Cricket World Cup 2015 Final Prediction

Finally, after a month and a half, we are on the cusp of crowning a new ODI champion. The World Cup finalists are the two co-hosts, Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand were lucky to get through their semi final. It was the first time their all out attack policy was looking to backfire. They had used up all their premier bowlers, and South Africa still had enough wickets and overs left to launch their own batting attack. While 350 was always on the cards from then on, I would not have been surprised had they made 400. Batting first, lots of wickets, no pressure - you get that target easily - as South Africa has already done twice this World Cup.

And then came the rain - South Africa's nemesis in knock out games - and knocked off 7 important overs that South Africa was looking to accelerate in. They still set New Zealand a stiff target, a stiff target in a short chase is easier than a stiffer target in a longer chase. And the rest was history as New Zealand held on to their nerves just a wee bit better than the South Africans.

Australia, on the other hand, had an easier semi final. India chocked and collapsed while chasing a stiff target, just like Bangladesh had in their quarter final against India. Australia had the relatively easier group as well, beating the likes of England and Sri Lanka easily (although up until Chandimal's cramps, Sri Lanka were remarkably in the game chasing 370). There was only one game they lost - coincidentally to New Zealand - and it's this game that will give New Zealand some confidence going into the final.

Everything, every card, speaks against New Zealand. The final is in Australia, at the vast MCG, and Australia are simply the boss of their home situations. They have an awesome batting line up that bats deep, with X factor players such as Maxwell, and a fearsome bowling line up that features Mitchell Starc as one of the leading wicket takers of the tournament.

Yet the same could be said of the New Zealand team. They have an awesome batting line up that bats deep, with X factor players such as McCallum (leading from the top), and a fearsome bowling line up that features Trent Boult as one of the leading wicket takers of the tournament. They also have one thing Australia doesn't have - a quality spinner in Vettori.

It would be a fitting finale between two teams that really are evenly split. I am going to give the prediction to New Zealand - simply because it's time for them to win. And I think they can do it.

Cricket World Cup 2015 Semi Final Predictions

Only one match remains between four teams and the World Cup final. The best four teams are in the semi finals, and each match remains too close to call. Before going into the semi final predictions, let's see how I did with the quarter final predictions.

Sri Lanka vs. South Africa
This one was a complete surprise as Sri Lanka did not even put up a fight. Just like the final four years ago, Sri Lanka show up to a knock out game and try to change things that worked for them throughout. What was the need to change their opening combination? And why did they try to go for pinch hitting at the top of the order when every team has tried to block and preserve wickets initially this world cup? We'll never know now, as South Africa simply walked over them while Sri Lanka chocked. In effect, they pulled a South Africa ... on South Africa.

Bangladesh vs. India
This game will always be known for the crucial umpiring errors that ALL went in favour of India at crucial moments of the game; the most famous of them being the no-ball-that-wasn't called. At that time India was well under the cosh, being bullied by Bangladesh and denied the runs, and then Rohit Sharma got caught. Alas! The umpire called a no-ball when it clearly wasn't. Raina was later not given LBW by the slimmest of margins. And finally, Bangladesh's in form batsman, Mahmudullah was declared out when it was a six, caught at the boundary. India was the stronger team and deserved to win, but their victory will always have a huge question mark.

Pakistan vs. Australia
We'll never know what could have happened had Rahat not dropped Watson off Wahab Riaz, but Pakistan was always against it when their batsmen flopped (again).

New Zealand vs. West Indies
Another game that went according to form. Poor West Indies!

THE SEMIS

New Zealand vs. South Africa
This game is too close to call. New Zealand has the best opening bowlers, but South Africa has capable top order batsmen, led by Amla. South Africa has no proper fifth bowler, but New Zealand doesn't have a McCallum down the order. New Zealand has never gone past the semi final stage, but neither has South Africa. I have a feeling South Africa will win - it just seems to be their year.

India vs. Australia
I am going to go out on a limb here and say India will win. The bowlers are good on either side, but India has the advantage in batting. They have batsmen who can build an innings and then explode, whereas most of Australia's batsmen, Clarke and Steven Smith notwithstanding, are one dimensional. India also has the edge in the spin department. Overall, advantage India, but again too close to call.

Cricket World Cup 2015 Quarter Final Predictions

So more than a month ago I made some predictions regarding the current 2015 Cricket World Cup. Let's see how I did before I analyze the quarter finals.

POOL A

The most obvious mistake in my prediction was that Bangladesh performed well above expectations. I have no qualms saying I did not mind being wrong at all ( :-D ) in this case. As a Bangladeshi fan whose team had a annus horriblis in 2014, such was the low confidence in the team that they even managed to lose to Ireland in the warm ups. Yet, when it was time to perform, they delivered, and knocked out England.

I had Australia to top the group followed by New Zealand, and this was reversed due to a game of Australia being rained out and them losing to New Zealand by 1 wicket. Sri Lanka came third as expected, and England crashed out.

POOL B

I fully expect Pakistan to beat South Africa - this is what I said, and it happened. Only if they had picked Sarfraz earlier. I was dumbfounded when they made Umar Akmal a keeper and benched Sarfraz, their most dynamic and game changing player.

West Indies should make the fourth playoff position, but barely - this is what I also said, and it's also true. Tough luck to Ireland, who deserved to be in the quarters, but their heavy loss in one match (vs. South Africa) came back to haunt them.

Of course what I did not see is the emergence of India as the team to beat and the team in form. The previous tri-series leading into the tournament seemed to have confounded every body.

So now, here's the quarter finals and my predictions.

