Isaac Schrödinger

Breaking the Shackles

Shire News Network:

This week we talk to two free-thinkers. One is from the UK and the other from the USA and both are trying hard not to be defined by the religion they were born into and have subsequently rejected. Shire Network News senior religious affairs correspondent Tom Paine speaks to two ex-Muslims - Sheila (not her real name for reasons which are probably obvious) who lives in the United States, and Adil Zeshan from the United Kingdom. They talk about why they left, and why the fear the reaction from their former compatriots.

Download the podcast here.

My experience is significantly different, in two ways, than the paths taken by Sheila and Adil Zeshan.

1. I wasn't very religious before leaving Islam. I only prayed when my relatives dragged me to the mosque on either Friday or Eid. I have never fasted. I've enjoyed listening to music since 1988. I don't hate dogs. And so on.

I convinced myself that all these things weren't important because on Judgment Day such rituals won't make a difference. In fact, I thought that most of the tiny Islamic regulations were asinine. Things like: men not allowed to wear gold, divorcing a woman by uttering a few words, the ban on photography, interest being forbidden, gender apartheid...all of it just didn't make any rational or moral sense.

So, I simply neglected almost all of the rules. The crucial synapse didn't click till my late teenage years when I asked: Why do I call myself a Muslim?

2. I have visited a Muslim-majority nation after 9/11. Saudi Arabia, to be precise. There, in December 2001, I was saturated with hatred and loathing for the US. In my dad's workplace, everyone celebrated the news of 9/11 as if the Saudis had won the soccer world cup. Everyone except one Arab. This Saudi was sad because the Twin Towers didn't fall sideways which would have caused more death and carnage.

Here was an event where thousands were instantly obliterated and numerous families were fractured forever. The overall reaction from the center of the Muslim world? Pure, unadulterated joy. I knew then that these Muslims will not genuinely oppose the future atrocities committed by Islamists -- for why would they stand against the evil that brings them so much pleasure?

By January 2002, the final synapse had clicked.

****

There's another critical factor which comes into play: Proximity to Muslims. I went to an American high school in my mid-teens and later to a Canadian university. I was surrounded by infidels and I liked it! I wasn't close to my family before but then the connection thinned even more. Upon leaving Islam I didn't have to worry about being cast as an untouchable by both family (they don't know) and society (Canadians don't care about my religious views).

However, many unlucky ones who reside in the Muslim world have to live a dual life. One can imagine that such apostates still go to the mosque and listen to ridiculous sermons. They continue to praise the wretched life of Muhammad as the pinnacle of perfection. They sing the praises of the black hole called sharia while personally finding it abominable. Their minds had imploded on fully realizing the sham of Islam but publicly they don't, nay, they can't share their "impure" thoughts. For in doing so, they would lose their entire support structure -- family, friends, society -- and possibly their life.

For this reason it's important for ex-Muslims in the free world to share their experience and act as shards of light for Westerners who don't have the visceral feel for the evil at the heart of Islam.

It's the least we can do.

Nourished on Poison

I attended this Pakistani school in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. I've written about my lovely experience there:

Corporal punishment was the result for not doing the work. I never had a single teacher who didn’t hit the students. The punishments varied from different teachers. Some would institute punishments for failing tests. Some used their hands while others preferred to use long and heavy wooden sticks. On many a day I went home with red and swollen palms.

I also mentioned this terrifying incident:

The teacher started to slap and punch him on the neck and the back with each hit more forceful than the last. The kid sitting next to the student got up from the desk and stepped away. The teacher kept on brutally beating the student. The student started crying and fell to the ground within the desk. The teacher grabbed the front of the desk with his left hand and the back with his right. He then started to kick the bawling student. He kicked him for about 20 seconds. He then went to his desk while swearing. No-one said a word.

I wrote another post here:

"No sir, please, I promise sir, I won't do it again. P-l-e-a-s-e sir."

His pleas made no difference. Our English teacher had a vise-like grip on the left wrist of that student. A few days before we had a brief English test. That student got 5 out of 10. Like everybody else, he had to get the signature of one of his parents. Which he did, after he had changed that "5" to an "8". Now, the student was fruitlessly attempting to avoid the customary thrashing.

The teacher held the wrist of the student with his left hand and with his right hit the student multiple times; on the head, the face, the neck, a few punches on the ribs. I sat in front of the class, a few feet away from the entire revolting episode.

Fortunately, if you can imagine, my education could have been worse. I could have been sent to a madrassa -- in the West.

There is a rigorous, perhaps even cruel, system in place; and when it comes to discipline, the stories are awful. One mother (whose sons now attends our Madrasah) relates how teachers would literally beat the kids senseless for the most trivial of errors – stumbling over the pronounciation of Qur’an would merit being boxed in the ears; students would be screamed at rather than spoken to; major discipline came in the form of being whipped by belts until they bled – first by the teacher, and then by fellow students. Their injuries were not attended to, so much so that severe infections were contracted and they became so sick they couldn’t move. The son who now attends our Madrasah still bears scars from his ordeal.

How such memories impact an innocent soul:

Mental abuse was also common; another mother said that for months after her son came back home, he would flinch, cringe and shake if anyone spoke to him in a slightly raised tone of voice, and he would cry when made to read or recite Qur’an – such was the result of his ‘Islamic education’.

You see, the Religion of Peace^TM is beaten into the young Muslims.

What steps did the local umma take to deal with this matter?

Now, this school was actually under investigation by the government after some people reported them, but apparently the charges were later dropped, reasons unknown (but guessed at).

When I asked my dad why someone would drop these charges if they knew them to be correct and not to be lies, he said that it was a pretty big issue, that it was a matter of getting fellow Muslims into trouble, causing more problems and fitnah in the community. He said that if the media got involved, they’d just use it as another excuse to show how bad Muslims are.

Of course. How utterly irresponsible to suggest that there's anything wretched about Muslims who generously hit, beat, whip and torture kids.

What utter perversity. These monsters of madrassas have obliterated the minds of countless children and the main concern of these heinous Muslims is to shield the evil teachers!

A simple question:

Non-Muslims have to ask themselves: When most of the umma treats its own offspring with such an abhorrent passion, then what is in store for those whom the Muslims hate?

Update
From May 2006:

Poor little Nihad. She must learn not to step on the Holy man's carpet while he is praying.

Otherwise, the Holy man might get a little vexed:

The Marathon of My Life

THE BIG PICTURE

I left Islam because of the reaction to 9/11 among Muslims. I read a lot about Muhammad, sharia, politics and current events for three years afterwards -- the increased knowledge reinforced my decision.

I started blogging in December of 2004 to share my experience and thoughts. Finally on September 11, 2005, I wrote about my apostasy.

Soon, I came to realize that my freedom was only temporary. You see, I am a citizen of Pakistan and my residence in Canada was based on a study permit. Eventually I would have to go back.

Could I say that Islam is the Greatest Thing Ever^TM; lie about my core beliefs; follow the religious rituals blindly without believing in them; praise Muhammad at every opportunity -- in essence, could I not rock the boat in Pakistan?

Yes, I could live as a slave but I didn't want to. In April 2006, I became a refugee claimant in Canada. I naively decided on a DIY approach. I filled out the forms, did the research and provided numerous supporting documents.

Then, in August 2006, I received a letter which asked for my attendance at the Immigration and Refugee Board, so that the time for the hearing could be set. (See this post for the details about that atrocious day.)

Right after I posted about my experience, many of my friends in the Blogosphere brought attention to my situation; numerous bloggers linked to my case; a donation button was set up; online supporters narrowed down legal help in my area; within a week I had made an appointment with a lawyer and in less than two months enough money was donated for the legal fees.

I removed the donation image but for many days afterwards folks still came over asking how they could help!

GETTING CLOSER

There were a few meetings with my lawyer in late 2006. He would ask me questions to get me ready for the hearing.

"Who do you fear in Pakistan?"

The Pakistani state and the public.

"Why?"

Because of the writings on my blog.

"But no-one knows who you are. You've used a pseudonym."

That assumes that I can go back and keep my beliefs to myself. Government forms (for example, the passport application) specifically ask for one's religion. And religion is woven in as a serious and integral part of society. Five prayers a day, fasting and worshiping Muhammad are part of normal life. When such matters come up, I will not lie.

"Why not?"

Excuse me.

"You can write your thoughts on the blog as Isaac Schrödinger and not worry about Islamic fundamentalists in real life."

So, you're saying that I continuously lie in my real life to get along.

"Sure, why not?"

My dad worked in Saudi Arabia for many decades. Every time he filled out application forms from Pakistan, he fibbed. He is an Ahmadi. Yet on every occasion, he refused to identify himself as one. There is no dignity in that.

And so on it went.

I had been sick in late December. My energy levels were close to zero on Christmas day. Fortunately by January 1, 2007 my physical strength had returned.

