Guilty Pleasures in the Afternoon: A Tag

There's swine flu grunting at our doors, heat-wave deaths in India, the Taliban making waves in Pakistan, ice-shelves the size of Jamaica breaking off ...and who knows what other apocalyptic horrors in store for us. Can anyone blame me then for my oh-so-guilty pleasures?



1. Trashy magazines (thanks C and C's mom for my latest stash): OMG, did Angie throw Brad out? Are Jen and Angie finally going to come face-to-face? It's just too exciting for words. The trashier the mag, the better. Heaven!

2. A renverse in the afternoon: Thanks Mighty Mom for the milk-forther. I think of you each time I overdose on caffeine. Hey, I might walk around the house like a dancing jitter-bug but it tastes so *damn* good. Like my own little coffee-shop. Mmmmmm!

3. Cadbury's chocolates: This is a real guilty one in Switzerland. Oh non madame, you might exclaim. No Cadbury's can be consumed here. It is not chocolate at all, now is it? We have such good quality chocolate here. How can you? But Cadbury's is tied up with my childhood. That shiny, purple paper, the two glasses of milk in every bar (look ma, it's health food) and that undefinable taste that screams "chocolate" to me. So I can savor the best boutique, small-batch, handmade stuff....but sometimes a girl's gotta have her Cadbury's.

4. Cheddar cheese: Another heresy in Switzerland, the land of oh-so-heavenly fromage. I love all our wonderful Swiss cheese, but sometimes a sandwich asks...no begs... for some cheddar. And I can't believe I actually found some at our local French grocery store. It also rocks on home-made chilli (I made a huge batch and froze some a few days ago), and in the absense of queso blanco, cheddar can actually be good on Mexican food. Really, Swiss people, stop putting gruyere (much as I love it) on burritos. Now *that* is also heresy. So, we're quits, right?

And....ta...da...

5. Byron in Love: Unfortunately, not with me. But after all my Byron-stalking as my couch to 5K pal kindly called it...I walked into Payot...and this was the first book that I saw. I had to have it. What else can I say? It's Byron at his darkest and dreamiest. He's in love. Okay, with many, many people. And one of them was his half-sister. But the paths of love...they are so twisted, no?


...I tag anyone else who wants to take this on...but those mentioned in this post are gently nudged to take this on. You know who you are.

I also tag appalachianroots, which I believe might be her first tag.

Anyone who does take on this challenge, please do a guilty pleasures post on your blog, and then come back on here and let me know.

Have fun!

We're Men, We're Men in Robes...

We roam around Swat in high hopes.
We're men, we're men in robes.
We flog the women, sever hands of the men, that's right.
Beware if your beard's too short, and Allah forbid if your clothes are too tight.
We may look all look like off to our beds,
But watch what you say or we'll cut off your heads.
We're men, we're men in robes.
Too bad for you if you love your evening bourbon.
You will surely repent and wear a black turban,
and join us so we can together be...
Men, men in robes.

(apologies to Mel Brooks and the lyrics to "We're men, we're men in tights" from Robin Hood: Men in Tights)

Have you heard of the latest band of uhhh...not-so-merry men? You know, the ones who marched up to the Pakistani capital, indulged in some nuclear saber-rattling, then went back to their caves? They, of the fabulous floggings, the glorious keepers of the faith? Those who denounce Pakistan and its government as impure and Islamically false...and damn any *agreements* they might have signed?

Yep! The Taliban in a major push to capture hearts and minds all over Pakistan are doing the whole robbing from the rich, giving to the poor schtick. Not to mention, they are dispensing justice, even if it takes unsavoury forms, to the common people of that country.

This is undoubtedly an easy snake-oil to sell since the government of Pakistan does seem to losing control over larger and larger parts of the country. It's scary. I feel for normal, every-day Pakistanis but they need to stand up against this take-over. As a person of Indian origin, I fear for what might happen if the Pakistani government does fall. We are used to a state of armed tension with Pakistan. But not a fully Talibanized Pakistan. That is scary!

At least when the Taliban were just in Afghanistan they unleashed their horrors on just their own people. But I think they've tasted true, trans-national power now. They know the eyes of the world are on them, that they cannot hide away. More than thay. They refuse to. They are proud to be students of Islam and the keepers of its promise. I believe they are eager and ready to take on the evil, unIslamic world of kafirs and to them, India is at this point, the major heathen sitting on their doorstep. And with both countries being nuclear now, that is a terrifying prospect.

The fact that the Pakistani government (or successive governments really) has failed its people so badly that they would trade them for the Taliban is horrifying to me.

This is CNN finds that "In radio broadcasts and sermons, Taliban militants have been promoting themselves as Islamic Robin Hoods, defending Pakistan's rural poor from a ruling elite that they describe as corrupt and oppressive."

Here's another report about the Talibani Robin Hoods in The Times.

I think perhaps the Taliban themselves and indeed some others in Pakistan do see them as romantic Robin Hood-like figures. They are the outsiders, the little guys taking on large, imperialistic forces. They talk of honor, of bringing true justice, of taking out corruption, of rooting out injustice, of imbuing peopel with pride. And they are partly right, of course. But they don't talk of the other horrors waiting in their Trojan Horse, ready to be unleashed: oppression, atrocities, the curtailment of personal freedoms, and unrelenting violence.

I hope the people find a different way, a better way. If not, I fear we are all on our way to a hellish future.

Making a Deal With the Devil Part Two

Not too long ago I wrote this post about the Taliban's deal with the Pakistani government.

And, yes *SURPRISE* despite the Taliban's assurances to the contrary, they are doing what they do best. Yes, as we all know and should know, the biggest threat to any country or people is its women. I say, if we just whip and flog a few wayward women prosperity shall be ours, Inshallah.

So, I for one, totally support the flogging of the hapless 17-year old girl, flung face-down (with her hijab around her face), with a few men, including her brother holding her down. And, may Allah give strength to the tireless arms of the poor, Talib brother who flogged her repeatedly, while she cried aloud in agony.

Okay, I can't keep this up. I saw the video. I will not post a link to it because it made me sick to my stomach and made me cry. It is circulating on the Web. Yes, people, the holy Shariah law is indeed making life even more wonderful for the women of Swat.

