By Karlo Mikhail Mongaya

FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES posts more than a dozen pictures of the church, old houses, and other historical sites of the Philippine city of Santa Rosa.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

“This village is stunning – the scenery, the variety of panoramic views, and even the crops on the steep hillside are mesmerising”: MEP Caribbean Publishers visits the village of Paramin, “one of the few communities where some of the older residents still speak French patois.”

By Oiwan Lam

Kai Pan looks into the blooming of Christianity in China in recent years and addresses the question on whether religion is good for China.

By Rezwan

An Ordinary Citizen discusses about the recent process of constitutional reforms in Bangladesh, the controversies surrounding it and expectations from it.

By Raphael Tsavkko Garcia

Robson Fernando comments [pt] on a declaration of the police-show host José Luiz Datena who has “associated atheists and disbelief in God with everything that sucks” and said that “Atheists have no moral boundaries, the most brutal crimes are linked to the ‘lack of God in the heart'” on live TV.

By Veronica Khokhlova

Hungarian Spectrum writes about Endre Ady (1877-1919), “one of the most famous Hungarian poets.”

By Veronica Khokhlova

Raf Uzar writes about the outcome of the Polish presidential election and the “rydzykisation” of the country.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

Girl With a Purpose provides an update on the Dudus extradition case.

By Veronica Khokhlova

the POLSKI blog reports that the pastoral ministry of the southern Polish city of Nowy Sacz thinks that the city's new logo “promotes Satanism and homosexuality.”

By Amira Al Hussaini

“Oliver Stone is a nutcase,” announces Yael, from Life in Israel. “Oliver Stone has come out with some virulently anti-semitic comments, claiming that Jews control the media, downplayed the Holocaust, defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and complained about Jewish influence in the United States…” she continues.

By Claudio Ruiz · Translated by Silvia Viñas · View original post [es]

As part of the celebrations for the Bicentennial of the Republic, the Chilean Catholic Church has announced a proposal [es] regarding the need to pardon certain people convicted of crimes on humanitarian grounds. In the words of bishop Goic,

Nuestra petición no anula ni contradice el imperio de la Ley y la Justicia, sino que lo supone y lo exige. Es decir, velando por el imperio de la justicia -nada más injusto que la impunidad- y salvaguardando el pleno imperio de los derechos humanos en materia de crímenes de lesa humanidad, creemos que se pueden dar pasos de clemencia, actuando en el marco del estado de Derecho, del ordenamiento constitucional y de los tratados internacionales vigentes

Our request does not override or contradict the rule of law and justice, but it presupposes it and requires it. In other words, ensuring the rule of justice –[there's] nothing more unjust than impunity– and safeguarding the rule of full human rights with regards to crimes against humanity, we believe that steps can be taken for clemency, acting within the rule of law, constitutional law and international treaties in force.

The proposal –announced amid a controversy about allegations of sexual abuse by priest Karadima in Santiago– was sent to President Piñera for his analysis and eventual affirmative answer, causing great controversy across the political spectrum. In particular, for the possibility that this pardon include those convicted of violations of human rights during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

The pardon is a long-standing legal institution in Chile. In the words of professor Marcelo Brunet [es]:

(…) el indulto presidencial es un resabio absolutista propia de las monarquías soberanas, una institución propensa a la arbitrariedad y los abusos de poder, que no se justifica en el siglo XXI.

the presidential pardon is an absolutist vice from sovereign monarchies, an institution prone to arbitrariness and abuse of power, which is not justified in the XXI century.

In general, the proposal was accepted only in certain sectors of the political parties that make up the government's coalition [es].

The Association of Families of Dissapeared Detainees strongly opposed the measure. In the words [es] of Mireya García, vice-president of the organization:

La propuesta de la Iglesia no descarta sino que incluye, a pesar de que está señalado en forma bastante diplomática, pero cuando se habla de que hay que tener clemencia en crímenes en contra de la humanidad lo que se está diciendo es que los violadores de Derechos Humanos también son susceptibles de ser beneficiados con un indulto. Es una propuesta que claramente a nosotros nos provoca gran desazón.

The proposal from the Church does not exclude but rather it includes, even though it is stated in quite a diplomatic way, but when it comes to having clemency on crimes against humanity what is being said is that violators of Human Rights are also susceptible to be benefited by the pardon. It is a proposal which clearly causes us great distress.

During this week, the Chilean blogosphere has published a series of interesting articles on the issue. Rodrigo Mora, in Blog de la República [es] opposes the proposal, arguing that,

Sería inconveniente que Piñera sucumbiera a tamaño error de prudencia. El opinante y llanero solitario de los derechos humanos en la derecha podría cometer el peor de todos los errores: la vuelta de los fantasmas y la exhumación de varios cadáveres que ya parecían enterrados y que no estaban ni siquiera desaparecidos.

It would be inconvenient for Piñera to succumb to such a great error of prudence. The opinionated lone ranger of human rights of the right could make the worst of all mistakes: to bring back the ghosts and the exhumation of several cadavers that seemed to be buried and that weren't even missing.

Héctor Salazar, a Human Rights lawyer, writes for El Quinto Pode [es] about the lack of relationship between the country's bicentennial celebrations and the pardon for those who have committed crimes:

Es indudable que un indulto general, decretado por ley, importa un sacrificio importante de justicia, y ello, dentro de un cuadro de impunidad creciente, mas que pacificar, crispa la convivencia social, obteniéndose así lo contrario de lo que sea dice desear: paz y tranquilidad.

There is no doubt that a general pardon, decreed by law, means a significant sacrifice of justice, and this, inside a growing pattern of impunity, rather than pacify, disturbs social life, thus achieving the opposite of what is said to want: peace and tranquility.