THE BIG DAY

It was 4 a.m. on January 4. I had trouble sleeping. My brain was crunching horrible "What if?" scenarios. I told myself to not think about anything. After a few minutes, I was disturbed by the fact that I wasn't thinking about anything.

Somehow around 5 a.m. I did get to sleep. I woke up at 9 a.m. and started to get ready. I put on my suit, saw myself in the mirror and morbidly laughed. It looked like I was going to a funeral.

Along my route was a Church which had a big clock. 11 a.m. struck as I was passing by it. "Great, a soundtrack for my situation." The sounds did add an eerie touch. I looked up at the Church. "What beautiful weather! I can look up." I spent over ten years in Saudi Arabia where, because of the searing sunlight, I kept my head down.

Soon, I was in the hearing room in the heart of Toronto. The judge and I sat on the opposite sides of the room; in the middle-right was my lawyer; on my middle-left was a Refugee Protection Officer (RPO) and an RPO-in-training. The hearing started shortly after 1 p.m.

I stood up, raised my right hand, took an oath to tell the truth and said my full, real, name.

My lawyer started the questioning. We went over my history and how I came upon asking for protection in Canada.

The judge stopped us and asked, "What's a blog?"

I explained the whole concept. After a few minutes, it was time for the RPO to cross-examine me.

The judge, my lawyer, and the RPO all had copies of my applications and supporting documents. I was to answer questions without anything in front of me.

The RPO was establishing a timeline and so questions of a simple nature were initially asked. "When did you come to Canada?", "When was the last time you were in Pakistan?" and so on.

"I see here that you were asked to name your relatives and you didn't list your parents. Why is that?"

Uh-oh. I asked, "Where did I not list my parents?"

"Here in question four, it says list your relatives, in part iii. it asks for father and mother. Why didn't you list them?"

My mind started scolding me...how could I forget such a simple thing...we've just scratched the surface and already I am being perceived as an incompetent buffoon... but, wait, I had photocopied the blank application, filled out the copy, double-checked it and then completed the real form!

My lawyer had opened the same page. After asking permission, I looked at the form. "4. List your relatives, ... iii. Father, mother and any guardian if you are under 18 years of age."

"I am over 18," I replied. "So, why would I list my parents?"

Silence.

"No-one has brought that point up," said the judge.

"It's confusingly worded," said my lawyer.

"Let's move on," said the judge.

"Yes, of course, let's," I thought.

The questioning by the RPO can be "energetic" but what followed made the RPO, in essence, a prosecutor.

I often tried to elaborate my answers by a few sentences to provide more complete and accurate responses. However, the RPO was interested in "Yes/No" or a few words. Period.

For example: The RPO asked, "Have you seen a "letter to the editor" that is anti-Islamic fundamentalism in a Pakistani newspaper online?"

"Rarely. The reason fo-"

"Again, you're not answering the question."

"Yes, I've read such letters."

"I think he should be allowed to elaborate," said my lawyer.

The judge agreed.

The RPO asked, "What do you mean by rarely?"

"Once in a blue moon."

I shouldn't have said that, I thought. I added, "Remember that anyone in the world can send a letter to the editor of the online Pakistani newspapers. The sender can use a fake name and/or city, and from what I've seen the writers are often living outside Pakistan."

The RPO, quite unexpectedly, wanted, what seemed to be, an off the record conference without my presence. My lawyer questioned why I had to leave. The RPO had to talk about a credibility issue. I was told to wait outside for a few minutes. My lawyer gave his consent.

I stood in the quiet hallway.

"Credibility issue?" That's what it all comes down to. One person will decide my fate in a few hours.

I looked back over the heavy years: Do I regret starting my blog? Would I take anything back? Hell no!

I thought about the occasion: A birthday like no other.

My lawyer opened the door and let me in.

The RPO started to ask me about a few posts that I had submitted. I went over a comment left by a luminary in Distilled Evil.

I am a Muslim who has seen the truth about the jewish lies, and has realized Qur'an and Sunnah provides a perfect testament against the nature of your people.

Suddenly, I'm Moses.

We also talked about "No Compulsion". The RPO was going over each part methodically. Eventually, the RPO asked, "What's LFG?"

What a great blog, I thought. "That is an acronym for a blog called Little Green Footballs."

Then, I ALMOST blurted out, "You don't know the terrible secret of LFG" to explain why I affectionately use that incorrect short form.

"It's one of the most popular blogs in the world," I only added.

The RPO also asked me about life in Pakistan. "Can't you live some place in Pakistan where you can be safe?"

"No."

"Do you know the word "secular"?"

Hunh. "Yes."

"Can't you live as a secular Muslim in Pakistan?"

"I agree with the first part, the secular part, but I don't agree with the second. I don't want to behave like, and live as, a non-practicing Muslim or a secular Muslim when I'm not a Muslim!"

That was by far my most animated and passionate response.

Then, it came time for the two sides to summarize their views. The RPO provided a mixed and lengthy conclusion. It wasn't completely negative nor positive.

My lawyer, however, provided a most concise and brilliant summary. He mentioned the recent history of Pakistan and Daniel Pearl.

He said that, "Why can't he ask for protection from the Pakistani government? How can he when the state itself criminalizes his views!? Look at Ordinance 295."

He went on to provide numerous examples from human rights reports.

"If he were to go back to Pakistan, then he would be in deep trouble."

There was some humor when once referring to me, my lawyer said, "Mr. Schro-," and then he corrected himself.

The judge asked for a few minutes to go over the evidence. The RPO asked for leave. The RPO-in-training left as well.

It was about 4:44 p.m. We had a 20-minute break at around 3:15 p.m. at which time I grabbed a bite. So, we had been in session for close to three and a half hours. The time had come.

The judge talked about the examples of persecution. The judge was very aware of the horrible conditions in Pakistan. Furthermore when talking about my views, the judge said, "I think these are your core beliefs -- what you say comes from the heart."

Then it hit me. The RPO, the in-effect prosecutor, had been a blessing in disguise. I had been brutally hammered for three hours and instead of falling apart, I held up.

"When deciding upon such cases, we have to look at a minimal level of danger and following the recent rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, I think there is that danger for you."

"Accordingly, you are a Convention Refugee."

I closed and opened my eyes, "Thank you."

The superb lawyer and I exited the room and shook hands.

"Go and celebrate."

"It will be more of an online celebration," I said and then I thanked him.

There was a cool breeze, the hair got untidy, the tie was on my shoulder. My eyes tend to get watery in such circumstances. While crossing the road, I looked to my right and saw the CN Tower -- a solitary tear went down my right cheek.

"Oh, it's the wind."

GIVING CREDIT

Schrödinger's Army of Davids: Members of the Blogosphere, the folks who opened their wallets to help a total stranger, the netizens who tracked down legal help, my lawyer and finally the countless Westerners who wrote many words of support.

Special thanks to these blogs:

• AbbaGav
• Adam's Blog
• All Things Beautiful
• Captain's Quarters
• Chicago Boyz
• Discarded Lies
• Free Constitution
• Gateway Pundit
• Gulf Coast Pundit
• Gus Van Horn
• Infidel Bloggers Alliance
• Israellycool
• The Jawa Report
• Jeremayakovka
• Memeorandum
• Mind Safari
• Muslihoon
• Night Studies
• Old Controller
• Old War Dogs
• Power and Control
• Protein Wisdom
• Right Truth
• Small Dead Animals
• Thrutch
• Wizbang

I have been granted something very precious and for this I'm grateful.

I Slam Islam

Eteraz writes a post with the title "Self-Flagellating Apostates".

For a moment there I thought he was talking about apostates who're into S&M.

[...] people who come to Islam aren’t the only ones who are excessively obsessed with Islam. People who leave Islam are just as obsessed with the religion. My question is why? Why are apostates all about railing against Islam?

Because Islam is a demented cult built on the hallucinations of a psychotic, thieving, dishonorable, and a genocidal Arab.

Had I come to the West a few decades ago, I likely would have just said, "Good riddance!"; I wouldn't have bothered "railing" against Islam.

Why? Because at the time buildings wouldn't have fallen in NYC, Aussies wouldn't have been murdered in Bali, trains wouldn't have been blown up in Madrid, kids wouldn't have been raped and killed in Russia--the sickness that is Islam and, its evil son, Jihad would have largely been contained in the Islamic domain of the world. The West would have been free and I would have felt safe for myself and the future generation.

That is not the case in the 21st century. Not only have Muslims committed terrible atrocities in the West but many Westerners continue to see a sugarcoated version of Islam. An example: The Canadian province in which I live actually contemplated allowing Sharia law just a year ago!

I don't take pleasure in continually going over a wretched ideology. Just take a look at the categories I use for my blog. I want to write in detail about the Pakistani cricket team and the upcoming World Cup; the bad effects of a minimum wage, either local or global; the symbolic meaning behind the word marathon; how my early years in Lahore were so serene; who should be the villain for Kal-El in the sequel to Superman Returns; link to spectacular HDR images; talk about the motherboards that go well with the Intel Core 2 Duo (look at ASUS and Gateway, by the way) and so on.

