Category: Kultur

Burqini – chic and coming to a beach near you

Mon der her så også skal forbydes? Aman Ali skriver på Boing Boing:

203-549-1248313710.jpg

When I first heard of this product a few years ago, I’ll admit it made me laugh, even with me being a Muslim. It’s a swimsuit called the Burqini that’s designed for Muslim women.

Men and women in Islam are both asked to dress modestly but many of the swimsuits designed for women today are too revealing to allow them to do that. As you can see, the Burqini doesn’t show any skin but it’s not too loose to the point where it’s difficult to swim.

No woman should be denied the freedom to have a fun filled day at the pool or beach, which is why this company designed the Burqini. The more I thought about the product, the more I began to realize how awesome it is. It’s another way Muslims have been able to adapt to local cultures and customs without compromising their beliefs, an issue many religions face today.

The Burqini has gotten a lot of backlash from governments in Europe. But I don’t think any government has a right to tell people how to dress. How come a woman is not allowed to wear a burqini to a pool, but there’s no law saying she can’t wear a giant panda suit? If she wants to wear either of those outfits, hey go right ahead.

Amans indlæg gav ikke helt overrskende anledning til en del diskussion. Den mest begavede kommentar so far kommer fra Xeni Jardin:

I am a non-Muslim female. I fully support the notion that women of various faith — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other — might adhere to a more conservative, modest forms of presenting themselves.

You know what else is oppressive? Presuming that every woman wants to be practically naked in order to enjoy the sea or the pool or whatever. Some women, faith or no faith, would prefer for that experience not to be sexualized, or involve physical exposure.

Og hvis nogen har et sådant ønske, hvad skulle nogen så kunne have imod det?

Link: Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Burqini

Dagens citat: Islam og europæisk kultur

Af professor, dr. phil. Johannes Pedersen i hans bog Islams kultur (Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, 1928):

Blandt de kulturer der har dannet sig uden for Europa, er der ingen der står europæisk kultur nærmere end Islams. Dette beror på at disse to kulturer har dannet sig på et fælles grundlag, middelhavslandenes hellenistisk-kristelige livsformer. (…)

Islams kulturhistorie er i mange måder parallel med Europas. Også den dannedes ved at nye folk trængte ind på middelhavslandenes område og tilegnede sig deres dannelse. Den står ikke mere for os som et appendix til eller endog en karikatur af Europas kultur, men som en selvstændig nydannelse, der i sin blomstringstid var forud for det samtidige Europa i rigdom og magt. Betegnelsen “middelalder” har her endnu mindre real gyldighed end for Europas vedkommende. Efter den arabiske erobring omdannedes den byzantinsk-kristelige og den persiske kultur umærkeligt til at blive islamisk uden at der kan tales om et pludseligt og radikalt brud. (…)

Forskellen mellem Islams kultur og den samtidig udviklede kristelige ligger ikke blot i den forskellige karakter af de oprindelige kristelige og muslimiske idealer, men i langt højere grad i at den middelalderlige kristelige kultur udformedes i Vestens lande og hos nye folk, der modtog kristendommen udefra og formede den på deres egen måde, medens Islam udformedes i Østen, i selve oldtidskristendommens gamle lande. De samme folk som havde dannet den østlige kristendom med dens særlige idealer, dens tænkning og livsopfattelse, blev senere skaberne af den muslimske kultur. Ligesom den byzantinsk-kristelige kultur skabtes ved hellenismens optagelse af kristendommen, således opstod Islams kultur ved den byzantinsk-kristelige kulturs optagelse af Islam.

Det er ikke først Islam som har skabt en kulturel ensartethed i Forasien. Men islams oprindelige repræsentanter, araberne, der selv boede på grænsen af det byzantinske kulturområde, gav den gamle kultur, som de tilegnede sig, et nyt præg med et nyt sprog og en ny kultus.

Og dermed kom den islamiske civilisation til at stå som den hellenistiske kultur og måske især læge- og naturvidenskabs kustoder i en tid, hvor Europa lod til at have tabt i hvert fald dén tråd.

