Society in general has a tendency to kick people when they’re down. Throughout history, the weak and defenseless have been targets for abuse. This continues on today.  The young, the old, the poor, the orphans, those with little education and those with disabilities all qualify as victims of this abuse,  so that the very people who have nothing to lose become the people who also have nothing to gain.

Widows are one group of such people. In developing nations – particularly in South Asia and Africa- when a woman loses her husband, she herself pretty well dies, too. This “social death” involves verbal, emotional and physical abuse from the community as a whole as well as from her husband’s family. She can be subject to accusations that she killed her husband. She can be thrown into the street with no one to protect her. She can have her children stolen from her. She can even be set on fire. In some African cultures, a deceased spouse doesn’t end a marriage and a widow can be forced to marry her brother in-law or other male relative to carry on the relationship. This is called a "levirate” arrangement, whereby the children conceived are considered the children of the widow’s original husband. Actually, if the new “husband” doesn’t want kids, he can choose to throw his dead brother’s wife, now impregnated by him, out of the house. All of these horrendous acts of hate are either permissible by law or so culturally normal that the laws against them aren't upheld.

Setting aside the psychological damage this would have on a person; these women have literally nothing left once their partner dies. It's illegal for their husbands to leave them wealth or land. Even if they do get to keep their children, they often have to pull them out of school or have them work due to exceptional circumstances. One can imagine what kind of a mess this gets kids into. Child slavery and prostitution are often the result of a widowed mother.

The most tragic part about this whole ordeal is the heedlessness regarding the issue. There are no laws being enforced to protect a widow’s rights. In India, where in 1856 the law preventing widows from remarrying were abolished nationally, it was still left up to the various religious authorities in different parts of the country to decide what to do with these women. While efforts are being made by a few global organizations such as Empowering Widows in Development (EWD), it is said that no change can occur until these women bind together and call for change themselves. May Allah SWT give them the tawfiq, ameen.

It’s shameful to think that entire communities witness this treachery and yet there is still so little reported on it. Indeed, widows take up large proportions of the population of any country that is at war due to casualties, and there are plenty of those.  Yet there is seldom any statistical evidence to prove the extremeness of this point. One of the few times it has been reported is during Rwanda’s genocide (1994), where over 70% of adult women were widowed. How is this so easily overlooked in other nations?

I’d like to end by asking you to join me in making du’a for our fellow mothers, daughters and sisters. May Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem, soon relieve them of their distress; may He guide them and keep them firm in their iman; may Allah protect them from the evils of this life and the next; and may He ease them in their accountability on the Day of Judgment for the troubles they’ve seen in this dunya, ameen. O Allah send blessings upon our beloved Prophet SAW, who was a mercy to mankind and an example to be followed when dealing with the destitute.

 

Although I successfully avoided physically being in Downtown Toronto last weekend, I could not ignore the ruckus and the hoopla that went down in the heart of our city. Many events have taken place in Toronto, but in my 22 years of living in the GTA, I cannot recall a single one that caused as much commotion and uproar. The G20 summit took place in the heart of one of the largest urban centers of the world, and disrupted millions of residents. The government spent an immense amount of money hosting the G20 and setting up security and police to monitor activities of the public.

Along with the G20 came millions of dollars in government expenditure, disruption to the city which no cost can be put on and numerous protests. Protestors came out to exercise their rights and show that they were not in agreement with the choice of the government to host the summit. In response to this, the government increased the powers of the authorities and this meant that the civil liberties of citizens were greatly limited. Numerous arrests took place for activities which were not illegal, and as a result of the anger that protestors had, many local businesses were also vandalized. The government refused to compensate the businesses, and refused to acknowledge the loss of civil liberties.

Throughout the last few weeks of June 2010, Toronto proved to be a city that failed its people. The animosity that swept the city along with the road closures, U of T being closed for a week and cell phone signal disruptions were no doubt a horrible start to the summer of 2010. One can hope that this horrific occurrence is taken as something that lessons are learned from, and one which prevents anything similar from occurring in the future.

For my last article at kih, I thought it  fitting to write about Somalia, as its Independence Day was this past week, (though the validity of an Independence Day for any country is debatable).