I can choose to do all of that and ignore the daily misery that Islam brings. But I know that ignoring it won't make it go away. The war is here and now whether I like it or not. Westerners must be provided clarity on this great issue. That is the purpose of my voice. That is why I blog. That is why I rail against Islam. For it deserves a good railin'.

[...] why are apostates so intent on referring to themselves as apostates!?

Here is my thing: if you leave Islam, please call yourself a “convert to” X or Y, and that’s it. Isn’t it kind of strange that people who leave Islam refer to themselves with the words that Muslims would use to describe people who leave Islam?

Being a murtad or an apostate is part of the identity for an ex-Muslim. A mussulman who becomes a Christian can call himself a convert to Christianity as well as an apostate. Both terms are valid. Somehow, I don't think the rhetoric would bother him as much as the fact that Muslims want to kill him.

In my case, I didn't convert to another religion. Though, I do prefer to say that I reverted to sanity but somehow I don't think it'll catch on.

I understand why coverts-from-Islam do it though. They want to remind all the Muslims that Islam’s got this thing called “apostasy” and that one can be killed for being an apostate, and that Muslims should be ashamed (a sort of passive-aggressive diss intended to shame a believer).

A few points:

1. Some time ago a friend asked me in an email, "Have you ever thought about writing articles or stuff in Urdu?"

I replied: "My writings are directed at Westerners. I get about 2-3 [daily] visits from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on my blog. (Most come from Riyadh where someone almost always searches for "sexy".)

I can write in Urdu but I think that that effort would have little impact. And considering my views, most exclusive Urdu readers would likely shun me."

More broadly: what I write is not aimed at Muslims. I have little desire to remind any Muslim of anything.

2. However, if a Muslim does stumble upon my blog, then s/he should be ashamed when s/he reads about the Islamic view on apostasy (or for that matter most issues). In what moral universe should a Muslim feel happy about the death penalty for ex-Muslims?

3. Eteraz wishes to reform Islam / change the mindset of Muslims while not shaming Muslims?

Best of luck!

4. My dissings aren't passive.

There’s cats out there who are building their entire career on being an “apostate.” (Ibn Warraq). Same goes for bloggers.

Woohoo! I just got compared to Ibn Warraq.

This just in: Starting December 1, 2006, I will charge every reader One Hundred Pennies (*Dr. Evil expression*) for viewing my blog.

It's about time my career pays!

People who leave Islam should become advocates of whatever it is that they now are. This is why I like Razib. He says what he is upfront. Atheist. Bam. He drops the “a” word too, but it doesn’t define him. It’s good to see someone show their autonomy in an affirmative and assertive manner. All this explains why I haven’t bothered to engage the “apostate” critique of Islam.

I understand. You could easily take apart the "apostate" critique of Islam, it's just that you don't have enough space in the margins on your blog to write the devastating fiskings.

I TOTALLY get it, bro!

It’s not that someone who calls himself an apostate regularly can’t have valid critiques. It’s just that a critique without something affirmative thereafter is pure nihilism. I abhor religious nihilism. I equally abhor non-religious versions of it.

This is a most amusing logic.

I have written a few posts in the past days in which I have:

• disapproved of gender apartheid in Muslim circles.
• showcased and disagreed with the fact that a Muslim "scholar" openly rejects freedom of religion.
• strongly opposed the Islam-respects-women view pedaled by feminists.
• mentioned how the mutaween treat women like cattle.

Now, I think that my readers aren't stupid. (In affirmative-speak, I think they're smart.) So, in each case, the reader can see that I support the mingling of the sexes (gasp!), freedom of religion (astagfirullah!) and the view that Islam treats women like the property of men.

In each instance, the opposition of an Islamic view or ruling isn't nihilism but simple human dignity. I don't have to say that, it's obvious from the context (or so I thought).

The thing is: if the apostate crew are so concerned about the death penalty for apostasy, then why do they insist on continuing to use the evil term at all? Isn’t it the case that the more they refer to themselves as apostates, the more they help to reinforce the already incorrect vocabulary that Muslims are using? I think people who leave Islam should be the first to say: call me convert. That will be of incredibly importance to reformists as they try to do away with the apostasy category altogether.

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Can you imagine this scenario: A man is on his knees about to be beheaded for apostasy. The gathered crowd is about to break into the uncouth Allah Akbar. The executioner raises his sword. The soon to be headless man shouts, "I'm a convert to X!" The butcher is shocked! He lowers his sword to the side, picks up the man and profusely apologizes.

"My bad. I thought you were an apostate."

Later, the public hugs the relieved man for his conversion to X. Everyone goes home happy!

Riiight.

It's not the bloody term that is evil but the fact that Islamic rulings call for murdering those who dare stray away. (A lot of people openly support the killing of Ahmadi Muslims. Oddly enough, those Muslims don't call themselves by the "evil" term.)

[...] people are welcome to leave Islam. They should, however, abstain from calling themselves “apostates.” Instead, they should simply call themselves whatever they are now.

Yes, ex-Muslims shouldn't refer to themselves by a term cooked up by Muslims. That suggestion brought to you by...a Muslim.

Uff, eteraz pe eteraz.

Psychology of Muslims

Echo asks in an email: "What happens to the psychology of the Muslim-born person who was born & raised in the US, and who visits his parents homeland? Does seeing the difference between the hygiene and the dynamism of the US, and the filth and decay and backwardness of dar al Islam drive them away from Islam or towards it?"

I think there are four possible outcomes when Muslims from the Islamic world go back and forth between the West and their home.

1. Utter Indifference

Some people simply live in a cocoon. They move to wherever there is leisure and comfort. That's it. Either they don't care or don't notice the fact that the Islamic world is backwards because of retrograde policies and ideologies. They're not interested in politics, economics, history or news that doesn't affect them. To them, Hamas is an exotic version of humus.

This attitude is not limited to Muslims. I know a non-Muslim guy who was absolutely shocked when I showed him 9/11 in 2003. His jaw dropped when he saw a passenger airliner crash into the World Trade Center.

"I thought that a cargo jet, or something, hit the towers."

Enuff said.

2. Unnatural Thoughts

Muslims in this category are usually mentally stressed. They've been taught all their life that Islam is oh-so-superior, yet in their personal dealings they almost always choose the non-Muslim side of things.

• To pray or not to pray.
• To eat halaal food or eat simply non-pork meals.
• To drink or not to drink.
• To be pious or roll one up for Allah.

When it comes to matters of substance such as human rights (that includes women and gays), they usually agree with the matter but remain mostly quiet. Their humanity and what they've been taught are at odds.

For example, in the winter of 2002, I was talking to a friend about the Taliban. Another friend of his was listening to me with full attention. I was detailing the crimes of the Taliban and somehow came upon the topic of the Iranian regime and how it's similar in depravity.

I mentioned that Iranians stone women to death for adultery.

"Do you agree with that?" I asked.

"NO," he said quickly.

That's when his friend pounced on him.

"The Quran sanctions the punishment! Do you disagree with the Quran?"

"Of course not," he said.

"So, you agree with stoning?"

"No, I don't," my friend replied.

"You disagree with the Quran!"

"No," my friend replied.

Think of the mental death match. Logically, he disagreed with Islam but he couldn't possibly utter that. So, he, I'm assuming, continues to disagree with Islamic rulings and still "respects Islam".

Another reason why these Muslims do not speak out is because of the guaranteed loss of goodwill from their extended family and the inevitable dishonor on their immediate family. (If such a Muslim does speak up, then the parents and siblings can't merely disagree with the maverick; they have to cut ties with him/her to safeguard their street-cred within the Muslim community--especially if the family lives in Muslim lands.)

One won't find such meek Muslims marching for sharia but their bottled-up silence makes it practically impossible for the West to distinguish them from the next group.

3. Recoiling from the West

These Muslims are repulsed by Western Civilization. Of course, that doesn't stop them from enjoying its fruits.

The West still has a certain attraction--but to them it's devilish in nature. Aha! Everyone told me that the infidel world will be seductive but I, being a true Muslim, won't give in!

Instead of truly thinking what the West stands for, these retards fall back on Islam. To them, Islam is comfortable--the boundaries are clearly defined (more like barbed wire) and there is little, if any, dynamism. (Oooh, look! The new burqa is a different shade of black.)

These Muslims go back home and instead of seeing a wretched system, they blame the West for all their woes. They think that the West is prosperous not because of its latent strength and granite foundations but because it stole the wealth from the umma. Just don't ask them: where and when were the Muslims rich?

They are very passionate about Islam. They're not content with simply believing in Islam, they want the rest of society to "respect" Islam as well. Note, that is different from respecting someone's decision to follow Islam. They want us to respect their religion in the same manner as we "respect" traffic signals: we have to eventually follow Islam or at the very least not say anything that contradicts that wholesome religion.

To most Westerners, this group seems totally crazy. Why the hell did they leave their hellhole and come to the West to create their own mini-version of hell? Yes, it doesn't make much sense. But then, it's not in the nature of an Islamist to be rational.