Bogger Julio Suárez [es] also opposes the proposal from the Church, saying that,

En Chile, los autores de delitos de lesa humanidad no han sido todos detenidos y procesados y encarcelados. Y muchos que sí lo han sido, recibieron penas leves. ¿Y ahora, indultarlos? El argumento es que son viejos. Sí, son asesinos que se pusieron viejos, no son “viejitos buenos”. ¿Se imaginan, con este argumento del “viejito enfermo”, estar hoy soltando a Paul Shäefer, por indulto?

In Chile, the perpetrators of crimes against humanity have not all been arrested and prosecuted and imprisoned. And many who have, received light sentences. And now, pardon them? The argument is that they are old. Yes, they are murderers who were old, not “good old folks.” Can you imagine, with this argument of “sick old man,” now releasing Paul Shaefer, because of a pardon?

Those who have been in favor of the measure are the  associations of retired military [es], who in a joint declaration argued that,

Expresamos asimismo, nuestra esperanza en que el actual Presidente de Chile, ajeno a indebidas como ofensivas presiones de quienes, interesadamente, insisten en perpetuar la odiosidad y división entre los chilenos, adopte la más sabia y justa resolución en esta trascendente materia que afecta el alma nacional, primando en él su condición del estadista que nuestro país requiere para enfrentar unitariamente su tercera centuria

We also express our hope that the current President of Chile, aside from the improper and offensive pressure from those who, selfishly, insist in perpetuating hate and division among Chileans, adopt a more wise and just resolution in this transcendental matter that affects the nation's soul, prioritizing in his condition as the statesman our country needs to face in unity its third century.

On Sunday, President Sebastián Piñera announced his final decision about the proposal, declaring that [es],

no es conveniente ni prudente, en los actuales tiempos y circunstancias, promover una nueva ley de indulto general.

it is not convenient nor prudent, in the current times and circumstances, to promote a new law on a general pardon.

Nevertheless, he announced that he would use his presidential capacity to pardon in a “very prudent and restrictive” way for humanitarian reasons, leaving aside those convicted of serious crimes, among which he included human rights, terrorism, drug trafficking, rape, homicide and child abuse.  The presidential announcement has been supported [es] across different Chilean political parties. Carlos Moffat, in Blog de la República [es], reflects on this:

Para una coalición que lleva muchos años haciendo de la seguridad ciudadana y de la puerta giratoria un tema de campaña política, un indulto general parecería una contradicción fundamental. Y para esa misma coalición, que debe – a pesar de mucho de sus miembros – demostrarle al país un compromiso más que retórico con la inviolabilidad de los derechos humanos, un indulto a los militares hubiera tenido un costo político significativo, sin ventajas aparentes.

For a coalition that has spent many years talking about citizen security and the revolving door during political campaigns, the general pardon seems to be a fundamental contradiction. And for that same coalition, that must –despite many of its members– show the country a compromise that is more than rhetorical with the inviolability of human rights, a pardon for [those in] the military [involved in human rights abuses] would have had a significant political cost, without [any] apparent advantages. Thumbnail image by Flickr user adri021 used under a Creative Commons license.

By Amira Al Hussaini

Saudi Woman shows a visitor the Muttawa (religious policemen) in action in one of the malls.

By Amira Al Hussaini

After France imposed a ban on the veil, Iraqi Layla Anwar tweeted: “I am looking forward to see a ban on topless Western tourists on Muslim countries beaches…”

By Ndesanjo Macha

Sun hides behind clouds, by Dan A'Vard

Last week, South African blogger Khaya Dhlanga asked people on the “Internets” what they would ask God if he said they could ask him anything.

He has posted some of the questions sent by his readers:

The questions were poignant, funny, moving and some just plain silly, all appreciated of course. The questions, responses/comments were interesting. Here is a list of these fascinating questions:

Paul Walsh:

What KFC’s secret recipe is.

Thabiso Ramolefe:

WHERE IS MY BILLION RAND HIDING?

Bathabile Dlula:

when is my last day on earth dear Lord?

Odwa Dumisani Dandala:

i would just walk up to him and just stare at him and ask him. why? *i think that basically covers all the questions that i want answers to* WHY?

Brendah Nyakudya:

Why he gave black people such a strong self-destructive streak

Thulani Mbandezelo:

How come you dont have a 24hr hotline like Zuma [The President of South Africa]

Waheeda Safi:

Why does he bring people into our lives makes up feel all these emotions and then takes them away.. And why make life so hard.

Ncumisa Ngcaweni:

I would ask him to turn back time & cause Eve not to be deceived by the serpent or Adam to stand up to her & not allow her to disobey God’s instructions & not to disobey with her.

Cruella Shirley Snook:

WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU LIVE AND WHATS YOUR PHONE NUMBER

Sarah Judge:

who is god?

Yolande Jordaan:

Why did you make humans in the first place, if you new we would mess up? After all ain’t we responsible for most of the hardship in this world? We created pollution, weapons & bombs, racism, xenophobia, etc…. and yet we are not willing to take responsibility for our action, instead we rather blame one another.

And a list of questions from Twitter users:

@Cynicalgrinch:

God, you joker, why did you make creationists? Was there a quota of stupid you needed to fill?

@ItsSinga:

Why is the right thing always the most difficult thing to do..

@swampcottage:

“Who made you?”

@TigerThebe:

Why did you make Julius Malema? [South Africa's controversial politician and the President of the African National Congress Youth League.]

@missltzama:

y do u hate blk ppl? [Black people]

@BrigidL:

what He does in His spare time… He seems to be very busy!

@Busi31:

can you also make me turn water into wine?