Sri Lanka vs. South Africa

Sri Lanka has awesome batting (in form) and a threadbare bowling attack coming into this match, but they know how to win the knockout games. South Africa are notorious at choking in the knockouts of the World Cup and have never won such a match. It makes for a fascinating contest.

I expect whoever bats first to have a big advantage. Nevertheless, I am going to pick pedigree over potential and tip Sri Lanka to win this.
Winner: Sri Lanka

India vs. Bangladesh

Can I remain unbiased in this? Of course I want Bangladesh to win. I hope they win. My heart says they will win. But logic dictates, of course, that India will win. What Bangladesh lack is the finishing touch - the one who can come and belt 40 off 18 balls to boost a competitive total to a massive total, or the one bowler who is so miserly no one can take him on. India has batsmen in form, bowlers in form and their fielding has been great too. Every one of their batsman has been in the middle and scored runs. Hard to see Bangladesh repeating a 2007 here.
Winner: India
PS: I hope I am wrong.

Pakistan vs. Australia

This is Pakistan's last game in the world cup. Or so everyone thinks. And everyone is probably right. Pakistan remains a dark horse, and they have unpredictability, and they beat South Africa, and their bowlers are in form ... yes to all of that, but this is Australia in Australia. And Australia is in form, and they have awesome batting AND bowling. Sometimes unpredictability and emotion can only take you so far.
Winner: Australia

West Indies vs. New Zealand
This really should have been Ireland vs. New Zealand but somehow the Windies made it. And they will go home after this. You don't even need any analysis to back this up - New Zealand is a far better team than Windies and they have experience in winning knockouts and they are in form.
Winner: New Zealand

So there you go. The semi-final line ups should be:

India vs. Australia
New Zealand vs. Sri Lanka

Types of Bangladeshi Cricket Fans

The Realist

Looking at our batting averages, Bangladesh cannot really win against any of the big teams. I will just be happy if we don't lost to Afghanistan and Scotland.

The Eternal Optimist

I just feel it. We have the bad results out of the way. Once we thrash Afghanistan, the momentum is with us. We just need to win against one of the big teams. And then three knock out wins. We can definitely do it, insha Allah.

The Fortune Teller

You will see Shakib al Hassan score three centuries. He will definitely score 112 against Australia. We will win against Afghanistan by bowling them 200 all out and chasing it in 43.5 overs. And we will make the quarter finals.

The Pessimist (somewhat related to the Realist)

Is there any point in watching any game of Bangladesh? We can't even win against Ireland nowadays.

The Superstitious

I have noticed whenever I switch on Cricinfo to check the score they lost a wicket. So this time I am staying away from the internet.

The Wannabe TV Analyst

They should send Tamim Iqbal one down. He is protected from the new ball and can build an innings. Nasir Hossain should work on his leg side shots. He has a good off side pickup swivel, but has problem with the footwork in execute his leg glance. He needs to get his eye behind the ball.

The Whitewashed

Did anyone catch Manchester United's latest game? Cricket ... nah, I don't watch that. It's so boring.

The Religious

Ya Allah! I have fasted for three days and prayed twenty rakah nafil namaaz. Please give us a victory. Or at least one century. Ya Allah, if Tamim Iqbal scores 100 today, I will sacrifice one goat. Well, and if the team wins.

The Cynic

It's all fixed, I tell you. They have bought everybody. Every match is fixed.

Cricket World Cup 2015 Predictions

So another Cricket World Cup is upon us, starting on Valentine's Day Feb 14, 2015, and ending on March 29, 2015. Since cricket is my favourite sport, here's my predictions of the group stage.

POOL A
England, Australia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Afghanistan and Scotland

It's quite hard to see anyone other than England, Australia, Sri Lanka and New Zealand qualifying out of this pool - the only interest will be the order of the qualifiers, and whether Bangladesh will manage to lose to Afghanistan or Scotland.

Australia should top this pool. They are - well, they are Australia. They are in good form lately, have won all of their most recent matches and the only concern seem to be Clarke - their captain. Australia has genuine World Cup pedigree, and they are on home soil.

New Zealand should come second in the group. They have batsmen who are in form (actually, in dangerous form), bowlers who bowl with genuine pace and are led by a captain who's probably the best captain in the world at the moment. Expect their batsmen to run up tall scores and their bowlers to pummel the opposition. However, I think Australia has a hold over New Zealand, and will thus beat them in the group match to take the No.1 position in this pool.

Sri Lanka will come in third. They are a bit top heavy, and reliant heavily on a trio of experienced players who may find this World Cup one too many. I am all in favour of having experienced folk play in these high pressure tournaments, but Sri Lanka's younger batsmen have to chip in too, and they are not. Their bowling seems to be missing a genuine threat (see the way Zimbabwe defeated them in the warm up). They will lose to Australia and New Zealand, but will still beat England, so they will come out third.

England will make up the final qualifier out of this group. Their captain is out of form, they have a team of hit and miss players, they play in a more orthodox fashion when the rest of the world has embraced flair, and frankly, England are a boring team. They still have enough quality to outclass the Associates (and Bangladesh), but will lose to the others.

Bangladesh - well, what can I say about my team of no hopers. Frankly, they are the most useless Test team at the moment and I won't be shocked if they manage to lose ALL of their matches. Bowlers are out of form, batsman are out of form - and this seems to be an on going issue. See what I wrote about them in 2004.

Wow. B'desh has won a cricket match. Finally! Yes, it was against Hong Kong, yes, they are amateurs, and yes, we could only score around 220 for 9. But what the hell, we ... BLOODY... WON!!!
 