July 1st was Somali independence Day. The country has been free from physical imperial occupation for 50 years. However, it's been mired in war and opposing international interests since.

The state of Somalia is unique in Africa. The population is the most homogeneous on the continent. It shares the same religion (the same madhab, even), the same language, and the same basic features. With the exceptions of Ogaden and Djibouti, the large part of the Somali population is actual within the borders, thereby making Somalia the only true nation state in Africa.

Despite that fact, Somalia is still in a constant state of war. Why? Despite all the common ground, clans are the main cause of division. Clans are groups of people that can trace their ancestry to a common patriarch.

Not to bash the values of Somalis, because Allah created diversity so that we learn to appreciate each other. Allah says in the Qur'an (translation): “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another." [al-Hujuraat 49:13]

However, it's a curious thing that in a continent of artificial states that the one legitimate nation state is tearing itself apart from what, on the outside anyway, seems like really minor differences. Although, it might just be that clan relations are used for political leverage so that existing hostility is exacerbated.

May Allah unite the people of Somalia and this Deen. And may He (swt) bring peace to Somalia, and victory to this Deen.

I've heard it said about Arabia that Allah purified it with the blood of martyrs. May He (swt) grant the same to Somalia, and hasten the coming of peace.

Italy is an officially secular country. However, with an 80% majority identifying itself as Catholic, and as the site of much of the history of the Catholic Church, of course Catholicism plays an integral part in the sociopolitical stance of the nation. Prior to secularization, legislation said that there should be crucifixes in every school. In 2003, a Muslim family in Ofena, Italy asked that crosses be taken down out of respect for their Muslim children who attended a local school in the city. They won, but of course it caused a lot of commotion.

Islam is the second largest religion in Italy, this being due to their large influx of immigrants from Muslim countries each year.  However, Muslims haven’t received the same recognition as followers of smaller groups, including those of Judaism, Assemblies of God and the Seventh-Day Adventists. In fact, earlier this year Italy passed a law against the niqab despite its relatively large Muslim population. Also, in 2009, a group of thousands of Muslims were condemned for holding congregational prayers outdoors during a protest for Palestine. Mind you, this happened multiple times and once it was outside of a cathedral.

Personally, I think there wouldn't be so much of a revolt if Muslims did get rights equal to other minorities in the land, but then I also can’t prove that this is the case. Many Muslims have voiced their neutrality over the situation, stating that things like a cross in a classroom are not the concern and fighting over those issues is actually impeding integration. However, even in these cries one can assume that they do feel ostracized – hence their desire for leniency on the matter. 

Overall, I don’t know where I stand on this one. It is unfair that Muslims aren’t a recognized religious group, but it’s also not right to break laws and offend the other citizens of the country you live in. I guess the question is, which came first?

When Woodrow Wilson proposed a permanent forum for international negotiation and cooperation at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, detractors immediately pointed out that, when world powers get together, they tend to get nothing done. The irony of such a statement being made at a conference of governments aside, the criticism has proven to be right for the most part.  

With the G20 poised to arrive in Toronto in a few weeks, the finance ministers, heads of state, and bank governors of the world’s 19 most developed economies (plus the European Union) will deliberate at the Metro Convention Centre. In theory, they’ll discuss the most prescient issues in international governance, including climate change, child mortality, economic regulation and resource conservation. What they’ll accomplish has been the at the centre of much public scrutiny in recent months, with critics going as far as to say the entire event smells of a state-sponsored dinner party. What can possibly get done in a fifteen hour meeting, anyway? The estimated $1 billion security tab doesn’t exactly help matters, either.  

The coverage of the debates in mainstream media has been extensive, though not exhaustive. Lost in the discussion about logistics, security costs, and effectiveness is the intended purpose of such meetings.  

In a modest attempt to fill said void, I offer a resolutely objective (SIKE! …objectivity is a myth) discussion of the other side of the proverbial coin. 

Pro-summit activists counter that, though the model might be imperfect, it offers sophisticated economies a chance to deliberate on important issues. Dialogue can only be constructive. The world’s most successful economies cooperating in the interest of stability is a fairly admirable goal. Say what you would like to about what they ultimately accomplish, but if you were to design a miracle solution to all the world’s ills, chances are it would start with world powers talking to each other.  
  

