry, but entirely pious, Jordanians. I wonder why Judeh did not mention the one billion$$ worth of land that we are forking over to said investor at NO GAIN, and how he cites “complete transparency” at the same time. Does anyone else smell shit?

5- The Jordan Times will not be published on Monday April 28th due to Easter Holiday. As far as I can tell, newspapers run as usual on holidays. News still HAPPEN on holidays. The world does not simply stop because Jesus decides to rise.

6- Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves: “Under the measures, which came in response to Royal directives, around 40 essential commodities were exempted from customs duties and sales tax, while taxes on nonessential items like alcohol, tobacco, video games and satellite receivers were raised.” What 40 “essential” commodities have been exempted, I beg to know. How come they are never enumerated and explicitly indicated in such accounts? And how are alcohol and cigarettes and video games and satellite receivers not essential to us who are beaten down every day and find no console in a greedy system? At least neshrab meshan nensa, kill ourselves slowly with smoke, and indulge in HotBird fantasies. Give us that at least!

There’s still more where that came from. But I don’t feel like devoting any more of my time to this upsetting state of affairs. I do hope though, that the person who argued not so long ago that “Jordan isn’t so bad a country, and I want to live there,” would read this and be forewarned: be a rich foreigner in Jordan or an expatriated Jordanian abroad, and you will SWEAR by Jordan. Otherwise, run for your life.

In this Durkheim’s mechanical society, it is almost impossible to argue and be heard, or to pose a question and escape condemnation. You can never bring forth a new idea, nay, an old idea that marginally swerves away from the norm, and except it to be received by people who think critically and argue objectively. You will have to spend years, thousands of words, sanity and faith in the human race, even blood if you’re so inclined, and they will not listen.

It’s the transition to novel lands that frightens them. Tradition is safe, it’s been explored prior and it’s all predictable and stable and it works to a degree. But these new ideas, shame on you for introducing them. Shame on you for urging them to think and reconsider. You disagree? Who do you think you are? Who are you to defy ages-old, tried and true tradition?

But wasn’t novelty what propelled human advancement? Or was that also decreed by divinity and tradition? Isn’t trial and error the way we express our godliness, without attributing it to a myth? What about the supposed anomalies that add more value to the human experience than do these traditionalists? They mean nothing. Who’s going to hell now, my devil and me, or you?

Cast not your pearls before swine.

Anne Applebaum of Slate wrote an article discussing the hijab issue in Turkey and the recent attempt to sue the not-sufficiently-secular government that has unbanned it in public universities. I wrote about this before, arguing that no government has the right to dictate citizens’ fashions, and I was jubilant when hijab was unbanned, and I still am.

If you read Applebaum’s article, and you must in order to understand this post, you will find that she has practiced deliberate picking and choosing for arguments, quotations, and situations to suit her point, all the while neglecting to show counterarguments which are equally, if not more, valid. This sort of calculated coverage is not only biased, but extremely harmful as it leads recipients to form an impression which is on the whole charged with bias and twisted facts.

Then she referred to Muslim women as ‘Islamic‘ women. What is that? Is the English dictionary so vast and diversified so as to equate Muslim with Islamic now, and later with Islamicist with fascist with terrorist? Evidently, these subtle(!) and gradual substitutions serve a political goal to fragment and demonize. Applebaum certainly had an agenda writing her article, and her very choice of words reveals it.

According to the article, the “enduring significance” of the hijab is striking. Really? Is it any more “enduring” than the significance of Jesus or the Holy Trinity, the Yarmulke, or karma in Hinduism? Simply put, people will always carry out parts or all of what their religious beliefs dictate. Other people may feel threatened by that, and that’s the politics of it.

Applebaum laments her “Anglo-American bias” which so naively portrays the veil as a choice, then she proceeds to argue that “Fairly or not, in certain Turkish communities, a head covering in fact marks the wearer not just as faithful but as a believer in a particular version of Islam. Fairly or not, the head scarf carries with it, at least in Turkey, partisan connotations, as well as a suggestion of the wearer’s views of women.” As a woman living in a predominately Muslim country, and who is directly exposed to hijab, I opt for the ‘Not Fairly’ bit in Applebaum’s argument. An outsider may never learn the inner workings of a society as diversified and complex as Turkey, and to blindly support forceful implementation of secularism on the expense of basic human rights is to demolish any ‘liberal’ affiliations one claims to have.

She also hints, not so implicitly, that veiled Turkish women are less achieving than non veiled ones. “Wives of the current Turkish political leadership wear head scarves, that most of them donned the scarves after their marriages, and that most of them never worked or studied again after they wed.You can see why women who want something different might feel threatened.” Hmm. That may be because they were BANNED from studying at public Turkish universities until recently, and what ever happened to Applebaum’s “Anglo-American bias” and “personal choice“?

This polarization of Turkish, and Muslim, women as ‘veiled = uneducated, underachieving’ and ‘not veiled = educated, overachieving’ betrays Applebaum’s attempt to conceal her biases. It is an indication that people who claim to be liberal do make the very mistakes that they try to avoid, they go to extremes to protect concepts like secularism and in doing so, endanger the values and liberties they fight for.

Applebaum’s xenophobia emerges at the very end of her ill-researched article when she says “And if, someday, this argument comes to our shores, let’s not be surprised by that. In the end, the head-scarf debate isn’t about a wisp of fabric but about the viability of secular Islam itself.” This reveals that it is more of a question of Us vs. Them than a question of basic liberties and expression. It is not about secular Islam per se, it is not about oppressed Muslim women forced to wear the veil, it is not about their education and career prospects, it is not even about Turkey, for crying out loud! It is about the blatant fear of this argument coming to “our shores,” and that the free, liberal, advanced, educated, achieving West must be prepared to fight this ambiguous piece of cloth which conceals “The Other.”

To all commentators on a previous post who argued for and against comparing the Israeli atrocities to the holocaust, I found a relevant article:

A ‘holocaust’ for the Palestinians too

Hasan Abu Nimah

Israel and the Zionist movement have never permitted the word “holocaust” to be applied to any tragedy except that of the attempted annihilation of the Jews in Europe, perpetrated by the same countries that now look on indifferently at the suffering of the Palestinians.

Israel has tried to appropriate the debt rightly owed to Europe’s Jewish victims by their persecutors in the form of unconditional support and obedient silence, not only from the successor governments of those countries that harmed their Jewish citizens, but from everyone else in the world. In using the tragedy of European Jews for this manifestly narrow political purpose, the Zionist movement at the same time claims that keeping alive the memory of the Nazi holocaust and wider European collusion with it is a constant warning that such horrors should happen never again.

Thus, Palestinians who often complained that they alone had to bear the price of historical crimes that occurred in Europe early last century, including the destruction of their country and society, and the dispersal of the people into an excruciating exile, have been severely criticised if they ever dared to compare their own torment to that experienced by some of their Israeli tormentors at the hands of the Nazis.

Perceptions shifted suddenly, however, after Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defence minister threatened the Palestinians with a “bigger shoah”, using the Hebrew word usually reserved to describe the Nazi holocaust. Immediately after that, Israel began a series of massacres, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, as well as resistance fighters defending their beleaguered communities in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip. At last it was an Israeli minister, a partner in crime, who gave Palestinians permission to refer to their tragedy as a “holocaust”.

For many, no other word can describe the debasement of human values, of common decency that allows Israel to treat the Palestinians like nothing more than millions of troublesome animals who must be kept in a zoo. Pity the world for what it has become, and for what still awaits its people!

It is painful, even revolting, in such dark times to reduce our concerns to mere haggling over what to call our calamities rather than to commit to halting and preventing them. How can we explain the shocking, damning impotence of the self-appointed “international community” as one of the mightiest armies in the world turns its full firepower on an occupied, refugee population, using tanks, fighter planes and missiles under the most ridiculous pretexts.

More…

مجلس النواب يدين المجازر الاسرائيلية فـي غزة

الاستنكارات تتواصل ازاءالعدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة

مجلس النواب يستهجن الصمت العربي إزاء أحداث غزة

دول العالم تدعو الى وقف العنف في غزة وتندد بسقوط الضحايا

I would also like to أستهجن و أشجب و أندد و أستنكر و أرفض و أدين this outrageous, inhumane, insufferable, unbelievable, atrocious, cannibalistic, internationally condoned, trivialized, Israeli operation in Gaza dubbed The Holocaust. You’d think a people who were so brutally oppressed and tortured and maimed and killed by the Nazis would not want to do the same to other nations. The fact on the ground says otherwise — they are doing exactly the same thing to another people. I suppose when a people are so profoundly maimed, they just have to take it out on others. Where is Freud when you need him, really?

The people who were killed in Gaza during the past few days were not all rocket-launchers. As a matter of fact, MOST of them were civilians, and many were children. The 116 dead, the 350 wounded, the 22 CHILDREN and 12 women dead and gone — did they all launch rockets targeting Israel? Of course not, but that is the classical Israeli excuse in global media. Collateral damage, that’s what they call them.

Bullshit.

Thousands of Turks marched towards Ataturk’s grave protesting a law draft that permits veiled Muslim girls to attend Turkish universities and colleges. The news is in English over here.

If I were in Turkey, I would not have marched with them. For a country to be truly respectful of human rights, and to be secular, it must not interfere with the religious practices of its people. Granted, the laws governing their lives should not stem from any particular religion or enforce religious doctrine, but to prevent someone from wearing a veil to school? To destroy a person’s educational prospects just because she chooses, or is forced to, cover her hair? That is the epitome of discrimination.

Let the girls in universities, Turkey! You can’t force them to discard their beliefs to get an education! Don’t become another right-wing France!

Perhaps the angry protesters fear the rise of political Islam in their country, and see that allowing veiled woman into universities will help spread it. But, news flash, Turkey is 99% Muslim! Obviously not every person tagged as Muslim is an actual one, but the situation in Turkey is ridiculous if only for this percentage.

I have long been amazed at the sheer discrimination, the phobia, many people have towards veiled women. I see that everyday through my experiences both as a veiled and a “sufoor” young woman in Jordan. Why doesn’t the world want to accept veiled women for who they are? Why not interact with them like normal human beings instead of looking down upon them as inferior, caged slaves? Read more about discrimination against veiled women here and also here.

This issue really upsets me beyond words.

I missed Beowulf at the movies, so in a trip to the DVD store I found it there and bought it some four weeks ago. When I got home, I discovered that I did not buy the correct Beowulf movie. I had purchased a movie called Beowulf and Grendel instead. But no problem, I thought, I will watch it anyway.

Beowulf and Grendel was released in 2006, as I later found out when I googled it. The scenery and cinematography were breathtaking but everything else was mediocre for lack of a stronger word. The minute I pressed Play I was lost. I could not understand the story, at all! Thankfully, I know the myth of the hero Beowulf and so knew what to expect, but even that did not really help much. The plot was jumbled, the dialogue unintelligible, and the order of events really, really, illogical. I could not follow.

But of course, I had to challenge myself and force her to watch for some time. I figured maybe things will get better and I will start understanding them. I reminded myself of the time I was reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when I forced myself time and again to read through the first quarter of the book, denying that I just could not grasp what was going on, only to curse the book and discard it later. I distinctly remember that the following day, upon telling my wise Italian professor about this my ordeal, he smiled and said: “la vita è troppo corta per un libro brutto” — life is too short to waste on a bad book.

Likewise, I eventually gave up on Beowulf and Grendel.

Later on, I got Beowulf, the 2007 production featuring the genius Sir Anthony Hopkins. The movie was loads better than Beowulf and Grendel, I enjoyed it but I expected it to be more profound. Events picked up very quickly after Beowulf slaughtered Grendel, and his relationship with Grendel’s mother was not altogether clear until the end of the movie. The animation was brilliant, but I would have preferred the movie to be un-animated and played out by the actual actors (especially Hopkins).

All in all, Beowulf did not meet my expectations. If I were to rate it, I would give it a 6.5/10, and I am being generous because Hopkins was in it. Hello, Clarice.

After tonight’s World Bellydance Championship (هزي يا نواعم) there remains only one prime: the finale. Five dancers were reduced to four tonight with Syrian Sandra leaving the show, finally.

When the show started off, I expected Sandra to get booted in the first prime because she could not dance if her life depended on it. But since she has a double-D bosom she remained, with Simon Asmar clearly indicating the generosity of her bodily features in every prime and giving her 6’s or 7’s on really mediocre performances. My theory is that they wanted to keep her in the competition because she was bringing them the most viewers. But tonight since only one prime is left, people will watch it anyway out of curiosity and Miss.Booby can leave, so they ditched her. That’s show business politics for you.

Here are my impressions of the four finalists:

Fadwa

I find Fadwa too aggressive for my taste, but she is a brilliant dancer nonetheless. She has never failed to impress the jury and is versatile enough to jive with any beat. I expect her to compete over first place. Ironically, I danced with her tonight, mimicking her every move, and to my astonishment I kept up with her. This means she needs to step her game up for the finale.