Ofcourse the commentators were all praising Hong Kong's pluck, but me thinks sometimes B'desh is underestimated. They are good, just not good enough to knock off the bigger powers, but definitely there ahead of the non-test, and definitely now Zim and Windies are on the same rung. Here's hoping they do tonite to Pak what they way back did in 1999. Ah, one can always dream.

It seems, 11 years on, nothing has changed.

Afghanistan and Scotland make up the pool, and while they have enough pluck, they will need a lot of luck to knock out any of the top 4. For them, a victory or two will be enough to have a good World Cup.

POOL B
South Africa, West Indies, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Ireland, United Arab Emirates

Now this is the more exiting pool. I can genuinely see South Africa, India and Pakistan easily qualify. The fourth team is going to be interesting. While it seems more or less likely that West Indies will make it, their unpredictability, and the strong performances of Ireland and Zimbabwe in recent times, might point to a shock.

South Africa should top the pool. And when I say should, I mean they probably will. Remember, they only start chocking once the group stages are done. They have batsmen in form, the world's best fast bowler and a dynamic fielding team. The pitches in Australia and New Zealand should suit their style of play. However, they won't win ALL of their matches.

This is an interesting pool because of Pakistan as well. They are completely unpredictable, but they are my dark horses for this tournament. I fully expect Pakistan to beat South Africa, and perhaps India, simply because Misbah is a good captain and Afridi seems to be on fire lately, and they have a decent team. So Pakistan will come in second in the group.

India should qualify third. They have been woefully out of form in Australia, and Rohit Sharma has scored his mandatory big score in between several small ones, and their main batting star is out of form. They will beat all the Associates and West Indies.

West Indies should make the fourth playoff position, but barely. They have the class and quality to beat anyone on their 'day', but their 'day's seem to be getting less and less frequent. They will be lucky to just hold off Ireland and Zimbabwe.

For Ireland and Zimbabwe, the games against each other and the ones against West Indies will be the ones they believe they can win. It will be an upset, but not that much of a shock, if one of them manages to qualify for the group stages in place of West Indies.

UAE - why are you even here?

QUARTER FINALS LINE UP

South Africa vs. England

Pakistan vs. Sri Lanka

India vs. New Zealand

West Indies vs. Australia

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.

A Family Jummah, and Thoughts on the Women's Mosque

So this Friday I was off work, and visiting my parents. It was the time for the Friday (Jummah) prayer, and my dad asked me where I wanted to go.

 

Now my parents are lucky to live in a place that is quite close to two of the greatest mosques in Toronto. Each one is quite active in the community (fundraising for the local hospitals, for example), has reputed scholars on their roster, and is quite well managed and transparent in accountability. There is, however, one crucial difference. The first mosque has a segregated Jummah, where the main prayer hall is for men only and women pray in the gym or on the second floor (a much smaller space).

 

The second mosque, or IIT (as it is more popularly known), has a main auditorium doubling as a Jummah prayer space, and there are no barriers or separate sections for the women - everyone prays in the same space. Everyone can equally see the imam and speakers.



 

 

 

So this Friday we went to the IIT - and I realized why I loved coming to this mosque for Jummah as opposed to the other mosque.

 

The khutbah (speech) was about finding the balance in life. It was a very important, pertinent and difficult topic to speak on, but the soft spoken speaker did full justice to it. He told about how important it is to have a proper work life balance, and spend quality time with our family. He expanded on each person's roles in this - the father, the husband, the mother, the wife, the mistakes we make, the Prophetic examples and so on.

 

Now it might be a coincidence, but whenever I have attended IIT, most of their main topics for the khutbahs have been about strengthening the bonds of family, relationships, responsibilities in our community and so on. Most of the time the speeches have been very focused, and addressed to the layman, and practical, rather than an esoteric speech about some abstract theoretical concept.

 

It is just my theory, and I have no facts to back it up, but I think the fact that this is a family prayer space, rather than a men only prayer space, has a lot to do with the culture of a mosque and its community and its imam. You cannot be a misogynist, and give a khutbah making fun of the character of women, when they are RIGHT THERE staring at you in the face. Similarly, you cannot be giving speeches continuously on pie-in-the-sky topics when families are right there, and you know of their problems and you see them as a whole (not just the man) in front of you.

 

There is another big difference between the two mosques, and it's in the community. The speaker of the other mosque once actually said in a Friday speech not to bring little kids to the mosque. Apparently there's some hadith or other about this. Now I asked him several times on Twitter about this but I have had no response. This actually runs contrary to most of seerah lectures we listen to - about how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prayed in the mosque while his grand children played there.

 

When kids are being brought to the mosque, they are relegated to the women's section where they run around and create a chaos (being confined in a small space where they can't even see the imam or the main congregation can make you like that). Whereas, at IIT, I saw people bring their little kids to the Friday prayers. Some sat with their fathers, others with their mothers. I hardly saw any kid misbehave, and people smiled at some little children who were running around oblivious to the prayer.

 

Now my wife has been to both mosques and she agrees with me as well that the other mosque's community is less accepting as a safe space. First of all, apparently the women's section has these 'aunties' who are self-appointed guardians of purity. They attack any woman they see as less Islamic than them:

 

"Sister! Your hair is showing!" or "Sister! You should wear some loose clothes!" or "Sister! Pray like this! Not like this!"

 

Everyone seemed more concerned at the appearance of how Islamic you are rather than leaving you alone.

 

Whereas the people of IIT in general were much more refined, relaxed, polite, sophisticated and accepting.

 

Now I am not mentioning the name of the other mosque (if you live here you can guess) as it does a LOT of good work, especially in the community - such as running a food bank, a soup kitchen, inter faith etc. So I don't want this one aspect to distract from their other good work, especially sticking firmly to some fiqh principles such as not using zakat money for the mosque, relying on proper moon sighting than calculations, etc. However, it's not what I would call a family mosque. It's a man's mosque with a woman's section.

