She died.

In one of those family movies I've been to recently, the actor quotes Shakespeare's King Lear. According to the actor, Shakespeare ended the King's life without sophisticated metaphors. With two simple, straightforward words: He dies.

I chose that to be the title of my blog entry, because I have failed to think up something catchy and original. Metaphors and similes have been exhausted by newspapers and media outlets all over the world to describe the death of Benazir Bhutto. I read somewhere that she was referred to as the flower of Pakistan. Wow - at the age of 54?

Let me begin by saying that I am not at all a fan of Bhutto. I have met her once before, and I admit, that 'one time' had largely shaped my feelings of great dislike for her. In the company of well-known American officials she was when I saw her. Notably James Rubin, former assistant to President Clinton. If there was a global prize for @$-kissing, this woman would have had no rivals. She carried herself around with feigned dignity that she only rubbed against non-Westerners.

There's something about the people of the Sub-continent, I tell you. Many of them - not all, but many - just love the goras. They have something for white-skin, and all the Fair and Lovely going on. But again, for many, it ends right there. They don't gamble with their countries and consciences for the goras. Here is where they differed with Bhutto.

Bhutto is not better than any Arab Middle Eastern ruler, who slaves himself to the imperialist West. But many Asians will always point that out to the Arabs, and pretend that Musharraf is their only national embarrassment. Ever. That is far from the truth.

Benazir Bhutto is just a female-Musharraf.

After facing corruption charges, the woman flees to Dubai. A "self-imposed exile" those apologists call it. More like a euphemism for fleeing the crime scene.

A Pakistani acquaintance, who seems to be an ardent supporter of Benazir - for the mere fact that she was a female, I guess - wanted to chastisise me for my inability to comprehend the people's love for her. She told me to see how popular Bhutto is by looking at the wailing crowds, who were mourning her death.

Due to the Hollywoodisation of Pakistani politics - and Middle Eastern politics for that matter - seeing a cheering crowd surrounding a dictator is nothing out of the ordinary. I bet you Saddam Hussein would have gathered a larger crowd. In that regard, Bhutto is as popular as Musharraf. I call it a TV-popularity.

And now, Pakistan is blaming al-Qaeda for the assassination of Bhutto. There are no limits to where Musharraf would go to insult the people's intelligence. Despite claims made in an email by Bhutto to a journalist friend that Musharraf has failed to provide adequate security following the first attempts on her life, we're still supposed to think that Musharraf has no hand in this mess. No, no, God forbid.

Of course he didn't set this whole thing up, fearing Bhutto's strength, derived from her Western (American) allies. Of course he didn't think she would be winning the next elections, ousting him out of the presidency chair, which he's clawed on for a very long time, making humiliating concessions to the US in the process. Of course he didn't make it easier for those assassins to get to Bhutto by providing lax security around her. Of course al-Qaeda hates Bhutto so much, because she's a woman, but not Musharraf, even though he's an effeminate bastard.

Excellent try, Busharraf. It's amazing how you get to have perfect security, while others are an easy prey for this mythical al-Qaeda, which you like to use even more than the Americans do. At least they have the sense to alternate between boogeymans.

No, I do not feel particularly sympathetic or upset by the treacherous killing of Bhutto. However, I think that the way in which politics is handled in Pakistan and the Middle East is so dumb, I feel like all those involved should be sweeped away by a huge wave of tsunami, never to be seen again. The silencing of rivals by sending them to the grave reveals how immature and incapable those politicians are. When will people learn that assassinating rivals will not make one the best? Perhaps the best dictator, but that's the only title you'll be competing for.

I would much rather have corrupt officials battling their way to power, than other corrupt ones terminating them to get rid of competition. Get rid of corruption by providing a better alternative to the people. It is obvious that people like Musharraf do not want to invest in an already hopelessly dead political career. Instead, he chooses to kill his rivals, so that he'd remain the only option for Pakistan. He knew that the US would favour Bhutto over him. He didn't want to be a Saddam Hussein too soon. He doesn't seem to realise that it's inevitable.

Dubai - City of Gold .. (and all other vices)

Every time, at the mention of Dubai's reputation in being the prostitution hub of the region; the safe haven for all traffickers and money launderers; the city that abuses its cheap labour, domestic workers and young children by using them as camel jockeys - I lower my head in shame.

