How Taiwan Conquered the Coronavirus with Common Sense

This is Ms. Tsai Ing-Wen. She is the first female President of Taiwan. She also leads the country with the best response to COVID-19.

Let's look at some of her stats and then her steps.

Stats:

• Taiwan is geographically right next to China, and had daily flights to Wuhan, the epicentre of the virus.
• When the epidemic began, John Hopkins university predicted Taiwan would be the second hardest hit country.
• Right now, they have a population of 23 million, out of which only 427 are affected, and 6 deaths. For comparison, Canada has 37 million people, more than 40,000 cases and over 2000 dead. Not to mention, Taiwan's 23 million live in an area smaller than Nova Scotia.

Now let's see how they handled their epidemic.

Short summary: Masks, hand wash, travel ban, aggressive tracking and quarantine. Also, ignore the WHO.

Result: Everything is open, economy hasn't crashed, curve is basically flat.

Details:

• early action (from January 1, 2020). Starts to board flights from China and check passengers for symptoms.
• Travel ban from ALL flights from Wuhan, and then China, shortly after.
• Put a triage centre in airport to identify possible cases
• Strict quarantine: you get paid for staying in quarantine, get food delivered to your house, get your symptoms checked thrice a day. Break quarantine and you are fined several month's salary. They would do this for all POSSIBLE cases, not just positive cases.
• Aggressive hand washing - every public building had sanitizing stations, and you get your temperature checked before you enter. You are not allowed to enter a building if you show symptoms.
• Masks - Everyone MUST wear masks when out. Taiwan saw they have 40 million masks in their stockpile, so they cranked up production to 10 million masks PER DAY and put a price limit on the masks to prevent price gouging.
• They integrated travel, immigration, customs and health care databases and included cellphone tracking to identify possible cases and improve contact tracing.
• QUARANTINE the sick, not the healthy - was their motto.

Today, Taiwan is a classic example of using common sense and the old age methods with new technology to control an epidemic. They went hard, they went aggressive - AND THEY WENT EARLY. Today their parks, restaurants, schools, offices, public services are all open, and yet their numbers are low.

Compare this to Canada where we had no travel restrictions, no forced home quarantine, no database integration, no masks (STILL NO INSTRUCTION ON MASKS), no aggressive stockpiling of PPEs, no protection from PRICE GOUGING or PANIC BUYING, no hand washing in public buildings, NO AIRPORT measures ... the list goes on.

Sources:

https://www.thestar.com/podcasts/thismatters/2020/04/22/23-million-people-6-deaths-how-taiwan-tackled-the-covid-19-crisis.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/asia/taiwan-coronavirus-response-who-intl-hnk/index.html

A Tale of 3 Women: Jacinda Ardern, Dr. Henry and Dr. Tam

Let's talk about three women.

Two of them are smart. The third one - Let's say I am not a fan.

1. Jacinda Ardern

They say a leader is tested in a crisis, and how you deal with it makes or breaks you. By that definition, Ms. Ardern should be the leader of the world. Her first crisis was last year during the horrific mosque shooting in Christchurch. The whole world saw how she dealt with the fall out, with empathy, determination, unity and determination. Now let's see how she dealt with the corona virus:

• COVID-19 testing is widespread
• Out of 5 million, only 12 people died
• Banned travellers from China in early February, before a single case in NZ
• Banned foreigners from NZ in mid-March, with only a handful of cases
• National lockdown from early March, much earlier then other Western nations
• Unveiled a four level alert system
• With a degree in communications, kept her citizens abreast of events, and used empathy in her Facebook live sessions
• Inspired a collective effort from all NZ, public health departments and hospitals.

Though it's early to say, by all counts, her efforts seem to be working.

2. Dr. Bonnie Henry 

She is the Provincial Health Officer for British Columbia, and the first province to see a spike in the number of growths of COVID-19 positive cases. Yet, as of now, whether you go by confirmed cases or hospitalizations, by raw numbers or a per capita comparison, the virus has steadily grown in Ontario and Quebec, but flattened in BC. Why? It is her leadership, as well as luck and timing.