One can often point out Islamists since they're quite vocal. They usually spout the following:

• Jooooos control the banks / news / world.
• The US should have left Afghanistan alone.
• Osama was framed for 9/11.
• The US is the most evil regime on Earth. (A few minutes later: Saudi Arabia is truly an ideal country.)
• I'm for free speech BUT...if it hurts Muslims...disrespects Islam...shows Muhammed in a thong...then "the racists" should be punished.
• I'm against suicide bombings BUT...
• There is a great non-Muslim conspiracy against Islam.
• Alcohol sellers and consumers, gays, uppity women and apostates should be punished.
• It is a crime to find a floating Quran in a toilet. Nothing wrong with sharia, though.
  

I'm including Islamist supporters in this group as well. Not all of them agree with the imposition of Islam; they just align themselves with the Islamists out of spite and envy. These lovely people smile when they see the footage from 9/11.

4. Embracing the Infidelosphere

Sadly, only a tiny group of Muslims come under this heading--partly because quite a few leave Islam completely.

These Muslims see the liberty, lushness, and luxury in the West and they like it. They are humbled by the libraries. They are fascinated by the TV shows and movies. They enjoy the equality of the sexes under the law and they say and write whatever they want without worrying about life behind bars.

They love the entire infidelicious spectrum of the West.

When they go back to their birth countries, reality kicks in the door:

• Meritocracy doesn't exist in the Muslim world. Status, tribe, connections (wasta) and religion is what matters. Islam says Muslims are equal--some are just more equal than others.
• The Muslim lands are economic parasites. Yet, that doesn't stop the rhetoric of glory of the umma.
• The Islamic world is an intellectual wasteland. Islam is the answer. Regardless of the question.
• The Golden Rule does not apply to infidels. The non-Muslims must not disrespect Islam, allow the building of mosques in the West, give Muslims citizenship while the umma in Saudi Arabia jail people for the possession of a bible, burn down churches in Sudan and practically everywhere chant Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to Denmark, Death to [Any Western Nation].
• Why are Muslims dumber than the sons of apes and pigs?
• There is a conspiracy theory for every ill that affects the Muslims. Why can't they accept reality and improve their lot?

The answers to such questions often results in a significant break with their religion. These people don't seek solace in the putrid arms of Islam. Instead, they speak out against sharia and the twisted nature of modern Islamic nations. These Muslims / apostates can be called the anti-Islamists.

They are lucky to be living in the West. They know, not just at a theoretical level, how sharia rapes the dignity of a society. They are horrified at the sight of such evil in the West.

They fight the darkness in many ways: appear on radio or TV shows, give speeches, write for newspapers, publish a book, or post on a blog (ahem).

Note: My guess about the numbers of such Muslims.

(Group 1 + Group 2) > Group 3 > Group 4

It's depressing.

Fear and Loathing in The Land of the Pure

I am a refugee claimant in Canada. This essay goes in great detail about why I am asking for asylum in the West.

Thank you to those who contributed the numerous sources. I hope that, at the very least, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada adds these resources to their national documentation package.

PART I
Isaac Schrödinger: An Apostate and a Blasphemer

I was born in an Ahmadi Muslim family in Pakistan. I’m a Pakistani citizen. The attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 and the reactions of Muslims to it changed my mindset. I left Islam in January of 2002.

I didn't share that information with anyone at the time. I was scared of the consequences. My family lived in Saudi Arabia and I traveled to that country every summer and during Christmas break. Upon entering Arabia, I would have to fill out an entry card which required one to specify their religion. My Pakistani passport clearly states that my religion is Islam and I didn't dare contradict that. So, for a long time, I kept my "unnatural" thoughts and beliefs to myself.

I haven’t traveled to Saudi Arabia since the end of 2003. In 2004, I had to apply for a national identity card. Again, I was asked for my religion and again I gave in and wrote Islam on the form. In 2005, I completed the application for a new passport and gave the same answer out of fear. I started blogging in December of 2004 under a pseudonym -- Isaac Schrödinger. On September 11, 2005, I explicitly wrote about my apostasy on my blog.

On October 8, 2005, I linked to and showcased a cartoon that was published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. The contents of the small post follow:

The prophet of the Religion of Peace^TM.

Note, I wrote that before the cartoon-rage-mayhem that erupted around the globe a few months later.

In January of 2006, I published a message for the citizens of Denmark:

If you're from Denmark, then know this:
Don't give in to the psychotic thugs and regimes of the Muslim world. These are the same people who keep half their population as slaves, hang homosexuals, behead alcohol consumers, treat kids with utter cruelty, "think" that Jews rule the world, and celebrate when Westerners are ruthlessly murdered. And yet they're offended by a few harmless cartoons.

It is you--the Danes--who should be appalled at the atrocious and wretched behaviour of such an odious section of humanity. Do not apologize for your exercises in freedom. Do not sacrifice your free speech at the altar of deplorable Muslim feelings.

Cherish your precious liberty and stand tall against these barbarians.
::

Want to see Muhammed? Here you go:

That image of the so-called Prophet Muhammed was to become very popular. In fact, if one were to search Google Images for "Muhammed", then the cartoon from my blog would show up as the first link out of about 19,900 results.

On April 3, 2006, I published a post about how Muhammed allowed, and was pleased with, the murder of a Jewish tribe. At the end of the post, I wrote:

It is vitally important that the West not put Islam or any other religion off-limits to critical analysis. For only in the West can a person safely write that the obliteration of a Jewish tribe, the taking of sex-slaves, and the confiscation of non-Muslim property is something not to be celebrated and emulated.

As one can see, I have a deeply negative opinion of Muhammed. I do not think that he was a Prophet and I think that he provides a shockingly immoral example to humanity.

Muhammed was a profoundly superstitious man. For example, a small matter such as selling dogs was considered illegal by him. (On September 8, 2006, the Mutaween in Saudi Arabia – the religious police – banned the sale of dogs and cats.) More significantly, I can’t agree with what Muhammed said about legal killings:

Narrated ‘Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

I, of course, don't think that anyone should be killed for either leaving a faith or for criticizing a religious figure.

Robert Spencer:

[…] the great ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq noted in a statement read for him last year [2003] before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (he could not appear in person because of threats on his life arising from the same Islamic principles): "The very notion of apostasy has vanished from the West… There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any other religion." However, one who leaves Islam, he explains, "can be seen as someone unnatural, subverting the natural course of things whose apostasy is a wilful and obstinate act of treason against God and the one and only true creed, and a betrayal and desertion of the community." Thus his death is to be actively sought, so as to erase the stain on the community.

Azam Kamguian, an Iranian ex-Muslim, writes:

The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. We must win the right to criticize the religion without fear of retribution. Criticism, free speech, is the foundation of an open society. We need to criticise and use reason to solve our problems. No belief, rational or irrational, scientific or divinely inspired, should be exempt from critical examination. If a belief is sound it will stand on its own merits. If it is not it deserves to fail. No religion should seek immunity from the examination of its claims, or seek freedom from moral criticism of its practices.

Indeed.

To the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: On September 9, 2006, I wrote about my meeting with a Canadian refugee officer. I said that the time for my hearing was set in early January 2007 and I directly quoted a part from the "Screening Form" that was presented to me during the meeting. That should be proof enough that I am Isaac Schrödinger.

PART II
Blasphemy Law
and Islamic Opinion on Apostates in Pakistan

From Appendix 1 of the Amnesty International library article on Pakistan in 2001:

The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) of 1860 dates from the British colonial period; sections 295 and 298 of the PPC relating to religious offences date back to that period and were intended to prevent and curb religiously motivated violence.

Later on:

Under Zia-ul-Haq, several new sections were inserted in the PPC in the 1980s; they differ significantly from earlier laws relating to religious offences in at least four ways: They do not specifically mention malicious intent to wound religious sensitivities as a condition for an action amounting to a criminal offence, and they provide vastly increased penalties. Moreover, they make specific reference to Islam whereas the earlier laws were intended to protect the religious sentiments of 'any class of people'. There is also a distinct shift in emphasis discernible: the newly introduced sections of the PPC do not make it a criminal offence to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims but rather define the offences in terms of an insult or affront to Islam itself. The offences consist in defiling or insulting the prophet of Islam, his companions and family members and desecrating the Qur'an.

Islamic societies consider their Prophet to be an infallible human. Any criticism of him is considered to be blasphemous. Today, Pakistan, a nation founded for Muslims, has one of the harshest blasphemy laws on the books. Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code states:

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Again, from the Amnesty International article:

In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court ruled that ''the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet ... is death and nothing else''. It also noted that ''no one after the Holy Prophet ... exercised or was authorized [to exercise] the right to reprieve or pardon.'' It directed the Government of Pakistan to affect the necessary legal changes and added, ''in case this is not done by 30 April 1991 the words 'or punishment for life' in section 295-C, PPC, shall cease to have any effect on that date.'' Decisions of the Federal Shariat Court are binding on the government. As the Government of Pakistan did not appeal against the decision within the stipulated period and did not pass relevant legislation, the words 'or punishment for life' continue to appear in section 295C of the PPC but do not have legal force. The only punishment available for anyone convicted of blasphemy under section 295C PPC is death.