Khaya Dlanga won Africa's top Digital Citizen Journalist in 2008 for innovative use of the internet, at the Highway Africa conference and the Annual - Advertising, Media & Marketing 2008 listed him as one of the 100 most influential people in Advertising, Media & Marketing.

By Amira Al Hussaini

In Saudi Arabia, all businesses shut down during prayer times. Ahmed Al-Omran sends out the following tweet: “Dear moron at post office who refused to serve me b/c “it's prayer time,” 1) u r a disgrace to this religion, & 2) I paid for this service.”

By Marwa Rakha

Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid after receiving the IBN RUSHD Prize

Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, a prominent Egyptian scholar once accused of apostasy for his contemporary interpretation of Islam, has died on July 5, 2010. He was 66. Officials at the Cairo hospital where Abu Zeid had been receiving treatment for the past two weeks said he died Monday from a brain infection.

Calling him her hero, Mona ElTahawy reposted an article she wrote about him and his strife in 1996:

An Egyptian court on Monday threw its weight behind Islamists by upholding a ruling that a happily married university professor must divorce his wife because he was found to have renounced Islam.

A human rights group, saying it feared for the life of Arabic professor Nasr Abu Zeid, urged President Hosni Mubarak to overturn the “unjust” decision by Cairo’s Court of Cassation.

The court rejected Abu Zeid’s appeal against a ruling ordering his separation from fellow academic Ibtihal Younis.

Abu Zeid and Younis moved to the Netherlands earlier this year to take up teaching posts. The Court of Cassation is the last stop for appeals in Egypt and court sources say if the couple ever return to Cairo they will have to separate.

Abu Zeid has argued he is still a Moslem and has accused mainstream Islamic clerics of quoting the Koran out of context and of making even simple factual errors. Younis has criticised the fundamentalists for treating her like a child by interfering in her private affairs.

Moftah quoted correspondent Hend Adel and wondered:

شيع المئات من المواطنين فى الثانية من ظهر اليوم جنازة الكاتب نصر حامد أبو زيد (67 عاما) من مسجد وهدان بمنطقة قحافة بطنطا، وسط إقبال متوسط من ذويه وأهالى المنطقة، كما خلت الجنازة تماما من أى شخصيات عامة أو مسئولين أو وفود رسمية. Hundreds of people, including a few relatives, showed up at Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid's funeral who died at the age of 67 to bid him farewell in his hometown in Tanta. No public figures, VIPs, officials, or delegations attended his funeral.

Voice of Egypt lamented Dr. Abu Zeid's sudden death:

لم أجد كلام أفضل من ما قاله مينا زكري علي تويتر:

مات من رفض السلطة المطلقة للنصوص ورفض تغييب العقل…. مات من آثر انتهاج التفكير في زمن التكفير… مات من فرقوا بينه وبين زوجته بسبب أفكاره،.. مات من طفشوه الكلاب من البلد… مات نصر حامد أبو زيد

I could not phrase my sorrow in better words; Mina Zekri said on Twitter:
He who rejected the notion of the absoluteness of the scripts and the opium of the minds has died! He who gave in to his mind at a time when everyone gave up their minds has died! He who was separated from his wife over his ideas has died! He was was forced into exile has died! Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid has died!

Desert Cat wrote a post titled An enlightened page is torn:

دائماً عندما أسمع خبر وفاة شخص وارى الحزن فى عيون ذوية تكون اولى كلماتى ليه نحزن على حد مات وراح يقابل اللى خالقه .. انا مش بحزن غير على اللى اتولد لانه جاى للمجهول ميعرفش مصيره ايه ولا هيروح فين خصوصاً والحياة كل يوم من سيئ لأسوء .. اليوم فقط استدركت شعور الفقد اليوم فقط جربت معنى الحزن كما لم احزن من قبل .. حينما اقرأ كتباته يشرد ذهنى واتمنى لو مصر بها نصف عقل هذا الرجل صاحب العقل الرائع والإبداع الراقى .. رجل عانى من الجهلة والجهلاء الذين جعلوا من انفسهم أوصياء على الناس فى الأرض ولا أعلم من أعطاهم الحق فى الفصل والقرار فى شئون الأدب والنقد إذا كانوا لا يقرأون ولا يفقهون فسمحوا لأنفسهم بتكفيره بل وتفريقه عن زوجته خوفاً من أن يبزغ شعاع أمل للعقول فتبور بضاعتهم الفاسدة من نخاعات مسلوقة حلت مكان المخ بالعقول .. من الذى يستطيع أياً كان وزنه وحجمه أن يصادر حقنا فى التقدم والرقى الذى يسعى إليه العالم كله بعد أن كنا فى مقدمة العالم اصبحنا فى اسفل سافلين .
قتلوا بجهلهم فرج فودة فصفق لهم اعوانهم من الجهلاء وكانت اسلحة المثقفين هى القلم فظنوا انه سلاح الضعف فنصبوا من انفسهم أمراء إفتاء ورجال إدعاء وقضاة حكم بالتكفير والقتل .. اعتدوا على نجيب محفوظ فكانت الحق أقوى منهم .. حتى اليوم يحاولون جاهدون قتل أى إبداع فى مهده فتصدى لهم نصر حامد ابو زيد بثقافته ورجاحة عقله .. الأن فقط أتسائل لماذا كل من نحبهم يرحلون وكل من يسعون لتقدم ورقى هذا الوطن يذهبون ؟ هل كتب عليكى يا بلادى ان تحيى دائماً وسط جهلاء لا يفكرون ولا يتدبرون ؟ يمثلون ادوار بهلاونية فى العلن وفى الخفاء للشيطان حلفاء When someone passes away and I see his grief-struck family I wonder why they are so sad that he will finally rest in peace; I mourn over those who are born and are destined to face the unknown into a world that is getting worse by the second. Today I felt the true meaning of loss; I have grieved the way I have never grieved before.
When I read his words, I cannot help but wish that Egyptians had half his brain. He is a man of true genius and creativity. He endured the hardships imposed on him by ignorant delusional creatures who assumed guardianship over the world. I truly wonder who gave them the right to judge literary work when they are far from knowledgeable! In a time when darkness prevailed, they feared his enlightened mind; they accused him of atheism, and separated him from his wife.
With their ignorance they killed Farag Fouda, assaulted Naguib Mahfouz, and exiled Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid - they are all dead now! I wonder why the enlightened leaves are the ones that fall! My beloved country is destined to be the home of ignorant parasites who entertain us with mediocre clownish performances of virtue when we all know that they are the true allies of the devil.

