Female genital mutilation outlawed in Egypt

Egypt on Thursday finally banned all female circumcision, the widely-practised removal of the clitoris which just days ago cost the life of a 12-year-old girl.

It's about time... You know what really bugs me? The stereotype of this sort of thing being an "Islamic" thing. Thankfully, this story dispells that myth:

Officially the practice, which affects both Muslim and Christian women in Egypt and goes back to the time of the pharoahs, was banned in 1997 but doctors were allowed to operate "in exceptional cases".

We'll see if they actually enforce this..

Our extremists are better than theirs, you know.

Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

What a revelation!

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- social, economic or political -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

What??!

"What is striking ... is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence," the report said.

It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as "the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity," there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

"mainstream Muslims" ...Pshaw!!

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

"It is, in each situation, a case of 'us' versus 'them,"' it said. "That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God's law supersedes man's law."

This is why I drive a camel to work. ....well I would, were I not a female. My chauffeur does the actual driving..

She said it was dangerous for U.S. President George W. Bush to use terms such as "crusade" or "ridding the world of evil."

"It really is falling into the same trap that these terrorists fall into, black and white thinking," Stern told Reuters on Wednesday. "It's very exciting to extremists to hear an American president talking that way."

Yeah, baby!

click here for full article

Hijabis are illiterate and non-hijabis are whores

"Since my conversion, no one has asked me, “Sister, do you need any help calculating and understanding zakat?” or “Sister, we are volunteering at a soup kitchen downtown, why don’t you join us?” ... while I HAVE recieved endless questions over why I haven’t changed my name or taken the veil."

This is a spot-on comment on the brilliant article by kufigirl, posted on hijabman's blog. This is simply the most well-written essay that I've ever read on the dynamics of hijab in the Muslim community. Here it is, in its entirety:

AS WE ALL KNOW, veiled women are a dowdy, dumpy bunch. They are women with no thoughts or opinions of their own, women who can’t so much as shut the bedroom window if they’re getting a draft without first consulting a man and asking his permission. Maybe, back when they were three or four years old, they dreamed of grander things from life, but now that they are adults they’ve been forced to wear the shroud, walk three feet behind their husbands, and stifle whatever hopes and feelings they used to call their own under the guise of being hapless helpmates to domineering men.

Right?

Then again, we ALSO know that unveiled women are wanton sluts, women who require nothing more than hearing a man call “hey, baby” on a street corner and suddenly they’re in the backseat of his car, throwing their legs in the air while shrieking whee, I love Satan!

At least that’s what we’ve been told. I heard it on television and read it on the internet, so it must be true.

Or wait, did I get it wrong? Perhaps it goes like this:

Bare-headed women are liberated and free, sure of themselves, comfortable with their sexuality, a page straight out of Cosmo. They are women whose lives are filled with meaning and purpose; above all, they are modern — unlike backwards veiled women, who wouldn’t recognize their own oppression if it hit them on the head with a slipper.

Or no, wait, what I meant to say was that veiled women are the true feminists, women who are secure enough in their sexuality that they don’t need to engage in some base attempt to advertise it — unlike their sell-out sisters, who are so desperate for attention that they will abandon every iota of self-respect in a sad attempt to grovel for male approval. (“Tee-hee-hee, have you seen my belly ring?”)

Right?

Well. Maybe not. To all of the above.

+ + +

A Saudi friend of mine once said that “the only thing more cliché than talking about the veil is apologizing for talking about the veil.” She’s right; the subject’s boring, long-exhausted. Yet, for Muslim women, it’s one subject that won’t go away. Here’s an insider tip for my male Muslim friends, even the so-called progressive ones who say they don’t care whether women veil or not: the difference between you and me is that you’ve never had to make this decision. And as much as we love you — plural — for claiming that you don’t care what conclusion we come to, the fact is you will never have to be in this position. And that, right there, makes your experience of Islam different from ours.

This is especially true in the United States. Which might seem odd, because we have no laws about veiling here, but that’s part of the reason the issue is so contentious.