• She looked at the data from Quebec's March break and correctly deduced it's mostly community transmission from USA. This was at a time when Dr. Theresa Tam was saying the "risk is low".
• She immediately asked BC citizens to STOP ALL TRAVEL outside of Canada. This was on March 11, the same day Doug Ford of Ontario was telling people to travel on March break and "have a good time".
• She immediately put a halt to health workers working in more than one place. This immediately broke the back of community transmission. As a comparison, Ontario did this only last week (4 weeks later).
• Improved testing per capital (Ontario is still behind its goals), reserve stock piling of PPE and focus on social distancing.
• Unified messaging and response to the public, and a better health care system than other provinces.
• She saw the data and introduced corrective BOLD measures in BC much before the rest of Canada caught on.
• Dr. Henry's direct experience in overseeing Toronto's SARS and Canada's H1N1 outbreaks is the type of background that's impossible to quantify in a situation like this.

3. Dr. Theresa Tam

Now let us quantify the "contributions" of Canada's top doctor.

• On Dec 31, 2019, Taiwan warned WHO about the virus spreading from human to human. WHO rejected the idea. Guess who sits on the oversight committee of WHO? That's right, Dr. Tam. This is the committee that is there to make sure WHO does the right thing, and NOT bow to pressure from China. 
• On Jan 14, 2020, WHO tweeted the virus was NOT transmitting from human to human. This, despite doctors treating patients in China getting sick. Dr. Tam did not stop them, but actually repeated that rubbish, despite warnings from Taiwan and Singapore.
• Jan 20, China finally admitted the virus was transmitting from human to human. Dr Tam insisted there was no risk to Canadians. Flights continued from China.
• Jan 25, first Canadian case, a man who returned from Wuhan.
• Jan 26, second Canadian case, that man's wife. Dr. Tam insisted risk is "low".
• Jan 27. Dr Tam chastised those worrying about the virus as "racism".
• Jan 31, Trump acted on his "China ban". Meanwhile Dr Tam continued to insist there is no risk, and travellers continued to come here from China. Canada's numbers showed a steady rise.
• Feb 19 to March 4 - As Iran became the new hotspot, Dr. Tam continued to resist calls for travel bans. By this time, Singapore, New Zealand, Vietnam, Taiwan, USA, Italy had all acted on travel restrictions, but not her. Canada's numbers now began to rise sharply as returnees from Iran began to show signs of infection. 
• By March 4, returnees from USA were showing signs of infection. One of them rode the TTC and Go before testing positive. Dr. Tam insisted the "risk is low". She also said travel bans were of no use. She also said don't wear masks.
• March 12 - Mrs. Trudeau tested positive, and all hell broke loose.
• March 30, the CDC says you should wear masks. Dr. Tam still denies it's of any use.

This is why Dr. Theresa Tam needs to be fired.

Why Dr Theresa Tam, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Needs to be Fired

Recently there was an article on how Canada's COVID-19 response is led mostly by women. A lot was made of the fact that Canada's Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy PM, and the top doctors for several provinces and cities (Toronto/Vancouver) are all women. Now to me, I was never a big fan of Trudeau's gender balanced cabinet. Personally, it doesn't matter for a job whether you are a man or a woman. What matters is how good you are at the job. And I am not that impressed with this group.

Going by our numbers and our state of the nation right now, most of these women (sorry, most of these employees) have been HORRIBLE at their job. And at the top of the pack, led by Chief Public Health Officer of Canada and head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr Theresa Tam.

As far as I am concerned, when all this is over, she needs to be FIRED. 

The only reasons she shouldn't be fired right now is that we are in the middle of a crisis.  At the minimum, there should be a public inquiry on how badly she has mismanaged this crisis and how these so-called "experts" have failed Canada every step of this crisis.

Let's take a look at some facts.

1. As early as Dec 1, 2019, Taiwan told WHO that the virus causing COVID-19 was a case of human-to-human transmission. WHO chose to believe China, which defiantly lied and said it was NOT a case of human-to-human transmission. Canada (and Theresa Tam) chose to believe WHO.
   
   You can say it was the fault of WHO, which was trying to appease China, but why did Dr. Tam not take the cautious and conservative approach of preparing, just in case ? You are there to prepare for the worst, but hope for the best.
2. As things deteriorated in China, Dr. Tam continued to emphasize that the risk to Canadians was "low". It wasn't until January 15, 2020 that Canada activated its Emergency Operations Centre. Yet flights from China continued to come to Canada daily. Plane loads of people, whether they were affected with COVID-19 or not, continued to flood into Canada.
   