Gaberism wrote:

نصر ابو زيد مفيش كلام كفايه يكفي اقوله عنك، ولا الكلام اللي هقوله هنا عن مفكر عظيم زيك يضيف اي شئ لمكانتك ولكن اا بكتب هنا عنك فقط عشان ارد على المتخلفين تبعة الحويني و عمرو خالد -المتخلفيين الجدد- و اللي انهالوا بالشماتة في خطاباتهم معلنين وفاتك … رحل جسدك و بقت افكارك و تلاميذك لها حافظون. Dear Dr. Nasr Abu Zeid! Nothing I write will do you justice and nothing I say will add to your legacy; I am obliged to write about you here to stand in the face of those backward followers of the Sheikhs of darkness and backwardness who pathetically gloated over your death. Yes! Your body is gone but your thoughts will live forever through your students and scholars.

Dr. Sherif Hafez wrote for Middle East Youth saying:

لقد شكل الدكتور نصر حامد أبو زيد بالنسبة لى “الثورة الشخصية” على الموروث! جعلنى أرى دينى وكل الكتب، بشكل مختلف. لقد أوجد هذا الرجل فى الإيمان، بأن النص خلق للإنسان ولم يخلق الإنسان للنص! قبلها كنت أحيا الأزمة مع هذا النص، أدافع مثلما يدافع كل من يعلقون ضد ما أكتب عندما أقول لهم بأن ينظروا فيما هو أبعد من هذا النص،.. إلى روح هذا النص! إلى المعنى فيه، ومواكبة العصر به! Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid represents my own personal revolution against our heavy heritage! He made me see my religious book - and all books - in a different light! This man has inspired me with faith and belief; a firm belief that the scripts were made to serve us not the other way round! I used to be a script-worshiper like those who leave me angry comments on my posts today when I tell them to look beyond the words, to try to read into the spirit and the meaning of the script, and to see how to utilize the script in our lives today.

By Marwa Rakha

In October 2009, the Niqab (or face cover) stirred a lot of controversy when the late Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi - head of Al Azhar and Egypt's Imam - asked a 13-year-old girl to uncover her face while he was inspecting an Azhar school in Cairo. He told her that the niqab is a tradition that has nothing to do with religion. Currently the lower house of the Spanish Parliament is debating a proposal to prohibit the wearing of body-covering burqas and face-covering niqabs in all public spaces in Spain, and the French parliament approved a ban on face veils.

According to AP:

France has Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated to be about 5 million of the country's 64 million people. While ordinary headscarves are common, only about 1,900 women in France are believed to wear face-covering veils. Champions of the bill say they oppress women.

In her interview with Broadsheet, the women’s issues blog on Salon, Mona ElTahawy explained why she supports the ban on niqab:

I support banning the burqa because I believe it equates piety with the disappearance of women. The closer you are to God, the less I see of you — and I find that idea extremely dangerous. It comes from an ideology that basically wants to hide women away. What really strikes me is that a lot of people say that they support a woman's right to choose to wear a burqa because it's her natural right.

On her blog, Mona ElTahawy linked to her appearance on BBC TV's Newsnight where she engaged in a heated argument with Syrian Professor and author of “The Quest for Meaning” Tariq Ramadan, and Nigel Farrage Member of Parliament representing the UK Independence Party.

Meanwhile, on his blog, Hassan El Helali hails the ban saying:

النقاب جريمة حضارية
الإنتقاب جريمة
ثاني دولة أوروبية تجرم ارتداءه Niqab is a crime against civilization.
It is literally a crime.
This is the second European country the prohibits wearing it.

He elaborated saying:

مما يضع فرنسا على طريق أن تصير ثاني دولة أوروبية بعد بلجيكا تجعل ارتداء النقاب جريمة This makes France the second country after Belgium that considers a face veil an offense.

He concluded his post saying:

أخيراً تعود أوروبا إلى رشدها وتعمل على إزالة القبح والدمامة والتخلف عن وجهها المشرق بالعلم والنور والحرية… يوما ما ستطبق هذه القوانين في بلادنا وتعود لنا الحضارة التي يحاول العراعير وأتباعهم المتعرعرين محوها وفرض عاداتهم وتقاليدهم الفاسدة البائدة علينا وإقناع أهلنا بأن حضارتنا هي حضارة الكفر والأوثان وإحلال “لاحضارة” الصحراء محلها باسم الدين… شراءً حيناً وإرهاباً أحياناً. Finally Europe is coming back to its senses and it is cleaning its enlightened free face from the ugliness and backwardness that smeared it. One day those laws will be applied in our country [Egypt] and we will rescue our civilization from the fangs of the desert tribes who have imposed - by intimidation or by the power of their money -their obsolete customs and traditions on our people in the name of religion.