What deal-makers and others don't get about organizations like the Taliban is this. They *don't* truly recognize the existence of political entities and states. They don't think that any rule of law apart from Shariah and the Quran is valid. So, yes, if it is expedient they will make a deal with you to placate you, to regroup, and then they will continue doing what they feel they are divinvely ordained to do. And it is okay--in fact, it's commendable--if you lie and cheat your way into creating a perfect, Utopian, Islamic society.


Oh yeah, remember the Taliban's assurance to the Pakistani government that girls schools would be re-opened? Do you mean *gasp* that they did not follow through with this? Here's an article about more than 100 girls schools being blown up. A radio station was also destroyed. Here's another article.
I mean really, who was naive enough to think that this would not happen? It was only a question of when and how it would happen.

Well, technically, they didn't close the schools did they? The problem...well...simply...disappeared. Ingenious!

Think this doesn't touch you? Think about this: the Taliban and people who endorse, support, apologize for them...are on an upswing. Read this article, which uncovers the fact that emeralds from Swat are being used by the Taliban to grow stronger.

Already, the resurgent Taliban are returning in another incarnation to the place of their birth, Afghanistan. Remember, the U.S. bombed Afghanistan and committed troops, and installed Hamid Karzai, basically a puppet-leader for the beleagured country. Well, the worm has turned. And, of course, to safeguard a country in crisis, he did what any responsible leader should do. Yep...make rape within marriage legal (you mean it wasn't already).

Of course, about a month later he is trying to scrap the law, because of Western pressure. Prime Minister Brown of Britain said his soldeirs would not die to defend a country where this was legal.

Now, everyhing is murky and there are no clear heroes and villains. There are tremendous complexities at work that I cannot even begin to comprehend or explain. More than that, the genie is out of the bottle...again. The law might be scrapped on the books, but do you think it will stop being applied? I'm sure there isn't a great and functional legal system in place there anyway. It's not like women were lining up to accuse their husbands (or anyone else for that matter) of rape. But at least if there was a law, there was a slim chance that some woman might or at least gain some internal power by knowing she could if she wanted to. Having the law scrapped due to external pressure is merely a token gesture. Will things on the ground really change?

Once a sovereign country accedes any amount of its power...nay, makes a deal with anti-national insurgents and willingly hands over a territory...the damage is already done. Why would that group fear a government that rolls over so easily? In fact, a government and a people who, at the very least sympathize with and/or support those goals? Anything less is semantics.

If my manifesto derives from God and any work I do for him is divine and unequivocally correct, there is no room for debate or negotiation, is there? I might make expedient deals, but once I am strong, I have no incentive to hold up my end of the bargain. This is what has happened in Pakistan, and perhaps also in Afghanistan.

The battle is already lost. Will we also lose the war?

Making a deal with the devil

"The agreement between Pakistan's government and the growing Taliban forces in the country's northwest region cemented a truce between the two sides and gave the insurgents dominance in the Swat region by installing a strict regimen of Islamic law amenable to the militants' authority. The pact was spearheaded by a hard-line cleric sent to the region to negotiate with the Taliban and persuade them to give up their arms."

Read the rest of this story here.

When it was first announced a few days ago, this story about the Pakistani government making a deal with the Taliban struck a chill inside me.

So scary and full of potential for unfolding disaster that I can barely blog about it. The schoolgirls in Swat whose schools were shut down and the women who are now entering a dark phase of life under the Taliban will pay for this decision taken in Islamabad. Two sides: one a resurgent and powerful Taliban that never really went away, the other an embattled government losing control of swathes of its country. And in between the millions who are trapped between these two powers. A government that cannot even hold on to its territory but hands it over to a renegade power should be ashamed of itself. Is this why the Pakistani people elected these folks?

This deal was supposedly struck for peace. Was it? Or was it to shove the lives of millions into darkness so the rest of us don't have to look at them any more? Like putting bandaid on a gangrenous limb. Ultimately this will poison the rest of the country and perhaps the world.


And once the Taliban again becomes the de-facto rulers of a place, will they be content? Will they not want to grow their influence, the cleanse the remaining parts of Pakistan? What will they do its female intellectuals and writers and poets, to its schoolgirls and its college students? Since all is Allah's domain and they are the self-appointed arbiters of religion and conduct, will they recognize geographical borders? How will this impact India in the long run?

India and Pakistan have a blow hot-blow cold relationship anyway but for a while we were at least talking. Our leaders at least made a charade of meeting, of keeping to the stated objective of peace. But the Taliban? If America is the great Satan to them, what is India? India, with its Hindu majority, its secular constitution, and its large Muslim minority....what special demonic significance does India have in their eyes?

I feel like the world has moved on from this news, shrugging it off as a South Asian oddity. But I fear this was a defining momment in history. Who would have thought that a hijacking Indian Airlines plane in Qandahar would have ultimately led to 9/11 and then on to the wars in Afghanistan and the under-false-pretences occupation of Iraq. But it did.

And, this no mere hijacked plane. This is much bigger and I fear for the world. I fear for myself. And I wonder where we are headed. I hope I am wrong. I fear I might not be.

Hey, don't look at us

There is buzz from Pakistani media and the blogosphere that the Mumbai terror attacks were (a) either Indian Muslims or (b) Hindu terrorists masquerading as Pakistani terrorists. WTF?

You know I can understand this, really understand this. I know how it must feel for sane, peace-loving people in Pakistan to acknowledge that someone from their side of the border might have had something to do with this horror. Just as I can understand the anti-Pakistan and even anti-Muslim statements calls in the middle of the unfolding horror in Mumbai. I can understand it, I can empathize with all these sentiments. That does not mean I support any of it.

Pakistanis need to realize that these are the same people who blew up their Marriott, who might have had a hand in numerous suicide attacks and Benazir Bhutto's assasination. I don't believe the Pakistani government has any control over the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani secret service) or the LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba, Islamic terrorist group). And that is a problem. A huge problem. A well-funded, secret organization that helped the creation of Al Qaeda, and helps train Islamic militants, operating in an extra-governmental manner, outside the control of an elected government is a terrifying thought.