Layla

Never underestimate a foreign bellydance aficionado.This gorgeous Ukrainian dancer keeps getting better and better every week. Her last week’s performance (dancing on the darbukka, or tableh) was so passionate and beautiful and perfect. I have never seen something quite like it myself, and I have seen a LOT of bellydancing. Layla wants to learn Arabic, any volunteers?

Estelle

Estelle has many things going for her; the jury likes her, she’s tall, and she does exceptionally well in improvisation. I don’t know what it is about her though that I do not digest; maybe the height and skinniness, or it could be that I feel she’s more technical than passionate on stage, unlike Fadwa and Layla, for example.

Rana

I love Rana. She looks so nerdy when they do the small video clips of her before the dance, with her geeky glasses on and casual wear. But when she appears on stage she is a total diva. She’s very sensual and sweet and her dancing is fantastic and well-timed. I like her the best BUT I don’t think she will compete over first place because Estelle and Fadwa and Layla are way more aggressive than she is. Maybe she will give it her all next week, you never know. I would gladly become Rana’s best friend – call me, Rana!

Those were my impressions. I expect the show will have a sequel next season with many many more girls participating and a lot more respect from the general public. For now though, I can hardly wait for the finale!

I’ve been thinking of the hijab issue lately and how some people have major problems with it and others do not. I finally got to a conclusion that I think sums up my opinion on the whole thing. Are you comfortable in your seat? Good.

Here’s what I think: People who have a problem with other people who wear a head garment are shallow. The word “hijabi” itself does not appeal to me as it sounds too much like “jihadi” and we all know the negative connotations that word holds. The two words do not even exist in the Arabic language to which their creators think they belong. How stupid is that?

I find it absurd and offensive to the human race that some people would stop at the level of what another person is wearing and go no further. It is even more offensive when these people hold hostile or dismissive attitudes towards people who wear a specific thing, in this case the hijab.

I am not defending people who wear the hijab and I am not saying that some of them do not represent an embarrassing lot. I am not even defending the hijab itself. This isn’t about religion or social norms, it is about human interaction and understanding. My opinion is that if we stop at the level of clothes, clothes people!, and judge each other and dismiss each other because we cannot see someone’s hair and cleavage — then we are a miserable race and we deserve the wars and conflicts that we live in today.

How can we have a decent conversation with one another if we have already judged and belittled one another in our minds? How can we expect everyone to believe we’re progressive, educated, and intelligent human beings when we lower our standards of human interaction to mere clothes and hair? Why do some of us still live in the Middle Ages when it comes to openness and understanding, when they claim to be liberal all the time?

By the same token, I do not defend people who go around half naked. Hijabi or not, clothes are either a choice or an obligation. Either way, you just cannot make up scenarios in your head about what other people think and who they are or what they believe in based on what they’re wearing. Who do you think you are, anyway?

The issue of the veil never ceases to fascinate people from other cultures, nor does it stop claiming centre stage in any talk show or social gathering that aim to be tagged controversial. You may want to think of it in this context: it’s an instant attention grabber.

Whenever I meet new people, I am instantly asked some questions about religion or the veil. I understand why this happens, of course: people see a veiled woman and they instantly believe that she is religious or quite literate in religion. But isn’t this assumption fallacious in many cases?

Many times a woman wears the veil due to social or cultural pressure. In some families, wearing the veil is the normal consequence of puberty or bodily maturity. In some geographical locations, wearing a veil is simply the way women dress. In others, it is considered improper not to wear a veil. The reasons are many and diverse, and only a portion of them has to do with religious beliefs.

I am usually annoyed when people ask me religious questions. It feels as though I have this preacher duty to do, and I simply hate preaching. Asking me about religion also puts me under a lot of pressure to give out the “correct answer” which, more often than not, I do not have. To avoid any misunderstandings, I always start my answer (if I decide to answer) with announcing that “I am not an authority on religion” and then I proceed to explaining my personal beliefs about the question asked. I always urge people to ask an expert if they are really interested in investigating things, or to do their own research.

Even if I meet the investigative type of people, like journalists or writers, who are interested in one activity I have, I still get the usual questions on religion and the veil. I am usually asked why I wear the veil, and why other Muslims don’t, and if it is wrong not to wear it, etc.

I resent these questions because they stereotype me as being a religious person and I am not really religious. Why I wear the veil is a question worthy of asking, of course, but it is also private. If it’s the charm of my contradictions that people are interested in, well then, why don’t they ask about that?

Questions on religion and the veil also take away from the “point” I am being met or interviewed for. It’s almost like meeting someone who wears socks and who’s also a distinguished artist. Instead of paying attention to the art, many people would focus on the socks and forget that their main interest in this person is de fact, the art. Not the socks.

Hi5 left a bitter taste in my mouth but Facebook miraculously outdid it in less than five days. The simple truth is, I just do not trust “social networking” sites. Don’t get me wrong; I am all for cyber friendships, just not this type. Read on to learn why.

A few years back, I had a cyber stalker who played cheap mind games that were not frightening per se. Yet this person obtained access to some of my private documents (things nobody will buy, don’t reach out for your wallets) and this disturbed me profoundly. I even lost some sleep over it.

Ever since then, I became somewhat big time paranoid when it came to my online privacy and security, and I never again used p2p programs to get songs and the like. I also developed an obsessive compulsive disorder that had me “clean my traces” — or whatever I could clean — after every session online. On top of all that, I never saved anything of value on my laptop or any computer I used. Up to this day, I live those habits and many more — me officially paranoid.

When the Facebook buzz hit town, almost everyone I know urged me to join. I did not comply, up until five days ago. My thoughts were along the lines of “what could possibly happen?,” and I discovered exactly what. Two of my friends, one in Canada and the other in Egypt, complained to me about a Jordanian person who has tagged them both and asked to add them to his network. These two friends do not know each other, and they both asked me if I know this stranger since I am Jordanian.

When I realized that this person has tagged both my friends, and that I was the person they had in common, I flipped out. What are the odds of having a total stranger tag both your friends who have nothing in common but you? Seriously? Add to that, he previously harassed them both on Hi5! I don’t know about you but to me the whole affair sounds fishy and it smells too much like fear.

This already weighing heavily on my mind, I came across a presentation that basically strips Facebook of its alleged “security supreme.” Here is a link to the presentation called “Does what happen in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?” Now the content of the presentation may sound a little outlandish, especially towards the end, but to my ears it was a warning I could not shrug away.

I deactivated my Facebook tonight, and now I feel slightly better. I can never feel “at ease” with Facebook until they completely wipe out all the information I foolishly gave them about myself. The site now says that I can “reactivate” my account simply by entering my registered email address and password — and that is very alarming to me. I want my account to be entirely deleted.

Ironically, when I consulted Facebook’s help issues to know how to deactivate my account, the site said something like: “Oh, you really want to deactivate your Facebook account? Well, what are you going to do with your time?” To that I mentally said: “I would live normally in my secure-illusion-paranoia-paradise, thank you.”

The effect of this information on me is probably very different from its effect on you. The difference between me and you, in this case, is that I know what happens when you get stalked (and it is not pretty). So my advice to you is to check if “social networking” is worth the potential risk, and do not imagine it only happens to other people. You are always better safe than sorry.

I may be paranoid, but only the paranoid survive.

Egypt blogger jailed for ‘insult’

An Egyptian court has sentenced an internet blogger to four years’ prison for insulting Islam and the president.
Abdel Kareem Nabil’s trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.

He had used his weblog to criticise the country’s top Islamic institution, the al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

A human rights group called the verdict “very tough” and a “strong message” to Egypt’s many thousands of bloggers.

Most disturbing news, but they are to be expected. I believe news of the sort, “crackdowns on bloggers,” will grow in number during the next two years. I joke sometimes to Yoda, before posting something even remotely daring, that he should pray I do not go to prison for it.

Judging by the look of things, I just might. One day.

Sitting in the office, I hear reporters talking live about clashes in Lebanon. These reporters inform and entertain through a TV screen dangling from the wall in this fittingly dim hall. Are we on the verge of yet another war in the region?

People wonder why I am usually morbid in my moods and opinions. How can I not be? There is occupation and civil war in Iraq, occupation and apartheid in Palestine, internal turmoil in Egypt, war in Somalia, multiple problems in Jordan, backwardness in Saudi Arabia, armed division in Sudan, separatism in Algeria, estrangement in Morocco and Tunisia, painful neutrality in the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, and now — what seems to be a hideous incarnation of civil war in Lebanon.

The situation in Lebanon needn’t be assessed by an amateur such as me. I am far removed from politics, or so I am inclined to believe. Yet the basic sense behind this split is illusive – it’s a power game. Seduce one part with money and political support, two things very much needed after the Israeli Aggression War last summer, and listen to the popular eloquence of the other, enveloped in religious-political aims.

Rest assured: worse things will happen. People will not be burning tires a week from now, and there won’t be only five or six dead. Those in power should stop this mockery and rise above their differences. Have they ever heard of the term “mob behavior?”

Some things, when unleashed, are impossible to contain. Listen to this Hariri and Nasrallah and stop toying with people’s lives.

Not only is the man several light years away from what a diplomat should be, he has also proven to most sane Americans that he is indeed on a “crusade” – to ruin their reputation abroad. I received the following interesting bit of information in an e-mail from my friend Yoda. This was taken from Time.com, published under “The Five Key Mistakes of Bush’s Middle East Policy”. I do not know the exact date of it:

1. Bush ignored the Palestinians.

Up until the week that Bill Clinton left office in January 2001,
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were still trying to work out an
ambitious end-of-conflict agreement. True, Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat had unleashed an intifadeh, and the Israelis were on the verge
of electing Ariel Sharon — an avowed enemy of the Oslo peace process —
as prime minister, but the two sides were still talking. When Bush
became president, he ended crucial American mediation, repudiated
Arafat and backed Sharon, who proceeded to expand Israeli settlements
in the occupied West Bank. With the conflict becoming bloodier than
ever, Arafat died, and Hamas, the fundamentalist party that adamantly
refuses to even recognize Israel, much less negotiate with it, ousted
the late Palestinian leader’s party from power. Besides angering Arab
opinion, the lack of an Arab-Israeli peace process that would also
address Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights has encouraged
mischief-making by Damascus, which is suspected of aiding anti-U.S.
insurgents in Iraq and committing political assassinations in Lebanon.

2. Bush invaded Iraq.

After 9/11, Bush became convinced that Saddam Hussein was seeking
nuclear weapons and represented a mortal threat to the West. He also
came to believe that ousting Saddam would turn Iraq into a democracy
that would become the model for the rest of the Arab world. Saddam
turned out not to have nuclear weapons, and Iraq turned out to be more
prone to civil war than democracy. It runs the risk of becoming a
failed state from which terrorists run global operations, and/or
breaking into ethnic mini-states that inspire secessionist trouble
throughout the region.

3. Bush misjudged Iran.

Just after Bush became president, Iranians reelected moderate
President Mohammed Khatami, who had reached out to the U.S. and called
for a “dialogue of civilizations.” Bush not only refused to extend the
olive branch cautiously offered by the Clinton Administration, he
declared Iran part of an “axis of evil.” Khatami left office under
fire for the failure of his conciliatory approach, to be replaced by
hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who proceeded to promote
Iran’s nuclear ambitions and call for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Despite Bush’s tough talk against Iran, the Iraq war has dramatically
expanded Iran’s influence in the country. To make matters worse,
Iran’s Lebanese ally, Hizballah, withstood Israel’s month-long
onslaught last summer and is poised to topple the U.S.-backed Lebanese
government.

4. Bush hurt Israel.

If protecting Israel had been a key goal of the Administration’s
policies, it is hard to see how they have helped make the Jewish State
better off today. Having gotten rid of Arafat, they have instead to
face Hamas. And continuous rocket attacks from Gaza have highlighted
the limits of what Israel can achieve through its plans to
unilaterally redraw its borders. The confrontation in Lebanon over the
summer and the messy engagement in Gaza also highlight the limits on
the deterrent capacity of Israel’s military advantages. Spreading
instability in the region is not in Israel’s long-term interests; nor
is a nuclear Iran.

5. Bush alienated Muslims.

It was an honest misstep, but the problem began when Bush promised to
wage a “crusade” against al-Qaeda after September 11, effectively
equating his war on terrorism with an earlier Christian invasion of
the Middle East that remains etched in the collective memory of
Muslims. Since then, the Bush Administration’s involvement in or
perceived support of military campaigns against Iraqis, Palestinians
and Lebanese heightened Muslim anger at the U.S. and undermined the
political position of moderate, pro-American Arabs, including old U.S.
allies like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia — and, of course, King Abdullah II of Jordan, the host of
Bush’s Middle East visit this week.