International Religious Freedom Report 2005: Pakistan:

Under the country's "blasphemy laws," any speech or action that denigrates Islam or its prophets is punishable by death. In addition, any speech or conduct that injures another's religious feelings is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment. These laws were rarely enforced, and the cases rarely brought to the legal system, when the injury was to a member of a minority religious community. Pressure from societal, religious, or political leaders routinely prevented courts from protecting minority rights. These same pressures forced justices to take strong action against any perceived offense to Sunni Islamic orthodoxy.

Perhaps, the current Pakistani regime will repeal the heinous blasphemy law.

In what appears to be an utter disregard of Pakistani religious minorities’ oft-repeated demand for repeal of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, Pakistan minister for religious affairs Ijaz-ul-Haq [the son of Zia-ul-Haq] has insisted that the country’s blasphemy laws would not be repealed even if 100,000 Christians lost their lives, the Telegraph, based in the UK, has reported.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, went even further:

It is imperative to end racial and religious discrimination against Muslims and to prohibit the defamation of Islam.

The clerical view on apostasy in Pakistan [Email registration required] is straightforward:

A Muslim convert to Christianity in Afghanistan was saved by subterfuge (it was said he was mentally sick and therefore couldn’t be held accountable under any law for converting to Christianity) by the Kabul government from being done to death, triggering protests from the Islamists who wanted him killed. The clerical view in Pakistan that appeared in the press, too, wanted the man killed. Then Pakistan’s top cleric, Mufti Munib ur Rehman, who chairs the moon-sighting committee on Eid days, came on TV and announced that “if a state is truly Islamic” it would have to kill the apostate.

PART III
Persecution of Blasphemers in Pakistan
by the State and the Society

1. Amnesty International:

A case of blasphemy was registered against Yousuf Ali, a Sufi mystic and scholar of Islam, by a member of an Islamist organization on 29 March 1997 who claimed that Yousuf Ali had committed ''blasphemy by expressing his determination and views of being the continuity of Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)''. The charges included offences under sections 295A, 295C, 289A, 505(2), 420 and 406 Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Yousuf Ali was arrested on the same day. When the family received death threats from local religious extremists, Yousuf Ali's wife resigned her post as Associate Professor of economics at a government college and went into hiding along with their children.

The trial of Yousuf Ali was a mockery of justice:

The bias of the presiding judge was apparent throughout the trial. He called the accused Yousuf 'Kassab' [liar]. In the judgment, he said, ''there is no question of taking any sort of lenient view because the accused is proved to be a 'kafir' [infidel] and 'murtid' [apostate] and any sort of 'tauba' [repentance] in such affair cannot be entertained''. Judicial bias in the context of religious issues and with regard to minorities is widespread in Pakistan.

Yousuf Ali was sentenced to death:

After the conviction, Yousuf Ali was taken to a six foot by six foot death cell in Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore where he was held in solitary confinement.

Yousuf Ali was murdered while he was in jail:

The circumstances in which a pistol could be brought into the jail and used against a prisoner in a death cell remain unclear. Local newspapers reported that on 11 June, prisoners from Block Seven, including Yousuf Ali, were shifted to Block One in an unscheduled move. As Yousuf Ali was taken to a cell in Block One, its inmate, Mohammad Tariq alias Mota pulled out a pistol and shot Yousuf Ali dead at point-blank range.

2. Amnesty International Report 2003:

Several men were sentenced to death for blasphemy. Others accused of blasphemy were killed, some in circumstances suggesting official complicity or acquiescence in the killings.

For example:

Zahid Mahmood Akhtar was stoned to death in July by a mob after a local Muslim cleric called for his death. He had claimed to be a prophet of Islam, and had been charged with blasphemy but freed on bail by a court in 1997 on account of mental illness. Police took no action for two weeks and then arrested several suspects.

3. Amnesty International Report 2004:

Pakistan’s blasphemy law continued to be abused to imprison people on grounds of religious belief, contributing to a climate in which religiously motivated violence flourished.

The example of Mushtaq Zafar:

In February, Mushtaq Zafar was shot dead by two unidentified gunmen. He was on his way home from the High Court while on bail in a blasphemy case brought against him by his neighbours. In November 2001, a dispute between Mushtaq Zafar and his neighbours apparently resulted in his house being set alight and shots being fired at him, killing a friend of his. The neighbours were arrested for the murder; court proceedings in the case were continuing at the end of the year. However, according to Mushtaq Zafar’s son, the neighbours’ family put pressure on his father to withdraw the murder case and the accusation of blasphemy against him was part of an attempt to intimidate him. Friends and relatives of the neighbours allegedly wrote to religious leaders, demanding Mushtaq Zafar’s death.

4. Amnesty International Report 2005:

At least 25 people were criminally charged with blasphemy and at least six of them remained in detention at the end of 2004. Hostility to anyone charged with blasphemy endangered their lives.

From the same report:

Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian, was arrested in August 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. Samuel Masih was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his “religious duty”; he was charged with murder.

5. International Religious Freedom Report 2005:

On April 20, a mob in Spin Khak, Nowshera District, shot and killed Ashiq Nabi after his uncle filed blasphemy charges against him. Nabi allegedly desecrated a copy of the Qur'an during an argument with his wife. Before police could arrest him on the charges, Nabi fled the village. After a local Islamic religious leader issued an edict declaring Nabi an infidel whose punishment should be death, a 400-member mob trapped Nabi in a tree and shot him.

From the same report:

Converts to the Ahmadiyya community were often accused of blasphemy, violations of the anti-Ahmadi laws, or other crimes. The Government arrested and prosecuted such individuals. Conversion to other minority religions generally took place in secret to avoid a societal backlash.

Later on:

When blasphemy and other religious cases are brought to court, extremists often pack the courtroom and make public threats against an acquittal. Judges and magistrates, seeking to avoid a confrontation with or violence from extremists, often continue trials indefinitely. As a result, those accused of blasphemy often face lengthy periods in jail and are burdened with increased legal costs and repeated court appearances.

6. United Nations Commission on Human Rights. From Point 7:

The Blasphemy Laws in their present form have become a source of victimization and persecution of minorities in the country. Minorities suffer all manner of humiliation through false accusations made under these laws. In the present climate of hate, intolerance and violence in Pakistan, the Blasphemy Laws have become a major tool in the hands of extremist elements to settle personal scores against members of religious minorities, particularly Christians.

From Point 8:

In the present context, lawyers who appear in court on behalf of accused persons in blasphemy cases are the targets of intimidation and threats. The retired Judge of the Lahore High Court, Arif Iqbal Bhatti, who set aside the death sentence passed by the Session Courts in the case of Salamat Masih, and Rehmat Masih was shot and killed by an Islamic extremist. His killer, like that of Manzoor Masih, has not been brought to justice. In view of continuing threats and intimidation, it has become increasingly difficult to engage the services of lawyers to defend cases registered under the Blasphemy Laws.

Point 9 in its entirety:

In the climate of intolerance which prevails and in view of threats and intimidation and the pressures brought on the judiciary, it has become nearly impossible to obtain a fair hearing in Pakistan for those charged under the Blasphemy Laws. In these circumstances, the lower judiciary has often been constrained to accuse and convict persons without proper study of the evidence placed before it. In one case, the Sessions Judge convicted Gul Masih, who was charged under the Blasphemy Laws, and imposed the death sentence on him on the grounds "that the complainant had an outlook of a good Muslim, that he was a college student and that he had a beard". A number of cases are pending under the Blasphemy Laws, including cases against Ayub Masih, Nelson Munawar Rahi, and Catherine Shaheen. In addition, two Islamic religious organizations have announced a prize of PRs. 1.3 million for the killing of Salamat Masih, and Rehmat Masih who are at present living in exile.

7. The story of Dr. Younus Shaikh:

At a meeting of the South Asian Union on 1st October 2000, Younus Shaikh suggested that, in the interest of the people of Kashmir, the line of control between the Indian and Pakistani forces should become the international border. This clearly offended a Pakistani officer who responded by saying to Dr Shaikh that "I will crush the heads of those that talk like this". On 3rd October Dr Shaikh was suspended by his college without explanation.

Later that evening, an employee of the Pakistani Foreign Office, who was also one of Dr Shaikh's students, complained to a cleric, saying that on 2nd October in a lecture between 12:00 noon and 12:40 pm, the doctor had made blasphemous remarks about the Prophet of Islam. The cleric filed a complaint with the police. Younus Shaikh was arrested on the evening of 4th October and charged with blasphemy.