   US President Donald Trump banned anyone from China coming to USA (with certain exceptions) on January 31. Meanwhile Dr. Tam continued to toe the general line that "travel restrictions does not work". Canada did not ban foreigners from coming to Canada until mid-March, when it practically had no choice.
3. Iran reported the first case of COVID-19 on Feb 19. One of the first cases in New Zealand came from a family who had recently traveled to the Islamic Republic. At least three of the first 12 cases in Canada came via Iran, as did all 33 initial cases in Iraq. In the United States, the first confirmed COVID-19 case in New York City was a health-care worker who had returned from Iran, and Los Angeles also identified a coronavirus patient from Iran who passed through LAX.
   
   Yet Canada continued to allow passengers from Iran to disembark in Canada. Flight after flight came in, and plane loads of people disembarked. One of the infected travellers even rode the TTC and Go on March 4, 2020. This was when community transmission probably started in earnest. And yet, Dr. Tam continued to insist the risk to Canadians was "low".
4. On Thursday morning, March 12, 2020, Ontario premier Doug Ford told the people who were planning to travel for March break to go ahead "and enjoy themselves". This, despite the fact that USA (the most likely destination for many) had become a hotbed of COVID-19. Remarkably, even on March 12, Dr. Tam had no dire warnings for Canada, even as the situation worsened. By this time, Europe (especially Italy) was the new epicentre of the disease. Still planeloads of passengers continued to come from Italy into Canada with no screenings at the airports and no restrictions. Where was Dr. Tam? She was sleeping on the job, it seems. Risk to Canadians - "low".
   
   Just wash your hands.
5. Suddenly, late Thursday night, March 12, 2020, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, the wife of Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, came down with flu like symptoms after travelling from UK. She was tested for COVID-19, and the result came back positive.
   
   All hell suddenly broke loose.

It wouldn't be unfair to state the Canada woke up after Mrs. Trudeau tested positive. Suddenly we stopped going to work. Suddenly schools were closed - initially for two weeks, and then indefinitely. The situation was no longer "risk is low". The situation was suddenly "stay home". Businesses were immediately shut down if they were considered non essential. 

The number of cases jumped, and continues to go up daily. The healthcare workers are suddenly complaining of a shortage of masks, gloves and other PPE.  There is now a Global News article on how we have to choose who gets to live in Canada due to a shortage of ventilators. The news is grim and this week is critical.

So the question remains - why is Canada now REACTING to the crisis, rather than being PROACTIVE? It remains Dr. Tam's responsibility to make sure we were not just prepared for this crisis, but on top of it, without it ruining our economy. 

So how did we go from "risk is low" to the "situation is grim" in the blink of an eye?

There was never a perfect solution to this. What we could hope for was to delay the onset of the crisis as long as possible and limit its effect once it was here. 

• When China became the ground zero for the crisis, we should have immediately banned all travellers and flights from China. In fact, Air Canada suspended its operations in China long before any government directive.
• When Iran became the epicentre, we should have barred any traveller who had been to Iran in the last 14 days from entering Canada, whether they were showing symptoms or not.
• When the disease moved to Italy, we immediately should have suspended all travel from Europe. 
• In all these cases, surprisingly US President Donald Trump took these decisions. But even he was late, and his details diluting the intent of the action. But at least HE TOOK the action. Canada, based on Dr. Tam's advise, never did. 
• If you argue that this would mean denying Canadians entry to Canada, it would only be temporary. Just like we did for Canadians stuck in Wuhan, there could be separate flights to bring Canadians home (just like now).
• When you bring these Canadians home, they should have been quarantined in a place away from the community (just like those from Wuhan were held at CFB Trenton for 14 days). Then you would not have had the community transmission which is how it is spreading now.
• When reports emerged of Seattle being the hotbed of USA cases, we should have immediately closed the border to US citizens except essential travel. Instead, we were told "the risk is low" and we continued.
• When the first infected traveller rode the TTC, that should have been it for start of social distancing and other measures. Yet we were told the "risk is low" and we continued.
• Until Mrs. Trudeau got the virus.

There are things that we can be doing RIGHT NOW to abate the disease. Yet, we are not.

• Get local factories to make test kits and ventilators. If we need them, we have them. If we don't, we can export them to the States.
• Why are we not ramping up immediately to produce more PPE? Where is the plan for that?
• How long are we planning to stay in shut down mode? Where is a plan to return to normal? How are you going to sanitize public transit?
• Today there was a speech by the PM and for the first time we are hearing that masks are a good thing. Yet for so long we were told "don't wear masks".
• What is up with the supply chain? When can we expect Lysol wipes?
• What are you doing to keep control and track of inbound travellers to avoid another spread?