I am much less than thrilled to receive Bush Jr. in Amman. Some argue that this step is an admission of some sort that his administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have not been successful and that, as such, this trip should be celebrated. Well think again, “I say not unto thee, ‘Until seven times; but until seventy times seven.’ “

Since he’s in the vicinity, why doesn’t he pop up in Abu Ghraib and see how the torture dogs are doing?

What I dislike the most about this visit are the heightened security measures. Scaring people out of their wits by stationing police and helmet-wearing, machine-gun-bearing army people all over Amman is not a healthy sign. Maybe Jordanians and the American Embassy alike could learn something from James Bond and work undercover for once and not make all this uncalled-for fuss. It’s irritating and it certainly is not stylish anymore.

Honestly though, who would be bothered to check if the person in that 74′ Toyota at the traffic light is George W. Bush?

I had intended for this post to have more “weight” but because I am a good girl I will take my parents’ advice and not post anything too “out there”. I will keep the explosives for my research papers, where I know who my audience is.

P.S: The other day I was browsing bumper sticker designs and one read: “Clinton screwed an intern. Bush screwed us all.”

In a book I have, I read:

The following “Rules for Female Teachers” were posted by the school board of one town in Massachusetts:

1. Do not get married.
2. Do not leave town at any time without permission of the school board.
3. Do not keep company with men.
4. Bet home between the hours of 8 P.M and 6 A.M.
5. Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
6. Do not smoke.
7. Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
8. Do not dress in bright colors.
9. Do not dye your hair.
10. Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to present. New York: HarperPerennial, 1995

It seems there happen to be some similarities between these rules, dating back to the early 20th century, and some still active today. I make no guesses as to how proper these rules are, I follow some but break most myself, but what I find most interesting is that American women actually lived by these rules at some point in time. Fascinating!

Have you ever noticed that action movie stars rarely (if ever) bleed when severely hit in a face-off? If Charlie’s Angels counts for an action movie, and it better not, then I honestly have issues with this bleeding “effect”. It does not exist! What sort of fools do they take us for, not making people bleed when hit? The “Angels” were not even bruised, not a scratch, niente! I bet the director thought damage applied to the face of a vixen of the sort cannot be promoted, it does not sell. Luscious lips, long hair and longer legs do sell, on the other hand.

I really have an issue with this. If you are going to feature a female as a leading action figure then it is not the assets that you should sell (that’s what the porn industry is all about; assets and fantasies, no?), and you should at least let your ninja lady get bruised every once in a while. There is a term used for this: Truth to Life. It is genuinely offensive to my taste that action stars, especially the females, seldom bleed or, say, break a nose (or a nail) in a fist fight.

But here’s an interesting bit about action movies starring females, and I always enjoy this bit: they almost always have a female rival. The catfights are usually, what’s the word? Too civil. There is somehow a part where the two girls grab each other by the hair (classic, I resent it), then if it’s a post-Matrix production you have the floating-in-the-air moments, and the a-girl-knows-how-to-kick-a-girl’s-ass line (rephrased), not to forget the mention of jealousy and the sadistic nature of the female villain.

Am I the only one who thinks that is getting just a tad old?

… Ponders the great TRC titan. TRC stands for the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission who, as I noted previously, were deliberating blocking Skype in Jordan. Fortunately, many people took this fascist intention seriously and talked about it. As I have read, the TRC went ahead and blocked Skype (partially) then magically changed their minds about the “threat” Skype poses and unblocked it.

Great going TRC. Really wise at the beginning, then really professional, and then really consistent.

Have you ever noticed how so many technie people, particularly males, are socially under-developed? If you have not been paying attention to this universal fact, let me announce to you that by reading this entry your situation of ignorance shall be remedied.

(Most) Techie males: a species resembling regular human beings distinctive for their social incompetence, and often for perverse fantasies under a cloak of inhibition.

That, in a nutshell, is your 101 on (most) techie males. I said most, in severe cases of benevolence I will replace that with the word “many”. This is not such a case.

Since we’re on tech talk, I read over at 360°east that Skype is getting blocked in Jordan. How very fascist! It’s funny when I remember how sincere and eager to “improve services” a TRC (Telecommunications Regulatory Commission) representative came across during a certain meeting.

I feel totally Orwellian at the moment.

“Really now, let’s block Skype so we can milk the Jordanian tech-savvy and/or cosmopolitan to the last drop. Then we can block Blogger and Word Press to force the growing number of blog-addicts to buy our biased newspapers and read our old news. After we do that, we can dig a canal around Jordan and turn it into an island, and isolate it from the rest of the modern world that screams “FREE” all too often.”

I say viva Skype. No to Fascism.

On a final note, I ruined my “The Visuals” section while trying to fix it, which just proves how very un-techie I am. You can either check my flickr for recent pictures, or fix my Visuals.

Taken from the Vatican’s website, this is the bit in Pope Benedict’s speech -mentioning Islam- at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006:

“…I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.”

“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

I landed upon an interesting blog, called “Thinking Blog”, whose author wrote about the Pope’s speech, and here’s what he said:

“When someone is in a position of power; their words, deeds, speeches, and public addresses are under continuous and immense scrutiny equally by those who follow them and those who don’t. The Pope is no exception, especially when we consider that any thing said by the Pontiff is considered doctrine by millions of Catholics around the world given its ex cathedra nature.

Let me first start by saying that whatever his intentions were, what the Pope said the other day lacked political awareness of, or sensitivity to, the worldwide brewing conflict between Islam and Christianity.

Nevertheless, if you read the whole transcript, available here, you’d be surprised that his speech had nothing to do with Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or Jihad in any way shape or form aside from an ill-chosen quote from a conversation between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402.

In general, I have 3 main issues with this whole curfuffle:

1. Again, the media is playing its dirty role of propagating information without context to create headlines and promote sales, ratings, and readership to the derangement of the small minority of sensible human beings in the world.

2 . Because of the first issue, we’re getting a knee-jerk reaction from Muslims who, like the general population of planet earth, can’t really understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Pope’s speech and its goals.

3. The quote above, as I said, was ill-chosen for the occasion and purpose (unless the Pope has a hidden motive which is beyond the realm of anyone’s inquisition and hence a futile assumption) and it also lacked political sensitivity given the global circumstances.

Of equal importance is the fact that the Pope’s conjectures embedded within the quote are actually inaccurate reflecting the Pop’s ignorance about Islam for the following reasons:

a. Surah 2, Verse 256 which the Pope concludes to be from the earlier “powerless” days of Prophet Mohammed was actually revealed in Madina where Prophet Mohammed enjoyed unsurpassed strength and autonomy in his prophetic career.

b. The belief that God is absolutely transcendent, is not even bound by his own word, and that reason cannot be applied to God from an Islamic theological perspective that the “expert” Theodore Khoury attributes to “Ibn Hazn” (actually its Ibn-Hazm, but I don’t know if this is Khoury’s mistake or the Pope’s) is by far a marginal opinion in Islamic theology adopted by only Ibn-Hazm and his school of thought (the Zahiri school of thought). This school is long gone although Wahabbi Jihadism has some similarities to it.

In closing, Muslims should relax because the quote was ill-chosen, that’s it! But then again, conspiracy theorists supported by how the media reports these things will find ample evidence of the global conspiracy against Islam.

Although I tried to be rational I don’t expect rationality to prevail in this situation given how volatile the situation is and the Muslim self inflicted position of victimhood which, supported by conspiracy theories, will make a big soap opera out of this whole thing.

What Pope Benedict XVI hoped to be an enlightening speech about faith and reason is certainly turning into an Egg Benedict when there’s faith without reason!”

Then I also found this quite interesting (Title: Pope disses Islam, invokes Byzantine emperor who fought Turks), the author says;

“The Times notes that in the weeks after John Paul’s death in April 2005, the question of Islam was a key issue in the selection of a new pope. As a candidate, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict after his election, embodied the more skeptical school within the Vatican. Unlike John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger did not approve of joint prayers with Muslims and was skeptical of the value of inter-religious dialogue. In 2004, he caused a stir by opposing membership in the European Union for Turkey, saying that it “always represented another continent throughout history, in permanent contrast with Europe.”

In his first trip outside Italy as pope, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, where he said Catholics and Muslims must overcome differences, but also told them they had the responsibility to teach their children against terrorism, which he called “the darkness of a new barbarism.”

Last summer, he devoted an annual weekend of study with former graduate students to Islam. Notes the Times: “In that meeting, and since, he has reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam’s openness to change, given its view of the Koran as the unchangeable word of God.”

Then adds:

“Aiman Mazyek, president of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims said: “After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler’s regime, and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions.

Significantly (as the Chronology of Greek History at the Greek Folk Dance Resource Manual website reminds us), Manuel II Paleologus was Byzantine emperor when Constantinople was first besieged by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Bayezid I in 1393. Pretty amazing that none of the media accounts have noted this rather salient fact. Constantinople finally fell to the Turks in 1453 under Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, son of Manuel II.”

Then I found yet another engaging website (Religioustolerance) that, in the bits that I shall quote, lists a number of reactions of non-Muslims to the Pope’s unwise and uncalled-for reference:

“Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Padua referred to the pope’s suggestion that Islam is distant from reason:
“This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally. Not all Islam, thank God, is fundamentalist.”

The Rev. Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome said that the main focus of the speech was that:
“If we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously.”

Referring to quote from the emperor, he said:

“You clearly take a risk using an example like that.”

Marco Politi, reporter from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said:
“The text reveals his deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam. Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very dear to John Paul II — the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God and have to pray together to the same God.”

Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo said:
“What we have right now are public reactions to the pope’s comments from political and religious figures, but I’m not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican.”

The Rev. Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute, said that it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech. Taft said:
“The message he is sending is very, very clear, Violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion and that (the pope) considers it his duty to challenge Islam and anyone else on this.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood. “It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary,” she said Friday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said:
“We understand perfectly how sensitive this sphere is. I think it would be right if we call for responsibility and restraint from the leaders of all world faiths.”

According to USA Today:
“Vatican officials insisted the pope did not intend to be offensive and expressed regret over any hurt caused to Muslims.”

In the Qur’an, Allah says (And this is the same Aya that the Pope quoted, and advanced to say that it was from a Sura revealed in Mecca,not Medina – a terrible mistake appropriate to the greater fallacy in his speech):

“There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing”
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

Without doubt, there are many other resources that one could resort to in order to be able to dissect the intentions of the Pope and the various reactions to his speech. For him to quote an Emperor, who had to give up a favorite city to the Ottomans and who had clearly disliked them for that, on a major world religion whose followers, right or wrong as they may be, are constantly provoked , is an imprudent act.

The issue at hand is not what the Pope meant or did not mean, because after all he could have quoted some other major historical figure on, say Judiasm or any other religion, (and in the case of the clever word-play of the Vatican’s secretary of state, cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who said that the Pope meant to undertake “certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come.” — he could’ve at least cited another “violent interpretation” of another religion if he did not want to take Islam out of the affair, just humor the public, your eminence). I take my stand as pertains to the Pope’s timing and selection, as well as the comparison he drew between Jihad and the Christian Holy War.

The Pope’s timing was inappropriate, his selection of quotations was unwise, and the parallel he constructed between Jihad and the Christian Holy War is unfounded. Consequently, this leaves me wondering about the nature of his intentions, as well as the credibility of his sources. You do not attack secularism and mistakenly slip in a quote by a biased Emperor, which also happens to be offensive to the sensitivities of many people.

There are those who say that the Pope was trying to point out that religion and violence are not a good combination, and that the reactions of many Muslims to this speech were indeed a confirmation that what they embrace is a violent religion; I think that is an oversimplification and a sign of naiveté. For the sake of argument, in hypothesis, if you, who are civil and in general superior to the grand public, understand that this public is no more than an angry, violent mob, would you provoke it? If you do, how wise are you?

In my opinion, violent reactions to most situations do not solve any problem and sly provocations do not gather good results. But I would take those who put themselves at a pedestal and talk about the “barbarians” to task when it comes to their understanding of current times, because if they do understand current times, their actions would not go out only to prove that those barbarians are really, truly, barbarians only for them to point out and say “Ah, see, we told you so”. How different are they from those they look down on and provoke? Shouldn’t they take a bigger share of responsibility for what their actions generate, since they are better informed and refined?

This was just a general record of what I have read and the reactions I came across for Pope Benedict’s recent speech. My own interpretations are also thrown in there, and I am earnestly amazed at some of the nonsense ultra-philosophical renderings of what is happening. On to world peace, in Utopia.

It is with great disgust that we received the news of the unwise “quotations” in Pope Benedict’s speech in Bavaria. That was in poor taste, your eminence. Really now, let us not quote and attempt to deceive by wrapping opinions in other people’s lips – dead people’s lips.