Here we go again. That was my reaction when Quebec Premier Jean Charest introduced Bill 94 in March. Bill 94 is a law proposed by Quebec’s Liberal government that would prohibit women in niqabs from accessing government services. Some services that would be barred to the women are: healthcare, university, community health and daycare centres. While like many of you, I’m familiar with the position of France on the issue, it was still a shock to me that such a law would be passed in Canada.

Charest maintains that the purpose of the law is to facilitate efficient identification, security and communication.  Additionally, Christine St-Pierre, Quebec's minister for the status of women, claimed the Bill promotes gender equality.

However, both those claims have inherent contradictions. Firstly, Charest’s claims that the niqab hinders identification is without basis. In most cases, women in niqab are willing to remove it in order to identify themselves to female attendants. His other claims are that women in niqab somehow are a danger to security and communication.

As explained by Rosie DiManno in an April Toronto Star article, one answer to that is the Sikh kirpan. The kirpan is a small dagger that Sikh men wear and it is not supposed to be unsheathed. However, there have been recent circumstances in which the kirpan has been used in a violent attack. I wonder, why is it that this dagger is not banned as a threat to security, but the niqab is?

Also, I wonder why a niqab wearing woman was removed from a Montreal language class in March? There seemed to be no complaint by the instructors that it hindered any communication.
So, the question of true intention, true purpose comes to mind: what is the purpose of this Bill? Surely, not to achieve the goals that Premier Charest has claimed, nor is it to achieve  gender equality, because isn’t a fundamental goal of feminism to secure the right of women to choose?

Maybe it’s the distinctness of Quebec society flaring up again. The distinctness which includes strictly secular principles that some Quebecois may think are unique only to them. But were those principles not championed by that famous Frenchman who once said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?” Would the same not apply to clothing choice?
____________________________________________________________
Speak up and Speak out
http://nonbill94.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/updates-on-the-nonon-bill-94-campaign/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Quebec-Niqab-Ban-Petition/112128325465063

It is sad that these brave Muslims, who’ve been striving against a brutal enemy for decades, receive more attention from non-Muslims than from Muslims. We need to include the struggle of other places, as well as Palestine, in the Ummah’s consciousness. 


How we can Help:

- make dua'a for them and other Muslims facing oppression
- spread the word and inform others about the true situation in Chechnya
- Donate: Islamic Relief in Chechnya

Sources:

BBC
IslamOnline
The Guardian

News about torture of Afghan prisoners always seemed to sink shortly after surfacing, particularly in Western media, but shadows of abuse and torture are starting to become too large to overlook. Many more accounts of torture and abuse at the US military’s Baghram prison in Afghanistan have emerged, now with much documented proof. Testimonies have been collected from first hand witnesses who describe human rights violations, similar to those exercised in Guantanamo Bay.

Human rights violations in the US military’s open air prison, Baghram, are uncountable and include treatment ranging from sleep deprivation, freezing temperatures and physical abuse with weapons. The only way the US and Canadian military members could have possibly justified any of this abuse and torture was to mentally dehumanize Afghan prisoners. Dehumanization would help them rationalize the abuse they put them through, making them less guilty conscious.

After many years of torture tales going untold, documented evidence has surfaced in the public eye, and the public awaits accountability and appropriate punishment for the wrongdoers. We can be hopeful that demanding accountability will stop further acts of abuse and force abusers to think twice before putting human beings through treatment worse than anyone would even imagine putting animals through.

Both the US and Canadian militaries and governments should, hopefully, face trials in which are due in any democratic society. Just because the majority view is the prevalent one, it is not at all necessary for it to be the correct view. All individual citizens of the state must realize the importance of upholding accountability in a democratic state; otherwise the true essence of democracy will soon begin to crumble.

A full public inquiry into detainee abuse has been called due to the pressure being built on the Harper government. The heart of democracy lies in dissent in which all viewpoints are vocalized and given the appropriate and due consideration. If we truly love our land, our patriotism should be evident through constructive criticism of the state as opposed to thoughtless conformity.