Dagens citat: Islams historie og dogmatik

Jørgen Bæk Simonsen, i Politikens bog om Islam (JP/Politikens Forlagshus 2008), s. 139-41:

Det er ikke kun i den klassiske islamiske tradition, at man kan forledes til at tro, at islam ved Muhammeds død var en fuldt færdig religion. Samme opfattelse af islam anføres også i adskillige værker forfattet af ikkemuslimer, der forklarer læserne, at den islamiske verden med de store erobringer blev skabt som ved et trylleslag, men intet er i virkeligheden mere forkert. […]

Den islamiske verdens historie har fra begyndelsen været præget af en dynamisk og vedvarende diskussion om, hvordan Koranens anvisninger kan og skal oversættes til daglig religiøs praksis, og den diskussion finder fortsat sted, hvor muslimer nu engang lever sammen. Derfor er det afgørende at fastholde, at et ønske om at vide, hvad islam mener om dette eller hint, ikke er helt så ligetil at besvare. Islam fortolkes ligesom alle andre religioner hele tiden af sine troende, og de er sjældent enige. Der er i Koranen forestillinger og antagelser, som har udgjort centrale elementer af det fundament, hvorpå islam som religion er funderet, eksempelvis troen på den ene Gud, og udsagn om det er blevet diskuteret og formuleret som dogmer og teologiske udsagn. På samme måde findes allerede i Koranen juridiske anvisninger, der siden er blevet suppleret med regler, som har fundet tilslutning hos større grupper af muslimer. Det er det, der med visse forbehold gør det muligt at sige noget generelt om islam. Men det er vigtigt at fastholde, at islam ikke er noget i sig selv, ikke er noget uden muslimer. Religionen islam giver ikke af sig selv svar, de(t) gives og formuleres af troende muslimer, fordi det er dem, der i fortolkningen omsætter anvisningerne i en social praksis, de opfatter som rigtig, også selvom de igen og igen har måttet sande, at deres fortolkninger er blevet draget i tvivl af andre.

Noget lignene kan siges om kristendommen. Men centralt er her udsagnet om, at islam (som alle bogreligioner) ikke er noget i sig selv, men er, hvad dens tilhængere gør den til.

Aisha Fukushima: Leave on the Light

En sang inspireret af irakerne i Brorsons Kirke.

Fra beskrivelsen på YouTube:

A collaborative song by Aisha Fukushima and the Glendorf Brothers. “Leave on the Light” is inspired by the experiences of Iraqi asylum seekers who were in sanctuary at Brorsons Church in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Aisha sings the chorus and raps the second verse in English. Mads Glendorf raps the first and third verses in Danish. His brother, Rasmus Glendorf, made the instrumental.

Follow the progress of Aisha Fukushima’s international hip hop project “RAPTIVISM” at: http://aishafukushima.tumblr.com

Se den og spred den!

Dagens citat: Islam og velfærdssamfundet

Tariq Ramadan, i hans bog Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (Oxford University Press, 2004), s. 149-50:

Every being must have the right, in any society, to the minimum amount of food necessary to live. And we are speaking of living, not surviving. All the Islamic sources call human beings in general and Muslims in particular to live like human beings, in dignity and respect for themselves and for others. A social organization that does not provide its members with this minimum undermines their integrity as created beings who have to give account of themselves before the Creator. To be by nature responsible means that one should have the means by which to carry out the responsibility one bears; otherwise, the innocent become “guilty” and we are blaming the victim. […]

Housing is the first prerequisite for family life, and Islam insists heavily on the sanctity of private space. A society should provide each of its members with a roof; it is a prime responsibility. It is essential to think of adequate local structures: living five or eight to a room is not establishing a household – it is constructing a prison, arranging a suffocation, creating future ruptures and tomorrows full of isolation and marginalization. The state in which suburbs, cities, and inner cities are kept or rather abandoned is truly unacceptable. A man without a home is not a citizen; he is an outcast and a victim. Speeches change nothing. To deprive people of the conditions necessary for their humanity and then make them pay for their vagrancy is doubly unjust.