So, Dr. Theresa Tam, what did you actually do with all that expertise? And why should you not be fired for gross negligence? 

Why "My Body, My Choice" and Abortion is Infanticide

This is going to be a post about abortion, given the recent wave of laws being passed in the US. Even though my own position is that I would like the government to stay out of it, in the future if a Conservative government were to bring the legislation that abortion is to be banned except in case of rape / incest, health of the mother, or genetic defects of the fetus, I would be fine with it.

I am going to present some statistics that sometimes women (feminists) do not consider. Do you know, for example, that over 3000 children (viable, breathing, living children) are killed in the name of abortion every year? Please read on - this is the logical conclusion of "my body, my choice".

All Canadian data is from Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Where needed, US data is from CDC.

1. Canada has around 98,000 abortions / year (2016). This is down from 100,000+ abortions in 2014.
2. Approximately 1 in 5 (20%) of Canadian pregnancies end in an abortion.
3. The most common age for women having an abortion is 18-34 (76%). Breaking it down further, 27% of abortions are done for women aged 25-29.
4. 83% of abortions occur before the fetus is 12 weeks. 3.3% occur after 21 weeks.
5. Only 1.5% of abortions are for rape or incest reasons, and another 2% are for health reasons (mother and child).

These numbers do not include private hospitals who are not required to report data. Now take a look at the above data. What does this tell you?

The overwhelming number of abortions occur due to young women deciding they do not want a baby at this time. This is not rape, this is not incest, this is not health reasons - those are the extreme emotional cases the left wing feminists try to force into the discussion; but their numbers are negligible. The OVERWHELMING number of abortions in Canada are young women deciding nah, I don't want a child at THIS time of my life.

ISN'T that selfish? Isn't that putting your own ego and desires above the moral code of life? YOU chose to have sex; no one forced you - and then your night of pleasure ended in a pregnancy, and now you are decided to kill the baby because convenience. How is that morally ANY different from a farmer in India who decides his wife should get an abortion because the fetus is a girl? HOW?

Take a look at the extreme end of the abortions - the 3.3% occurring after 21 weeks. Science agrees a fetus is viable after 24 weeks. We all know it's a living being way before that. Most religions agree life begins way before that. Yet in Canada, even accounting for rape, health, genetic defects, about 3000 such lives are taken every year. At that far in pregnancy, surgical or chemical abortion is not viable - the lady is induced into labour, and then then child (no longer a fetus) is KILLED.

There is actually a legal debate happening now in the States - a bill that would FORCE doctors to provide care to these children (babies, really) as if they were real, living babies - WHICH THEY ARE! Think about it, if a woman normally went into labour at 24 weeks, the doctors would do everything in their power to save the premature child. Here, the woman is induced to labour, and the resulting baby is then killed. The US law is called "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" , and the Democrats (and their feminist patrons) blocked it. This is why Trump will win again. On these moral issues, he is actually on the right side of it (pun intended).

This is the logical end of "my body, my choice" - actual INFANTICIDE that we are condoning when we say we are "pro-choice". As a society, we have already turned away from God. We now condone adultery (consensual sex, one night stands), we condone children out of wedlock (common law), we condone infanticide (abortion) and we are told religion should be personal. So is it any surprise that when the religious right wins elections, they are trying to bring back morality into the law? Yes, the religious right has lots of issues in North America, but on this particular issue, they appear to be on the right (pun, again intended). 

Hardik Pandya and Rahul - Hypocritical to Blame Them Only

I hardly ever don't watch Indian Television. I find it full of crap, and the shows that are supposed to be comedy are anything but. I do however follow cricket. So recently I read about how two cricketers went on Koffee With Karan and the Twitter verse erupted on how sexist , misogynist and racist these men all were.

You can read about it on Buzzfeed, News18, and Bollywood Hungama, amongst others. Now, interestingly at first Buzzfeed actually published an article on how hilarious, vibrant and open the interview was. However, since the Indian feminist Twitterverse started to rant about the episode, Buzzfeed suddenly decided to be "woke" and criticize the episode as well.

Here is where I find the whole ranting of the Indian viewers hypocritical, especially the feminists (yes, I have no love lost for them).

1. The guys talked about sex and women as if they were conquests.

Well, blow me down with a feather! If Pandya and Rahul were "conquering" women, what were those women doing? These ladies followed the cricketers around, and if they slept with them, proudly bragged about the sex to their friends.