 

Thoughts on the Women's Mosque in California

 

You may have heard or read about Women's only mosque that is now being run out of an interfaith centre in California. This is what I think about it.

 

I am happy to see that right now they have made all efforts to stick to orthodox Islamic positions on most fiqh aspects. It's not an inter-gender mixed prayer led by a female - it's a female only prayer service. Yes, there were some concerns on if a Jummah is valid if it's only women, but I leave that for the scholars. Right now there is a concentrated effort to work with the broader Muslim community, and that's nice to see. On another note, if mosques continuously undermine their women congregants, they shouldn't be surprised when women take matters into their own hands.

 

So for now, I don't have any issues so far, but this is something we can keep an eye on. There are some people who want to use these sort of issues as a wedge issue in the community, and perhaps push their own so-called "progressive agenda", but it would be unfair to comment on the Women's mosque right now because nothing like that has happened yet.

 

What I would hope, and pray for, is that most mosques take this initiative as a lesson, and rectify themselves, so that rather than fighting over a man's mosque or a woman's mosque, we can make the mosque a family (community) mosque.

Shopping with my toddler son

I am at Walmart with my two-and-half-year old son when he picks up a Thomas toy.

Me: Please put it back. I am not paying for it.

Son: Why?

Me: You already have a lot of Thomas toys.

Son: What if I pay for it?

Me [laughing]: How will you pay for it? You have no money!

Son: I have mommy!

Why Target Failed in Canada

The big news in North American retail this week was Target pulling out of Canada, shutting all of their 133 stores, and putting about 17,600 employees out of work. Now I, like many Canadians, loved to shop at Target whenever we were in the USA. When Target initially announced it was expanding to Canada, like many Canadians I was very excited. Yet, that excitement of many Canadians could not prevent Target from being a colossal failure here.

[image credit: CBC]

Why did Target fail, when another US retail giant, Walmart, succeeded? Now I am not a business expert, even though I play one on TV in this blog, but with my MBA knowledge, let me give my own reasoning, as a Canadian consumer.

1. Canada is not USA
   
   Target just opened north of the border, without seemingly doing any appropriate research as to what will and won't work in Canada. They just thought a city in Canada was like any other American city. Even those that travel rarely will tell you despite the language and customs, Canadians and Americans are really foreigners to each other. For example, Canadians don't mind travelling to many places on one trip to get what they want, while Americans are more of a one-stop-shopping mentality. Many other mistakes, such as importing winter jackets that worked in the mild winters of USA, but would not work in Canada, and watching them languish on the shelves, were also committed.
2. Target is not Walmart
   
   Canadians loved Target because it offered merchandise that wasn't found in Walmart or other places in the USA. The USA, being a bigger market, often had a larger selection and variety than Canadian retailers. The "Target experience", for Canadians, was going on something akin to a 'treasure hunt' and finding good deals - merchandise that was a cut above the Walmart and others, while being competitively priced. When Target opened in Canada, they just tried to be another Walmart. Their selection was nothing like the selection in Target stores in the US, and their pricing was way, way higher than the US prices. People wanted the "Target experience" in Canadian Target that they enjoyed in the US, and they didn't get that. What they got was another Walmart, just red in colour. Well, if I want Walmart, I will just go to Walmart.
3. Target opened in locations where the doomed Zellers had been
   
   Zellers was a doomer retailer that had failed across Canada. It had been a staple of the Canadian retail market ever since I was here. When Zellers failed, Target bought those locations and opened a Target there. So in effect they chose a location that didn't work for the previous retailer, and tried to make it work for them. And as they say, location matters. For a customer in Scarborough, Toronto, the nearest location was outside of Scarborough - and that's a huge area. I have three Walmarts within five minutes - for a Target I would have to drive 20 minutes. And still Target had 133 stores open. That tells me they had too many stores open, spread too wide - when perhaps the better strategy would have been to concentrate on one target (one city or one province) and then expand organically while they iron out their problems (kind of like how Walmart had operated in the last 20 years).
4. They did not have IT
   
   Information Technology. Target did not have a website for Canada. Whoever didn't think this was important should be fired ten times over. If I wanted to check whether an item was in stock at my nearby Walmart, I could do so. Not so for Target. Moreover, IT means strict control over your inventory, pricing and stocking of shelves (you are a retailer after all). I remember going to a Target and seeing a bunch of empty shelves (where were the goods), and then another where the most popular items were all sold out (where is your inventory) and the items that were there, were more expensive than Walmart or ToysRUs.

And finally, they exit strategy says a lot about why Target is no. 2 and Walmart is no. 1. Walmart too faced significant challenges initially in Canada but they persevered, adapted and prospered. Target chose to flee. Now I don't have access to all of their numbers, but if I was the CEO, I would try closing the unsuccessful stores only, and concentrating on a smaller but more successful stores, and then trying to grow organically.
 

PK The Movie, Religion and Islam

This blog post will discuss the Bollywood movie PK and the religious points it raises. Spoiler alert: while I do not give out the plot details, if you are going to see the movie and haven't yet, do not read any further - come back after you have seen the movie.

The Aamir Khan starrer Bollywood movie PK [trailer] has grossed Rs 500 crore worldwide, and inching towards Rs 600 crore. There are indications it may even cross $100 million worldwide - it is already on its way to become the most successful Bollywood movie of all time. There are now violent Hindu protests in India against the movie, despite its popularity.