Joseph Mayton of Bikya Masr describes the ban as stupid:

There was a debate not too long ago in the southern part of the United States over whether a Muslim woman wearing the full-face covering, or Niqab, would be forced to remove the veil for a police officer. The case went to court and was eventually decided that if a male police officer needed to check the person’s identity they would call in a female officer to do the checking. Makes sense. It is one of the few times that the US has done something “tolerant” when it comes to Islam in the country.

So, when the French government banned the niqab, burka or whatever one wants to call the full-face covering that a tiny fraction of Muslim women across the world adorn themselves in, it is shocking that they would continue to argue it is a security risk. It simply is not. Whether we want to see women cover themselves in what liberal Islamic scholar Gamal al-Banna told me recently is an “archaic representation of a time before Islam” is another question, but when France argues the security card, they should be called out for their stupidity.

In his article, Joseph Mayton quoted Islamic scholar Gamal al-Banna who disagrees with Mona ElTahawy's stance:

Sure, there was a lot of support for the ban, from as strange of places as Muslim feminists, who argued that the ban would give women more freedom in their daily lives. It is almost hypocritical that anyone who professes to support human rights and the right to choose one’s own lifestyle to argue this, but it happened and continues today. Someone who upholds human rights and people’s right to choose, must accept that not everyone will choose “their way.” We must continue to argue against the niqab – as al-Banna says, “it is not an Islamic idea and has been incorporated by those who bastardize the faith” – but without being preachy. This is where the so-called feminists failed.

Mona ElTahawy argued her point further on the Tuesday’s edition of the Dave Ross Show and again on BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze

According to BBC's Radio 4's introduction:

France is the latest European country to talk of banning the burqa - the full Islamic face veil for women. Belgium has already voted for a ban and there's also been talk of similar laws in Holland and Spain. France has the largest Muslim population in Europe and polls there show overwhelming support for the proposal. It's estimated that around 1900 women in France wear the burqa and most do so because they want to …. For many this is also an issue of protecting women's rights; the burqa they argue, is a symbol of male oppression and as one French law maker is reported to have said, women who wear them must be liberated, even against their will.

Ahmed Zidan of Middle East Youth agrees with Mona ElTahawy and dismisses freedom of choice as grounds for wearing the niqab:

الحرية الفردية مكفولة طالما اقتصرت عادة أو سلوك على فرد أو مجموعة أفراد، ولكن إن خرجت هذه العادة من حيّز الفرد لتصبح ظاهرة عامة، كالنقاب، فيجدر بنا رصد هذه الظاهرة، وتعيين مداها، وتحجيمها وسنّ القوانين التي تحمي حرية الأفراد الآخرين، إن لزم الأمر، وهو الطريق التي سلكته آروپا مؤخرًا.

النقاب يساوي، من وجهة نظرنا الخاصة، حرية امرأة اختارت، بمحض إرادتها، أن تتّشح بالسّواد لأي سبب كان. أمّا التجرّد الكامل من الملابس، على النقيض، فهو قرار خاص بامرأة أخرى اختارت العُري.

الآن، ووفقًا لمبدأ الحرية الفردية، فمن الطبيعي أن يُكفل حرية الُعريّ إذا كُفلت حرية النقاب في المقابل. ولكن، إن كان الأول محظورًا حفاظًا على الآداب العامة، فمن الأولى حظر الآخر أيضًا حفاظًا على السلامة العامة.

Individual freedom is a given as long as it is a habit or a behavior adopted by an individual or a group of individuals; once it become a phenomenon like the niqab, lawmakers have to study it and assess its impact on the freedom of others. This is exactly what Europe is doing lately.
In our opinion niqab is a woman who freely chose to cover up in black for whatever reason. Nudity is the opposite extreme and that is also a choice of a woman who took her clothes off.

According to the above stated principle of individual freedom, if we approve of the freedom to cover up we also have to approve the freedom to undress, and if the later has been banned to preserve public morality then the former should be banned to ensure public security.

Elder of Zion raises another point when he quotes Ibrahim Hooper - a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations:

He says that the French vote is a thinly-disguised attempt to discriminate against all Muslims, not just those who wear the burqa.

“It's really a new type of law targeting a particular minority faith based on the prejudices of the majority. And my religious rights should not be dependent on a majority vote,” said Hooper.

Then he refutes Hooper's argument saying

Syria has banned the face-covering Islamic veil from the country's universities … Last January, an Egyptian court upheld a ban of the veil during university exams. And last year Al Azhar University's religious head banned the veil at all Al Azhar schools altogether.

It seems that Syria and Egypt are nervous about growing Islamic fundamentalism, as shown by a custom that is not legally sanctioned in Islam. In the words of another Al Azhar scholar, “”We all agree that niqab is not a religious requirement. Taliban forces women to wear the niqab. … The phenomena is spreading and it has to be confronted. The time has come.”

So France does not seem to be exhibiting any Islamophobia. French politicians are merely following in the footsteps of two nations whose very constitutions invoke Islam as the major source for their laws!

UNSETTLING SILENCE ON RENDING THE MUSLIM VEIL, makes ElTahawy acknowledge that

Cultural integration has failed, or not taken place, in many European countries, but women shouldn’t pay the price for it.

Still, she urges Europe's liberals and Muslims to justify their silence:

Europe’s liberals must ask themselves why they have been silent. It is clear that Europe’s political right — other countries have similar bans in the works — does not care about Muslim women or their rights.

But Muslims must ask themselves the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black, either as a form of identity politics or out of acquiescence to Salafism?