I remember listening to a BBC interview of Benazir Bhutto before she headed back to Pakistan, in which she was asked about the ISI and LET. She casually said that when she had been PM she had been happy that the ISI were focused on India and that the LET did not yet exist but implied that the ISI operated as a sort of rogue agency. She talked about her distrust of the ISI now. I remember thinking while I listened to her speak, well, if you nurture an extra-governmental organization which spreads terror eventually those chickens will come home to roost. Whether it was the ISI itself or one of the radical orgzanizations it helps, someone certainly was responsible for her assassination. Here's an article (for some reason I can't link to it, so you'll have to cut and paste in your browser: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3100052.ece

While there might have been some Indian Muslim involvement (the terrorist who had checked into the Taj had many visitors) the captured gunman has told police about the boat that sailed from Karachi, and about the names of the others who died and some whom I believe are still at large. Now the Mumbai Police is no friend of Indian Muslims. If they had any information that Indian citizens were heavily involved it would have been public knowledge and there would be a backlash already taking place. If the Hindu right-wing parties had *any* information about Indian Muslim involvement they would be all over it.

The fact is that ISI and ISI-backed groups have operated in India earlier, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere. And they operate in Pakistan as well. In that sense we have a common enemy. Some consider the ISI a shadow government and it has close links with Al Qaeda and other terror groups.Watch this video that talks about Bhutto's assasination which also points out that there seems to be no difference between an ISI training camp and an Al Qaeda training camp. Chilling!



The Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for these attacks. No one knows much about this group. However, the email that claimed responsibility came from Russia. Upon closer analysis of the IP address and of the email itself it was found that the actual email was written in Pakistan and opened on a computer in that country. The Deccan, of course, is the plateau towards the south of India, also where Hyderabad is located. Is the name a deliberate attempt to squarely try and place the outfit as originating from the Deccan plateau. By whom? Someone who wrote the email in Pakistan and sent it out from Russia? Who could it be?

As far as Hindu fundamentalist involvement is concerned, this attack has all the hallmarks of Islamic militancy. A captured Hindu fundamentalist would also gladly point fingers at Indian Muslims, instead of Pakistan, or better yet Indian Muslims working with Pakistanis, their favorite boogeyman, the Pak-loving Indian Muslim.

The fact that we have Hindu militancy, and the Gujarat (and other) riots happened, doesn't also mean that Islamic terrorists do not operate in India. Just because we now also have home-grown Islamic militants does not mean thatwe do not also have terrorists from a country with which we've had a divisive and very bloody history.

Peace-loving Pakistanis and Indians do have a common enemy and if we really want peace and reduced terror, there needs to be cooperation between us. Getting mired in unlikely conspiracy theories can get us nowhere. The only other alternative is another war, and I don't think any of us want that.

Glimpses from Mumbai

In the high-tension drama surrounding the Taj, the Oberoi, and the Trident hotels, as well as Nariman House, we seem to have forgotten the other victims of the Mumbai attacks. The hotels and Nariman House were where the well-to died, they form the memories of the upper classes. Of course, there were brave service-people who also became victims, but these five-star hotels and Nariman House are places where people like *us* hung out. So was Cafe Leopold.

Mumbai's defiance and sadness was expressed by a young man at the Gateway of India Vigil. He held a sign that proclaimed:

Mr. Terrorist: I am alive. What more can you do?

Mr. Politician: I am alive despite you.

I am a Mumbaikar

Yes, he is a Mumbaikar and a survivor, but the crowds at Gateway are mainly the English-speaking elite. There are other Mumbaikars too, who rarely make an appearance on the national stage. Is it because they speak Marathi and Mumbai? Is it because with the sudden and violent deaths of entire families, their communities come together to bear the costs of multiple funerals, because they are too poor to have a voice? Their trauma too is equally horrifying, their ultimate predicaments perhaps worse. Let's see some of their stories.


A grieving mother (left) who lost two of her children, outside St. Georges Hospital

Remember, the first 56 people died at CST--the huge railway terminal once called (Victoria Terminus) VT. This is also the throbbing heart of Mumbai, through which its masses pass, its lower-class and poorer citizens. Then there was the car bomb at the gas station. And the standoff at Cama Hospital, the attack at Ville Parle and at the Bunder.

Ten sites were terrorized simultaneously in Mumbai, and we have all been fixated on four of them. Here are some glimpses from the other side, some victims, some survivors, some heroes:


The Aftermath of Terror at CST, Mumbai

1) Announcers at CST: The men in the booth who make announcements for the bustling station, saw the blood and heard the shots. They made emergency announcements so others could leave by alterante exits avoiding the site of the carnage. They made announcements for the trains coming in, so that thousands upon thousands of arriving passengers did not emerge onto the platforms. Remember this, most of Mumbai's 5 million commuters pass through CST. At once point, one of the gunmen looked up towards the glassed-in booth. The announcements continued. The terrorists fired up at the men. The announcers barricaded the door and two of them positioned themselves beside the door, armed with stools to knock out the terrorists if they came in. The announcements continued.

2) A 22-year old Taj employee was ordered by one of the terrorists to set fire to table-cloths. He refused. He was shot three times. He was to have left for the UK in a few days to work at a hotel there. Earlier he had saved other lives and even went back to retrieve some important files a foreign businessman had left behind when he had escaped. According to survivors, there were many such amazing young people, working at the three hotels. People, who instead of running away, made sure their guests were evacuated. Many, if not most of them died.

Among the dead at the Taj was the wife, and the 5 and 14-year old children of the General Manager. The man himself helpd with rescue and evacuation and worked with law-enforcement.

3) There were the nameless working poor who crowded blood-banks to donate, while the rich stayed away. Here is a wonderful article by hairstylist Sapna Bhavnani: http://www.mid-day.com/specials/2008/nov/301108-News-Sapna-Bhavnani-Mumbai-Terror-attacks-Colaba-Taj-Mahal-Hotel-Trident-Hotel.htm

She talks about the people clamoring to give blood, including an old man leaning on a cane and a four-foot tall man arguing with a nurse because he was turned away for being too small to donate.)

4)There was the grief-numbed man who spoke in Hindi of how six members of his family were gunned down at CST. He was the only one speaking in Hindi among the sea of English-speakers at a forum at St. Xavier's College, the home of the South Mumbai elite. There was a quiet desperation and dignity in the way he spoke as he asked what would happen to his family. Among the dead were two young children. Unable to afford multimple funerals, his equally poor neighbors and friends stepped in to help. His beard and cap and his name identify him as Muslim yet that was not something he talked about. It was unimportant. What was important was his broken heart. And I felt for him, being paraded as the one token poor man and Muslim rolled into one, unable to fully understand the conversations raging around him, as he sat on the ground, his eyes fixed downward because as he said, "meri awaz to nikal nahi rahi hai," (My voice can barely emerge from within). I tried to find the video but it's not up yet.