"I slept with that cricketer!"

If you have to blame one side for sleeping around, what about the other side? Why do women get a pass for being sluts? It is a hypocritical attitude.

I am not defending the guys. I find this culture of one night stands and just sex for the sake of pleasure without any strings attached abhorrent. Yet it has become the culture of the day. If so, why blame only the guys. The women weren't forced to do anything, so why should they get a pass?

2. Pandya was called a creep for watching women "move" in the clubs.

Now, once again, the double standards. You are at a club. Men are watching women. Women are watching men. And I guess some men are watching men and women are watching women. Yet only one of these is offensive. Why?

Once again we ignore the materialistic, YOLO, pleasure seeking culture of the modern youth and focus on "wokeness" where a man should never admit he is checking out a woman.

3. Pandya was also called out for appropriating black culture.

Now I am never one who agreed into this "appropriating" bullshit, be it Halloween costumes or otherwise. If Kim Kardashian wants to put on a Princess Jasmine costume, I don't see it as an affront to Arab and Islamic culture or appropriating what have you.

This is what Pandya said.

"I like to watch and observe how they (women) move. I'm little from the black side so I need to see how they move."

Now if you were to ask an average person three things they know about Black culture, they will tell you hip hop, booty shaking women in said hip hop videos, and basketball. Some may add a gangster culture. bling or low slung jeans.

So my question is, if it's offensive to identify "black culture" with "women moving", then perhaps rethink that whole booty shaking women in music videos? Pretty much it seems that's all that is glorified in black culture music. Or stop referring to themselves as "from the hood".

The articles (and the Twitterverse) are long and there are many more issues. However I have no patience to go through ALL of them. Suffice it to say that it takes two to tango, and if you find these cricketers' behaviour uncouth, unbecoming of a gentleman, and a bit like a 'fratboy', remember there's women who are going along with them specifically because of this. Criticize them too, and you have a point.

Otherwise, take a chill pill.

My Problem with the #metoo Movement

Let me just say straight off the bat that I am not an ardent feminist. Too often feminism today is used as a cudgel to spread hatred against men, organized religion and the clergy, as well as promote rampant deviant sexual behaviour and norms. I am a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal legal rights under a secular legal system, and a workplace free from unwanted sexual harassment. However, too often nowadays feminism is much broader than that, and encompasses such radical ideas (such as #SlutWalk or female imams for mixed congregations) that it is impossible to say "I am a feminist". Especially when they provide blanket support to the #meToo movement.

Now the #meToo movment has had a lot of positive impact. It's hard to deny that sexual harassment occurs, and has occurred, especially in  highly competitive industries such as entertainment, media and politics. While harassment by definition targets both genders (such as the famous Kevin Spacey case), the overwhelming number of times it is the male perpetrator against a female victim. The #meToo movement has brought out these cases in the public and made it easy for women to report such advances, as well as brought on awareness. That is a good thing.

However, there are serious problems.

1. All women who allege harassment are speaking the truth and their allegations are to be believed.

There is a concentrated effort to say that ANY women who alleges certain harassment allegations is speaking the truth (because why would women lie) and therefore MUST be believed. Why would a woman come out with these "troubling incidents" if it wasn't true? Pardon my French, but what sort of legalized weed are you smoking?

The best example of this nonsense was during the celebrated Jian Ghomeshi trial. Even though Ghomeshi was legally charged and then legally acquitted of ALL five charges, rabid feminists still insisted that we MUST believe the women who came out with claims of non-consensual sex against him. EVEN though the court of the land found him not guilty. Even though the defense lawyer was able to prove inconsistencies in the witness's statements. Even though there were records of the alleged "victim" saying she loved what was done to her, after the incident. In an ironic twist, these same radical feminists turned on his lawyer Marie Henein - a female - for daring to take on the case and defend her client. You know, doing her job. Apparently the right to choose only goes so far.

Women lie. Women can lie. Take the case of Patrick Brown. The poor guy was all set to become the Premier of Ontario when two unproven allegations derailed his career overnight. His own political party, besotted with lust for power, turfed him. Then it turned out one of those cases had a glaring dishonesty, and now the whole thing is in front of the courts.

No one should be immediately believed when they bring forth a case of sexual allegation. Rather, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is, and should always remain, on the accuser.