His trial:

The trial of Dr Shaikh, held throughout the summer of 2001, took place in a hostile courtroom packed with Islamic fundamentalists who warned the defence lawyers: "think of your families and children". The final two sessions were held in-camera with gun-toting Pakistani Taliban waiting outside. It was finally established during the trial that the alleged events had never taken place. Nevertheless, on 18th August 2001, Dr Shaikh was found guilty and sentenced to death. Sadly, in Pakistan, such injustices are not uncommon in cases of alleged blasphemy.

His retrial:

The retrial was held over three sessions in November 2003. In the light of the harassment and intimidation suffered by his lawyers at the earlier hearings, and much against the advice of the judge, his colleagues, his family and the members of the diplomatic community present in court, Dr Shaikh decided this time to conduct his own defence. The prosecuting counsel tried to exploit the religious feelings of the court but Dr Shaikh confined his defence to legal arguments and was finally acquitted on 21st November.

A few weeks after his release, Dr. Younus Shaikh fled to Europe. More from the article:

This week, one of Dr Shaikh's supporters, speaking anonymously from Islamabad said:

[…] "It is also a sad reflection on the state and society of Pakistan that even when individuals are exonerated by law of any guilt, they are forced to flee the country for their safety. The state or society is unable or unwilling to provide them protection. Dr. Sheikh was not at all eager to leave the country. If he had a choice he would have stayed with his family and friends. I could see his reluctance to leave the country written large on his face when I accompanied him to the airport."

8. A blasphemy suspect was stabbed to death in early 2006:

A Pakistani accused of making blasphemous remarks against Allah and the Prophet Muhammad was stabbed to death in a frenzied attack by two men in front of Muzafargarh district and sessions court on Friday, June 16. According to a press release sent to ANS by a group called At any Cost Jesus Mission, the killers, later identified as Imran and Iqbal, attacked and stabbed Abdul Sattar to death with frequent strikes of knives despite being escorted by police for a court hearing.

[…]

Abdul Sataar was detained in police custody under Pakistan blasphemy law. He was accused of passing derogatory remarks against Allah (God) and His Prophet Muhammad.

9. A blasphemy suspect flees Pakistan:

A Pakistani “blasphemy” suspect has appealed for asylum in Holland after facing police torture and attacks by Muslim extremists for his controversial religious views.

Yasaar Hameed, 36, applied for asylum in late March, meeting Dutch immigration officials for his first hearing on June 7. Still wanted on charges of blasphemy in Pakistan, Hameed told friends in Pakistan that authorities said it would take at least six months to process his application.

Hameed’s wife and two children remain in Pakistan where they face dual insecurity for converting to Christianity and for Hameed being sought as a blasphemy suspect. Hameed and his family converted to Christianity in 2004.

A colleague of Mr. Hameed was killed in 2003:

Mushtaq Zafar – Hameed’s co-defendant in the 2002 blasphemy charge and a political colleague of his – was released on bail in February 2003. On his way home from the courthouse, Zafar was ambushed on the road and killed by “unknown assailants,” daily newspaper Dawn reported on February 7, 2003.

The younger brother of Mr. Hameed was killed in 1998:

In addition to the legal accusations of blasphemy, “there were processions against us,” Hameed recounts. “First they were only in Lahore, and then it spread to the whole of Pakistan. Muslims threw petrol bombs on our houses and killed many of us. I was shot six times.”

Extremists murdered his younger brother – who had become a Christian – in March 1998.

Last excerpt:

Now living in Holland, Hameed hopes that his wife, 14-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter can soon join him. The Pakistani is living in the Dutch city of Arnhem near the German border.

Last week he underwent surgery to remove a bullet that was lodged in his shoulder from an extremist attack.

“It happened five or six years ago,” Hameed said in a telephone interview from Holland. The asylum seeker has been shot so many times, he said, that he cannot remember which incident left him with the imbedded bullet.

10. A blasphemy suspect gets life in jail:

The International Society for Human Rights (IGFM) honored Ranjha Masih, still serving his life sentence, with the newly established Stephen Endowment award in recognition of Masih’s “steadfastness in maintaining his Christian beliefs.”

[…]

Masih was arrested on charges of blasphemy in May 1998, allegedly having disfigured an Islamic sign during a funeral procession for former Faisalabad Catholic Bishop John Joseph. Ironically, Bishop Joseph had committed suicide in front of the Faisalabad courthouse to protest Pakistan’s harsh blasphemy laws.

Masih denied damaging the sign, and police testified in court that its invocation of Muhammad as the prophet of Islam was in perfect condition, lawyer Sindhu told Compass. But the Faisalabad Additional District and Sessions Court sentenced Masih to life imprisonment in April 2003.

Mr. Masih will get no respite even if he’s acquitted:

Masih, his wife and six children may face greater danger if Masih is acquitted.

“In case [Masih] is released, it is to be feared that he, like other acquitted Christian blasphemy prisoners, will have to live in hiding or outside of Pakistan,” an IGFM representative told Compass. “The threat from Islamic extremists and self-proclaimed guardians of sharia, Islamic law, would be too great.”

11. A teenage Christian jailed for blasphemy:

A Pakistani Christian jailed last week on suspicion of ripping book pages containing Quranic verses appealed to Punjabi police through his lawyer yesterday (September 21) for his case to be cancelled for lack of evidence.

He was implicated in a strange manner:

The young man allegedly tore pages from a tafseer, a book explaining Quranic verses, while stealing several books from a medical clinic in the Madina Town district of Faisalabad last week.

The charges are based on the testimony of Muhammad Ghaffar, who claimed he had carried out the crime with Masih.

More disturbing details:

Charges of blasphemy, whether real or invented, often draw the attention of fanatic Muslim groups, who are quick to take justice into their own hands when they believe a suspect has been unfairly acquitted.

Masih’s parents and 12 siblings were so afraid of negative attention from such groups that they at first refused to visit Masih in prison, lawyer Sindhu said.

Their fears appear to have been well founded.

More than 200 Islamist fanatics attended Masih and Ghaffar’s first hearing before Judicial Magistrate Ghullam Fareed Qurashi in Faisalabad on September 14, Sindhu said.

Extra-judicial killings of blasphemy prisoners in Pakistan are not uncommon.

PART IV
Concluding Remarks

What I say is no more holy than what an Arab uttered fourteen centuries ago. Muslims, or for that matter anyone, can choose to read and criticize my words. That is the beauty of free expression.

The West, rightly, doesn’t penalize those who don’t follow the orthodox religious views in their community or leave a faith altogether. In fact, one can openly disagree with the teachings of a religious figure without worrying about being thrown in jail.

Unfortunately in Pakistan, those who dare contradict the "perfect" example of the Prophet Muhammed are treated most harshly by both the public and the ruling regime. For the sake of safety, one has to fib on applications that ask for religion and the "unnatural" thoughts have to be kept away from the family and the public view. A single rhetorical slip or an anti-Islamic action is enough for the charge of blasphemy.

I refuse to keep quiet about what I truly think. There is no dignity in denying one’s beliefs for the sake of elusive security.

To the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: These facts and my statements should be weighed carefully for my life hangs in the balance.

Illuminating the Cosmos

[2 of 2]...Part 1

I lived in a dormitory in the US. There, in early 1999, I was chatting with a friend when the book he was holding caught my attention. I asked him to hand me the paperback. My eyes were fixed on the cover.

It was him.

"Who is this?" I asked.

"Richard Feynman," my friend replied.

I borrowed the book along with another one and dug in. I was hooked.

In one part of the first book Feynman described his teaching experience in Brazil. There, he could ask the students a question from the textbook and they would have the answer in full. Though, they didn't know what the answer meant.

"That's exactly like my school in Saudi Arabia!" I mentally screamed. The students there can vomit out encyclopedic amounts of information on biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics without knowing what any of it means or how it works.

Our principal in the Pakistani school was a math teacher. He would punish those who scored less than 50% on a quiz or a test; a heavy stick was brought down on open palms. There was zero explanation about the math problems on the test afterwards. Understanding the subject was immaterial--what mattered was that we could somehow fit the solution in our heads. And if we couldn't, then it would be, literally, beaten into us.

Imagine what that does to the younger generation. Learning is never associated with understanding the world. Instead, education becomes synonymous with pain and humiliation.

I was one of the lucky few. I came to America where I could see how infinitely better education could be.

Those Brazilians were lucky as well: Feynman observed and constructively criticized their broken system. Sadly, someone like Feynman wouldn't be welcome in Saudi Arabia. Why? Jews are not allowed in the Kingdom. One can't even bring books authored by Jews in Saud's Arabia--the custom officials confiscate them.

Yet, here was a single Yahoodi who towered above the Muslim thugs who masqueraded as teachers in my Pakistani school. Feynman, from the grave, taught me more about life than all of those barbarians combined.

Feynman had the freedom to ask, decipher, probe and question the world around him. In addition, the curious character passed on his brilliant insights to his pupils. After reading those two books, I could not only see but comprehend the intellectual and moral superiority of Western Civilization.