Once again, Zidan of Middle East Youth lists eightreasons why the niqab should be banned. They are as follows:

أولًا، إن المنتقبة هي كيان بلا هوية من الأساس. وإذا كان الوجه هو الوسيط الأول الذي يمنح الغرباء، الذين نقابلهم بالمئات كل يوم في الشارع والعمل والكلية، بعض من الراحة النفسية والطمأنينة، فإن المنتقبة، على النقيض، تبعث على الهلع والريبة، كون المنتقبة لا تختلف كثيرًا عن خيمة سوداء كبيرة متحركة بلا معالم. إن كافة مهارات الاتصال تشوّه تمامًا عن المنقبات، والتي تأتي تعبيرات الوجه، “Facial Expressions”، واتصال العيون، “Eye Contact”، على رأس قائمتها. هل فكرت مرة في مدى بشاعة أن ترى الناس من خلف ستار أسود بينما لا أحد يراك؟ First of all, a woman covering her face is a woman denying her identity; a face is the first thing that inspires comfort and confidence when meeting strangers and by hiding its expressions and withholding from eye contact, a woman wearing the niqab inspires nothing but fear and distrust.

Second:

ثانيًا، من حق الفرد العادي في الشارع أن يتعرّف على هيئة الماشية بجانبه، ومن حق الممتحن أن يتأكد من هوية الطالبة، وشرطي المرور من هوية السائقة، والمريض من هوية الممرّضة. Every individual has the right to identify whoever he gets in contact with; an examiner, a police officer, a patient - they all have the rights to know your identity.

Third:

ثالثًا، إن النقاب من شأنه أن يخلق تمييزًا واضحًا بين المسلمة وغير المسلمة، وهو زي يحضّ على الطائفية والمذهبية، وهو ما لا نتمناه على الإطلاق، خاصةً في ظل ما نسعى إليه من معالجة هذا العصب المتطرّف الذي يميّز على أساس الدين في منطقتنا ذات الأغلبية المسلمة. Wearing the niqab will only fuel the sectarian fire; it is a form of discrimination between a Muslim and a non-Muslim woman.

Fourth:

رابعًا، إن المواطن الذي يتعامل مع دواوين الحكومة الرسمية له الحق الكامل في التعرّف على هوية الشخص المفوّض من قبل الحكومة للتعامل معه. إذن، فمن غير المنطقيّ أن تُعيّن موظفة منتقبة في جهة حكومية، فهذا بالإضافة لكونه اعتداءًا صارخًا على حق المواطن في التعرّف على من يتعامل معه باسم الحكومة، فهو ينقض دور الدولة الذي يجب أن تلعبه في عدم التمييز، بل وحظر عدم التمييز في الدواوين الحكوميّة، والحفاظ على مبادئ المواطنة. كي يكتسب هذا الفرد ثقة تسمح بالسير قدمًا في بداية التعامل مع الحكومة، سواء كان محليًا أو أجنبيًا. Any citizen dealing with a government employee in any of the governmental offices has the right to see the face of the official serving him. It is against common sense to hire a woman wearing a niqab in a governmental position where she has to interact with the public.

Fifth:

خامسًا، إن النقاب وسيلة لقهر المرأة، وكثير من المتشددين الإسلاميين يفرضوه قهرًا على زوجاتهم وأقرابائهم. وهو ما يضع المرأة الشرقية بين ناريّ ما هي مُجبرة عليه وبين ما تريده حقًا. أو الأوقع، بين عروض أزياء جوتشي الذي تشاهده، وتتطلّع إليه، على موقع يوتيوب، وبين واقعها المضني. وهذا تمامًا ما جعل آروپا تفكر في فرض عقوبات رادعة على الرجال الذين تسول لهم أنفسهم في فرض النقاب على زوجاتهم. Niqab is against women's rights; many fundamentalists and extremists coerce their wives and female kins to wear it as a form of oppression. This places our women between a rock and a hard place - what she is forced to do and what she really desires.

Sixth:

سادسًا، إن الفكرة الدينية البائدة القائلة بتغطية المرأة لأنها عورة وفتنة، إلى آخر هذه الأساطير، هي غير مقبولة بالمرة، بل ويجدر بالمثقفين والمتنورين، بمساعدة المنابر الإعلامية التقليدية أو مواقع الإعلام الجديد، أن يحاولوا محي هذه الخرافات من عقول الأغلبية المغلوبة على أمرها التي تسيطر عليها فضائيات عذاب القبر. وقد نُشر في الشهر قبل الماضي تقريرًا مثيرًا حول صحافية فرنسية ارتدت النقاب لمدة خمسة أيام في شوارع پاريس، حيث نقلت تجربتها بالكامل للموقع الإخباري. تقول إليزابيث ألكسندر، وهي صحافية تعمل لصالح جريدة ماري كلير الفرنسية، “شعرت أني قنبلة جنسية.” وقد دوّنت ملاحظاتها حول النقاب في التقرير، ومنها، كون النقاب رداءًا غير عمليّ، وهو يدفع للانغلاق والاكتئاب، ويجعل المرأة أكثر حساسية تجاه جسدها، بل يفصلها عنه تمامًا، ويُفقدها الثقة في نفسها أو قدراتها، ويعزلها تمامًا عن العالم بالخارج. The archaic religious notion that claims that a woman's body is the root of all evil and seduction, and that it should be covered up is totally unacceptable. Enlightened cultured individuals should utilize mainstream media and new media tools to erase such urban legends from the minds of those who are currently hypnotized by the words of the doom and gloom preachers.