I watched PK last night. Someone I met at a party told me, "Oh, this movie is against Hinduism. We Muslims can watch it, no problem." After watching the movie, I can say that it's a very well made, intelligent, and entertaining movie. If there is one actor whose movies are consistently a bar above the rest, it's Aamir Khan.

PK also raises certain points against religion, and this is what I want to discuss. Even though the main villain of the movie is a Hindu godman, the target of the movie seems to be organized religion as a whole, despite what the makers of the movie say.

First of all, let's me say what the movie gets absolutely right.

If you are a devoted Hindu, or you worship idols, you cannot help but be rankled by the way the movies shows up your beliefs. The very concept that man worships a stone, a statue that he himself created with his own hands, is richly lampooned in the movie. Superstitions that any intelligent man should laugh at are held in high extreme by idol worshippers and pagans, and this is mocked too in the movie.

PK also takes aim at the way the caretakers of temples and majars and other holy places seem to ask for money all the time and say "your work will be done" (God's guarantee!). The seemingly absurd steps sometimes devotees take to make sure their prayer will be answered (such as crawling on your knees across some steps) is shown up to the foolishness it is (as per the movie). There is a scene where Aamir Khan participates in the Shia ritual of Matam. The more extreme Shia practice self flagellation with knives and blades, drawing blood from their bodies [News article with graphic content]. Is there any point to all of that? Some devoted Shia Muslims may say this makes them commiserate with the suffering of Imam Hussain but there is no place for such self abuse in (Sunni) Islam. Self flagellation is a ritual imported into Shiaism from some orders of Christianity that also practice this to commemorate the crucifixion of Christ.

These practices that have crept in religion and are basically a front from men acting in the name of God to collect money are rightly depicted in PK as an affront to the true worship of God. I must also say that the movie makes its point in a very entertaining manner, with songs, comic sequences and thoughtful scenes, and rarely takes on a sermonizing tone. It encourages you to think.

Now let's come to where the movie gets some things wrong, especially when you think from an Islamic point of view.

In the movie's climax scene, the main eponymous character makes clear that he is not against God, but what man has made God to be - in other words, organized religion. Islam, Judaism, Christianity are all lumped in along with Hinduism as "organized religion", and therefore a problem.

Now when atheists who are from a Christian society (such as Richard Dawkins) criticize Islam, they make analogies of Islamic theology from a Christian viewpoint, when there are major theological differences between the two. Similarly, when religious practices, customs and rituals of a pagan, idol worshipping society such as India are being lampooned, we cannot lump Hinduism, a polytheistic religion in the same bucket as monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity.

By and large, the superstitions, religious practices, customs of Hinduism aren't common to Islam or Christianity. Yes, some practices such as venerating the graves of holy saints and asking them for prayers rather than Allah, charms and amulets have crept in to desi Islam, but overall Muslims (and Christians) look at prayers, nature of evil, Judgement, destiny and others differently from Hindus. A Hindu man may stand in line with a coconut for two hours and give a few rupees to the temple and the priest will tell him his job is done, and he will believe it. Yet no Muslim cleric of repute can make that guarantee for anyone. For us we don't go through a priest or a medium, our communication is directly to God. And we understand that prayers, while never being rejected, are not always answered the way we want. Perhaps this is why it was easier for PK to make fun of Hinduism and the Hindu godmen, rather than Islam or Christianity since they have fewer of these "silly" rituals.

PK also states about how religion has caused a lot of bloodshed in the world. While this sounds nice to hear and seems a solid argument, a simple count will prove it false. Europe has killed more people since they abandoned religious governments (since secularization and Reformation of the 1800s and the Industrial revolution). Before the religious wars were limited to Europe and they didn't kill as many in numbers. Ever since colonization and the 20th century, the wars have become more and more bloody. Where was religion in the 2nd World War? Vietnam? Iraq War 1? Iraq War 2? Panama? Falklands? What about the ethnic conflicts around the world - such as Rwanda? Was it a religious war?

PK also raises some deep questions that philosophers have debated for eons - such as the nature of evil and why does God, if He is Merciful, allow evil to exist? It seems to indicate a belief that we (all of us) have God wrong. Now I can only answer that from an Islamic point of view, and I will point you to an excellent speech (of around 20 minutes) by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi discussing some of these points.

The movie also shows complete disregard for followers actually following the rules of their religion. It seems to tie in with its theme that religion itself is bad and if we only get rid of organized religion itself humanity would prosper. This is shown by a couple who have premarital relations (banned in both of their religions) and marry each other (again not allowed by their religious laws). There are grounds for which some people are upset at PK!

So, overall, what do I make of the movie? It's a good movie, for sure. It has a few scenes (brief nudity, off screen sex being depicted) that can prevent it from being a clean experiences, but over all is a good movie with a good script, entertains and causes one to laugh, and manages to raise some questions we can all think about.

Do you want to pray?

I was just about to start my prayer as I laid out the prayer mat. My toddler son Yusuf was watching me.

So I turned to him and asked, "Yusuf! Do you want to pray?"

Yusuf carefully considered my question, and then replied, "No Abbu! You pray! I play."

House of Bengal

Opening a restaurant in Toronto that caters to Bangladeshi cuisine in a sophisticated setting is a tricky business. There's not enough Bangladeshis (there's a lot, but not enough) that can comprise a good market, and the general people of Toronto are more familiar with Indian and Pakistani cuisine than Bangladeshi food. Yet, I believe, with the right amount of marketing, location, and most importantly food, it can be done.