Am I proud of the advancement of this city? I'm not sure anymore.

Yes, I love the fact that I'm living a comfortable life in an advanced, urbanised society. Compared to other cities in the Arab world, I think Dubai is a much nicer place to live in. There's almost no culture here. It's an international city, and maybe that's what the government wants it to be. Maybe that's sad, but only for us - the natives? I don't know if the tourists would mind it so much.

I hear people say that Dubai is a fusion of East and West; a combination of both. I can see the West-part, but I'm still searching for the East-part. Mina Bazaar? The Abra? Bastakia? I know that in my immediate vicinity, there's no East. There's only McDonald's. And Spinney's - our version of Sainsbury's. Only Spinney's sells labnah - thank God.

Really, I want to change the bad things about Dubai. But bad here is a relative word, I guess. What's bad for me, is excellent for others who make profit out it. Besides, what can a dispensable, insignificant second-class citizen like me do? Nothing much.

I have always wanted Dubai to be the capital of knowledge in the region. The capital of all valued contributions to humanity and the world. Sometimes I come across articles about the brain-drain in the Arab world, and I find myself wishing we had this problem in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. At least I'd come to know we have them!

But if you don't belong to the right "tribe" - pure-bred, wealthy and influential - then you might as well remain invisible and mute. Perhaps the only reason Gergawi and a few others have made it is because they thought of creative ways of bringing in money to the city. Kudos to them, really. Not that their efforts have eliminated the "stigma" attached to the discriminatory nature of many people here, who consider themselves to be better and above the rest. The Ashkenazis of the UAE, I call them. But that's another topic altogether.

Now really, how do we bring about positive change? I'm in.

Invitation to a Retirement

I was woken up this morning by my father, who just wanted to talk. I watched his face reacting as if to a bitter taste while he complained about the unfairness of forced retirements that government ministries impose on their senior employees.

In this country, UAE nationals make up less than 11% of the total population. That's the official number. We're probably around 5%. From the total number, exclude all those who are not employed by the public or private sectors: the elderly; men and women with private businesses; housewives; students and the unemployed. How many of us are employed then? Not many, I suppose.

Why, I wonder, in a wealthy country as the UAE, that provides - according to a Gulf News article - 300,000 jobs every year, do we find some unemployed UAE nationals? The article, written by an expatriate, goes on to criticise UAE nationals (as usual) and attribute their ill fortunes to their own laziness and unwillingness to work the normal hours of the private sector (8:00-5:00).

What about me? I'm a qualified UAE national, with work experience in both the public and private sectors. I was in high demand when I only had a Bachelor degree. The moment I earned my Masters, I have suddenly become an outcast. Nobody wants to hire me. Everybody is scared to hire me. They're scared for their budgets.

Yes, I will demand a high pay. People's salaries here are determined by their passports. Americans and Europeans are up there, at the top of the economic ladder. Qualified Asians remain at the bottom, unless they carry the right passport. And we, UAE nationals, are not even in the middle.

Why shouldn't I demand a high pay? The cost of living is outrageous and the prices are soaring. Unlike once upon a time, we don't get free housing anymore. In a survey on the most expensive cities in the world, Dubai ranked 34th this year, while Abu Dhabi ranked 45. I'm baffled, looking at the cities that rank above Dubai: they have excellent, state-of-the-art public facilities, including reliable transportation. Why is Dubai making us pay so much to live here? Why am punished for being a citizen of this country, and for having my ancestors belong here?

I don't complain about the weather; I love the heat. I can survive when DEWA (Dubai Electricity and Water Authority) decides to carry out maintenance and cuts the electricity for 5 hours in the neighbourhood. I don't mind the censorship, and I don't mind when Etisalat makes me pay a fortune to make international phone calls and charges me 30pence for every text message I send locally, when people in the UK get deals for 500 free minutes, or 500 free text messages, and cheap international calling cards. Heck, they even get to use Skype, which is not available for us here.

We endure that, and even more, yet we are smirked at contemptuously for demanding a high pay. My money, as a UAE national, will be invested in this country. Most expatriates here invest in their home countries. They're ultimately going home, so they're not going to spend or invest here the way a UAE national would.

