Is Noam Chomsky Right or Wrong?

Noam Chomsky was asked, ‘What do you think of the U.S. increased reliance—President Obama increasingly using drones to attack people in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond?’

He answered: ‘Good comment about that made by Yochi Dreazen. He’s the military correspondent—was the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is now for some other outfit, a military analyst. He pointed out accurately—this after the killing of Osama bin Laden, which he approved of, but he said that there’s an interesting difference between Bush and Obama. I mean, I’m now paraphrasing in my own terms, not his terms, so the way I would have said it is: Bush—if Bush, the Bush administration, didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers; if the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them, so you don’t have to have torture chambers all over.

Actually, that tells us something else. Just take a look at the first Guantánamo detainee to go to trial under Obama. Trial means military commission, whatever that is. The first one was a very interesting case and tells us a lot. The first one was Omar Khadr. And what was his crime? His crime was that when he was 15 years old, he tried to defend his village against an attack by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. So that’s the crime, therefore he’s a terrorist. So he was sent to Bagram, then to Guantánamo, eight years in these torture chambers. And then he came up for trial under Obama. And he was given a choice: you can plead not guilty and stay in Guantánamo for the rest of your life, or you can plead guilty and get another eight years. So his lawyers advised him to plead guilty. Well, that’s justice under our constitutional law president, for a 15-year-old kid defending his village against an attacking army. And there was nothing said—the worst part is, there’s nothing said about it.

Actually, the same is true of the Awlaki killing, you know, this American cleric in Yemen who was killed by drones. He was killed. The guy next to him was killed. Shortly after, his son was killed. Now, there was a little talk about the fact that he was an American citizen: you shouldn’t just murder American citizens. But, you know, the New York Times headline, for example, when he was killed, said something like “West celebrates death of radical cleric.” First of all, it wasn’t death, it was murder. And the West celebrates the murder of a suspect. He’s a suspect, after all. There was something done almost 800 years ago called the Magna Carta, which is the foundation of Anglo-American law, that says that no one shall be subjected to a violation of rights without due process of law and a fair and speedy trial. It doesn’t say, if you think somebody’s a suspect, you should kill them.’

Are you an atheist? Better be a humanist.

Dear Alom Shaha,

Thank you for sending me your ‘The Young Atheist’s Handbook’. I haven’t started reading the book. But I’ve listened to your interview today. I understand what you have said.

I was thinking of Sam Harris’s recent article while listening to you. You probably have read the article. Sam Harris said TSA screeners at airports should not waste time screening old people, children, and others who do not look like Muslims and they should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim and they should be honest about it. Sam Harris’s Muslim-profile-program is more dangerous than the notorious Homeland Security program in the Bush era!

I never feel bad when I am asked to take my shoes, my belts, my jewelry, my scarves, my coats etc. off and to go through metal detectors repeatedly. I feel safe when I see people of all ages, of all colors, of all ethnicities, of all nationalities,of all genders, and of all beliefs get screened. I feel safe when I see a 2-year-old baby’s sandals and an 85-year-old wheelchair lady’s orthopedic footwear are removed for screening, for these are the things terrorists would think of using as shoe-bombs because these are the things people would not be suspicious about. It will scare the crap out of me if I see only ‘Muslims and Muslim-looking people’ are going through security screening and others are free to board a plane. If I see that Sam Harris without being properly screened is going to board the plane I am supposed to board, I would most likely decide to cancel my flight because I would be afraid of him. I would think that he accidentally carried a gun, and he would accidentally shoot people on the plane and I would accidentally die. I do not want to take any risk. Who knows, for he might get suddenly mentally sick and start thinking that all ‘Muslim looking people‘ are terrorists or they all are Osama Bin Laden and it is better to finish them off. I would not trust Muslim looking people, and I would also not trust Christian looking people, Jewish looking people, Hindu looking people, Jain looking people, Buddhist looking people, or any other religious looking people! How would I know about their plans!They may have some secret plans! Muslims have been terrorizing and killing people in many parts of the world. It is Muslims who become suicide bombers these days, but faith-heads of any religion can become suicide bombers. I would not trust even die hard atheists and die hard atheist looking people. They might think of blowing up the plane, because the plane is full of fucking believers! You never know.