Hvis disse krav er en hård anklage mod forholdene i mange vestlige lande, er de en fordømmelse af forholdene i de fleste islamiske lande, hvor fattigdom og bolignød er udbredt. Dette er Ramadan selvsagt udmærket klar over.

Jeg er selv meget enig i konklusionerne, omend jeg som ikke-muslim ikke er det i præmisserne. Jeg ville nok selv nøjes med at konstatere, at “a social organization that does not provide its members with this minimum undermines their integrity” uden at henvise til skabninger eller Skaber – men selve konklusionen er svær at komme uden om.

Fildeler retsforfølges for 25 millioner og fortæller sin historie

Joel Tenebaum fortæller i The Guardian om sine genvordigheder, efter at pladebranchen har sagsøgt ham for fildeling, og han har nægtet at bøje sig og erkende, at han skulle have gjort noget galt:

To a certain extent, I’m afraid to write this. Though they’ve already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won’t do it again. For the past four years, they’ve been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m.

When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I’m being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave.

No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. “How did they get you?” I’m asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that’s when a look appears on the face of whoever I’m talking to, the horrified “it could have been me!” look. […]

in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. That’s when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans.

I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States, my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court. And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie Thomas Rasset, has done) you’re still far from equal with the machine controlling 85% of commercial music in the US. […]

My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school friends, friends of the family too. My computer’s been seized and hard drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I’m interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I’ll stand up in a courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my guilt and the reprehensibility of my character.

Er der nogen af mine læsere, der kan genkende denne følelse af “det ku’ have været mig!”, som jeg har fremhævet?

Tak, Morten Jørgensen!

Link: How it feels to be sued for $4.5m, Joel fights back

Hvem ejer din iPhone og din computer?

Det gør du selv, mener du måske (hvis du har nogen af disse ting). Men balladen omkring Amazons Kindle-læser viser, at det måske ikke lige præcis er dig der ejer disse ting i den forstand, at det er dig, der bestemmer, hvordan du kan bruge dem eller hvilke ting, du må have på dem. Farhad Manjoo beskriver situationen i en artikel i Slate:

The worst thing about this story isn’t Amazon’s conduct; it’s the company’s technical capabilities. Now we know that Amazon can delete anything it wants from your electronic reader. That’s an awesome power, and Amazon’s justification in this instance is beside the point. As our media libraries get converted to 1’s and 0’s, we are at risk of losing what we take for granted today: full ownership of our book and music and movie collections.

Most of the e-books, videos, video games, and mobile apps that we buy these days day aren’t really ours. They come to us with digital strings that stretch back to a single decider—Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or whomever else. Steve Jobs has confirmed that every iPhone routinely checks back with Apple to make sure the apps you’ve purchased are still kosher; Apple reserves the right to kill any app at any time for any reason. But why stop there? If Apple or Amazon can decide to delete stuff you’ve bought, then surely a court—or, to channel Orwell, perhaps even a totalitarian regime—could force them to do the same. Like a lot of others, I’ve predicted the Kindle is the future of publishing. Now we know what the future of book banning looks like, too.[…]

In The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It, Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain argues that such “tethered” appliances give the government unprecedented power to reach into our homes and change how our devices function. In 2004, TiVo sued Echostar (which runs Dish Network) for giving its customers DVR set-top boxes that TiVo alleged infringed on its software patents. A federal district judge agreed. As a remedy, the judge didn’t simply force Dish to stop selling new devices containing the infringing software—the judge also ordered Dish to electronically disable the 192,000 devices that it had already installed in people’s homes. (An appeals court later stayed the order; the legal battle is ongoing.) In 2001, a company called Playmedia sued AOL for including a version of the company’s MP3 player in its software. A federal court agreed and ordered AOL to remove Playmedia’s software from its customers’ computers through a “live update.”