After reading three books over the weekend, I can confirm that I feel slightly brighter. I wonder how many books his eminence has read about, say, Christian history or cats or automobiles or, maybe even Islam. Hmm… Quite a thought.

I just pray my Catholic friends are not disturbed by this eminent mistake, as a matter of fact; I shall call them all tonight and try to console them.

As covered by media, Amnesty International’s August 23rd report on the Israeli aggression war over Lebanon goes out to point Israeli lies to the naked eye of the public. It is imperative that you read this report and understand it well, if need be, print it out and run the numbers time and again in your head. I shall quote some bits of the report, they are not as long as they seem.

“The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about 7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.(1) The attacks, though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In addition to the human toll – an estimated 1,183 fatalities, about one third of whom have been children(2), 4,054 people injured and 970,000Lebanese people displaced(3) – the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31 “vital points” (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads.(4) More than 25 fuel stations(5) and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000.(6) Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.(7) “

“Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a “human shield”. However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than “collateral damage” – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives. “

On the topic of war crimes, and Israel in this field has not been cheap in granting us material, AL states that:

“It is also forbidden to use starvation as a method of warfare, or to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Some of the targets chosen – water pumping stations and supermarkets, for example – raise the possibility that Israel may have violated the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

Israel has asserted that Hizbullah fighters have enmeshed themselves in the civilian population for the purpose of creating “human shields”. While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population.

Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility. They include directly attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. People against whom there is prima facie evidence of responsibility for the commission of these crimes are subject to criminal accountability anywhere in the world through the exercise of universal jurisdiction.”

The report looks on the grave damage caused by Israel in all aspects of life in Lebanon; water facilities,ports, hospitals,roads and bridges,airports, communications,civilian homes, electricity and fuel supply, and the environment.

On blockades:

“Any vehicle of any kind travelling south of the Litani River will be bombarded, on suspicion of transporting rockets, military equipment and terrorists.”

Leaflet addressed to “the Lebanese people”, signed the “State of Israel”, 7 August 2006(35)

Here’s the link to the full Amnesty International report:
Israel/Lebanon
Deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure

Need I remind you that Israeli planes violated Lebanese skies, despite the issuance of the UN Security Council resolution 1701 on August 11th, 2006, which in points 3 and 5:

- “Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the
Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the
provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant
provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty”

…and

“Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant
resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of
Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the
Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949″

On that, read this (published in the UN News Centre on August 19th,2006):

“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701statement. Adopted on 11 August, that text mandated a halt to the fighting which took effect three days later.

There have also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft, according to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which is helping to support and coordinate the Israeli withdrawal.

Mr. Annan said violations of Security Council resolution 1701 such as the Israeli raid today “endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation and undermine the authority of the Government of Lebanon.”

Now, give a round of applause to your incompetent media, ineffectual leaders, and dwindling humanity.

Wish our decision makers are this solid in their points and eloquent in their words. Go Galloway!

I’m on CNN? They must know better than I do, shush!

Just when you think the world has reached the final,most atrocious prejudice against most causes related to Arabs and Muslims, it stuns you with a tad more of manipulation.

I was browsing the net casually and I came upon some blogs that claim that the Qana massacre was staged by major news agencies. It’s actually funny when I reflect on it since I also read that the picture capturing Israeli kids dedicating rockets for Lebanese children were also “staged“.

Now the word “staged” sounds to me like a focal point in those extremists’ vocabulary. It’s almost as if their message to the world is: If we do something wrong, and you find out about it, we’ll just claim it was “staged“. Some people do not get to see these things LIVE on their TVs, so they’ll be convinced of our super lame fabrications. Oh, and if anyone else does something to us, and you dare say it was “staged“, then you will be branded as being anti-semitic (Yes, we monopolized semitism a long long time ago. Arabs are really semitic too since they’re our cousins but we don’t like them much so we took the title for ourselves).

Via KABOBfest, I could not have said it better myself: (”His” and “he” refer to the author of a blog called EU Referendum).

“The basic premise of his argument is that the timestamps accompanying the posted photographs represent when they were taken. Thus, the aforementioned photos were taken from 12:45 pm to 4:30 pm, therefore there must have been some chicanery.

First of all, to the able-minded, when presented with such a range of timestamps, the normal conclusion drawn is that the times do not represent when the photographs were taken, but rather when they were posted. It’s difficult for me to imagine how somebody could, instead, come up with the argument of EU Referendum – without doing any basic research to verify the ill-conceived notion – that, clearly, Hizballah, the Arabs, and the wire services have colluded to shock the world.

Second, the timestamps do represent when the photographs were posted, not taken; this can be established by comparing the times accompanying photographs between different wire news providers. (for example, compare Yahoo with the Corpus Christi Caller Times). They post at different times, and that is why the same photographs will have a different time stamp on different news sites.

Finally, here is the easiest and most dispositive proof. Let’s take a look at a photograph that EU Referendum cites. He claims this one was photographed at 4:09 PM ET based on the Yahoo News timestamp. It’s quite possible that Richard thinks that the Atlantic is a river, so there must be a trivial, if any, timezone difference. There’s a seven hour difference between Qana, Lebanon and the Eastern Time Zone. Thus, that 4:09 PM time that he references would mean the picture was taken at an actual time of 11:09 PM. Simply impossible – there would be no daylight.

Similarly, he shows us that this one was taken at 4:30 PM ET, which would be 11:30 PM in Lebanon. Finally, he points to this photo, which he claims had an original timestamp of 7:16 pm corrected to 6:46 am. The link he provides does not direct us to the right page, however a simple search of Yahoo News (his source for the photographs) leads us to this same exact photo, and the only one of its kind with the caption he copies-and-pastes from Yahoo News. The timestamp is 6:58 PM ET, July 31st. That would place the actual time of the photograph at 1:58 AM, August 1st, a full two days after the massacre.

Of course, this could be Hizballah’s version of “Pallywood,” right Rush Limbaugh? Clearly, this “rubble” and these “dead children” were actually photographed in a Hizballah studio emulating a daytime setting in Qana. AP, Reuters, and AFP are all in on this scam that took place over three days, from July 30th through August 1st. It’s all part of that godless liberal media’s war on Israel, the U.S., and democracy.”

- Source (KABOBfest)

One last thing, now who’s being the paranoid conspiracy theorist? Pathetic.

There is a good reason some people prefer not to meddle in politics. I have always liked to think I am one of the type but, living where I do, the temptation is almost irresistible. What with the tragedy in Palestine, the war in Lebanon, the reform efforts in Saudi Arabia, the occupation in Iraq, and the subliminal turmoil in Egypt; one can hardly stay clean. Everyone is a political analyst: think of it as the epidemic outbreak of a perverse hobby.

At any rate, I have tried hard not to engage in the dirty business but my latest post seems to have broken the sacred rule. And despite my tried-and-true psychic skills, I am unable to tell if more political taints will appear in The Box. I will try my best; literature is far more an interesting (also rewarding) resort.

In the meantime, there is an interestingly heated discussion going on in the comments section of the previous post ( the largest number of comments to have ever appeared on a single post, we celebrate ::confetti::) and I would like to invite you to take part in it. Express your opinion but kindly pay attention to your choice of words. Let’s communicate.

The war in Lebanon is a bitter wake-up call to moderate thinkers. It is pushing many of them to wonder if the word peace they strongly believed in exists in the Israeli language beyond “shalom”, the letters of the word.

I can’t blame them. You cannot lecture about human rights and democracy then support Israel by saying it is defending itself and expect the minds and hearts of Arabs and Muslims to OK that and move on. What about Lebanon? You go silent and grant more time, to perfect the murder.

Discuss, announce, call on, visit, meet, talk; that’s today’s vocabulary as practised by so-called leaders of the world who seem to me to be only enjoying leading the hordes to watch the dismembered burning corpses of the Lebanese.

The tipping point is very near, ask anyone suffering from similar pessimism to mine and they will tell you that. If anything, as I mentioned, this war has caused many to reconsider their loyalties and trends of thinking and it seems absurd to shrug this dangerous sign away because the whole region will suffer as a consequence.

As if the world needed more trouble. An alarming eye-opening article via Wired News discusses the repercussions of the mushrooming video sharing sites such as YouTube, Google, MySpace, etc.

Consider this recent example: In a four-minute video that was said to be meant as a spoof, a young Marine sings about how he fell in love with an Iraqi woman but then gunned down her family after they confronted him with automatic weapons. The video of his performance, posted anonymously on YouTube, sparked an outcry and was removed.

But the Marine has since been cleared by a military review. Now the song is slated to be aired on a satellite radio show and released for commercial downloads.

-Source

It’s getting harder to protect children from exposure to inappropriate concepts both online and offline. It makes one wonder if it is fair at all to reproduce, really.

The hunt for waffles has been on for around a year now. I tried Cozmo, C-Town and Safeway to no avail so far and I am growing very distressed. I would like to share this little incident that I lived yesterday whilst trying to find out if the people at mighty Cozmo had the goods.

I went down to the grocery department and, yes, I enjoyed the nice spacious areas between the lines and what not. A lot of foreign people as usual, but that’s to be expected. I headed to the frozen foods and took a stroll by the cold containers: pizza, kobbeh, burgers, half-fried chips, strawberries, peas, puff pastry, all sorts of very cold things but no waffles.

After, what, 15 minutes of carefully checking if the frozen foods section can satisfy me, I decided to head to the bakery to ask the employee who works over there whether or not waffles exist in this Cozmo. I got there and there was an African couple talking and ordering some bread so I waited.

I waited. The couple were done but I still waited although the man clearly saw I wanted to ask/order something but he did not even look at me. At this point I realized I may be just a tad too short for his eyesight level (he’s exactly as short as I am, no excuse) so I stood on my tippy toes and asked another man standing behind him ” Excuse me, do you sell waffles here?” – The other man told me to ask the first guy, the one who did not see me.

So then I got really bored of standing there and being ignored and I jumped in and asked Mr.superbaker. If I wasn’t mistaken at reading his face and body language, he did not like it that I talked to him in the presence of that couple (who were talking to each other at that moment). But at any rate, he asked me what waffles were and I explained. He was really, really upset that I was talking to him! I am not sure why, I can be pleasant when I talk to strangers.

“La2, mafi” – without even looking at me and sort of shaking his head to say “Off you go!”.

Now I realize it is hard to understand why I am very upset at this Cozmo’s employee, you weren’t there to see how different he treated the African couple. Is it because I asked him in Arabic that I received this second-class treatment? Should I have asked him in one other language, after changing into some comfortable I’m-an-angry-teenager pants and looking “foreign”?

This sort of mentality that insists on treating Arabs and the Arab culture as inferior to anything Western/foreign, no matter what, will keep on holding us back- and to see this behaviour coming from one of your own is what’s most painful about it.

Don’t be disillusioned – having a character could earn you a number of enemies.

It’s odd when you think of it actually, why would anyone be threatened by your character? Is it because you will not let them boss you around, therefore you will be minimizing their “power”? Or is it an indication of something else? Is society ill?

I am positive a lot of people have faced situations where a person, or a group of people, has deliberately tried to put them down. For a number of motives or reasons, mostly obscure, the general public (uppity term?) tend to desire to pull one down at every corner of his or her advancement.

It’s a fascinating phenomenon. The human race has advanced in certain ways but has also kept some very eerie habits of advancement. Think of it this way: A good employee is threatened by colleagues’ jealousy and/or envy and is hammered whenever the chance arises. It should be more ethical to try to surpass that person in the field of his work to reach the same results of stabbing him in the back, but it rarely happens. It’s his character that is threatening, not the job he gets done. This jeopardizes his opponents’ character influence in the work space and is exactly why this person should be, at the very least, tamed.

Is being unethical necessary for personal gain? And, more importantly, is having a character a threat to others?

Play with words ; they’re your way to the world’s heart and conscience. What you communicate through speech or written media is what you are.

You don’t have to be a poet to appreciate the essence of linguistic beauty, and necessity for that matter. Language is the medium through which your messages and everyone else’s are carried. Choosing a correct, clean, and creative medium is crucial to get your message across the way you intend it to arrive to its destination.

Think of your target audience. Is this, what you write or say, meant to get to the hearts of mothers or to the solid wills of decision-makers? Structure your diction accordingly. Moms would better appreciate soft imagery while a corporate responsible would rather you cut to the numeral chase, generally speaking.

You may be able to break a rule or two – you could get away with using semi-romantic diction in, say, an ad campaign that “defies” the norm. Again, it’s the language that is in sync with the concept. Composing a quarterly report with mushy words and no numbers will not do, no matter how revolutionary open-minded your boss may be.

I started out jotting my random ideas down on this topic out of sheer curiosity. I was in bed trying to rest my overloaded head and there were a dozen bulldozers working just outside my room, my laptop was in its case, and I afforded to be lazy enough to match my pajama pants with my formal top. Suddenly this little screwy thought caused a surge of electrical signals in my brain cells – I had to de-stimulate the genie.