In Iran, because veiling is mandated by law, a woman must be especially progressive to wear it in a lax and casual manner (in public) or forgo it altogether (in private). Veiling is the norm, so she’s well aware of the statement she’s making when she rejects it.

On the flip side, in France or Turkey — where there are laws against veiling inside various public institutions – a woman is, presumably, especially religious if she decides to take it up. Since not-veiling is the default, for Muslim and non-Muslim women alike, going against the grain of public opinion requires a commitment to Islam that most observers would understand to be something over and above the mere coincidence of being born into a Muslim family.

In the United States, however, it is precisely the freedom of choice I so cherish that makes this such a complicated decision for the Muslim women who live here. The cultural norm – the “average American” woman – is unveiled, but the predominant image of a Muslim woman, even among non-Muslims, is that of a muhajabah. Therefore a muslimah who decides not to veil is seen as transgressing against her community and will have her commitment to Islam doubted, while the woman who does decide to veil is seen as rejecting everything about American life save for her religious practice. We can’t win; there is no middle ground. Being 51% one way or the other is seen as a complete rejection of the other side.

In case you weren’t listening the first time around, let me be clear: I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m opposed to both the French ban on veiling and the Saudi mandate for it, and listening to the Dutch whine about the loss of their Pure Dutch Culture [sic] in the face of all these – gasp – immigrants is one of the few times I’m proud to be American, where multiculturalism is an established fact, however imperfectly it’s practiced.

But I also remember living in a country where the signifiers weren’t so strong. I’m told it’s different in Egypt now — that somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of Cairene women now veil — but when I was living there, in the early 1990s, it was closer to 50/50. I loved that. I loved, especially, that there was no great social divide between veiled and unveiled women; you’d see differences of opinion even within a single family. One of my sisters-in-law veiled, one did not, the third took it up for a few years and then changed her mind and took it off. None of this was a matter of any great controversy. It didn’t even merit much discussion.

This is not to downplay the choices Egyptian women had to make. One friend of mine at the university said her father never forced her to veil, but it was only after she decided to take it up that he allowed her study late at the library, walk home unattended, and otherwise participate in public space in ways he wouldn’t have permitted without her willingness to adopt the hijab and, accordingly, serve as walking symbolism for everything the hijab represented in the popular imagination. On the other side of that spectrum, there was another girl I knew, also Egyptian, who said she wanted to veil but worried it would interfere with her career as a journalist. She wanted to be a foreign correspondent, and she was afraid people would read so much into her scarf that they wouldn’t get around to reading her words.

Can the choice to veil or not veil in such a context truly be considered “free”? I don’t know. Then again, I know plenty of American women who will tell you no one forced them to diet, but they believed that being thin facilitated their right to speak with authority in a manner they’d have lost if they had to confront the bias against fat women in a country where being heavy is equated with a loss of self-control and a where a loss of self-control is considered shameful, if not downright sinful. My point here is not to excuse the former because of the existence of the latter: only to argue that there is nothing uniquely “Islamic” about a woman negotiating with the patriarchy, nothing specifically “Muslim” about a woman who trades in Her Personal Ideal in favor of getting what privileges she can with a minimal amount of compromise. We ladies, the world over and religion notwithstanding, have been doing that for thousands of years.

I wonder, though, if our notions of “Islamic dress” had evolved in such a way that the turban (for example) was considered as mandatory for men as the hijab is for women in some circles, would Muslim men in the West expound on the subject with the same confident manner they do now, one that is as flippant as it is self-assured? I’m sure 10% of men would wear it everywhere without a second thought, and another 10% would scoff at the mere idea of it. But for the majority, those in the middle, it would (I would hope) elicit a little more reflection. Do you risk community censure for being one of those “non-turban guys,” knowing that – before you even open your mouth – your bare head will be considered, by some, proof that you eat pork, drink alcohol, never pray, love capitalism, support colonialism and the war in Iraq, neglect your children, and cheat on your wife? Or do you take it up, knowing that, in different spheres, it will brand you as ignorant, ascetic, oppressed, and/or radical? Be careful! Remember, you don’t get to choose how you want to be seen at this event, or with that crowd of people: the choice you make has to be applicable for all times and circumstances. No fair picking one option for a family reunion or protest march, and another for your first nervous job interview at Chase Manhattan.