On Saturday night my brother and I had the pleasure of dining at the House of Bengal, which bills itself as "the only South Asian restaurant in the GTA specializing in Bangladeshi cuisine", on the Danforth. Now strictly speaking, this isn't true, of course. There's a bunch of restaurants on "Little Bangladesh" (the stretch of Danforth between Victoria Park and Woodbine) that serve Bangladeshi food. However, they are mostly cheap mom-and-pop establishments, usually for takeout, and hardly have an ambience that you can take a date too. House of Bengal has developed a "buzz" on social media, and billed itself as a more upscale take on Bangladeshi food; hence we were eager to try it out.

Parking
The only parking available is street parking. I was told there is parking at the back of the building as well, but I couldn't find it. We went at 7 pm on a Saturday evening, and we managed to get a parking spot very easily on the street directly opposite the restaurant (and pay parking is enforced till 6 pm there, so parking was free). The restaurant is more easily accessible via public transit, with Woodbine Station being the closest subway stop.

Décor and Ambience
The House of Bengal hasn't officially opened yet, but it's having what is known as a soft opening. They are still testing out operations, procedures and facilities, with many of their clientele coming via word of mouth or through targeted Facebook promotions.

My brother and I had the pleasure of dining with Yawar Amin, whose brother is one of the owners of the restaurant. Throughout our stay, the owner popped in quite a few times to talk to us, and ask about our meal, and we also met one of his co-owners, an Arab man (who was cooking Bengali food!), and who also decorated the interior of the restaurant. The customer service was excellent throughout. I value customer service very highly - you can often eat at home what you are eating out, what makes the difference is the customer service and ambience.

The restaurant is decorated very nicely, with a contemporary ambience to it, and yes - that's a Surface computer on a table if you have to wait during busy times. At 7 pm on a Saturday night, I would estimate the restaurant to be about 40% full, which wasn't bad for a place that just opened up literally a few days ago.

The restaurant was split into the general dining section, like any other restaurant, with tables and chairs, but also had a "lounge" section. A projector displayed Bollywood and Bengali song videos on a wall at the end of the lounge. I was told that this area is also planned for use for live performances in the future, if needed.

We dined in the regular section.

Food
What drew us to House of Bengal was the promise of Bangladeshi food in a more upscale setting. We were curious to see what it would be. When we were seated, the owner told us the food was more of a fusion of Bangladeshi food and Arabic style of cooking, since some of the owners were also Arab.

I should add that shisha is also available at this time at the House of Bengal, but I didn't try it, and I didn't see anyone try it while we were there either. This might be an issue if you want to bring kids to the restaurant.

Any desi establishment has special drinks and House of Bengal was no different. Their beverages, such as the Lemon Mint Tea, or the Mango Lassi, come supersized (something that I approve - you often pay a lot for say a lassi at a regular desi establishment only to get a small glass of it).

We were given a menu, but we were also told since the restaurant was trying out various combinations in the soft opening, the menu wasn't exactly in sync with what was on offer, and also didn't match up to the website. I was looking to see if they had some Bangladeshi seafood dish on offer, but on the owner's recommendation we ordered a kebab platter, which comes with a beef skewer and pieces of chicken breast kebab, some chutney and raita, as well as a small plate of white rice.

The kebabs were flavourful without being spicy. I also liked the fact that they didn't seem too oily, and actually preferred the beef skewer over the chicken.

We also ordered mutton biryani, which was served in a clay pot. It reminded me of a restaurant I had eaten at in Old Dhaka, near Laal Baagh. The biryani carried that Bangladeshi food / Arabic twist fusion concept; it wasn't spicy, but it was definitely flavorful and tasty, and definitely something different compared to the usual Indian/Pakistani biryani. It's not kacchi biryani though.

As for the food, if you go to the House of Bengal, you have to try their biryani. It's what I would call their signature dish, and it is pretty good. The biryani is a bit pricey, but if you order it, I would recommend ordering it with the garnishing (raisins and nuts) as well. It's just about big enough for two people to share (or one really hungry person!).

We also ordered a side of vegetables to go along with it (again, I missed it on the menu, but went on the owner's suggestion). And finally, it was time for dessert, and we ordered some rasmalai.

This was pretty much the best sweet / dessert dish I have eaten in a while - and as you can see their presentation was pretty awesome as well.

Cost
Our whole meal cost us about $15 per person. This isn't bad at all for a weekend dining. If you are bringing a date to the House of Bengal, I would recommend the biryani, and kebab rolls in paratha (not the platter), and mango lassi for the same cost, all to share.

Overall
The House of Bengal made a positive impression. It was clean, upscale, and the food was decent. I could definitely see it as becoming a "hip" or "trendy" place for young desi folks, especially Bangladeshi youth, to gather. The availability of shisha make its "cooler", and a more happening place.

If I have to suggest room for improvement before their "official" grand opening next year, it would be to have more Bangladeshi dishes, especially some type of seafood. There's a whole bunch of restaurants all over Toronto that have biryani and kebab, and often much cheaper too. If the House of Bengal has something unique going for it - it's the Bengaliness of it. So I would concentrate on kacchi biryani, ilish (Hilsha, boneless), bhuna chingri and other Bengali treats.

Would I go again? Yes, definitely, but I am older, and have a kid - so House of Bengal would be reserved for when it's just my wife and I, and we are in the mood for Bangladeshi fare. So do definitely go and try it out, and if you do, let me know what you think of it via the comments section.

Location
House of Bengal
2183 Danforth Ave.,
Toronto, ON M4C 1K4
Tel: 416-546-6647

Junaid Jamshed, Blasphemy and Misogyny

So Junaid Jamshed, the famous former-singer-turned-preacher from Pakistan is now in trouble. One short clip from one of his many lectures has now gone viral. Here, Jamshed recounts a story that happened to Aisha and her husband the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Aisha was the favourite of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and would always try to seek his attention. One day she decided to fake illness by wrapping a towel around her head.