Nothing gives me more joy than playing with words. I like putting two shocking words together and watching the concept of each change dramatically due to the association. I enjoy the looks on people’s faces when I do it, too. Once I answered the phone and it was an old friend of mine complaining that I do not get in touch as much as I should. I hung up and someone asked me who it was.

“Oh, an angry citizen”.

The quality of your language defines you to people in most situations. I like seeing a form of the word used in various techniques. Be smart about your language, you’ll be surprised what that reflects onto you and onto others. It says a lot.

Once upon a place there was a little girl who looked like a catfish. She surfed the web constantly, looking for a facial mask recipe to help her grow eyelids so she can close her eyes when she goes to bed. She never found any, but she landed a deal as a model at a circus and at age thirty, her show sold more tickets than the Cirque Du Soleil.

Love your speech and make it an individual output of your creation, as unique as you are. Why not design your own clichés? I have my angry citizens, what do you have? Leave your touch in language, make it public that you intend to be special in the way you speak and write and work on progressing and inventing new ways to say the same thing.

Don’t be the burdensome cliché-parrot. Be the person everyone wants to approach, even if there’s nothing to talk about, but to listen to what miracles you deliver with ease.

I was planning to witness the students’ council elections at the U of J yesterday but I somehow managed not to attend. I did visit this week though, on Tuesday to be exact, and I had a great time as usual.

Some fellow bloggers have treated the subject already but there is always a need to stress that students are not being held responsible for their campaigns, their words, and their banners. Just when elections are at the doors the campus gets horribly adorned with thousands of flyers and poorly printed pictures of candidates, multiple-meaning slogans and numbers of self-appointed support staff roaming the streets looking for kin or friend that would vote.

It is hideous. I daresay those are the annual golden days of ugliness for the U of J. It seems as though there are no limits for trespassing over public property, and all in the name of freedom, at such times. You see names on street signs in and around campus, on doors and windows (which, of course, lose any sense of transparency thus do not function), on desks, on trees, on street ads, and on proud bosoms marketing this or that.

Is it outrageous to ask the administration of the university to impose certain rules on those running for “office”? Granted they want to promote their ideas and get in those seats (which are not precisely the most appealing), but they should take responsibility for their actions and the actions of those that support them. Why don’t they remove their promotional material after the elections? Everything remains put, as horrid as it is, until the stickers start chipping off because of the elements and some university-hired people come and remove what they can (only it is too late because some things do not go off as easy).

Should those students violate this suggested rule of removing their papers, they should be penalized. This is a serious matter, such random campaigns harm the image of the university. You will know what I mean if you walk in the pedestrian tunnel right across the main gate, try it, they even wrote on the walls in red and black – terrible calligraphy and no sense of art.

This year there was something slightly different, however. Something positive for a change. Some were on a crusade to boycott elections because, get this, the administration of the university decided to appoint 50% of the total number of the council’s members- as far as I could comprehend. How do you claim to instill democracy in the minds of the youth, and you go so far as to arrange seminars and lectures on the topic, then you take this right away from them at the same time? Does this make any sense?

Which brings me to my next point. How democratic are these elections? I for one have received several offers as a student to vote for this because “ You are from the South like me”, or that because “ I am from Karak too!”, or better yet for a girl who does not have a concept behind her because “ We girls should stick together”. It pains me to admit that most students that make it to the council are elected this way and on such criteria. What are they selling, exactly?

A popular saying goes “ The early bird gets the worm”, and is used mainly during morning hour sales and such, and trusted as a bible by most employers.

The wisdom behind having to arouse all your employees at approximately 7 AM, when you do not own a stock market of some sort and when you do not have affairs to conclude in areas differing with yours in time, alludes me.

One can hardly think of ways in which an employee still struggling with removing himself from his dreams can function well and produce in the benefit of the job. Certainly this is not to negate one of life’s humblest facts; that there are indeed people who perform well in the morning. But it is also not to neglect another fact that giving people an extra 30 minutes of slumber may boost their productivity to the delight of their managers.

There is no lazier an image than that of a half-sleeping worker exerting obvious effort to concentrate on getting his first task done. No worms, none for the worker, and none for the company.

Quality management is definitely a positive thing in an organization, it tells employees what to do, when to do it, and how. I think I am in favour of QM, but to a limit.

Just recently, I have come across a person who works in this domain. This person’s life revolves around one word: control. I am not saying this is a bad thing per se, but what I am trying to communicate is that he lives for procedures. He even wrote, in details, the procedure involved in opening a door.

That’s a bit overdoing it, won’t you say?

As I was checking my inbox this morning, I found a comment on a November post I had published under the title “A tale rarely told: The purest Aryans”. The entry handles the racism that some Circassians have, and tries to shed some light on the reasons behind it. Many people did not like that entry, and in that choice of taste they are free, and one of them was the person who sent me this morning’s comment. The comment is published but for some odd reason it does not show up on the permanent page of the entry, it only makes itself available once one clicks on the “Post a comment” icon.

For that reason, and because this comment was such a nice read, I am posting it here.

Yet another Circassian said…

First of all, i understand the appeal of my circassian culture. I also understand what it’s like to stand out as different in a crowd. I’m not going to be humble, circassians do have distinctively attractive features, and besides that we have a well-defined cultural identity to go with it.

I have seen a lot of people coming from homes where one parent is circassian and the other parent not; it often aint pretty. Some of these people I consider brothers and sisters to me, it pains me to to see such confusion. But I’ve also witnessed success stories that were able to avoid this: Upbrininging! Your child is either this or that (and be realistic).

As a minority/majority, an ethnic group or religious group -whatever- we are entitled to preserving what ever culture we have left. it is our natural right! I’ve seen racism among jordanians and palestinians and couldn’t believe it myself. So take it easy, this happens to the best of families.

Have the courage to accept who you are, live, and let live. Has it crossed your mind that this feeling of others being racist is just a reflection of your own thoughts? I think not. It’s much easier to blame others – it’s even easier when you are partially one of them.

Jordan is as much my country as any other Jordanian, but it is disappointing to still see people like you (especially with your clamed adiga lieange) accuse us of being racist.

This ‘racism’ has been kind to us and we will not change, so everyone better deal with it. If I were you I wouldnt worry about being a victim. You certainly can phrase your opinions well. But how about weighing your words first.

That was wholesome, no? Following is my reply:

” Welcome to Tololy’s Box, Yet another Circassian. Your comment was a joy to read, somewhat challenging and edgy, precisely what I was looking for.

Circassians, and all other nations, have distinctive features. The only distinctive feature that would separate some people from others and make them feel on a higher pedestal would be to have all children born with something extra, like an arm or a leg, if you wish.

Reading the second passage of your comment made me think you very wise; indeed there are always failures and success stories in any family, be it multicultural or not. I do beg to differ with you, however, on the point stating that parents should rear their children as being only one side of the coin. That is a waste of culture, let alone identity (for the children). I do not expect you to be nodding your head in my agreement.

As I positively have read my post, I do not see any point where I said Circassians have no right or business preserving their culture. I often stress that this culture is beautiful and that I personally would hate to see it lost (you may wish to go over my post again). And, indeed, there are still major hints of racism in the whole world, but does that justify the act? I think not.

I especially enjoyed reading “Have the courage to accept who you are, live, and let live”. I am not sure why you said that but I thank you for the free advice. I think it is valid for most people, even those who are so convinced they are better than everyone else, wouldn’t you say?

Has it crossed my mind that this feeling of others being racist is just a reflection of my own thoughts? It has. But then the words were no games, and they were no riddles either. The actions and pointing and the bullying were not false, and they mentioned me by name. Oh, and I even have witnesses should you care to carry this further. Now, there remains little doubt in my mind that these actions were targeting me, your mind may think what it pleases. Perhaps you would care to question many other people who had to put up with such folly from some Circassians, and that I tell you should be good exercise. Trust that this debate pleases me very little, it is a direct stab at a heritage I most adore, and at a people I am related to, with or without your consent. And the most trying bit about it is that, while I was trying to be objective and to pose a real problem, some actually believe I am attacking my own blood. That is, needless to say, a scandalous assumption and I do not accept it.

Positively, Jordan is the home of the Circassians who live here. They are a devoted and a loyal people to their second home, and this a quality one admires. I cannot tell how you deduced that I accuse all Adigas of being racist, again I am obliged to advise you to read my post thoroughly and to spare your fingers the extra baseless words.

Funny how your last passage struck me as absolutely contrastive with everything you, so eloquently, said in the previous ones. Would you mind explaining this:
” This ‘racism’ has been kind to us and we will not change, so everyone better deal with it”?.

Talk about weighing words first.”

Notwithstanding one’s religion, or the lack thereof, sense dictates that people should try to live in harmony. Perhaps not all of them, that would be putting it too naively.

The rush that has been spreading faster than avian flu, is the combat between the so-dubbed “good”, and the so-dubbed “evil”. A rather dangerous battle but interestingly, a must in this age. I am not precisely the most timely person, therefore I realize that the news are now old concerning Ed Callahan, a random individual, trying, and failing to, register with Yahoo for an e-mail account due to the absolutely shameful inclusion of the word “Allah” in his last name.

Perhaps Yahoo had, and they did have, plausible reasons to try to explain the absurdity of the whole situation. But the problematic bit about this, as far as I can perceive, is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who so happen to have the word Allah in their names. The catch here is that they are not all Muslim. Quite a point, no?

Mr.Callahan, whose religious inclinations cannot be possibly derived from his last name, eventually managed to register for an e-mail address, with Yahoo. Commenting on the crooked policy, he noted “The war on terror is becoming a war on Muslims”.

For the sake of casual argument, suppose the word Allah exists only in names of Muslims, and that this unmistakable combination of letters only coincides with Muslim names, that should be a sight; to see whether or no large e-businesses, and some faces of the world, would show some decency and/or respect.

Should you wish to read the full story, kindly follow this link.

This entry is relevant, albeit not identical, to previous posts titled “Bil 3arabi”, and “Bil 3arabi:Kaman marra”. Like those two just cited, its aim is to examine the state of the Arabic language in specific circles of society, and, although this sounds too bright a venture, poses questions in relation to that stance. At one stage, it will employ the transliteration of the Arabic language into Roman characters, reflecting the Amman-Jordanian dialect, to accent the edges of the paradox.

This matter of the Arabic language has been one not easily dismissed from my thoughts, I love my language and I cherish it deeply. I am most positive many others share the same affection for the antique, fabulously artistic tongue. I am equally certain many feel an ambiguous sense of guilt for not being able to utilize the language that is their birthright and a duty often unfulfilled, in their daily lives.

Feeling incapable of self-expression in one’s alleged mother tongue is, at the very least, tragic. I remember smiling when I bump into fresh learners of Arabic who strive to utter every word the correct way, and to compose the riddles of complex sentences in line with the formulas of Arabic, and not their own languages. It is this battle that astonishes me, as opposed to the often all too defeatist abandonment of language by “native speakers”. Those learners speak standard Arabic, and they take pride in showing it, unlike many, many Arabs who take every possible measure not to speak in Arabic and to abolish any ties with the culture it carries.

That broken form of pure Arabic, employed in earnest attempts at grasping the methods of the rich linguistic system, is what came to be called “3arabi mkassar”. Yet it is fully justifiable for foreigners to miss a proper tense here or there, or to use the wrong pronoun, or even to pluralize the should-be-singular in their course of learning. But is it justifiable for an Arab to use 3arabi mkassar as well? Ino, iza ba7ki 3arabi mkassar, badalni 3arabeyyeh, wella sho bakoon?

I am eager to expand this debate further, Arab talk show style: Perhaps there is an inferiority complex within the collective frame of Arabs, or, here’s another hypothesis for you, perhaps they are easily influenced by exterior trends, easily impressed, that is.

Quite honestly, I find it enormously odd that Arabs seem to hop on any chance that would feature them as being “westernized”, rather than adherent to their heritage. Since that first image offers glittering opportunities of being glued to open-mindedness, education, and the rest of your choice of terms as opposed to that “uncivilized” Arab civilization (and I use the term “westernized” loosely). Could this linguistic hiccup, much celebrated by the elite, usher self-annihilation? What is the point of being identical with another culture via language? Does that not abort any identity, or whatever is left of it, and does it not leave one a miserable incomplete replica of a glory that never was?

To bring this to an end, it is not accurate to propose that people who do not wish to employ foreign languages needlessly in their speech are trying to shrink themselves to fit unopened cocoons, nor it is fair to judge the competence of an individual as based on usage of fancy words belonging to any language other than Arabic, or even to infer that this self same individual is incapable of going with the flow of modernization by fault of his/her usage of his/her mother tongue. Even modernization preaches logic sometimes, let us not forget that.

Amidst the calls for an exodus to WordPress, and the tries to fathom how the Box operates, a surprise claims victory. The birth of a fresh news agency that would probably steal, or obliterate, the illusive glam.