Seventh:

سابعًا، لا حرية لأعداء الحرية، هذه مقولة كلاسيكية تنطبق تمامًا على قضية النقاب، أي أن الحرية مكفولة للجميع، إلا الذين قد يستخدمون هذه الحرية للانقلاب عليها في أقرب فرصة، كالإسلاميين، كونهم المثال الأشهر عالميًا. بالإضافة إلى أن تطبيق مبادئ الحريات الفرديّة، والمشار لها في الفقرة الثانية من هذا المقال، علي أرض الواقع مسألة مختلفة تمامًا، وتتضمن حسابات لا علاقة لها بالحرية من قريب أو بعيد. وما أقصده إنه لحظة ما ترتبط قضية حقوق الإنسان بالنسبية الأخلاقيّة والثقافيّة داخل مجتمع ما، تعاني فيه فئة من ازدواجيّة ما، تتحول حقوق الإنسان لباب خلفيّ يسمح بمرور أفكار وممارسات مناهضة تمامًا للمبدأ الذي سمح بإحتوائها بداية.” No freedom for the enemy of freedom - this is a classic saying that applies to the case of the niqab. We are all entitled to freedom of choice except those who use it to control the free choices of others; Islamists are the most famous example. They turn individual freedom into a double edged weapon and use it to fight the basic principles of human rights.

Eighth:

ثامنًا، نحن نرفض النقاب لأنه يشوّه الكيان الإنساني. We totally reject the niqab because it disfigures humanity and the dignity of the human being.

Though supporting the ban, ElTahawy shouts foul play:

But what really disturbs me about the European context is that the ban is driven almost solely by xenophobic right wingers who I know very well don't give a toss about women's rights. What they're doing is they're hijacking an issue that they know is very emotive and very easy to sell to Europeans who are scared about immigration, Europeans who are scared about the economy, Europeans who don't understand people who look and sound different than them. They've taken advantage of this and done it very well. I'm very disappointed with the left wing and liberals in Europe for not speaking up and saying, the burqa ban has everything to do with women's rights. We are fighting against an ideology that does not believe in women's rights, and we will not allow the right wing to hijack this issue for their own purposes.

By Alexey Sidorenko

“Antireligion” group in the social network “Vkontakte“, with more than 8000 members, had been closed and its content deleted, ru_antireligion reports [RUS]. Prosecutor's office, that was checking the group for extremism [RUS], recognized photos of t-shirts with slogans “Orthodoxy or Death” [EN] as “extremist” and obliged administration of “Vkontakte” to close the group.

By Rezwan

Kiss My Roti says that the perceptions of “terrorism” and militant violence in Pakistan is shaping the social, political and cultural response to it by the Pakistanis. The blogger asserts the need for “a paradigm shift in narratives from assigning blame to accepting responsibility”.

By Vilhelm Konnander

Photo by Sakharov Museum

On 12 July, the Moscow Tagansky court found art curators Yuri Samodurov and Andrei Yerofeev guilty of “inciting ethnic and religious strife” by their exhibition “Forbidden art - 2006” — in a case brought against them by the Russian right-wing organization Narodny Sobor — and sentenced them to pay fines of 200,000 (6,500 USD) and 150,000 (4,900 USD) roubles respectively. The verdict was a disappointment for both reactionaries — hoping for a three-year jail sentence — and liberals — wanting an acquittal. Once again, concerns are raised where the limits on freedom of expression in Russia really are heading. Thus, yet another Russian case is likely to end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

So, is that all there is to it? Perhaps, but it may also serve as an example of how not only freedom of speech lies in the balance, but also how that balance itself becomes an art “happening” by treading the thin line between art and society — as the debate surrounding “Forbidden art - 2006” illustrates.

The saying “A picture says more than a thousand words” is truer to Russia than to most other countries. Take a tormented Jesus with the head of Mickey Mouse or Christ with the face of Lenin, and then wait for reactions. The limits of art are constantly pushed further afield. The dictum of the century-old Russian futurist manifesto “A slap in the face of public taste” maintains as much a prominent role in Russian arts and culture today as it did in the early 1900s. But in our day and age, slaps are not always what they seem.

So, what is then the basic story behind it all? Well, back in March 2007 art curators Yuri Samodurov and Andrei Yerofeev organized an exhibition of artworks that had been rejected from mainstream Moscow museums and galleries during 2006 — thus the title “Forbidden art - 2006.” The purpose of the art show was to shed light upon self-imposed censorship quelling the Russian arts scene, turning the tide towards more traditional displays of art. The exhibition had a meagre total of 1,020 visitors. Still, it attracted the attention of a small reactionary religious movement, which took Samodurov and Yerofeev to court for offending their religious feelings. Thus, the show was on the road, ending with the very verdict against the art curators, that now has brought so much attention to the case both in the Russian and international media.

LJ user don_beaver indignantly summarizes [RUS] the case thus:

Not long ago, some artists organized an exhibition in a private gallery. People who were not even at this gallery declared that their religious feelings had been hurt by the exhibition and went to court. The judge agreed with them and fined exhibition organizers heavily. The only good [thing] about it was that they were not put in jail.

What was then the drama that turned the media's attention towards the case — beside its freedom of expression aspects? As the verdict was read out last week, a small crowd of bearded men in black uniforms had gathered outside Tagansky court, wearing T-shirts with the text “Orthodoxy or death.” Behind these lines lies more than what meets the naked eye. “Orthodoxy or death” (gr. ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος) was originally a motto of the famous monastery of Esphigmenou on Mount Athos, Greece, in its struggle against the Patriarchy of Constantinople, but since the 1990s it has become a token of intolerance and extremism also in the Orthodox countries like Serbia and Russia. This photo-op was what caught the eyes of the media present outside the court, resulting in vivid pictures of crackpot nationalists setting the Russian civil liberties' agenda in newspaper articles throughout the world. The symbolic effect was so great, that rumours about an upcoming church-initiated proposal to addend the Criminal Code with the crime of “heresy” reached respectable newspapers such as Argumenty i Fakty. However, according to LJ user tristen2e [RUS], this was all a hoax:

Besides, everyone believed the sensational news, even though they sounded words, ascribed to father Vsevolod, about heresy “as any form of opposition to Orthodoxy.” Obviously, such an unlearned expression in itself could hardly be uttered by such a skilled church diplomat and rhetoric as archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin [spokesman of the Russian Orthodox church]. However, as is often the case with a summer languishing with heat, journalist colleagues could have mixed it up — everybody thought — and thus the news started to travel the web.