5)The people of Mumbai--no matter their class, their religion, or their status--have no choice but to keep on living. They have to go back to work, to school, be on the streets and get on with the business of living. They are survivors, victims, and heroes all rolled into one. They are angry and I can't blame them. Keep up the good fight Mumbaikars and never give in.

Jai Hind!

What have they done?

The Taj, Mumbai lobby, before the attacks





...and after

Amchi Mumbai

Mumbai--or Bombay as we'd known it for years--was the city I made fun of. It was the city that rikshaw drivers and domestic servants ran away to, to become film stars. It was full of brash, opininated, self-important people, of models and actresses and suited financial types. The home of people who would say things like "Bombay is the best city in India," or "Bombay is India's NYC and LA rolled into one,' or " Bombay pays most the country's taxes and we get no benefits while states like Bihar and UP and Delhi reap the benefits."

Yes, Bombay was to me self-important, self-obsessed, and yet it always was India's city of dreams. For indeed, small town girls and boys could come here and become stars, where the lingo of the tea-boys was hip, and though gritty and urban, it became transformed at night when the glittering queen's necklace lit up.

Perhaps it was a reaction to Bombayites'--now known as Mumbaikars--dislike for my state's and Bihar's refugees who streamed into the city straining its resources to their breaking point. And yet the city stretched to accomodate them. Perhaps there was some admiration, maybe even envy woven into my psyche. Perhaps that pounding pulse of Bombay, that brash uncaring attitude, that touch of rudeness and the self-obsession was something I wished for myself and for my hometown and my state.



The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, across the street from the Arabian Sea was the hotel of aspirations. It was where we dreamed of going. No matter the new and amazing other hotels in Delhi or even Mumbai, I still remember my first time, at 12 when I had dinner at the Shamiana restaurant. Sure, I pretended to be blase, but still so many years later I remember that first time. The Taj was history and glamor and wheeling dealing and exotic, all at once. It was a gracious, grand hotel and despite my teenage refusal to find anything redeeming about Bombay and its sprawl, I found my evening at the Taj enchanting.

Today as I watch the splatters of blood, the look of shock on faces, the fires at the grand old Taj and the Oberoi and Trident hotels I remember my past dislike for Mumbai.



And I see Mumbai for what it is. India's economic engine, its repositor of dreams, the place that makes us believe all is possible. Despite its problems I see beneath its brashness is impatience, beneath its jostling, bustling heart, a desire to see things happen, to *make* them happen.

It is to this chaotic, teeming city of dreams that Islamic terrorists with rucksacks laid seige. They ran through the streets, shooting people, exploded bombs at Victoria (now Chhatrapati Shivaji)Terminus. They holed up in its finest hotels, targeted foreign visitors and the predominantly Jewish Nariman House. A city that sacrificed three of its top cops, and nine other policemen to the attacks, where over a 100 have died, while hundreds more have been injured. The terrorists may or may not be Pakistani but they certainly had some support from across the border. According to NDTV's coverage intercepted calls seem to suggest this. In fact, the terrorists were supposed to say they were from Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, not Hyderabad in Pakistan. The full truth will come out some day I hope. Regardless, it is impossible to carry out these widespread attacks without local complicity and that saddens me and makes me very. very angry.

AND I AM SICK OF IT.

No matter how bad this is, and not much can be worse, Mumbai is the one city that can withstand this. Even after the simultaneous train station bombings in 2006, people went back to work the next day. Yes, Mumbai is a tough city. Its people are tough and they are resilient.

Today, I can say, with no reservations and no pity, but with admiration and support: I love Mumbai. Today, I too am a Mumbaikar. And today with all Indians, even those of us who live elsewhere, I too can declare: Amchi Mumbai, My Mumbai. Terror will not overwhelm us.

Amchi Mumbai, Our Mumbai, we are with you.

Mumbai Under Seige

Here is the link to the developing CNN story.

I am numb. And pissed off. At the same time? Is that possible. Screw the Deccan Mujahideen. Who are these people? Who are these people to storm a city by boat, hole up in luxury hotels and kill commuters at train stations. The story is still unfolding. All I can think of are the people in Mumbai who have yet again been targeted by these fucking terrorists, the terror that people must be feeling.

It's still chaos there, the death toll is rising, so is the list of the injured. I watched NDTV last night and watched the blood, the walking dead, the wounded and felt so much that I can't even write in anything more than these staccato sentences.

Damn these fuckers

A Jewel of a Controvorsy

*sigh* *double sigh*

What is it? What is it that makes it okay to criticize people but god forbid if you happen to criticize a book or a faith? Good lord, much as I love writing, please criticize away, have at it, but leave me the fuck alone. My writing is inanimate. It feels no pain but I do. I can re-write, savagely edit, but there's only one of me. No more drafts. Just one of me. I can be hurt.

Perhaps there is nothing, no one book, no god, that I feel strongly enough about to defend with my life. Nothing that I feel so strongly about that I would kill or threaten to kill someone because of it. Maybe that's why I find the whole fracas about The Jewel of Medina, to be tiresome and as thrilling as a bad case of hives. I mean, seriously, get over it.

For those who have better things to do with their time, here's the condensed version. Sherry Jones wrote a book, called The Jewel of Medina, based on the prophet Mohammad's wife, Aisha. Aisha was betrothed to the prophet at six and married to him at nine (or eleven or thirteen, but young, really, really young regardless), and was known as his favorite wife. Random House signed Jones to a $100,000 two-book deal and all was well with the world. Then...surprise!....as sure as winter follows fall, came the death threats. Duhhh!

Random House, that bastion of free speech and errr...commercialism...dropped the jewel like a nuclear potato. Andrew Franklin, who was editor at Penguin when The Satanic Verses was published decried Random House as cowards. Rushdie, of course, supported Jones and wrote about the perils of censorship. *Yawn*

In September 2008, British publisher Gibson Square took on the challenge of publishing the book. So far they are standing firm on this despite the publisher, Martin Rynja's house being firebombed. Yes, the threats escalated and the guy's house went up in flames.

Not so condensed after all, but there you have it.