Not to complicate matters, I could declare that the Box reflects a certain range of interests, and consequently ushers in a certain type of image. The “No Labels” policy finds this a contradiction with the core belief of the Box. Yet it is not all that, and limiting the reason to this marginal fact is a misjudgment. There is the “gratis” bit to the deal, add to that the sheer potential of growth and self-expression that another, shockingly different, space may provide.

On top of all these seemingly convincing reasons, there is experimenting with various moods, multiple ways of delivering the same message, and the impact of the proceeding on the readership. I make no promises to deliver any satisfying bits of information in United Tololy News, and I do not announce any guarantees that it will be all dissimilar to the Box, or that it will reveal any grand secrets of life. It is my evil twin, not I, who runs the show over at the agency.

Freedom, is that not the ultimate goal of Mankind? Volumes upon volumes of books have been authored about it, revolutions claimed the lives of millions under the sacred name, and theology defined and redefined it.

” The concept of Freedom could only materialize if there are no consequences, be they social, moral or religious, for any notion that the human mind is capable of carrying out in actions. Sustaining thus, there are no clones of Freedom that any political or religious system can supply that will meet this criteria; therefore, Mankind is not free.”

The very feeling of fear of the outcome of actions, or the haunting sentiment of guilt, should be evidence enough to illustrate how leashed and bound Mankind is to the norms of time. People were not born to be free, and they are quite unworthy of the privilege.

All the revolutions fighting for the lost gem that is Freedom were a waste of blood and cunning, and the books a naked disrespect for the ink and paper. Theology, or the very opposite of it: Atheism, cannot guarantee Freedom, and neither will they, since it is proportionally out of jurisdiction. If that is news to you, then I apologize for the worriment.

This may sound redundant at first glance, yet the need to clarify a number of things is explicit enough to make this entry come to life. Much has been said of late about some cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad, in ways that offended the Islamic psyche worldwide.

Prophet Mohammad to Muslims is the guide that ushered light into their lives, by delivering the message of Divinity to peoples of all races and times. Understanding the reverence and respect Muslims have for their Prophet is essential in untangling this web of reactions. In addition to that, Muslims believe in all God’s messengers, therefore, to them, insulting one messenger means insulting all without exclusion. This leads to a sane deduction that, by transgressing over most Muslims’ sentiments with regards to their Prophet, the cartoons have the same impact as if they were depicting Jesus, or any other God-sent messenger – Jesus cited due to popularity, in offensive situations of your choice. While this may not stir difference in many people’s lives,denial can hardly be in place that it offends the religious.

This view, with what weight it possesses, should not be made light of. The manner in which Muslims and the Denmark or even the EU are reacting to this so-dubbed war of Free Speech vs. Religion, is debatable and arguments about it could go for hours on end. This is not my interest in this entry, you may wish to look elsewhere for this sort of argument.

The story, or the bits of it that have made it to my brain, has it that a Danish newspaper published the caricatures, which was a step that stirred a torrent of reactions by Danish Muslims. Some time later, a Norwegian newspaper published the same, or so I read, cartoons. This time, the torrent grew larger: Muslims around the world pledged to boycott Danish products, governments condemned the sacrilege and retrieved ambassadors, the Danish people -in polls- urged their leaders not to apologize, and just recently the EU took up the matter and made a not-so-subliminal economic threat to all countries who enact the boycott.

The issue at hand, if we are to dissect it, could boil down to a few questions: How far can one go with one’s right of Free Speech?. Rationality is in favor of Free Speech, but does it support it all the way? Are there no red lines that one ought to respect such as, say, the Holocaust, or Prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb-turban?

Stepping on either one of the two “odds” is dangerous. One is bound to get a decent amount of reactions, some wise, and most unwise, if one limits people’s freedom or if one lets it off the leash. I find it most amusing how most current trends, and so-dubbed-liberals-in-their-own-words, and kindly do not mistake this for an attack targeting a certain group of individuals (for any such a notion is a false claim), think it appropriate to mock the outrage that is taking the Muslim awareness by storm, and yet to overlook the simplicity of the situation that the caricatures did, in actual fact, insult someone respected by “some” people who happen to have a lot of family.

This sort of stand is severely insensitive and biased, for a simple and obvious reason, yet one that seems to allude a large number of the “liberals”. Should one claim to be liberal, then one acknowledges the rights of all people to express their differences, and one respects that. One ought not to bash some, those regarded as the retarded glitch in the face of civilization by one’s views, and spare their allegedly more-refined brethren.

If I were to look at matters from a personal point of view, I seem to find it difficult to digest to insult what a loner in Australia believes in. I may not know the person, and I may not be interested in learning much about the culture, but insulting beliefs that I know are thought very highly of is uncalled-for. This sort of conduct strikes me as being absolutely unprovoked and tremendously provocative.

Taken from Nas’ entry on the subject, this is one interesting bit of information.

” Bill Clinton warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
“So now what are we going to do? … Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?” he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.
“In Europe, most of the struggles we’ve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism,” he said.
Clinton described as “appalling” the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September depicting Prophet Mohammed and causing uproar in the Muslim world.
“None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions … there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark … these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,” he said.”

A little statement with enormous impact. This is what Leen, my niece, had to say on her fourth birthday, which corresponded with the date of January 29th, 2006.

“I think I want to marry a man when I grow up, but what am I gonna name him?”.

You see, marriage, too, does not have to be complicated.

It is most funny that when a girl wraps up her college years, she is expected by (almost) everyone, even those silent figures in the corner who do not articulate the questions, to get engaged. Allow me to be street for a while and say: man, that’s just wrong.

What pressure this generates, added to that fallen saint Valentine’s Day on February 14th, is truly will-breaking. And what’s scary about it is that most girls give in to it, they somehow feel “obliged” to tie the knot without fully understanding what they are about to commit themselves to.

The Jordanian society, for what layers I have known of it, pours such emphasis on getting engaged before, say, turning 25. After 25, a girl gets an overdose of those sugar-coated wishes of “Obalek” at every social gathering, engagement party, or wedding, that’s Jordanian for ” Wishing the same happens to you”, those wishes that actually mean: “Why is there no rock on that finger of yours, yet?”.

With this state of affairs, it is very natural to find impressive numbers of girls who got hooked for the wrong reasons, realised what errors they made, broke up, and are being judged by the rest of the saints. Wrong delivers wrong.

The role of parents is very crucial in shaping this dilemma. Some parents put their girls under such pressure to “find a man”, preferably one with a wholesome bank account, right after they graduate. Some girls get influenced with what their friends do or preach, taking this to a personal level, most of my own girl friends are all about this talk lately that I find it hard to be around them for long. It degrades me, I am not all about finding someone to fill some gap in my life just because Amman thinks so, much less because it is hype to have a boy tagging along everywhere I go.

Getting engaged is not the ultimate quest of a girl’s life, and it should not be pictured as such. It is a choice a girl should make when she is ready, not when society thinks she’s ripe and ready to be picked by that chevalier.

A girl should know her options. If she’s in a satisfying relationship with someone then all the better. If she is into her girl friends more than the knights, then so be it. If she does not accept or respect the institution of marriage, then all the sinister sounds should step back and bow to that.

Update: I present my apologies for the longish entry, and for the tone I used. Trust that I do not make light of this issue, and that I had not the slightest intention to talk as much about it. Plus I have just changed the date and time of the entry to suit this update.

Eid Al Adha is in its fourth and final day today, Friday January 13th. It was a unique event that I personally enjoyed tremendously, although I have seen certain behaviors that are in extreme contrast with the Eid’s spirit and what it stands for.

To start with the sacrifices, large numbers of people seem to find it quite normal to slaughter the sheep in the streets. That is not healthy, let alone Islamic. I wonder they do not reflect on the great emphasis Islam puts on cleanliness and manners. It is hard to believe that anyone who sheds animal blood on the street, where people drive and sometimes walk, has decent manners or any understanding for what effects this would have on the image of Islam in the eyes of others.

I also abhorred the way some people throw the sheep in their car boots, not caring if the animal gets hurt or not. That is very cruel, I think one should treat animals with respect. Some may argue that the sheep are going to be sacrificed eventually, but this does not mean they should be hurt like that. There are certain rules to be followed to give the animal a decent death, and it should not suffer.

It should be noted that, regarding the sacrifice, shares of meat are given to the poor and the needy according to a set ratio. This is a beautiful religious law that is sadly corrupted by the misconduct of some people when they fail to carry it out properly, and certainly when they mistreat the sheep.

One of the most obvious aspects of Eid is visiting one’s kinsfolk and exchanging Eid greetings, as well as offering proper hospitality rites to relatives, friends and neighbours. This has developed, to some people, into a tedious social task that they worry about beforehand. In some cases it even prevents people from fully enjoying and appreciating the Eid, and I think this is due to the social falsehoods we are faced with in our daily lives. What is right does not seem right anymore.

I wish to share two pictures that I shot during the Eid. The first one is of the cinnamon drink cup, this drink is an integral part of any Eid at our place. My mother loves to make cinnamon drink, and it is rather popular with the extended family as well. One can sip this drink right out of the cup or, if one prefers, one may enjoy it bit by bit with a spoon. That’s how I do it, and I can say I never saw anyone else drinking it the way I do. This was my cup, topped with ground nuts.

This is a picture of “Mamoul”, the traditional Eid sweets. Everyone plays a role in making Mamoul, firstly because large quantities are needed, and secondly because it takes considerable work to make those little delights. The round Mamoul with the hole in the middle are stuffed with minced and spiced dates, and the Mamoul without the hole are stuffed with ground and spiced nuts. Obviously, soft sprinkles of ground regular sugar are added to give some color. Bear in mind that each and every Mamoul is decorated by hand using a small clip-like tool designed for this purpose, some people use ready-made moulds but we do it the original way.

Claiming that music, and musical tastes, are subjective matters, it should follow that nobody has any say over what one listens to, be that ’somebody’ individuals, religious authorities, or the law.

With the music scene bursting with new performers, some of whom are alleged singers, it gets more challenging to get what one wants from one’s potential CD collection. It’s a world of choices, a gala of trials-and-errors, and with those CDs not selling cheap, making the decision is all the more tantalizing.

Music affects lives. It could make you cry on a lonely night, send your hips swaying, or calm your senses. In some cases, it could inspire you to kill your school buddies at Columbine High School and shout ‘Marilyn Manson Rules’. Music could preach violence, suicide, and hatred. It could even market drugs and crime, and glorify thugs. That’s Trick Trick Ft. Eminem’s new ‘Welcome to Detroit’; Quick come pick me up, bring them guns , Come to the club, meet me out front.

But then again, what you put in your ears is your own business, is it not?

This is an open letter to all Fastlink personnel, specifically to their Customer Care division, and to the company’s client base in Jordan. I shall write out of personal experience and will not attempt to criticize in empty words. My account is not meant to bash the company or its employees, but to bring back to their attention that I, as their customer, have the full right to complain of lack of professionalism and manners. The name of the Fastlink employee who needs additional training will be disclosed in this account, as well as in the official complaint I shall make at Fastlink HQ, and possibly in other materials.

I had the chance to visit Fastlink’s corner in Jubaiha Safeway stores at precisely 4:20 PM, today, Thursday December 29th, 2005. The purpose of my visit was to finish a transaction concerning the changing of a pre-paid offer into a post-paid one. Had I known any better, I would have saved myself the money, the time, and the patience I lost in this call.

The procedure was pleasant enough, official enough, until the Fastlink employee named Tareq Ershaid handed me two papers to sign. A quick look at the papers proved that the printer was obviously jammed when they were produced, and this caused the very words contained in the contract to be like a game of crosswords. I refused to sign the papers and demanded another copy, and at this point, Mr.Ershaid said nothing. He proceeded with the official steps, took my money as could be expected, and asked me again to sign the papers.

I refused to sign, again, and asked for a proper copy of the contract. It should not be so strange to ask for a copy of your contract printed out properly, no? Apparently this is unheard of at Fastlink. Mr.Ershaid, and praised be his manners, then resorted to another tactic. He literally told me that he has other customers to tend to, and has no time for this. My shock was unspeakable, and he did not stop at that, having a bad hair day no doubt. He added that he would change something in the contract to make my deposit five JDs instead of three, if I do not sign the paper.

Customer Care has no limits. Mr.Ershaid even said that he would take the papers without my signing them if the need be so, and that my signature is not really that crucial. I was scandalized by this. Yet I was very short on time and did not wish to make a scene because things on such occasions get ugly, so I signed with the full intention of filing my complaint anywhere it may be read.

Following is a picture of the contract that I received, I shall be writing about this to any source that may wish to hear of it. Should additional information be needed to prove this case, I will provide any data without hesitation.