For the liberal supporters of Samodurov and Yerofeev, the “Orthodoxy or death” emblem, obviously, was like raising a red rag, reminding them of battles fought during dissident days of the soviet past. This is perhaps also an important aspect that has largely been left out of reporting on the case. In fact, the art curator, Yuri Samodurov, springs from the same soviet dissident movement as Nobel Peace laureate Andrei Sakharov during the 1970-80s, and became one of the founding members of Memorial human rights organization.

However, Samodurov regarded opposition to soviet power not as a political but a cultural act. This, arguably, not only set him apart from the mainstream dissident movement, but also enabled him to remain relevant in Russian debate as society at large increasingly deemed dissidentism obsolete. As director of the Sakharov museum, Samodurov, in February 2006, became an active participant in the debate over the Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy, by heralding a Moscow exhibition of these pictures. So, Samodurov's artistic career has been straddled with the constant co-optation of society as art and art as society. It would thus seem that Samodurov and his actions have become a work of postmodern art personified, in blurring boundaries between art and society.

What are then the effects of the “Forbidden art” case on societal debate? LJ user and poet Vitaly Kaplan, critically, tries to draw the larger picture [RUS] of how art has come to divulge greater tendencies of societal developments in present Russia:

To begin with, there is the “dry residue” that then moistens a multitude of flavours. Thus, the exhibition “Forbidden art - 2006″ is really a mockery with the feelings of believers. Does it need society's condemnation? Yes, it does. Was it necessary to go to court? That is where I have my doubts. What do I think about the verdict? I am happy that they did not put Yerofeev and Samodurov in jail. What do I think about the polemics on the Internet? I would say it is a battle of banners with red dogs.

And now for the details. First concerning the mockery with religious sentiments. The problem is that most disputers, regardless of their positions, do not at all understand what it is all about. So, Yerofeev's and Samodurov's defenders indignantly sigh: Oh, these Orthodox people! Everything offends them! If they were to decide — then every man would be forced to grow a beard, and the women wear scarves, they would raze the “McDonald's” and burn mosques and synagogues alike. Because everything that does not coincide with their Orthodox ideals hurts their delicate religious feelings. And the opponents of Yerofeev and Samodurov shed tears because the pictures of an exhibition offend the Russian people and contradict national traditions, due to their terrible testimony of lost ideals, as such normative decay prevents the revival of Greater Russia…

Consequently, the effect of the “Forbidden art” case is not only pitting perceptions of postmodern and medieval icons against each other, but also serves as a token of differences between imagery and reality of current Russian society. The original grievance of Orthodox believers was — in religious terms — that the “Forbidden art” pictures constituted a desecration of icons as carriers of divine messages, in accordance with an Orthodox tradition arguing that the words of God cannot be reduced to text, but must be represented in symbols. What lies at the heart of the matter is then the exhibition's iconization of images portraying a metamorphosis of the divine with the profane. Icons are turned into idolatry of symbols with a mixed message representing the complexities of current society.

What impact has then the conviction of Samodurov and Yerofeev had on perceptions of Russian society, and can it serve as an indicator of where freedom of expression is heading in the country? As much as easy answers would be welcome, reality probably has more in store for the greater picture. Possibly, by seizing the agenda with a question that transcends the borders of art and society, the core of the issue becomes obscured — whether one of art or freedom of expression, of both or neither. However, society — in the image of the state — chooses to take a stand for or against freedom of expression in terms of art forms whose purpose may actually be to exploit the interaction such a stand unavoidably involves.

Still, at the end of the day, the question must be raised about the ramifications of that stand for the development of freedom of speech and expression in the Russian society. Here, under the headline “Forbidden art gets more expensive,” LJ user timur_nechaev77 offers an assessment [RUS]:

The sentence passed against the organizers of the exhibition “Forbidden art - 2006″ shows that during the last few years, the price of criticizing the state ideology - Orthodoxy - has risen nearly twice. In 2005, Yuri Samodurov was fined 100 thousand roubles for the exhibition “Beware of religion” which provoked a pogrom from religious extremists of the Russian Orthodox Church. Now they sentenced Samodurov to pay 200 thousand, and Andrei Yerofeev 150 thousand roubles. Of course, the verdict will be appealed as high as Strasbourg, and if the European Court will stand on the side of the pogromists and religious fanatics from the Russian Orthodox Church, then of course, Yerofeev and Samodurov will have to pay the fines.

As is often so poorly realized by contemporary society, art may cut to the core problems and developments of our times. The role of an artist increasingly becomes one of pushing the right button to ignite societal debate on issues that may actually be more profound than art itself. Art then merely becomes the symbol of greater tendencies, and thereby recreates itself sui generis by mechanisms greater than the specific work of art and its originator. In the “forbidden art” case, the verdict may serve as a conveyor — a sign of premonition of either desirable or undesirable developments — of what is ceasing the normative middle ground in Russian society. Is it right or wrong? Right or wrong is perhaps both not the issue here and still the issue in itself, as everything becomes part of the spectacle, a happening, or the (in)famous fifteen minutes of fame.

As the Romans used to say, “There is no accounting for taste,” and art is well beyond the domain of things society may hold people accountable for. That is a matter of taste, and that taste is for each and all to decide on individually — including the right to support or protest against the views and beliefs that agree or conflict with one's own — without state interference. For who is to deem what is degenerate art?