Let me say this: I am tired of firebombs and death threats and murders in the name of religion. Debate religion, indulge in some good old-fashioned name calling but leave people's bodies and homes alone. Simply put, if you don't want to read a book, don't read it. Tell others not to read it. Why is it not okay to criticize your religion or fictionalize aspects of it? We live in a multi-textured world and some of us don't want sacronsanctness around us. We choose not read your stuff. You don't have to read ours.

But though I am a die-hard Rushdie fan and liked The Satanic Verses, I find myself waffling at Jones' shall-we-say soft-porn and rather *ahem* loose interpretation of facts. I mean there's fictionalizing and then there's "I floated in his arms to my apartment. He kicked open the door and carried me inside, then placed me on my feet again." This just makes me want to curl up with a cup of tea and the latest offering from Harlequin.The Sheikh's Virgin Bride anyone?

What I don't get is the shock that people...writers, publishers, editors...express every time they write or produce something about Islam and some pious Muslim decides he'd like to kill them for it. Really, in this day and age, if you write anything about the prophet without a million PBUHs littering the page and if you bring up even a slightly risque subject matter (even if it is done well), prepare yourself for the onslaught. And don't be coyly shocked when it arrives. Still, you have the right to offend people, yes, even people who find phrases like "I spread a smile thick as hummous across my lips, deeply offensive. Offend me. Offend iconoclastic Muslims. Just don't be shocked when you do.

And that's the point isn't it?

Jones has the right to write any lurid details she wants and a publisher should be able to publish it without having to make that now so tedious decision: your book or your life? They have the right to write and publish. You have the right not to read it and convince others not to. Simple!

So now, let's address you, Mr. or Ms. your-writing-offends-me-so-I-will-kill-you-in-the-name-of-Allah-firebomber:

By all means, castigate the author, read the book and tear it to shreds in reviews, boycott it, use it as a means to educate people. Don't try to prove you're not a narrow-minded, predictable dick-head by being a narrow-minded, predictable, dick-head. Stop with the threats, the fire-bombs, the fiery rhetoric. We get it. The rest of us--sane Muslims and non-Muslims--should not write about anything that vaguely touches anything remotely controvorsial in Islam. Guess what? People think and they read and they write. And part of that process is touching upon taboo subjects and writing about them. So, that's not gonna change. No matter how many Molotov cocktails you shake up.

Perhaps, since you evidently read (if not the books themselves, but at least the synopses put together by some literate brethren) you should channel your fiery thoughts and impulses towards writing reviews of these evil, evil, shaitan books. Go on! Really! You can. It might even get published.

Shock us by NOT firebombing anyone. Shock us by using normal, non-violent channels of dissent. Shock us by not threatening to kill or actually killing someone to show your displeasure. Shock us with your intellect, the power of your pen, the thunder of your prose.

At least then the rest of us can break away from this predictabile cycles of writing and threats every few years. And perhaps, the Ms. Jones of the world won't be laughing all the way to the bank. Get 'em where it really hurts. In the bank. Ignore these books so people like me won't buy it regardless of the author's less than stellar writing. Use your brain not your bomb.

Believe, truly believe, that Allah is all-powerful and is well able to look after His/Her image and doesn't need a pipsqueak human to defend Him/Her. I mean really, who do you think you are? Isn't that rather blasphemous...that you, a puny human can defend God?

I feel a fatwah coming on. Gotta run!

WTF is this Shit?

Internal dialog

Oh no you're not writing about that freedom of speech crap are you? Say you're not please. It's so done. It's so...I don't know so very 2007. Give it up. I am soo tired of your shit.

But it's the perfect storm, don't you see? Here is the Delhi intelligentsia demanding citizenship for Taslima Nasrin. There are those damned Danish cartoons again, complete with a foiled assasination plot against the cartoonist. I can't resist. I just can't.


And the shit, what about that? Gotcha huh?

Well, it's early in the year, prime nostalgia time, and I started started thinking about the pre-Web Internet (you gasp? It's true. I was there) and the shit and religion list that was so popular, making the rounds of discussion boards. So, here you are an oldie but a goodie, the Shit List of Religions.

I give up. *sighs*

Good. I hoped you would. *smiles(

A Religion and Shit Ideology
Note: okay, some of them are not about religion but they are still funny.

Taoism: Shit happens.

Confucianism: Confucius say shit happen.

Zen Buddhism: Shit is, and is not.

Zen Buddhism Redux: What is the sound of shit happening?

Hinduism: This shit has happened before.

Calvinism: Shit happens because you don't work.

Secular Humanism: Shit evolves.

Creationism: God made all shit.

Darwinism: This shit was once food.

Catholisicm: If shit happens you deserve it.

Judaism: Why does shit always happen to us?

Unitarianism: Come, let us reason together about this shit.

Existentialism: Shit doesn't happen, Shit IS.

Mormonism: God sent this shit.

Quakers: Let us not fight over this shit.

Seventh Day Adventist: No shit shall happen on Sunday.

Agnostic: What is this shit?

Satanism: SNEPPAH TIHS.

Atheism: What shit?

Atheism redux: I can't believe this shit.

Impressionsim: From a distance shit looks like a garden.

Idolism: Let's bronze this shit.


And since this is my page, you know you were waiting for this three-pronged nyah nyah to my ummah. Hey, I can say it since I am Muslim :-) Peace! Here is the grand finale:

Islam: If shit happens it's the will of Allah.

Islam redux: If shit happens, kill the person responsible.

Islam.3: I'll kick the shit out of you.

VIVA FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!

Apostasy and Dissent II

I didn't want this to be buried in my comments section, so this is an addendum to my first post on this topic, and is response to temporal and alien. Also, alien, I would like to comment on your comment about the verse that came down when Muslims were fighting with their backs against the wall. A religion, revealed or otherwise (to me at least) should be universal and applicable. Putting that verse into the book crystallized it and made it an immutable part of the religion. So, it's not just a historical relic it is religious text. It justifies similar acts in modern times because depending on someone's perspective they can justify that an extreme act is warranted because the situation can be argued to be similar to the time of the said verse.

Now, I am not someone who remembers verses and numbers but I do remember stories and words. And I remember long ago verses and stories from the Quran and Hadith that I read as a child. However, I wanted to quote from the actual text.

Now, there is no specific sentence in the Quran that says death to apostates. However, there are many things that are allowed or forbidden that are not expressly stated in so many words. Stories and/or incidents are used for illustrative purposes. And, of course, the Quran is not the only source for Islamic law and practice. Forget the shariah and the schools of jurisprudence, there is also the Hadith, incidents from the life of the prophet, incidents others relate about what he said or did that are supposed to guide the lives of Muslims. I had to dig around to find the actual places.