Mohammed Al Gergawi is said to be one of the most intelligent UAE nationals in the country. He's done wonders for the economy, and he's been generously rewarded by the government. Gergawi, I must add, is not the exception to the rule. He is one of many bright UAE nationals, and one of the very few who were given a chance to prove their metal.

Gergawi started working for the public sector. Many UAE nationals prefer to work in the public sector. The Gulf News article claims that this preference is due to the shorter working hours of the public sector. That is far from the truth.

If Gergawi had not worked for the public sector, he would not be where he is today. He would not have got the chance to excel, simply because he would be deliberately sidelined and marginalised in the private sector. Many UAE nationals complain of hostilities against them by foreigners, Westerners and Asians alike. Asians, however, do it in a very subtle way. Like wolves, they form packs that attack individuals, not groups. They intentionally make the work environment unbearable for UAE nationals to force them to leave. This is due to the fear that UAE nationals might rise in ranks or replace them, especially with the Emiratisation drive. Still, I prefer the unconfrontational Asians to the abrasive and arrogant Westerners (Americans, to be accurately specific).

Before leaving to pursue a Masters, I had worked for a semi-governmental organisations, in which the big boss and supervisor were both Americans. Apart from making us do the menial work, they discouraged their UAE national staff from doing any professional development courses by asking them to work over-time. They also denied them any paid, international professional development opportunities that were exclusively granted to the Western staff. They have managed to successfully create a culture of fear at work, parallel to the American government's work at home, except this one is unveiled by any claim of democracy, equality and freedom. I'm proud to say that I was the only outspoken and confrontational member of the staff; they hated me. Needless to say, the feeling was mutual.

I could not go and complain to the HR, because when I first tried, I realised that the Westerners running the HR department could not bring themselves to be impartial. I decided to take justice in my hand. I treated my boss and the supervisor with unconcealed contempt and derision. I openly questioned their double-standardness when they asked me why I took extra 10 minutes for my lunch break, or why I was having coffee with someone from a different department. "Why not? I saw X having coffee with Y for the past two hours, you didn't seem to mind." At first, there was an attempt to make excuses for X, who was also a Westerner. The lamest of these excuses was, "X is probably having a meeting with Y, and their discussing work." Luckily, at that instance, I found X having coffee with Y, and through the window glass that made them look like mute animated objects, I could tell they were having a fun time, with no folders on the table in front of them to lend their casual meeting any feigned air of professionalism. I pointed at them and said, "Does that look like a professional meeting?" My supervisor reversed in her steps back to her office with a nervous laugh, and waving her hand in the air as if to dismiss this as a one-time occurrence. The morale of this story: she never questioned my timings again. Bitch.

Now let me get back to my father's concerns: he was upset that senior citizens, who are physically and mentally capable, were being forced by the government to retire after 30 years of service. It was a forced retirement, making those hard-working, experienced people feel inadequate. The juices of their youth have been squeezed fresh out of them, and now they've been made to feel like sour layers to be discarded of. "Why" my father asks, "do they do this, when we're a minority in our own country? Why do they have to force us into retirement when we still have a lot to offer?" My father is 57, the age of Dubai's ruler, Mohammed bin Rashid. I needn't elaborate on that.

Those who have been given a "forced retirement" have also suffered financially. Prior to the new government decision to increase the pension of those retired employees to up to 70% (not exceeding AED 6,000), many people had to live with a pension that deducted the same amount from their basic salaries. They had no benefits, either.

My father made an interesting observation: the government is following the policies of other countries in its pension programme. What the government does not seem to realise is that in other countries, like Egypt, for instance, imposing retirement after a 30 year service is necessary in a country that has more than 80 million citizens. In a country with its natives making up less than a million, what's the hurry in sending people to an early retirement? And it's not like the government is poor, and cannot afford to give them their whole salaries without deducting any amount or denying them all benefits.

Rulers in this country are surrounded by financially comfortable people. They can never, and should never, guage the financial status of the average UAE national by looking at their acquaintances and those who keep their company. With citizen being made to feel dispensable to the country's development, the zeal that drives individuals to create, produce and give will die prematurely and we'll end up embodying the stereotypes mentioned in that expat-penned Gulf News article.

Eid can be fun?

It can be. But, so far, it's not.