“What happened, what happened?” inquired Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“Ah, my head is bursting with pain!” she complained.

To which, he said, “Oh Aisha, if you were to pass away, the Prophet of God would personally offer your funeral prayers. How fortunate would you be!”

She stood up at once and raged, “This is what you ardently desire - that I die, so you could spend more time with your other wives!”

Jamshed goes on to say that the nature of women cannot be changed even by Prophet.

Now apparently this is a blasphemy as per Pakistani laws. A blasphemy against the character of Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, may Allah be pleased with her.

First of all, I don't think the story is correct. I remember reading about this particular incident, and it happened during the last few days of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was sick, he was on his deathbed, and he entered the room of his beloved wife Aisha. She too had fallen sick, and she was complaining "My head! My head!". So then he told her, "Nay! It is I who has to cry my head! My head!"

And then Aisha complained, "Ah, my head is bursting with pain!”

To which, he replied with tenderness, “Oh Aisha, if you were to pass away, the Prophet of God would personally offer your funeral prayers. How fortunate would you be!”

And then she playfully gave the reply, "And that is what you want! After you bury me, you will return to the house and spend your time with another wife!"

The story completely changes here - rather than someone seeking attention and pretending to be sick, this is a story of a loving back-and-forth between a couple who are comfortable and romantic with each other. It's a beautiful story of love.

So Jamshed, in an attempt to portray the allegedly "frivolous and fragile nature of women that even the Prophet couldn't change", twisted this story around to make Aisha an attention seeking woman.

Second, even if we give Jamshed his version of the story (which is wrong), is it blasphemy? The people around the Prophet, such as members of his own family, were human after all. They all had human failings. Sauda, his second wife, once made a comment after the Battle of Badr that the Prophet corrected, as it was a comment of Jahiliyyah. There was an anti-Semitic comment directed once at his wife Safiyya bint Huyayy, who was of Jewish origin, by another wife - which he also corrected. It is not blasphemy to say the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sometimes made minor human mistakes for which they were forgiven by Allah, and which serve as examples for us.

And finally, are we so caught up on what Junaid Jamshed said about Aisha, that we completely ignore his sustained record of misogyny and disrespect towards women?

Now I first saw Junaid Jamshed when he came to Muslimfest in 2011.

He gave some speeches and talked about a few incidents from the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), sang some nasheeds and closed of with Dil Dil Pakistan, which the crowd loved. He repeated the act every time he was invited to Muslimfest subsequently. One could be forgiven for thinking he is a scholar of the seerah or someone who has studied extensively on religion.

Here is an interview where he is telling men not to teach their wives driving. He is praising himself for not teaching his wife (coincidentally also named Aisha) driving, and he tells men that one good thing they will do is not let their wives drive. The interviewer then asks what if a woman has no one to drive her (her husband has died and she has no relatives to help her out or they are busy), is she to remain helpless and not drive. To which Jamshed of course has no answer but then says this is just a hypothetical situation and he doesn't answer hypotheticals.

Jamshed of course has done a lot of good and called a lot of people to Islam. We can take the good from him and ignore the bad. But let's call out the bad - the misogyny and the shaming of women. In the offending video, for which he is now charged with blasphemy, he goes on about the nature of women.

He is of course a product of his culture and Pakistani culture isn't one where a woman is empowered. But that is of course not Islamic culture, and today we have forgotten that. The average Muslim has outsourced the religion to these pseudo-scholars and ignored learning of their own religion and history. it used to be that Islamic scholars were experts in both science and religion, and were the smartest of the class. Today, it's usually the low achievers and failures of the class that are hustled into the madrassahs and religious schools. So when these scholars say something bogus (such as woman cannot drive), then the average (and now) ignorant Muslim doesn't have the knowledge to fact check this. And when these scholars are given to positions of power (a sign of the Last Days), they make laws to that effect. So religion, rather than becoming a solution, is now the problem.

Our religion and culture is one that produced Umm Salamah, who set out on a camel to travel alone from Makkah to Madinah. It has Nusaibah, a woman who took the oath of Aqabah and fought in the Battle of Uhud with a sword, and fought in subsequent battles after. Our history includes Khawla bint Thalabah, whose complaint against her husband was heard by Allah and is mentioned in Surah Mujadilah, and whom the Caliph Umar used to listen to respectfully as she lectured him on Islam.

Let us not use the hullaballoo over a stupid blasphemy law in Pakistan (which is used mostly to settle scores with minorities and make their lives miserable - a sad fact of history in Pakistan) to excuse the bigger problem at play - the misogyny in the culture that holds back half the population and forces on them a false understanding of male privilege in the guise of religion.

Erdoğan and Women

I am reading up on what exactly the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said that is so offensive to women, and have to admit much of it isn't (some, yes).

• He bemoaned the fact that women in rural Anatolia do much of the manual labour while their husbands "play cards in the local coffee house".
• He said Islam requires the men to provide for the family, not the women.
• He said women are not the same as men (note: this is translated as "equal", but doesn't mean the same thing).
• He advised women to have at least three children.
• He said a true believer of Islam will never commit a violence against women.
• He said Paradise lies under a mother's feet.

So what exactly is offensive? He didn't try to outlaw abortion again (he tried it once and failed), he never tried to outlaw women's employment, he never tried to outlaw women's education (in fact his party repealed the law that banned headscarves in universities which empowered more women to seek education, and similarly they repealed the ban on headscarves in Parliament so now more conservative women are now MPs).