So, here goes:

The Quran on Apostasy

During a four month period, and when the haj was going on, immunity was declared against all those fighting against Allah and his messenger. This was in A.H. 9. During these four months they could accept Islam, leave the country (and nothing would hinder their departure), or do neither and stay and be dealt with by the sword. Some of these people were known as the hypocrites, i.e., they had accepted Islam verbally but were still not fully committed to it. In other words they had confessed Islam and then renounced it, which is part of the definition of apostasy. The punishment here was the war waged against the leaders of this kufr or infidelity (9:11-12)

There is some commentary and debate about this next one, though many Islamic scholars believe in the interpretation of one verse from the Cairo edition of the Quran that states, either that all the deeds of an apostate become null and void in this world and the next and he must be killed OR that an apostate should be killed and lose his wife and heritage.

Ibn Fakhri fil Adab as Sultaniya also relates that Abu Bakr killed all of Mecca's apostates after the death of the prophet.

Apostasy in the Hadith

There are quite a few hadiths about this topic. According to Bukhari (volume 9, # 17), the prophet said: The punishment of death is prescribed for murder, adultery and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.

(vol 9, # 57 relates an eye-witness account by Ikrima): Ali burnt some atheists who were brought to him. Hearing this Ibn Abbas said, that the messenger of Allah forbade burning them but that they did deserve death, because the prophet said, whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

(vol 9, verse 58) A Jew who became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism was brought in fetters to Abu Musa and Muadh. When told of his crime Muadh said he would not sit until the man was killed. And so the man was.

Imam Malik (Book 016, # 4152)
Zaid b. Aslam reported that the prophet declared that the man who leaves Islam should be executed.

Historical Records

The prophet's life and actions form the basis of conduct for the believing Muslim. So, I present this example. After the taking of Mecca, ten people were ordered to be killed by the prophet, all ten of whom were apostates.

Furthermore, no matter their other disagreements all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do agree on one thing, that the punishment for apostasy is execution.

However, one of the problems in pinning anything to the Quran or Hadith is that there are so many contradictory verses and events, which really muddy the water. So there are verses in which the prophet actually did nothing about some apostates. Ultimately I believe it comes down to one's own personal beliefs.

Perhapy my fundamental problem is that I expect a book of divine revelation to be consistent and clear, leaving no room for the kind of doubt that either does or does not prescribe death for apostates. In countries with Islamic law, because of the schools of jurisprudence and the hadith and the few verses from the Quran do form the basis for apostasy laws. Since there is nothing expressly forbidding death for apostasy but there is some evidence for harsh punishment for apostasy this law is applied. For all intents and purposes, this is agreed-upon Muslim law.

How a few enlightened people interpret these verses of hadiths in their homes doesn't matter when vast swathes of the Muslim world believe death for apostasy a fair exchange, and it is upheld by law.


P.S. Alien and temporal, I still consider you guys my friends and like the fact we can discuss this topic in a respectful manner. Cheers!

Muslim Dissent

I've removed myself from these Muslim/freedom of expression/Islam debates because they all seem to devolve into the same melee of contradictions. I am an Indian of Muslim descent. To me Muslim and Indian are both socio-cultural identities, not a religious one, because I really do not follow Islam.

The "Indian" tag is very important because it identifes that identity as something distinct from what is perceived as muslimness in the world, something that always seems to come back to Arabic roots. To me culture-- dynamic, changing, evolving culture is more vibrant, exciting and most importantly, open to change than religion, which seems to be stuck in place.

Coming out this way--which is a negation of Quranic teachings, and therefore Islam, always has consequence. For me, I know an announcement like this generates reactions from two camps. One, is the anti-Muslim, right-wing group that lauds my emergence as some kind of victory for their own fundamentalism. The other is the Muslim crowd that gets divided into further sub-groups: (a) Those convinced that this is some kind of publicity ploy, because apostate Muslim writers are tools of Western media to get recognition and/or riches. (b) Those who send threatening messages that refer to the only suitable punishment for an apostate. (c) Those who say other religions also have x,y, problems (fair enough) without really bothering to answer concerns/questions/issues raised about this particular issue.

My theory is this. Other religions for all their faults (and I follow none of them btw) have, or now have a tradition of criticism from within their own ranks. Religious debate in Islam, however, is only valid when using the Quran, hadith, or shariah. So essentially the debates are centered around different interpretations of the same text. Part of the debate needs to include voices that consider the whole thing crap. Questioning God, the revelation of the Quran itself, and questioning the legitimacy of the prophets is needed for this debate. Which is why there is constant debate about whether there is compulsion in religion because there are a dozen contradictory verses, as there are about the dress code for women, and other hot-button current issues, which do not go near any of the real issues at stake. When the same source material is used for a debate, coming to any common conclusion is impossible because each individual adheres to the reason(s) that make sense to that person.

For true religious reform to happen, the debate needs to take into account other things. The outside world, cultures, philosophies, religions, etc. all need to be party to this debate. Otherwise, it's like trying to air out a room with all its windows and shades closed, and the door slammed shut. At the very least it becomes a false debate with no room for dissent, because you start with the premise that there are certain immutable and unquestionable facts. To me, a constrained debate is no debate. It's just a bunch of people tap dancing around a group of elephants that none of them want to acknowledge.

This is the reason I believe, that most non-Muslims feel frustrated and most Muslims cannot understand that frustration. Their paradigms are different. What does debate really mean to all of us? And what is dissension? Is it merely disagreeing about the interpretation of something or is it actually just a starting point?

I am a purist. Religion to me is not a smorgasbord, where you pick and choose. If religion is divine, something that is supposed to lead to your salvation it either is something or it is not. I, personally, cannot cherrypick some version of Islam or any religion and then claim that *that* is the true way to practice it. Fundamentalists of all religions do that, but so do moderates and liberals. The only difference is what verses and parts are picked to justify the points of view.

When the Quran and all five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the punishment for apostasy is execution (well, definitely for men. Female apostates may be executed or imprisoned for life), the reason for this lack of open debate becomes clear. Debate will only be tolerated within the constraints already described.