We both look like South Asian. South Asian Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs,Parsis, Jews, Bahá’ís, Bramhas, Animists as well as atheists look more or less the same. How would Sam Harris identify Muslims? It will really be a tough job for him or anyone else. If we are identified as ‘Muslim looking people’, then we will have to spend more time going through rigid security checks than Sam Harris inasmuch as he does not look Muslim. But we are not any less godless than Sam Harris! The question of identification of Muslims is very much related to the color of skin.

It is true that fear, hatred, and hostility of some Western people toward Islam and Muslims helped to make Muslims all over the world more religious, more fundamentalists, and more terrorists. We who were born into Muslim families but became atheists and have been fighting Muslim fundamentalism for decades know very well how difficult this fight has become.

We know there is a conflict. But the conflict is not between the West and Islam. Or West and East, or Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism and Islam. The conflict is between secularism and fundamentalism, between rational logical minds and irrational blind faith, between innovation and tradition, between humanism and barbarism, between the future and the past, between the people who value freedom and the people who do not.

Atheists need more enlightenment to become humanists. I dream of a day when all atheists will be free from racism, misogyny,homophobia,megalomania and other silly things.

Humanistically

Taslima

Religion is like a rapist’s penis. It attacks women.

 

”Religion is like a penis. It’s fine to have one and it’s fine to be proud of it, but please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around… and PLEASE don’t try to shove it down my child’s throat.”

 

Taliban poisons  drinking water. 150   schoolgirls were hospitalized in Afghanistan  yesterday. Girls education was banned under Taliban rule (1996-2001). After girls schools are  reopened, periodic attacks occur against girls, teachers and school buildings. It is not the first time Taliban poisoned girl’s school’s water, they did it before. In 2010, more than 100 schoolgirls and teachers were sickened in similar poisonings.

Taliban’s poison gas attack  is well known. In August 2010 it was revealed through blood tests that a mysterious series of cases of mass sickness at girls’ schools across the country were caused by a powerful poison gas.

Acid was thrown at the girls while they were  walking  to school. Taliban  have been blowing up girls school in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They  threaten to blow up girl’s schools if they refuse to close.   Taliban wages war against girls education.  They try everything to  destroy girls education.  They  burnt down  over 125 girls schools   calling women’s education un-Islamic.

“Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society,” Shah Dauran, Taliban leader said. Muslim Khan, Taliban spokesman said, “Female education is against Islam. They (women and girls) are required to sit at home and not venture out.”

The relationship between religion and patriarchy is deep-rooted. Patriarchy  wants   woman to  stay   at  home and  to  protect  her chastity.  A woman is nothing  but   her husband’s property.  It is  men’s   responsibility to provide food for his wives  and children and it is  women’s duty to obey her husband. It is only recently after decades of  feminist movement that women get the opportunity to go to school, to get  an education, to find   a job,  to make  money and to become economically independent.

 

Whenever Muslim fundamentalists flog women for wearing trousers or stone women to death for adultery,or punish girls for getting education, there are people who would  say, ‘it is not real Islam’. What is real Islam? Does real Islam believe in women’s equality?  Is real Islam pro-woman?   If real Islam is so pro-woman, it would not have said  woman was made from the rib of man  (Surah Nisa 4:1) or one of her bones was crooked. If real Islam is so pro-woman, it would not  ask  men to beat women.( Surah Nisa 4:34)  If real Islam is so pro-woman,  it would not say, a male shall inherit twice as much as a female ( Surah Nisa 4:11) , and the testimony of one man  would not be equal that of two women. If real Islam is so pro-woman,  women would get equal rights  in  marriage, divorce, and child custody, it would not permit  men to have  four  wives  (Surah Nisa 4:3)  and  it would not reward pious men  with 72 virgins in heaven and pious women  with nothing but the same old husband.

 

The life of Khadija, the first wife of Muhammad, tells us that  the   status of women was quite good  during  pre-Islamic period.  Khadija  was a rich businesswoman. Women could own and run a business. She was a widow.  She married Muhammad who was  15 years younger than her.  She had the right to hold and inherit property and was free to enter into a nuptial contract with the person she chose. Her polygamous  husband   could not marry any other women as long as she was alive.