* * * *

In the documentary that I watched in Arabia, there was a scene in which a student of Feynman relayed a small talk.

Feynman had cancer. A few days before his surgery, this student was feeling distressed. Feynman asked, "What's the matter?"

"You're having this surgery...you could die."

Feynman replied, "Yeah, that bugs me too."

After a few moments, Feynman said, "I have taught a lot of people. There's a small part of me in them."

"So...I won't really go away."

Instilling Fear and Loathing

[1 of 2]

"COME TO THE FRONT," the teacher barked.

One of the toughest kids in our class had been caught chatting while the teacher was regurgitating material from the textbook. The teacher was aware of his stubborn nature. Extreme punishment was forthcoming.

The teacher took a thick and long wooden stick in one hand and grabbed the miserable student with the other. He pushed down the head of the kid, finally placing the neck between his legs. He, then, proceeded to hit the back of the student with the heavy stick. He hit the kidneys around ten times before stopping and letting go.

The student raised his deep crimson face without uttering a word or a cry and then went back to his seat. The entire class was mum.

An indiscretion could earn a disproportionate response from any teacher. Let me rephrase: Any perceived indiscretion could earn a disproportionate response from a teacher.

Many teachers checked our homework during class time. Our homework was basically copying material from the course book to our notebook. During the checking, we lined in front of the teacher and presented our notebook. The teacher would then put a few ticks and sign at the last page. Rarely did he ever read what we had written down. What mattered was the right volume of words and figures.

Once during this checking process, a student didn't gently put down his notebook in front of the teacher. As a result, the teacher clutched the notebook and hurled it across the room.

"What do you think I am? Some kind of a dog! Go to hell," the sage said. The kid had no choice but to meekly walk away.

Everyone knew about the insane cruelty: The teachers, the students and the parents. Once in a blue moon, the principal would get a phone complaint. The offending teacher would be told about it and then nothing would change.

One time, the headmaster had received numerous complaints about a specific teacher. The hideous man in question finally revealed this news to us in class and then asked, "Do you really think I swear in front of you?" Of course, our lips remained sealed since his gutter rhetoric was the least of our concerns.

Such was life at my Pakistani school in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. While at home in the desert Mordor, I once watched a documentary on television that confused me. You see, it showcased the life of a teacher who had passed away. He was deeply missed by all especially his students. I simply could not understand how that could be.

Teachers were vicious creatures. For us students then, the "favorite" teacher was the one who was the least violent. Yet, there on the TV screen were people who actually praised the departed soul.

I was dumbfounded.

The documentary also presented a few photos of that peculiar personality. I soon forgot his name but the face of that man was forever etched in my mind.

Some years later while attending a private school in America, I would see him again.

to be continued...

See Clearly

Iman AL-Qahtani writes about apostasy in Islam:

There is no basis for executing an apostate in Islam. It is nothing more than an invention by narrow-minded men.

Later:

Abdul-Rahman's conversion to Christianity and abandonment of Islam is his right, from the perspective of true Islam, which guarantees the right to believe in any faith one wishes.

Final excerpt:

In his book Killing the Apostate, A Crime Forbidden by Islam, writer Mohamed Adlbi points out that The Qur'an states clearly, {There is no compulsion in religion} and that compulsion is unnecessary because {Truth stands out clearly from Error}.

A few points:

1. During the time of Muhammed.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58.

... There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed....

Perhaps, Mu'adh had been mistaken.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57.

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

'Ikrima had a hearing problem. Honest.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17.

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Okay, this is definitely a Jewish conspiracy.

2. Islamic "thinking".

The four major schools of Islamic thought -- Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi'i -- agree that a Muslim apostate should be put to death. Though, Hanafi does show some mercy for female ex-Muslims: Life in jail.

Link: "Imam Tahawi has provided an interpretation of the Hanafi School in his book Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar as follows":

The lawyers differ among themselves concerning whether or not the person who has apostatized from Islam should be requested to repent. One group says it is much better that the imam (leader) requests the apostate to repent. If he repents, he should be released. Otherwise he should be executed. Imam Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Rahmatullah are among those who have expressed this opinion. A second group says there is no need to request repentance. For them the condition of the apostate resembles that of the harbi kafir ("the infidel at war").

3. Recent news and events.

January 31, 2005: An article by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

... Asia News reported on December 17 that Emad Alaabadi, a Saudi Arabian convert to Christianity, had been taken into custody by Saudi authorities.

Even in Muslim states that don’t officially prohibit conversion out of Islam, the legal system is often used against those who leave the faith.  In Egypt, for example, the government refuses to issue new identification papers to converts that reflect their new religion.  Without new identification papers, converts’ children must be raised Muslim and the converts have to live their lives as though they were still Muslim.  Those who attempt to raise their children in their new faith when their papers list their religion as Islam may be charged with blasphemy.

March 22, 2006: Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity, is put in jail.

Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam.

[...]

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty.

March 29, 2006: The view in Pakistan.

A Muslim convert to Christianity in Afghanistan was saved by subterfuge (it was said he was mentally sick and therefore couldn’t be held accountable under any law for converting to Christianity) by the Kabul government from being done to death, triggering protests from the Islamists who wanted him killed. The clerical view in Pakistan that appeared in the press, too, wanted the man killed. Then Pakistan’s top cleric, Mufti Munib ur Rehman, who chairs the moon-sighting committee on Eid days, came on TV and announced that “if a state is truly Islamic” it would have to kill the apostate.

April 10, 2006: An article in The Daily Times.

... state prosecution for conversion out of Islam is relatively rare in Muslim-majority countries, at least 14 such countries considered apostasy a crime, with Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania and Comoros making it punishable by death, said Nina Shea, director of global rights group Freedom House’s centre for religious freedom.

May 25, 2006: Government-approved textbooks in Malaysia.

... under the heading ‘Ways of Dealing with Apostates’ (Cara menangani orang murtad), the following precepts are given:

1. Advise and persuade the offender to repent and return to Islam (menasihati dan memintanya supaya bertaubat dan kembali kepada Islam)

2. To impose a death sentence (melaksanakan hukuman bunuh)

June 15, 2006: Coming full circle. Iman AL-Qahtani.

There is no basis for executing an apostate in Islam. It is nothing more than an invention by narrow-minded men.

Conclusion: One of the following.

A. Muhammed and his companions and the founders of the four major Islamic schools and the governments and regimes of Muslim-majority nations such as Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, Comoros, Malaysia, and Egypt are all narrow-minded.

B. Iman AL-Qahtani somehow misses the clear truth.

C. Both A and B.

Banu Quraiza or How the Prophet Muhammed Momentarily Forgot the Peaceful Nature of Islam

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280.

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

The Prophet Muhammed was glad because of Sad. A more detailed look at this event follows.

1. After the Battle of the Trench, the Prophet Muhammed was enjoying a bath. Suddenly, the angel Gabriel appeared and told him that the Battle was not yet over. Muhammed had to fight the tribe of Banu Quraiza.

2. After almost a month-long siege, the Prophet Muhammed proposed that Banu Quraiza accept the judgment of a man named Sad bin Muadh. Sad offered a simple final solution: Behead every single postpubescent male of the tribe--approximately 600-800 males; take all the females as slaves; divide up their property among the Muslims who accompanied the Prophet.

3. The Prophet Muhammed praised Sad. A few days after the massacre of Banu Quraiza, Sad died. Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 146.

A silken cloth was given as a present to the Prophet. His companions started touching it and admiring its softness. The Prophet said, "Are you admiring its softness? The handkerchiefs of Sad bin Muadh (in Paradise) are better and softer than it."

Sad, the man who proposed the death of an entire helpless tribe, has a place reserved in Paradise.

4. The Prophet Muhammed had clashed with two similar tribes earlier--Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Al-Nadir. However, in their case, the Prophet let them go into exile. Why? Here's the answer:

All three tribes are accused of breaking their treaties. If Muhammad would have acted on the basis of law from God he would have judged them consistently. We see that "circumstances" played a much more important role in determining the punishment for these tribes. If it was right to let them go, why did he not let the Banu Qurayza go into exile? If it was right to execute them, why did he give in to `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul and let him prevent the execution of the judgment of God? No true prophet would give in to a misguided companion who wants to stop God's righteous decree. This inconsistency shows that Muhammad was guided chiefly by his own desires of vengeance against those who would not accept him as a messenger from God rather than by a law of consistent justice as it comes from God. The judgement is about offending Muhammad, not about offending God, and Muhammad decided according to expediency.

5. Banu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe.

*       *       *       *

Muslims are taught from an early age that the Prophet Muhammed is an infallible example for mankind till the end of time. There is zero tolerance for anyone who dares to say otherwise. Muslim-majority nations have legislation on the books--blasphemy laws--that accord horrific punishments for those who merely question the actions of the Prophet Muhammed.