Apostasy in Islam includes denying Allah and rejecting the prophet's claim of prophet-hood, which brings us back to the point that true, open, questioning debate cannot happen. Here are the other acts that constitue apostasy:

1. A public declaration that denies Islam, and its beliefs

2. Denying the existence of God, or of accepting the Chritian belief of the Trinity

3. Saying the world has always existed. In other words, denying the role of the Creator

4. Belief in reincarnation

5. Denying the resurrection

6. Declaring that someone can become a prophet through spiritual exercise (i.e., there can be no other prophet)

7. Cursing Muhammad, the prophet.

8. Questioning the perfection of Muhammad's knowledge, beliefs, actions, and or character.

9. Any clearly blasphemous act (burning the Quran, and or books of the hadith)

10. Contradicting positions held by Muslim scholars (e.g., saying prayers or fasting are not obligatory, or that adultery is not punishable by death)

With such strictures in place it is no surprise that true debate in Muslim society would fall dangerously close to apostasy. There are concepts of apostasy in other religions to be sure but no other religious leaders (note: George Bush is not a religious leader, no matter how Christian he is. He is a political figure) exhorts the death of apostates and critics. And the difference I believe is that no other religion has such a clear consequence for apostasy.

The fear of death can do great things.

Saudi rape victim pardoned: Update

Yes, the young woman I had written about has been pardoned by the King of Saudi Arabia.

While part of me grits my teeth at the pardoning of a victim, I realize that this was the only way for the young woman to escape her horrific victimization after an already harrowing ordeal.

And even though I know that there are probably others in S. Arabia undergoing the same or worse, at least one woman has escaped from it, even if it was because of intense media interest. Kudos to the woman and her lawyer. It doesn't happen often, but here's a rare victory for moderates in Islam.

Read more about it here

200 Lashes and 6 Months in Jail

Imagine you are a 19 year old woman and you sneak away from home. You sneak away because you are not allowed to go out by yourself. Then you are attacked and raped by seven men. Again, again, brutally, you are violated and you know that the worst is yet to come.

A 19 year old young woman in Saudi Arabia had just this happen to her. She was held responsible for her own rape--because she was out without permission from a male relative-- and was sentenced to 90 lashes. Oh yes, the rapists also got sentenced. Like they were all willing participants in a one-sided act of brutality.

Then she spoke to the media and the number of lashes were increased to 200 and she also got 6 months in jail.When the young woman's lawyer appealed the judicial decision he was disbarred and lost his license to practice.

This case made my stomach turn. I am feeling physically sick. What can one write or say about this atrocity. We know that Saudi Arabia is no haven for women and I am sure cases like this have always happened. Now we know about it...and I am still too disturbed to really digest this. But I know this is one brave woman to step out and actually talk about it. And kudos to her lawyer as well.

Read more about it on CNN.

Naina and the Dancing Hijabis

**This post might (will) be offensive to ultra-religious and hijabi types but I am PMSing and I just want to be mean and offensive today. So there**


Last week we went to the Fetes de Geneve, basically a giant fair along the lake in Geneva. They had a ferris wheel, other strange rides and more importantly lots and lots of yummy food stalls at the not-so-usual for Geneva bank-breaking prices. Interestingly most of the stalls were Indian. Samosas here I come. There were also wicked looking cocktails (sadly I was still on antibiotics and cortisone so I had to abstain) and cotton candy and churros.


Oh yes, when I say we went to the fair I include my dog, Naina. She was excited, sniffing at the ground, the air, trying to figure out what all the excitement was about.


We were about 30 feet away from this ninja...errrr....hijabi woman. Did I mention most of the fair attendees were the Arabs who descend on Geneva in the summer? She had her index fingers up in the air and was sort of jerking around rather rythmically.


I was thinking, cool the woman is dancing. A bit strange to be doing a bhangraesque dance while in full religious regalia but she's happy, she's at the fair...so whatever. Then she comes closer and starts shaking a finger in my face, "no...no...no....dog...no...no."


What the fuck? My dog, on a short leash (maybe a two-foot leash, while she was really about 30 feet away) was happily sniffing some other dog's pee on the ground (charming, yes, but that's my dog) nowhere close to this woman. If you're afraid of dogs why come closer to one to admonish its owner?


I said, "My dog has no interest in you," and she gave me a dirty look. Okay, so I think it was a dirty look since all I could see were her eyes and I really need to see someone's entire face to interpret expressions.


We continued walking. And I realized either I was the modern equivalent of Moses or people were just jumping back on either side when we passed. I am not exaggerating. Mothers would pull their kids back, husbands would bark out something to their wives and they would just fall back. Yes, the good religious folk were fleeing the polluting presence of my dog. You do have to wash yourself seven times if you are touched by a dog. I love touching my dog. She feels great, silky and fluffy and warm. I am perennially unclean I guess.


Then this 7 or 8 year old brat runs forward with an inflatable baseball bat (I wonder if his religious parents knew the bat had pot leaves all over it) and behaves like he is going to swat her on the head with it. I looked at him and said in my sternest, mean voice, "I don't think so," and he slunk away.


If he had even touched her I would have hit him. I was getting really pissed off about this. No one says you have to love my dog or even pet it or whatever, but quit behaving like idiots. All dogs are not itching to attack you, especially one that has its nose to the ground sniffing or trying to look pathetic so that I'll give her a churro (I did).


Geneva is an incredibly dog-friendly city so when we stepped into a weird parody of a country western bar tent, the waitress immediately brought water for her. She got tons of petting including from this very cute and very energetic two-year old.


This kid kept running to Naina, petting her (roughly) on her head, poking at her paws, her eyes, pulling her tail and sticking a finger up her nose. She was very sweet and very into the dog but Naina, who usually cannot get enough of being touched, retreated under the table, looking at me reproachfully each time this girl touched her somewhere she didn't want to be touched. Still, she did nothing. Just moved her paw or her face away while I tried to teach the kid to be gentle. Eventually, she would just pat her face and her head very sweetly and semi-gently.


Usually when I am out walking I keep Naina really close to my side, walking at my heel so that she doesn't bother people. I know some people are afraid of dogs so I try to be a good citizen.


Now as stepped into little Arabia again, even though I still kept her close to my side I wished that some some hair or something of hers would get on to some of the people jumping back from her. Okay, so I might have held her just a little bit more out there than I usually do. I was getting sick of this strange dog paranoia.