For a while, in Cairo, I lived across the street from a girls’ high school and would watch these young scholars stream out of class after the final bell. There would be the same roar of high-pitched laughter I recognize in teenage girls anywhere, in any country, as they coagulated in groups in the garden, or at the front gate: veiled girls interlinking their arms with girls who wore their hair uncovered, occasionally leaning over to whisper some secret that necessitated pushing back a girlfriend’s headscarf or ponytail, depending, in order to have access to her ear. The intimacy of girls that age is always charming to me, but it seems even more endearing in retrospect, knowing that they were doing something that, in so many parts of the world, would be considered a radical act: ignoring the politics of the veiled/unveiled split in favor of interacting with the human being inside.

Microwave panini sandwiches? Blechh!

..NOT!!

Today I tried one of the Lean Cuisine Microwave Panini sandwiches. I had my doubts at first, not the least of which was about the bread actually remaining crispy and toasted after cooking--how I HATE wet bread!

I took the open-faced sandwich out of the box and followed the directions, carefully removing the plastic wrap and placing the sandwich--and its special "grilling" tray--on top of the Lean Cuisine box.

I microwaved it for 3 minutes and put the two (HOT) halves together, and the bread was still quite crispy! The cheese melted between the slices of bread in a yummy but non-messy way.

...and the sandwich was actually good!

I'm still shocked that something like this would be good, coming out of a microwave. And it's only 5 weight watchers points.

Ok, now I'm reading this and realizing that I sound like a Lean Cuisine commercial. I don't work for them, I swear! I just like good, light food. Not unlike that chick from hungry girl.

Muhammad is #2

As good of a name as it may be, I am NOT naming my kid Muhammad...

Just think.. Muhammad is widely regarded to be the most popular name on earth. But only Muslims name their kids Muhammad. And Muslims are only 25% of the earth's population. And only roughly 50% of Muslims are male. So what does that tell you about the percentage of Muslim males that are named Muhammad? Dude...

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

click here for full article

Whatever, JD Power.

If you've ever been to the Seattle airport, you'll undoubtedly find that it is--in the words of hijabiapprentice--"hellish and warlike." The Portland airport, on the other hand, is wonderful. I could live there, it's so awesome.

Well, according to JD Power or whatever, I am clearly confused. For a survey of medium-sized airports, they gave PDX two stars out of five, and SEA got THREE! WTF????!!!!

SEA rated higher than PDX in "food & beverage," "retail services," and "baggage claim."

Ok, listen. PDX is filled with retailers (food and otherwise), that are awesome local and regional businesses. Businesses like Coffee People, Nike Store (dude, Nike is from Portland), Pizzicato Pizza, The Oregon Pendleton Shop, Made in Oregon, and, of course, Powell's Books. And it's not just inside the security area, like in the stupid Houston airport. You'll find tons of stuff whether you are a traveler, or a dropper-offer/picker-upper. I once had coffee with an old friend at the airport, who was blowing through town and had little time to hang out, and it was great.

I cannot speak to the retail quality of the Seattle airport, but I can tell you this about the baggage claim: don't do it. I flew in there last Christmas and I swear, we were herded through that place like cattle until we finally made our way to the cramped and smelly baggage claim. We waited and waited in the dank, narrow dungeon that surrounded our carousel so we could just get our bags and get the hell out of there. Something smelled... was it a dead body? No, wait... someone was smoking right next to us, it seemed. Yet I saw no smokers... What the?

You cannot tell me that the Seattle airport is BETTER than the Portland airport. What are you, high? You just can't. I could go on, but I shouldn't even be blogging at work. Bah.

footnote: Conde Nast traveller is clearly smarter than JD Power. They named PDX the best airport for Business travel in 2006. I would expand on that and say it's the best airport for Human travel.