I called my really good friend, A., this morning. She's a devout Muslim, whose spirituality is inspiring and contagious at the same time. Unlike many of us, she is not only raised as a Sunni-Muslim, but also professes that particular denomination of Islam out of personal conviction, flavoured with a tinge of Sufism.

Don't read me wrong. I'm a very spiritual person myself. Comparatively well-read (but not an authority) on Islam, I find the religion to be really interesting and more realistic than other major religions. Sure, I want to be all spiritual, loving and forgiving. But justice - which happens to be the main article of Islam - is also the most important aspect of religion or any ideology that would rivet my attention. That said, I cannot deny the fact that I'm unsatisfied with Islam's uncreative way of celebrating its two feasts; Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

While Ramadan has a unique spirit, so to say, it still remains unclear to me why we seal off the month with a feast of food that ultimately shocks our systems, which would have adjusted to the one-meal (or two, if you're one who takes suhoor) diet for a month. Calling it Eid al-Fitr (feast of fast-breaking) doesn't make it any nicer or more enjoyable, really. I'm struggling to learn the morale of this story-lacking observance. Associating feast with food doesn't seem very "spiritual" to me. It's as if the spirituality ends with Ramadan.

Eat. Give your zakaah. And life goes on.

Ok, there was the Eidiya (Eid money), which we loved as kids. Elders in the family would hand us new notes of cash, which by the end of the day would have accummulated into a fairly reasonable sum that we spent before the end of the week on toys, and more toys. But now, as grown ups, we have been denied that childhood luxury. Not only that, but we are now of age to be expected to give Eidiyas to the younger ones.

The day begins with us greeting our parents and siblings, as if we had not just seen them the day before. As if we had not had a massive fight with one of the siblings before going to bed. And all that is supposed to miraculously change the following day, as if one has woken up hit by a wave of amnesia.

Sure, it's nice to be forgiving and pleasant on a feast-day, but then what? Visit relatives, which in this part of the world, you get to see as many times a week, if not daily? Have a huge, happy family meal together, which you surely can do on any given day if you'd bother to call on your relatives when they'd been persistently asking you to drop by?

Let's face it: it's all meaningless.

And to top it off, the aesthetic aspect of symbolism is non-existent. You cannot hang a tree with decorations on it. Oh no, astaghfirullah! We're not going Christian here now, are we? Forget about making it a spiritual day either. Apart from the Eid prayers in the morning, mosques are totally uninvolved in the celebrations. (Celebrations? As if. Hah!) By mid-day, it doesn't feel like Eid anymore. It's just another day, with megaphones blaring on high minarets, calling people to come for prayers.

Maybe in 7th century Arabia, when they first started observing Eid al-Fitr with all the food displayed in large quantities, it may have been meaningful. They weren't starved, but I'm sure the luxury of being served meat wasn't available on a daily basis. But things have changed now. I do not mean to say that the abundance of food has caused people to become wasteful and take this blessing for granted (which is the case, really). What I mean is that the idea of feasting on food is not appealing anymore.

Eid al-Adha, which we are supposed to be celebrating today, is not any better. So a goat is slaughtered in homage to Prophet Ibrahim's test of faith, in which he had willingly set forth to carry out God's order to slaughter his only son, Ishmael (yes, it was Ishmael, and not Isaac. It couldn't have possibly been Isaac. I shall elaborate on this later on). After we slaughter the poor goat that moans and resists as it is being dragged by a butcher to be killed (they really aren't that stupid; they know they're going to be killed), we feast on more food. Even Eid al-Adha is about food. Food and more food. Two Eids with different names, but more or less the same purpose - to eat our fill of meat.

There's really nothing else in Eid.

Take Christmas, for instance. While it is supposed to mark the birth of Jesus, it is punctuated with so much non-religious symbolism, which makes it fun and colourful. Both the Christmas tree and Santa have no Christian origin, yet they have become the most prominent symbols of Christianity, and the fun holiday season. Even seculars and those who are not affiliated with any religion enjoy Christmas. Heck, I too enjoy it!

Why can't we have such symbolism with productive elements?