The said dog however was having a grand time. An old man knelt down and hugged her and a little girl petted her belly. Naina was in doggie heaven.


Then I saw a woman wearing a headscarf, looking at her eyes. Her eyes get a lot of attention..since one is blue and the other brown. I braced myself for another negative reaction, some jumping out of the way, abject terror.


Instead this woman rushed over to Naina and hugged her tightly (which she tolerates but does not like) and petted her. Then she called her son who was on some spinning ride and brought him over so he could pet her as well. We managed to communicate despite her broken English and my total lack of Arabic.


She said Naina reminded her of her dog at home. That her dogs too had eyes like Naina. She wanted to know nothing about me but everything about my dog. How old was she? What did her name mean? etc. etc.


We spent about 10 minutes talking about the dog. "Bye, bye Naina," she screamed out as we left. I smiled.


I had confronted a stereotype and it was slightly altered but to be honest hijabis still make me uncomfortable and the Arab invasion of Geneva strikes me as odd. They love what Geneva has to offer. But they still don't want most of it in their own countries. Why?

Perhaps as a (semi) Muslim woman I am even more sensitive to this whole head scarf/hijab thing. I don't remember hearing any of these debates when I was a child but suddenly it's a big thing. When did it become such a symbol of identity.

As a child I was told proudly that no woman in three generations of my family had observed purdah. It was seen as a step forward. And now there are young women choosing to wear hijab as a right. To some they are asserting their rights as Muslim women. To me they are regressing and setting women back.

I am not sure I understand this at all. This need to set yourself apart when there is no need to. Dress modestly. Be religious. Pray five times and definitely avoid my dog. But why make yourself into a spectacle? Why attract more attention when the stated purpose of the hijab is to attract less?

I am liberal, unabashedly so and feminist, unreservedly so. And I find religiosity and religious people rather frightening. I believe they have the right to believe and do what they want to do but I can't understand it. Or want to understand it. And I have the right to find them frightening and strange.

Interestingly, it is liberals who support the right to wear the hijab. And so uneasily I find myself on the side of a more conservative viewpoint. I believe (and I am sure many will disagree) that wearing the hijab is injurious to women...and men.

It pre-supposes that women are just their bodies and their hair and by controlling these two, society is made safer. It pre-supposes that men are lustful animals unable to control themselves. And it pre-supposes that women have to curtail their personal freedom and bear the responsibility for men's inability to control themselves.

I have a solution.

Instead of women wearing hijabs, why don't men wear blindfolds? I'll even throw in the white canes for free.

And then Naina and I can go to the fair without dancing hijabis and bratty kids.

In Praise and Defence of Blasphemy

I admit it. I love blasphemy. There! I said it. There is something within me that attracts me to it. The more blasphemous an idea, the more it challenges any establishment, especially religious ones, the more I like it.
I’m talking ideas that challenge Jesus’ divinity; Mohammad’s prophet-hood and talk freely of Shiva’s drug addiction. Bring it on! Blasphemy, to me, is what makes the world progress. Thoughts that are drastically different from what others believe and feel, aah, they are the ones that truly force humanity forward.
Where would we be without the famous blasphemers Galileo and Copernicus. Even most religious figures—that can potentially be so hurt by it—were blasphemers in their day. Jesus and Moses were a threat to the established religion of the day as was Mohammad. Why, then are ideas, thoughts and their provocative expression so taboo? Hinduism had few taboos practiced as it once was. What happened?
Why do we need to protect God and divinity from people who say things about Her? Surely (if you believe in it) the being who created the universe and us needs no protection from mere ideas? How supremely arrogant is that? Can mortals truly protect God from the expressed ideas of other mortals. Does Lord Ganesha really care that his image showed up on toilet seat covers? He looks like a cool guy. Maybe he took it as a compliment. But we’ll never know, will we? Hindus in the US protested against the purveyor of such sacrilegious merchandise, making them pull the seat covers from the market.
This was, of course, nothing compared to the furor over what was not one of Rushdie’s best work (to me his worst is better than most writers’ best but I digress) The Satanic Verses. It was a book for God’s sake. Don’t buy it, don’t read it, if offends you. Protest even. But burning books and a death threat?
I know that people of the Diaspora sometimes take blasphemy more seriously than do our counterparts back in our countries of origin. If there is one thing that should (but often does not) open up someone’s mind to new ideas, it should be traveling and living in other countries. Observing and living among people and environments that are totally different from your own should be a liberating experience.
Instead it sometimes creates fear, making them hold on harder to the past, grasping at the tangible aspects of their original culture and in the process making of it a poor facsimile. And since religion is such a crucial part of some lives any blasphemy against their faith becomes intolerable.
It was a personal journey of my own to arrive at a place where blasphemy has become such a cherished idea. Blasphemy to me is the domain of a different mind, of a brave person (or a foolish one) but someone who definitely swims against the tide. And that right, in an increasingly polarized and intolerant world, is precious to me.
I am tired of the “it hurts my religious sentiments” brigade. What the heck is a “religious sentiment?” If it is so fragile as to be hurt by someone saying or writing something, perhaps you should examine your religion and your sentiment. Perhaps indulge in some blasphemy yourself and feel the exhilaration of it.
Besides what about my sentiments then? Are they any less valid because there is no religion attached to it? My sentiments can be potentially hurt by the display of religion out there, by every church, mosque or temple I pass and by everyone who says “god bless you,” when I sneeze. But to me (and others like me) these are the realities of life and living. This variety of religious stuff out there is what makes the experience of living so rich. And one such experience is blasphemy. It’s a part of the world and life and has been since the very beginning when the first cave-woman looked at others prostrating themselves in front of a giant cactus and saying, “you do that’s just one giant, prickly plant, don’t you? I bet we can split it open, cook it up and make ourselves some soup.” I wonder how they dealt with her.
Remember the old saying, ‘sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words shall never hurt me’? Letting blasphemy, no matter how heinous or offensive, flourish, even under protest, can only take us forward.Of course, this doesn’t endear me to most people whether they are Diasporic or not. But my fellow Diaspora dwellers, we above all, should embrace blasphemy or protest such ideas with other ideas. We are the ones who decided to look beyond a certain wall to take a peek at the other side. We traveled beyond the seven seas just to see what lay there. In another time that act itself would have been blasphemy, causing some of us to lose our caste. Blasphemy is our tradition. Our birthright. Let us embrace it.