Mine fremhævelser. Modtræk? Nægte at bruge apparater og medier, der anvender nogen form for kopibeskyttelse, også når man sælger e-bøger og online-film. Insistere på, at alt skal kunne håndteres ved hjælp af fri software. Boycot iPhones og brug Android og andre GNU/Linux-baserede telefoner i stedet.  Afvis tanken om, at producenten skal bestemme, hvad man kan gøre ved eller have liggende på sine egne ting.

Link: Why 2024 will be like Nineteen Eighty Four

Amazons Kindle Swindle

Amazon sælger en e-bogslæser, de selv har produceret, den såkaldte Kindle. Denne ebogs-læser er ikke som ethvert andet boglæserprogram, f.eks. FBReader – nej, en Kindle er forsynet med DRM, også kendt som kopibeskyttelse, der sætter Amazon i stand til i samarbejde med rettighedshaverne at bestemme, hvilke bøger den enkelte kunde kan læse på sin Kindle.

For eksempel udgav Amazon for nylig George Orwells samlede værker i deres e-bogsformat. Det var rigtig fint, og masser af mennesker kunne således købe, downloade og læse “1984” og andre af Orwells værker i deres elektroniske bogsamling.

Men så skete det, at Amazon blev uenig med dem, der bestyrer rettighederne for Orwells bøger. Hvad gør man ved det? Jo, næste gang e-bogs-læserne kommer i kontakt med Internettet, ryger der besked ud om, at Orwells bøger alligevel ikke er solgt – de er så at sige usolgt. Bøgerne blev bag om ryggen og uden at spørge slettet fra folks Kindles, og en eller to må have spurgt sig selv, om det mon i virkeligheden var en Swindle, de dér havde købt:

David Pogue. writing in the New York Times, reported that hundreds of customers awoke to find that Amazon remotely deleted books that they’d earlier bought and downloaded. Apparently, the publisher determined that it should not offer those titles, so Amazon logged into Kindles, erased the books, and issued refunds. This was aptly compared to someone sneaking into your house, taking away your books, and leaving a stack of cash on the table.

That George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm were among the wiped books is so funny that it aches. The headlines across the ‘net wrote themselves. Down the memory hole!

If this were the only example of this sort of thing, it could be written off as a mistake. But it’s just the latest in a series illustrating Amazon’s vision for the future of reading.

• First, Amazon selectively disabled text-to-speech. It did this to cosy up to publishers who felt audiobook sales were threatened by the Kindle’s robotic enunciation. This mocks the blind and supports an ugly interpretation of the law, which would make reading to your own children an act of copyright infringement.

• Amazon also refuses to disclose the circumstances under which it will no longer allow you to download copies of books you have bought. Cory’s been stonewalled, by one spokesdroid after another, which would be comical were it not so absurd.

• The Author’s contract for Kindle publications is “the pinnacle of bogosity.” Nor can you resell Kindle books, as you can normal ones, even though you have the legal right to do so. This is because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the electronic locks that Amazon applies to its e-books.

• Amazon has even locked Kindle users out of their own Kindle accounts, for trivial reasons.

Now we find that the books you buy are never really yours, and that enjoying them is a privilege granted and withdrawn by Amazon at publisher behest. No-one who enjoys reading can take comfort in any of this.

Helt ærligt: Kunne man forestille sig en boghandler, der fandt ud af, at han alligevel ikke havde “ret” til at sælge dig en bestemt bog, fordi forlæggeren var raget uklar med rettighedshaverne, og derfor brød ind i dit hus i nattens mulm og mørke for at tage bogen tilbage? Og hvis ikke – hvordan kan Amazon så tro, at det på nogen måde kan være acceptabelt, når blot indbruddet er på et stykke forbrugerelektronik i kundens hjem frem for et fysisk indbrud?

Eksemplet understreger, hvorfor kopibeskyttelse og anden “fjernkontrol” er en uskik, vi som borgere og forbrugere ikke burde finde os i.

Link: Delete this book (via Boing Boing).