For example, Section 295-C of the Pakistani Penal Code states:

Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

It is important to note that, in the eyes of Islamic nations, such laws should not be constrained by geographical boundaries. Recently, the most famous example of this "universal blasphemy decree" was the 1989 fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. The Iranian regime has continually reiterated the call for Rushdie's death.

Today, the Cartoon Riots have surpassed the Rushdie Affair in terms of body count. More than 135 people have been killed. Wikipedia:

Deaths have been mainly in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It is vitally important that the West not put Islam or any other religion off-limits to critical analysis. For only in the West can a person safely write that the obliteration of a Jewish tribe, the taking of sex-slaves, and the confiscation of non-Muslim property is something not to be celebrated and emulated.

Cruel Affection

OVER THE PAST FEW months, I have watched bits of programs on a channel called Animal Planet. For example:

In the southeastern corner of Michigan beats the industrial heart of America's "Motor City" — Detroit. And on the outskirts of town is the headquarters of the city's primary animal welfare agency, run by the nonprofit Michigan Humane Society (MHS).

Animal Cops: Detroit follows the MHS's animal cruelty investigators as they track down animal abusers and bring them to justice.

It was fascinating to see all these different men and women who do their best with the provided resources to help the neglected, and sometimes battered, creatures. Their genuine concern for animals was always evident from their body language.

Such shows always bring back a rotten memory or two from my life among the Ummah. In a topsy-turvy reality, Western society tries to provide a comfortable life for animals whereas the Islamic World has rules about wife-beating and where children are treated with mindless savagery.

ONE OF MY RELATIVES was having a conversation with my dad in 1996. My dad was being updated about all the different family members and their present situations. The talk soon turned to one of my uncles who, at the time, had been recently married. This guy told my dad in a most nonchalant manner, "He beats his wife practically everyday."

"Tsk tsk, that's not good," said my dad.

Then, they moved on to other topics.

DURING THE SUMMER OF 1995 in Lahore, Pakistan, my mom asked me to come with her to a nearby town as she was going to meet a tailor. My leg was aching but I agreed anyway. A few minutes later our car stopped in front of the tailor's house. My mom went in as I stood outside with our transport. It was a bright sunny day and not a single structure with more than two stories could be seen in that village.

Suddenly, a wailing noise broke the calm. It was coming from the street at my front-right. Soon, a child, who was at most five, emerged from there. He was crying his lungs out. Behind him, I guess, was his father. He was ferociously yelling at the kid. The weeping boy kept on walking as his dad approached him from behind. Then, he hit his kid on the back of the head with such revolting force that the frail boy practically leapt forward and landed on his face.

The crying stopped for a moment. The boy got up and started to weep and walk again. And again that man would menacingly catch up to him and sickeningly smack him with brutal power. It was not the first and likely not the last time that he had hit a kid. In public. No-one in the neighborhood stopped the brutal beating or even uttered a word of disapproval. There were no Kid Cops who could rescue that young boy from his gruesome fate.

IN AN OLD POST, I described the barbaric behavior of teachers in my Muslim school. I ended that piece with this:

Some of you might be asking, "How could the parents allow this barbarity to continue in schools?" You naively assume that such violence is limited to schools in Muslim lands.

I've been hit with the following list of things. By some magical coincidence, the people responsible--parents, teachers, and relatives--were all adherents of the Religion of Peace.

1. Hands. On many occasions I was smacked across the face. Most of the time, I didn't even know that I had done anything wrong.
2. Footwear: flip-flops, slippers, boots etc. My dad lovingly used to call the procedure Bata service.
3. Clothes Hangers. Lots of 'em; mostly plastic. A few hits would break the hanger right in the middle at its horizontal part. It would leave burning pain; often I'd sob and go to sleep.
4. Sticks. All sorts of varieties: small, thick, rounded, long, taped. In Urdu, a stick is called a dunda. I got the dunda treatment almost exclusively from my teachers. What did I do to "deserve" the punishment? Take your pick: failed a test, couldn't recite or write a verse from the Quran, didn't do an assignment, collective corporal treatment for everyone in the class because of excessive noise.
5. A Spoon. A stainless steel spoon to be precise. It was hurled from across the room and I instinctively raised my arms to protect my skull. It hit me on my elbow and afterwards my mouth was wide open for a few seconds but not a single sound came out. There was some bleeding.
6. A Water Pipe. A stainless steel water pipe to be precise. After being hit on my left leg, I couldn't walk for the rest of the day. The affected area was bruised and I had trouble walking comfortably for a couple of weeks.

I'm fortunate to be no longer around such viciousness and to point it out. However, today literally tens of millions of kids within Islamic borders are subjected to such vile brutality. The overwhelming majority grow up and internalize this loathsome pathology, instead of rejecting it.

Violence is utilized in countless Muslim-majority schools, not just the madrassas, to keep pupils "in line" and in most homes to restrain a "disobedient" wife or raise "honorable" children.

Non-Muslims have to ask themselves: When most of the Ummah treats their own offspring with such an abhorrent passion, then what is in store for those whom the Muslims hate?

Contents

Update
Thanks to Isabel for the link at Western Resistance.

What Doesn't Offend the Muslims

THE CROWD GATHERS around as tears flow down her cheeks. Her last day will be her worst. The assorted gang are allowed stones of a particular size: Not bigger than, nor smaller than one-third of, a human digit. Hence, the stones should be around one-half the size of an adult finger. The logic is to inflict the maximal pain. The objective is to stone the adulterous woman to death.

The woman is buried up to her neck as her kids watch the whole scene. The Iranian state forces the close relatives of the woman to attend the public execution. A truck pulls up with the correctly proportioned stones. The verdict is read and then the official of the regime throws the first stone.

The chanting and the barrage start. The stones smash into her delicate face. Soon, the red liquid gushes out of her forehead. The intensity of the direct hits gouges out her right eye. Her nose gets completely broken. Her teeth are torn apart. She inhales a mixture of noxious air and blood. Her face is forever lost.

She streams in and out of consciousness. Shards of bone are sent in all directions as the stones brutally chisel the region where once her face was. The last thing she hears as the crowd extinguishes her frail soul is, "Allah Akbar!"

Such is the fate of women who are found guilty of adultery in Iran. In the modern world, no other state-sanctioned punishment exceeds this heinous display of public savagery.

A FIRE BROKE out in a girl's dormitory in Makkah during March of 2002. The girls, of course, ran out of the burning building. However, the Mutaween -- the Religious Police -- wouldn't let the girls exit the building since they weren't properly covered from head to toe. At least one parent was outside the dorm looking for her daughter. He saw her come out of the blazing dorm but was powerless in front of the Mutaween. He distressingly told her to go back and get her abaya.

She never came back from the inferno.

THREE CHRISTIAN GIRLS were beheaded in October of 2005 as they were walking to their school in Indonesia.

... their heads were found 2 hours later some distance away, including one head found about 100 meters from a church.

Through some cosmic coincidence, the perpetrators of such barbarity -- the stonings in Iran, the deaths by fire in Saudi Arabia and the beheadings in Indonesia -- were Muslims. In all three cases, the acts were carried out in the name of Islam.

Today, a few benign caricatures of Muhammed in a once-obscure Danish newspaper are "causing" a Muslim meltdown. It is, thus, illuminating to see what doesn't make the Muslims go crazy.

Contents

Update
Thanks to Isabel for the link at Western Resistance.

What Muslims Learn

"No sir, please, I promise sir, I won't do it again. P-l-e-a-s-e sir."

His pleas made no difference. Our English teacher had a vise-like grip on the left wrist of that student. A few days before we had a brief English test. That student got 5 out of 10. Like everybody else, he had to get the signature of one of his parents. Which he did, after he had changed that "5" to an "8". Now, the student was fruitlessly attempting to avoid the customary thrashing.

The teacher held the wrist of the student with his left hand and with his right hit the student multiple times; on the head, the face, the neck, a few punches on the ribs. I sat in front of the class, a few feet away from the entire revolting episode.

The student was half-way between standing upright and on his knees. His voice muffled because of sobs, he again futilely begged, "P-p-please s-s-sir, I w-w-won't do it..."

Then, a man from the school administration entered the room to hand the teacher some kind of note. That man looked at the whole situation and airily inquired about the weeping student. The teacher told the story as he hit him again. The man responded in Punjabi, "Tsk, kids nowadays" and then left.

The above scene was from my Pakistani school in Saudi Arabia. It was just another normal day at our Muslim school. Everyone knew about the default mode of "teaching". Most of the teachers barked out whatever was in the books and the students heard the whole thing without often comprehending the subject. Practically all the students had study guides, or photocopies of them, to answer the questions for the various assignments.

Most students, myself included, simply memorized whatever was in the books and the study guides and regurgitated the material on tests and exams. This activity of cramming alien material into our heads was known as ratta (pronounced rut-ta). It was sad that most students did the same with mathematics; they could solve any problem from the book but give 'em something even slightly different, and they would be stumped.

Arabic was our third language; Urdu and English were the first and second respectively. This made Arabic and Islamiyat (the study/world of Islam) our worst courses.