I was texting my good friend, Z., back and forth about this matter just a while ago. I said, "How about we create a Santa-like figure, who has more religious relevance to Eid? Someone we can call Hajji Ibrahim - Hajji, in reference to the Hajj season; and Ibrahim in reference to the Prophet (peace be upon Him). This revered figure can come every Eid al-Adha to distribute Eidiyas (or gifts) to kids, and urge them to give the Eidiyas to the less fortunate people around them. This could be a practice by which kids are taught at a young age the meaning and value of "giving", "generosity" and basically zakaah. Hajji Ibrahim can also narrate the story of Prophet Ibrahim and/or the other Prophets.

Mosques can also take more active roles, by preparing elaborate programmes that include entertainment in the form of nasheeds; lectures; (religious) plays; and a huge banquet which Muslims from all nationalities can attend.

Eid can be fun, if only they'd allow me to plan it.



(Ibrahim's sacrifice: I said it was Ishmael. According to Genesis 22:2, God said to Abraham, "Take now your son, your only son, Isaac." He again says, "You have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." Genesis 22:12. Well, I must break it to you: the Bible is wrong. Ishmael is the first-born child, and if there was at any time an "only son" that belonged to Ibrahim, it would have been Ishmael. God couldn't have possibly called Isaac the "only son", when Ishmael would have probably been a teenager at the time Isaac was born. Unless God forgot about Ishmael for two seconds there? *sarcasm* Good morning, guys.)

When Sodom was restored

Very few crime stories of a similar nature get published in local newspapers. Until they're picked up by the international media that is. The story of a 15-year old Swiss-French victim of homosexual rape, Alexandre Robert, made big headlines all over the world.

Homosexual rape happens everywhere, conceded the victim's mother, Veronique Robert, except the tendency to criminalise the victim seems to be something almost exclusive to the Gulf - and in this case, Dubai.

Mrs Robert has set up a website urging people to boycott Dubai. Well, she has every right to be angry, especially that one of the rapists, a 36-year old man who has been described as a "repeat offender", turned out to be HIV positive. This fact, it seems, was deliberately hidden from her, delaying by that any possible early treatment of her son. The rapist also confessed to being drunk while committing the crime. How the authorities had turned a blind eye to such a violation makes one wonder about those who run the judiciary in this country. More often than not, laws and punishments are inconsistent.

Muslims are prohibited from purchasing or consuming alcohol. In fact, for non-Muslims to purchase alcohol in the country, they'll need to have an Alcohol License issued - something which is not available for Muslims. If found to be drunk, a Muslim may face up to 80 lashes, a jail term, and a fine. The 36-year old rapist was drunk, according to news reports, yet there was no mention of that in court. He, and the 18-year old accomplice, were sentenced to 15-years in jail. What about the lashings?

This reminds me of something that had happened here two years ago. Police forces raided a chalet in the Ghantout area between Dubai and Abu Dhabi, where a "mass homosexual wedding" was taking place. Those individuals who had engaged in consensual acts of homosexuality were to be punished by government-ordered psychological and male-hormone treatments; lashings; and a five-year jail term. Whether or not they had been subjected to either or all of the aforementioned 'disciplinary measures' remains unknown.

The point is, when it was consensual, the violators were treated more harshly. I'm afraid someone, somewhere is sending out the wrong message. Homosexual rapists get away with less than a life sentence; no lashings; and no psychological or hormone treatments? Disgusting.

It is worth mentioning that rape according to Shariah law falls under the Hirabah provision. Hirabah can be defined as "terrorism," "unlawful warfare," or "any act that threatens the security and stability of society at large." Robbery, piracy, and rape are considered some of the crimes that fall under Hirabah, and are punishable by death.

Does it make a difference if the rape victim is a male?

Now that Dubai is not a strict, Shariah-applying emirate, you'd think Saudi Arabia would at least punish rapists without having to blame the victims. Is it a surprise at all that an equally disturbing - if not worse - rape incident in the Kingdom had made international headlines for the same reason: criminalising and punishing the victim.

Whatever will be, will be

I am a jobless UAE national with a postgraduate degree from abroad; a degree that has only increased my assumed "market value" and made potential recruiters avoid me like the plague.

My state of joblessness has given me a chance to browse through different blogs launched from the country - Dubai, to be more specific - and I wanted to jump on the bandwagon, too. I will not take extra measures to hide my identity, but I will not reveal it either.

Que sera sera, I guess.