2. A woman should be able to remain anonymous when she makes the accusation.

Take the case of Aziz Ansari (and more on that in the third point). I am no fan of Aziz Ansari. I don't find him funny, I don't find him relevant and I hardly watch any of his shows. I also hate the fact that he is presented as a "true good liberal Muslim" and anyone who is not like him is a fundamental extremist. Anyone who drinks alcohol, has premarital sex, and presents those things as proper and not Islamic cannot be a good Muslim.

Yet, his career threatened to unravel when someone (called "Grace") wrote an article, anonymously, accusing him of sexual harassment. Almost overnight he was embroiled in the scandal and lucky for him it unraveled quickly enough. But again, you say that the accuser should be known so the accused can publicly defend himself (or herself), and then you will be accused of "victim shaming". Whatever that means.

I understand there is sometimes reasons for concealing the name of the accused, especially if the person being accused is in a position of power. However, this is only in case of an investigation (either from work's HR or from the legal prosecution). After the investigation is over and a charge is made, the name of the accuser and the accused should be a matter for public record. There should be no trial by media. Which brings me to my final point.

3. A bad choice by a woman is not a sexual harassment.

If you consented to it, without there being pressure of losing your job or life or something similar, it cannot be sexual harassment. Take the same Aziz Ansari case. It was a first class example of a date gone wrong (if it's true), but it's not sexual harassment. If he asked for something, and you gave in, you can't say he forced you. If you had said no, would he have harmed you? If not, then it's on you, not on him. Yet the #meToo movement ignores this vital aspect.

Another thing it ignores is that women are conscious, thinking individuals who are adults making their own sexual choices. Take the celebrated Nouman Ali Khan case, for example. Let us say it's true, and for argument's sake let us assume the scholar did marry (and then divorce) many women.

Did he force those women into marriage? Did he threaten those women's livelihood or life if they did not marry him? Did they not willingly start an affair with him, or exchange sexually graphic messages and texts? Are they not equally guilty?

All of this is of course if you believe the story, for argument's sake. Yet the feminists will say no, only the scholar is guilty. Why? Something called "spiritual abuse". Whatever the fudge that means.

Completely ignored is the fact that just as people can be attracted to beauty, they can also be attracted to power. Whether that power is political, economical, or the flowering oratory of a preacher who commands the attention of millions, is irrelevant. If people feel an attraction towards a preacher because of his position, that is not "spiritual abuse". That is giving in to your momentary desires and lust, and then later regretting it and trying to blame the guy, calling it "spiritual abuse".

IF it's true. Till now we have no idea WHAT the specific allegations against Nouman Ali Khan is or WHO even are the accusers. But feminists will tell you it doesn't matter, just believe these unknown, unnamed women who are "hinting" at something. So a man's career and life's work must be ruined, because, feminism. #meToo.

Female Scholars and Female Education in Islam

Here's some images from my new book, Teaching Kids the Holy Quran - Surah 71: Nuh (Noah).

The scholar in my last book was a male character. This time around, I decided I would include the character of a female scholar, because frankly, I feel that is something being ignored in the Muslim community.

I was very happy to see pictures of a workshop (attended by both men and women) at the S. Khadija Centre mosque featuring Dr Ingrid Mattson (on February 6, 2015).

Excellent workshop with Dr. @IngridMattson & Imam @ihslimi @skcentre @DeenStudies on Islam in a N.American context. pic.twitter.com/Te7WeDbLnT
— Yūsuf Badāt (@BadatYusuf) February 7, 2015

This is in sharp contrast to one leading Islamic academic group in North America, which for the first time featured a female scholar teaching a class, but only to female students. Why? We have multiple examples of female scholars throughout history (starting with our mother Ayesha) teaching classes comprising of both male and female students. Many of us have grown up and attended high schools where we were taught by female teachers. As some of you may know, my mother was a teacher herself.

Now the question is why. Why do we ignore the capabilities of 50% of our population (this is really handicapping us!) and why have we accepted this status quo. It is interesting that one of the names and characters who appears in almost every surah is Prophet Musa (Moses, peace be upon him). He was the manliest of all men, and Allah recounts his story numerous times in the Quran. And he was surrounded by powerful women whom he learnt from and benefitted from. His own mother, his second mother who was the wife of the Pharoah, his sister, and his own wife and her sister.

Some one told me that my book could portray that the only scholarship available for women is religious learning, otherwise they should just stay home and not go to school (in some parts of the world this is the predominant view and people shoot girls going to school). Now I don't of course subscribe to this view - knowledge is the lost property of every believer, said my Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). And every believer includes both male and female.