I find it hard to digest that a printer is not functioning properly, and a firm as gigantic as Fastlink cannot replace it. The case maybe so, but shouldn’t Mr.Ershaid have known better than to print out a blurred contract and hand it in to a customer? At the very base of professionalism is respecting clients, and I see no respect in what he did. He could have told me that the printer is not functioning as should be expected, and I would have left with no hard feelings. He could have, at the very least, apologized for the mess of words he generated. Yet he did not, and he added to that his insolent comments and semi-threats. Funny how he only said those words after he took my money, don’t you think?

I would have guessed such people undergo certain training courses on how to deal with the public, how to promote the company’s products, or say – and I am just guessing here, how to show some respect to perfect strangers after you take their cash. I was obviously mistaken, and I am extremely unimpressed.

My sister called Fastlink’s customer service number, and the girl who answered was gentle enough. She urged us to take measures to make this known to the company, and by God, take measures I will.

Marketing aims, generally speaking, at attracting potential clients and to “talking them into” buying a certain product or a service as advertised. Marketing is a true art. What you see in the picture positioned above this passage is what I, and all students at the U of J, see upon entering from the Northern Gate. This is a Medianet board displaying an ad. The odd bit about this board is not the red, not even the lightbulb, it’s the positioning of the board on the pavement.

This Medianet board is so skillfully placed on this pavement that it gives one no room to walk beside it, one would have to leave the pavement, walk on the street, and then hop back onto the pavement. All of this is a needless waste of leg energy, and is a tedious mental task when one tries to understand why this board was placed on the pavement, in such a way, without any consideration for the rights of the people who like to avoid being run over by cars in Medianet’s attempt to promote a concept. Some may argue that not many cars use this street, and that the risk of being roadkilled is minute, I can live with that. But I cannot possibly accept any transgression on my pedestrian liberties, it is I who decides where to walk, and not some mute board presented to mock my intelligence in-your-face style.

To add insult to injury, there is more than one board placed in similar positions by Medianet throughout the premises of the university. I wonder permits are issued to such companies without first checking, and controling, where they place their boards. I also find it adequate to wonder that Aramex, whose ad is celebrated in this board, have not checked where the ad will be placed.

Father: Does she speak English?
Tololy: Yeah, she studied in the states.

This is a “snippet” of a conversation that took place last night. As soon as those words left my lips I realized how ridiculously pseudowise they are. Linguistic proficiency could be aided by your presence among native speakers, but it is not the most definitive factor in your acquiring the language.

Factors such as age, motivation, and environment affect language acquisition. Some theorists – coined Nativists – prefer to allude to the cognitive abilities of each individual to grasp a novel language. They have it that each individual, with emphasis on the early stages of life, is equipped with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This built-in mental instrument, if I may call it so, plays a major role in language learning.

Non-Nativists claim the matter is linked to social interaction. To break this down into comprehensible English, they state that a child learns a language simply because those around him or her encourage him or her to do so. Therefore the stress here is on the external elements to supply input in the course of language acquisition. This theory is highly debatable, should we feel like a good argument. Think of the many times parents speak to their children in the same way their children speak to them, yet these children develop a correct linguistic system.

There are a number of theories and schools trying to explain the nature of the somewhat obscure process of language acquisition, I hope this brief entry opens the doors for my readership to look the matter up. I will be posting about language acquisition in the near future, I think the issue highly educational.

Since I am so obviously disturbed at the way some firms operate with regards to employees’ freedoms and individuality, I decided to look this issue of dress code up. I googled it and I found this particular page that interested me the most, and made perfect sense.

The article did not add to my former arguments much, save for the “professional” influence it could have on those who have not as yet seen me as conveying that image. I could have appeared to be a typical angry employee to some’s perception. Therefore I resort to an article not composed by yours truly, and posted online for everyone to read. I suppose this step should back my points up, I quote the article now:

” There is one strong argument against casual clothing at work, and it only applies to specific employees. Certainly, employees with client contact should wear business attire, as should those who can be seen by clients in the course of everyday business. Casual dress codes only should apply to employees who cannot be seen, or who rarely are seen, by clients. Professionalism is paramount when it comes to client contact.

It is difficult to find a strong argument in favor of non-client-contact personnel being forced to wear formal business attire. The success of companies such as Microsoft, who have casual dress codes, shows that formal dress is not necessary for success.

If management allows casual attire, it may be viewed as being more caring about employees. Allowing employees to wear casual attire at work may send one or more of the following signals to employees:

Flexibility on the part of management,
A willingness to do things the “new way,”
Management does not seek to “control” employees,
There is a system of promotion in place that does not favor those who have had the good fortune to be born in the more affluent classes. “

What’s new, eh?

I utter nothing new when I reiterate my strong disapproval of workplace policies that force employees to implement a certain dress code, when, mind you – I speak of logic, an explicit need for this is non-existent.

I have formerly expressed this disfavor, and now I express it yet again because of an intelligence that reached my psyche just yesterday, November 30th. To add insult to injury, a fine is now enacted where I work as penalty for those who dare wear what they please.

The summary of the new code is, to break it down, basically this : “Wear jeans and five Jordanian dinars will be cut off your salary”. Five Jordanian dinars equal around eight U.S dollars or so. When I first knew of this I was utterly shocked, then I grew quite scandalized.

The code is extremely condescending, let alone limiting. And by pure chance, or not, I had a job interview yesterday with a German professor. I could not help but inquire about the establishment’s policies with regards to what the workers have to wear, and to my utmost gladness it turned out they do not mind an employee wearing what ever he or she wishes, as long as the job gets done. I salute that.

I find it such a pity that some local firms and managers amuse themselves by clinging to work-related fashions that have passed. It is not that I am against abiding by the rules, I only request that they make sense. I think it is time those fellows upstairs changed their way, it is old school.

On Monday November 28th, I head for an HSBC building to conclude a financial affair of mine. The clock was precisely 1:45 p.m., and the weather was too hot to handle in the black leather I was in. Nothing too kinky, think not much of the matter.

As I approached the door, I read a sign that delivered explicit apologies from the management of the bank to their clients. The motives behind such a posting on the portal became clear in a moment. I walked past the first door and then I was stopped by a man in a uniform, whom I took to have the bank’s security as his profession. I did not mind being stopped, I minded something else.

The uniform man then indicated the presence of a uniform woman who was situated close by, he made some gestures with his hands, and probably with his voice, so that I understood that there is something to yet be done before I can go about my business. Again I say, I did not mind that. I realize the importance of security and I am for the freshest safety-related measures in Amman.

I got to the woman, who had a hand held detector, and I smiled at her. She carefully slid the device over my body, with focus elaborated on my waist, and then she asked me to open my big black bag. I opened the bag, expecting her to go through my personals, and possibly intimates, with care and dignity. I was mistaken. The woman literally stripped the inner folds of my bag with her hands, she made a joke about my chocolate, then another concerning the small old navy shoe that I often play with, and I was stunned at this. I smiled at her, because I did not wish to make a scene.

The woman laughed it off and told me she was “kidding” with me. I was so taken aback by the surprise of it all that I said nothing, and smiled on. In general I am not a person who welcomes such impulses of familiarity from absolute strangers, and certainly not from strangers with a hand in the bag and a joke about one’s chocolate.

I admit that now when I look back at the incident, I regret not having been to the office of this woman’s superior. I am not sure whether or not such a step was necessary, do I come too harsh for contemplating the advance?

Notwithstanding my admiration for the Circassian culture and traditions, I am not blind to many of the flaws that distort the beauty of this civilization. Some may have harbored the illusion that I am in favor of anything Adiga, or perhaps that I aim to portray a polished image of the people because they are my kinsfolk, the people who thought as such would readily see the mistake they have made.

Having grown in a multi-cultural community, and having known a decent number of Adiga individuals, I have been faced with an ugly face of reality; racism. I am not about to pass a generic judgment over an entire race that contributed to my existence, but I speak from personal experience when I state that some Adiga individuals are racist. This may come as a stun to you, but if I were fond of using the word victim I would probably attribute it to myself and add “of racism”. I am not for victimizing myself, however, and thus the usage of the term does not appeal to me.

I would like to shed some light as to why some Circassians are racist. To start with a bit of a logical observation, if unattended with scientific evidence as yet, I think it is because Circassians were persecuted out of their native lands into a fresh environment in which they were, and still are, a minority. This sort of history put in mind could help observers understand the circumstances, always rejected but subject to study, behind racism.

This sentiment of a whole nation of being “small” in a yet larger society would make this community a somewhat closed one. Fear of losing heritage or letting language and customs slip by could also contribute to a sentiment of loss thrust upon this mind of the people, to which the people may react in a debatable fashion by imagining that they are better, and definitely better off without merging with their hosting community.

Looking different, I am sure, also helped form this belief that some have of being superior to their Arab neighbours. Circassians have a distinctive appearance that is mostly easy to recognize from that of Arabs. Another interesting bit of the “why” behind this racism, as I have come to learn, traces its roots to geography. Circassians used to live in a most beautiful environment of greenery, snow-topped mountains and abundance of water, and were transferred to a completely different atmosphere. Amman, the capital of Jordan, was when the Circassians came but a humble village with very little water and marginal greenery compared to that of the Caucasus.

One of the most disturbing, but altogether amusing, stories told about the Caucasus, the homeland of Circassians, is that which has it that when god created mankind he divided earth between the different races. He left the final piece of land, the Caucasus, for himself. But when he saw that the Circassians were left with no piece of land, he gave them his share. This is a story thrown back and forth on some Adiga tongues, and it ascertains their so-called “superiority”.

There is another fable about Hitler visiting the Caucasus and hailing the Circassian people as the “purest Aryans”. Some youth actually find pride in telling this story, and they draw the swastika to express their outward support for what could be called neo-nazi influences. I have no record of the authenticity of either one of these tales, I narrate them here because I have seen a number of Circassian youth recite them and make them their bible, from which they derive authority to regard others as inferior beings.

I bore witness to a number of incidents where I tasted the bitter flavour of racism practiced by some Adiga people, despite the fact that the blood that runs through my veins is in fact, if I want to divide it into two quantities, half Adiga. I do not wish to recount the details of the situations I found myself in because they do not add to the soul of this entry, but I do want to state that racism is blind. It is inexcusable, that we pretend to know, but I find it utterly blind.

I do not think the people who believe in racism fully realize what they are in favor of; I frankly think they are misguided. This is why I refuse to retaliate and be regarded as an extra misguided person, I would like to believe I know better than to pull a tooth for my own, or turn the other cheek.

A last appeal is due to all my Adiga relatives and readers, I did not post this entry to attack a culture I find most rich. I would like people to understand that this post springs forth from personal experience, and does not go so far as to condemn a whole people for the actions of some. Most Adiga people that I know have the warmest hearts and a unique heritage to share with the world, this is precisely why marginal defects present within a small group of individuals should be mended lest they harm the bigger, and more tolerant, image of the rest.

I received the following comment on my entry Bombings in Amman: The aftermath of the tragedy and I felt obliged to reply to it, in my constant quest for knowledge.

“Islamic fundamentalsim is a problem inherent in Islam. We can’t simply say that Islam is a violent blood thristy religion but what we can say is that there Islam is crisis. Fundamentalism is not the pretence of one or two people. It is a huge movement, a school of thought that is gaining momentum fast within the Arab and Islamic world.

Even in Jordan, prior to today 60% of Jordanians were happy about Al-Qaeda. and a further 10& did not feel that attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda were morally wrong (I read this article on the BBC a while ago but i dont havethe link you can look it up).

I mean our society has definitely shifted towards religiosity since the 60s and the 70s. As an avowed atheist I see this as a problem inherent on all religions. that is the danger of religion to motivate people towards unthinkable acts in the name of faith. Personally I find the fact people
still buy into the mass delusion that is religion today to mind boggling. But I’m not going to attack religious people here.

What I want to say is that Islam needs a reformation similar to the Christian reformationWhat we need are better Islamic scholars. Where are the Ibn KHaldun’s, Al ghazali’s, and Averroes of the modern day?The sad truth is if you go down to the University of Jordan and look up admission records for the Islamic studies department you will find that the religion department (which churns out future Imams and islamic scholars) accepts the lowest of the low of the applicant pool. And this is true of Universities all across arab world (with exceptions such as Al-Azhar in Cairo but that has also let its standards slip).

Our Imams are the dumbest people in our society according to their high school leaving (tawjihi)tests. We are leaving our spiritual well being to a group of semi retarded idiots. I wouldn’t trust
someone who got a 55% on the tawjihi with deciphering my TV remote let alone my spiritual well ebing. Personally I didn’t do Tawjihi I did the International Baccalaureate instead so I don’t know what the Tawjihi is but if the best and brightest with 90% are going into Engineering that I’m assuming that a lare number of people do well and 55% is not a respectable grade.