It is true that Islam is not against women having ‘religious education’ but it definitely discourages women to leave home. It says, woman’s pray at home is better  than going to mosque. Woman should take the permission of her husband before going out. Evils are behind unnecessary socializing of unveiled women . Woman should not wear perfumes. Women  should wait behind men. Women should not walk in the middle of the road. Wives have great duty towards their husbands. Angels curses the disobedient wife. Woman should be grateful to her husband. Women should not imitate men in dress, movements, and way of speech. Women should cover her face in the presence of strangers and men who are not her close family members.

 

Despite all the  attacks of  the religionists, women in the Muslim societies are leaving home for schools or for  work, it happens not because  they embrace  Islamic rules, but   because  they disrespect  Islamic rules. Like all other religions, Islam is also anti-women. Today, Islam looks more intolerant and barbaric than  other religions.  It is because Islamists have been preventing  people  from being  evolved and enlightened. Time to change.

 

 

Crimes against humanity

 

 

‘The right to life of women … is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions.’ — Hina Jilani

 

‘It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders – of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the “honor” of their families – are as barbaric as they are shameful.’

 

 

 

‘An  honor killing is a murder, carried out by a family to punish a female family member who has supposedly brought dishonor upon the family. The acts which are the cause of dishonor can be

  • refusing to enter into an arranged marriage
  • being the victim of a sexual assault or rape
  • seeking a divorce, even from an abusive husband
  • committing adultery or fornication
  • pre-marital sex
  • falling in love with men outside her tribe
  • flirting /chatting with men  on facebook

The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that dishonors her family is enough  to trigger an attack on her life.’

 

‘Men often use honor killings to maintain their dominant patriarchal status.  Women in the family often support the practice in order to preserve the honor of male family members.  Patriarchy is a system in which both  men and women participate. It privileges the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women.’

 

‘Honor killing  most likely originates from the belief that a woman’s chastity is the property of her families, a patriarchal culture  that comes  from  ancient  Assyrian tribes of 1200 B.C. A woman, who was considered by the tribes to be a machine   for making men, was forced through  honor  killing  to obey the husband’s family   and not to reproduce outside of the tribe or the extended family.  In Babylonian societies, women accused of adultery were forced to throw themselves into a river to prove they were innocent. In ancient Egyptian culture, imprisonment, flogging, or mutilation were common punishments for women who had been convicted of adultery. In ancient Chinese culture   husbands cut off the hair of adulterous women and then lead them to their death by an elephant trained to kill. Some Native American tribes punished adulterous women by cutting off their limbs and mutilating their bodies. In Persia, adulterous women were pushed into a well and left to die. ‘

 More than 20,000 women are killed each year because of honor based violence.

10,000 women get killed  each year  in the name of honor in Pakistan. 

‘The practice  of honor killings goes across cultures and across religions. It had been practiced in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Jordan, Yemen, Syria,  Morocco, Lebanon,Iraq, Brazil, Ecuador, Uganda etc.   In many countries, murdering  female family members in the name of honor is NOT considered a crime. In some countries honor killing is like a  crime of passion, a crime often  not punishable.  In Pakistan, the practice of honor killing is supposed to be prosecuted under ordinary killing, but in practice police and prosecutors often ignore it  and often a man  simply claim the killing was for his honor and he will go free.  In Syria, men can kill female relatives in a ‘crime of passion’ as long as it is not premeditated. It is legal for a husband to kill his wife in Jordan if he catches her committing adultery. Crime of passion can be a full or partial defense in countries like  Argentina, Iran, Guatemala, Egypt, Israel, Peru,  etc.’

Honor killings take place in Western countries (UK, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Canada, USA)  among immigrant communities. Rape, acid attack are part of honor crimes.

 

These are just some informations. Another important information is Honor killing incidents are increasing rapidly all over the world.

 

There is no honor in killing. But  women are still oppressed, tortured and  killed everyday in the name of religion, patriarchy, tradition, culture, custom, family  honor etc.etc. etc.

Men  must stop  exploiting, abusing and  killing women in the name of hundreds of thousands of bullshit.