So I say reform Islam or obliterate Religion, purge it from our midst (I personally would prefer the latter but thats just me.On a personal note watching what’s happening on CNN from the comfort of my apartment in college is absolutely surreal.”

-Khaled Talhouni

Dear Sir,
I thank you for an informative, although controversial, piece. Anonymous to me as you are, you comment has reached me and has been read by a good number of members of my readership, notwithstanding the fact that you entertain a line of (dis)belief different from mine and that of others, and that I have never met or talked to you face-à-face.

Trust that I do not wish to preach you into Islam, indeed I do not have that goal set before me and I personally, and quite bluntly, could not care less if a person commenting on my entries worshipped his or her pinkie. This here is an open forum and variations in religion and thought are always welcome to help broaden my, and my readers’, horizons.

You started your comment stating: “Islamic fundamentalsim is a problem inherent in Islam”. I could agree on that, only I have one problem blocking the way of that consent. I am ignorant to what you mean by “Islamic Fundamentalism”, and I confess my ignorance. Kindly post a comment clarifying what that term means, where and when it originated, by whom it was coined and after what incidents or in answer to what reasons. I cannot possibly accept less than a crystal clear, and documented, answer, since there seem to be in circulation a number of ambiguous terms.

To put a nasty hat on, I must also ask you to explain what you meant when you, so strongly and without doubt, mentioned that this same so-called “Islamic Fundamentalism” is “inherent” in Islam. Kindly provide examples of incidents where this “phenomenon”, if I may call it so, was rife and make them documented.
Moving on to you next point about the percentage of Jordanians who were for the killing of innocent people, I do not see how you found it passable to connect that to “religiosity” when you said: “ our society has definitely shifted towards religiosity since the 60s and the 70s.”

If I am to assume that you meant to establish some tie between the religiosity that you say has increased since the 60s and 70s, and for that bit of intelligence I have no official record, indeed, who could measure people’s degrees of faith?, and the support of massacres worldwide, well sir I could easily prove you wrong. I am not assuming that, however, but I will be so open as to ask you to elaborate, and furnish a well-structured rationalization.

Sir, do not mistake this for a trial. I am eager to learn from you and I think this projected exchange of thought to be of great use. You have proceeded in your comment to inform me, and anyone who read the comment, that you are an avowed atheist and you see the danger of religion to motivate people towards unthinkable acts in the name of faith. You were not about to attack religious people, by your own admission, and I am not about to attack you or any other.

But what I find most amusing is that atheism seems to clutch to certain concepts in its self-defense. Have no doubt that I possess, probably, a more skeptic stand and a critical mind when it comes to the existence of a certain deity. I do not wish to tell you of my path of mind and spirit so far, although I do hope that you feel that you, and other atheists, are not alone in posing certain questions.

The line of reasoning that you follow is questionable when you deduce that religion drives people to do evil. People are capable of evil with or without religion, sir. Should we have the capacity to carry out , well, let’s call it a “social experiment”, and we erected a small village of people with no religion and put them in the midst of natural circumstances occurring in possibility in any other society, in my estimation their capability of doing wrong would equal that of other people, if it does not exceed it.

From where I stand, Islam needs to be understood. I wonder what reformation you were referring to when you sustained that “Islam needs a reformation similar to the Christian reformation”.

I share your wondering when it comes to brilliant historical personages, but I am not as pessimistic as I have received you to be. There is a good number of sensible and highly respected Islamic scholars in our day. From where I see it, they do not get enough exposure. That is a problem that should be dealt with because moderation needs to be stressed and divulged.

I would not necessarily link the high school averages of those who apply to major in Islamic studies and what not, with their level of intelligence. I would certainly not infer that such individuals, or Imams as you like to say, are “the dumbest people in our society” and are “semi retarded idiots”. Such descriptions come too extreme and I would advise against using them. I do not approve of a big chunk of what many so-called religious representatives say, and I do not know how they have been taught to say what they say, but I would not use such adjectives if indeed I were to verbalize this disapproval.

If one does not trust the intelligence of Imams, one can always learn for one’s self. Islam encourages learning and urges people to entertain critical minds and to question what they stand for. Despite what some people market, Islam is a highly personal faith. It is you and your lord, settling out your record is your own business and not the business of any other. That is not to say that the collectivity of Muslims play no role in society, which is an issue present in most, if not all, societies.

I respect you opinions and I hope you continue to share them with my readership and me. It is a rare occasion when one finds pleasure in learning of intriguing remarks. I also extend an invitation to all willing to take part in this conversation, all viewpoints matter.

Much damage has been caused by the two most recent feminine attacks on the United States, Katrina and Rita. Knowing little as I did some five minutes ago, I was enraged by the choice of names. I intended to write something about this issue in particular back when Katrina was the hottest news icon.

I could not see any reason for giving such a natural disaster a feminine name. I pondered upon the matter and decided it must have been chosen randomly. But once Rita lashed American coasts and being named as she was, some vision of a conspiracy theory started to weave itself in my head. Finally managing to prepare my case and present it to you, I resolved to search the matter first. I googled “naming of hurricanes”, and Lo and Behold I found many sites dealing with the issue.

The result that I was most interested in came from this site, and it featured an article titled “Hurricane Center may run out of names” by Ker Than. Grippingly, it turns out that “feminists urged the WMO to add men’s names, which was done in 1979. The boy-girl-boy-girl naming convention evolved to include French and Spanish names in the Atlantic system, reflecting the languages of the nations affected by Carribean hurricanes.”
That indicated the collapse of my case concerning Katrina and Rita. I was nonetheless pleased to learn that male names were also chosen for such demonstrations of natural devastation; after all, we are equal for better and for worse.

After having examined the prices of yarn-made and textile composed items, i.e clothes, at several stores located in Mecca Mall, I felt strongly obliged to post this entry and drop you my mind.
It was a morning’s outing, I decided to wander by the glossy windows of shops and I felt a renewed love for the word “sale”. My sister came along, and as we were walking I couldn’t help but notice how scandalous prices of trendy pieces of textile were.

To provide you with an example, and this is by no means an attack on any brand name or shop in particular, merely a criticism of the price tags that mocked my intelligence, I will relate to you the following reality. I was at Michigan some two weeks ago, and I stayed there for quite some time so I managed to abuse my parents’ resources considerably by shopping. I developed a distinct skill that only good shoppers acquire, the skill of comparing prices and qualities in different stores and finding what items present the best value for the money one invests in them.

That said, I once found a black fur shrug at Charlotte Russe for less than 10 dollars. It was clearance time and by no means is the low price of the item an indication that it is out of style or damaged. All the same, I did not buy the shrug. I figured it would be better on the long run if I got a nice fur coat, and I did get one.
The odd bit of the story is yet to come, since today I saw a duplicate of the black fur shrug at Mango. The color of this Mango shrug was rather brownish. It was tagged as valuing JD 109. I stood in front of the window looking at the synthetic woman-like model that wore the expensive item, and I stared at it for some time. I rubbed my eyes and looked at the tag again; trying to make sure I was not imagining things.

I understand Mango is a brand name and markets designer clothes. Charlotte Russe is also a brand name. I understand Mango items are, as we are told, imported from Spain. But I know they can be sold for cheaper, or at the very least true to the various signs that lure one in when one reads “Sale”!. Now the fur piece was not on sale, but I imagine that even if it were, it will not be for less than JD 10.
I stepped inside the store and read the values of different items, and I was very thrilled and sad at the same time. Thrilled because I got the same items for much less, and sad because I know fashion should not be this costly. And why should it, really?

I also do understand that the majority of the Jordanian people can not afford to invest a lot of money in “stylish clothes”. There are far more important priorities in their lives. But I do not approve of the notion that states that since some can’t afford the expensive items they have to put up with low-quality ones. Isn’t that merely another form of the much debated “class division”?. Should only the elite wear trendy clothes, we will end up having a society that is layered according to appearances. It pains me much to say that we have that society already.

I handled this issue in a reversed manner. Perhaps I should’ve started by commenting on the layering of the Jordanian society then followed to the outrageous prices on clothes’ tags. But this brings me to my next prophecy. Perhaps if “Sale” signs were true to the meaning of the word, we would not have this concept of labeling people according to their apparel. A bit too optimistic a prophecy? Give it a thought.

P.S. I must stress that I am against the killing of animals for the production of fur. The fur shrug at Charlotte Russe was made up of synthetic fur.

I was trying to make small talk so I asked her what sort of music appeals to her taste. She said “I hate commercialized music. I mainly listen to New Age music”. My mind was jammed as I tried to make sense of what she has just said. I did not comment on her “choice of words”, I should say. But when I got home and thought it over, I discovered that her seemingly-smart answer makes no sense.

What, exactly, is that? What is “commercialized music”? I assume she meant pop music, but then again, it can be any genre of music that she deems “commercialized”.
After some considerable musing over the matter I ultimately reckoned that she is rejecting some types of music for the wrong reasons.
I do not picture how you do not listen to some types of music purely because the “makers” of that music make money out of it. After all, not every artist in the world is struggling to provide a living. Certainly not every artist makes millions, but putting it like that in one’s head makes one quite lose the point of art, and in this case, music.

Do you listen to music because the beat of it you like? Or do you listen to it because you “believe” it’s not commercialized and in that sense “pure of the evils of this money-worshipping world”?
In my estimation, music is not an object. It is pointless and naïve to deny that some of the big names of this form of art do make “beaucoup bucks”. But seriously now, do you deny their creativity ( should you discover any once you listen ) on basis of their being well-off?

You retain your right, dear anonymous girl of once ago, to choose what you listen to. I respect your right and free choice. But do not dramatize things, and do not be all Kill-The-Money-Generating-Music on me.

The art and science of marketing is one that affects even the way we perceive things. I am a big fan of the creativity and the “brain-washing” quality this art enjoys. I will not deny the major role it plays in my daily decisions, when I find myself shopping for necessities, be they classified as “luxuries” by some or as “must-have’s” by others.

What I am about to publicize is the shock I suffered after watching a TV commercial on some channel. It was to market a feminine deodorant under the name of Rexona.
The “commercial” goes that a certain girl uses this deodorant and gets on a bus. Next a young man goes on the bus, what they have him do once he gets on that bus is nauseating. He walks past the girls in the bus, obviously smelling them and as he does that he counts the smelly ones. I was utterly repulsed by the approach this commercial uses to promote this product.

I am a viewer, and I am – possibly- a target for that commercial. It managed to capture something in me alright, only it captured my repugnance. I can not see how the people behind the seconds-long commercial figured it was a good idea to put such a production on TV.
I do believe it’s about time commercials on Arab TVs respected the audience’s intelligences and taste. I demand they stop airing all such essence-lessness. We are not brainless sand niggers nor are we tasteless big bags of oil money.

Talk about balance. I find the Arab media quite efficient in covering both major & minor events taking place in the region and the world. Yet what I notice is that it also tends to “over” cover events, which means that it floods viewers with an abundance of news that may or may not be relevant to their everyday lives. This, I believe, leads to a general state of boredom and disinterest on the part of the average viewer which could cause partial or total ignorance.
Some argue that the totality of the Arab people have an insatiable appetite for news and especially for news concerning politics. I can agree with that. But I don’t see the need to overwhelm the average viewer with news about say, crackdowns on African militia in some remote African country. I do not see the need to detail such bits of information or the need to “inflate” news just so that some channel can air a 60-minute news show.

I am all for a well-informed average Arab individual. But I am against bombarding the public with irrelevant news. In my opinion, should a channel really desire to broadcast news it should focus on the important issues that affect the lives of its viewers. Should a person desire to gain extra information about the Eskimos, for instance, he or she can refer to books or the internet or some reliable source of information of his/her choice.

At odds with this situation is the case of American public television. I find their news to be a joke. They focus too much on localities and ignore the rest of the world and that leaves little space for the average viewer to gain any awareness of what’s happening in the world in general. Some “Naked Tickler” made the news during my stay in Michigan. Missing children and fender benders were also hot topics. Again, I am all for going local. But I am against going local all the way.

I suppose there should be some balance in the news. I can hardly think of any reason the media could have to attain either a bored viewer who doesn’t watch anymore or an ignorant viewer who has no world knowledge.

– “I got a laugh like a hyena but get the hump like a camel, so cover me in fig leaves as I’m the ultimate mammal.”

An interesting article on Yahoo’s front page… (LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050825/wl_uk_afp/britainoffbeatzoo)

I think the initiative is excellent, but reading the article a certain bit caught my eye, “We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species “. It just makes me wonder at the other potential meanings it carries. We are a “plague”, labeled so by specialists and now we can even be put in a zoo (as if the world isn’t big enough of a zoo)!

Here’s an even more intriguing bit, “The…volunteers will be treated as animals and kept “amused” at the central London zoo with games and music”

Very,very interesting I’d say.
Lo and behold! More reasons to get in touch with the animal in you. YES! oh be a good fellow and drop by the London Zoo to see your “ancestors”.