Yes, some words of what he said ("women are more suited for home because of their delicate bodies") smacks of patriarchy and is offensive. But actions speak louder and Turkey has grown in leaps and bounds (men and women) under his leadership. When the "secular" army banned observant Muslim women from campuses, Parliament and other government institutions I did not hear of any feminist being offended, so stop being hypocritical now.

A Visit to Ripley's Aquarium of Toronto

Ripley's Aquarium of Canada is a large exhibit located in downtown Toronto, just south of the CN Tower.

I had taken a day's vacation, and we decided to pay the aquarium a visit. We had heard a lot about the aquarium, mostly from friends who had been, and seen their fun pictures on Facebook. Everyone had always commented on how busy it was - so when I had an off day during the middle of the week, we decided to go.

It was a Tuesday, and we were lucky it wasn't busy at all. We could afford to go through the exhibits at our own pace, and take pictures. With a toddler in tow, this was vital.

The aquarium has over 5.7 million litres of marine and freshwater habitats from across the world, and holds over 13,000 animals, from more than 450 species.

This large tank reminded me of an aquarium in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, but the Toronto tank was much, much bigger. What was interesting was that there was some sort of waves inside the tank, and even the tall plants swayed to and fro.

There were lots of exotic creatures on display, many of them not even fishes. We saw lobsters, crabs, sea horses and so on. Even these sea anemones had their own exhibit.

 

One of my favourite exhibits was the Rainbow Reef, featuring animals from the Indo-Pacific region. This was the most colourful gallery in the exhibit, and pictures don't do the vibrancy of the colours justice.

 

I seriously could spend hours photographing each species in this tank - this was so colourful! Here's a photography tip: if you want to photograph aquariums, dress in black. There's no reflection and you can photograph with the lens pressed against the glass. I learned this from one of my photography classes.

 

The largest tank in the aquarium is the Dangerous Lagoon, which featured an underwater tunnel with a moving side walk.

 



A favourite of every visitor, this exhibit featured sharks, and lots of them. There were even stingrays to whet your appetite.

Of course nowadays no aquarium is complete without featuring fish from Finding Nemo.

Truly it is amazing, and humbling, to think of the vast variety of life that is found in just the waters of Earth. And it is a shame that we have folks who don't even care about pollution, or the effects of their lifestyle on the ocean. I was reminded of this verse in the Quran:

Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea  [as an outcome of] what the hands of people have  wrought;  so He may let them taste part of [the evil of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness]. - 30:41

Indeed nowadays the results of our actions and our pollutions have started to affect the sea and fisheries - it is indeed alarming.

One of the cool things about Ripley's that I haven't seen elsewhere are numerous tunnels that allow you "into" the tank, so as to speak, and come face to face with a creature.

While not the biggest, the Planet Jellies exhibit has colour changing displays with five different species of jellyfish. It was just fun to sit around and try to capture these animals on the camera with a different light shining on them.

Overall, while I enjoyed my visit to the aquarium (and definitely my 2 year old son had more fun than me, walking and running all over and saying 'hi' to the 'fisheeees'), I have also visited aquariums all over the world. Particularly the Shedd aquarium in Chicago comes to mind. While the Toronto aquarium has more species and more tanks, the Chicago aquarium felt more .. grand. For $30+ with taxes, the Ripley's aquarium feels small in comparison. It took us about 2.5 hours to go through the aquarium at a leisurely pace.

I would put the Ripley's Aquarium as a must visit for any tourist to Toronto, but only if you haven't been to aquariums in Chicago or Atlanta. If you have been to one aquarium, they are all the same. It's a nice 3 hours to spend with your children though.

PS. Why was there no seafood restaurant inside the aquarium? I thought that would have been .. fitting.

Love Astaghfirullah

I just read this piece on Love Inshallah.

The Single Girl's Survival Guide for Desi Weddings
http://loveinshallah.com/2014/10/08/desi-surivival-guide/

Remember, these are the same folks that raised a huge ruckus when I said women (and men) in Islam should marry early, and there's nothing wrong if you set criteria (such as looks, age etc.) as long as you put piety first.

Now, remember that was my view, and I would like to think it's also the Islamic view (marry early). Some of these women replied on how un-Islamic that was, what was wrong with desi marriage itself, what was wrong with me etc. They kept bringing up the example of Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) - how I wish they would really read up on her! There was even a disrespectful twitter hashtag going around ‪#‎whatwouldkhadijado‬ if you can believe it.

Now go ahead and read this lady's post.

The world she is describing is an alien world to me.

A world where desi uncles and aunties are the chief enemy. A world where a woman is content with random dates and marriage is far down the priority list. A world where women are so insecure they clutch their husbands possessively (her words, not mine). A world where you can take a fake date to a wedding. A world where you share a magical "first" kiss a dozen times over with dudes who may not figure in your life after that one day.

It's fine if you want to live in that world. It may even fit your social values fine. Just don't call it "Islamic". And don't bring up the name of Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) when you want to justify your lifestyle.

A Factual Argument on Eid ul Adha

Many people (especially those with a socialist / progressive mindset) start posting articles during the time of Eid ul Adha on how cruel this Eid is, the bloodbath that is animal sacrifice and why we should "reconsider animal sacrifice" or give "blankets to Syria", and so on. Here is my humble take on it.

 

1. Millions of animals are slaughtered just for Eid ul Adha. This is a barbaric practice.

 

Simple facts should be presented here. According to US Dept. of Agriculture, 45 million turkeys are killed in US alone on Thanksgiving every year. In the US in 2010, 10.2 billion animals were raised to be slaughtered as food (202 million of these were cows or pigs - mammals). So Eid is hardly the leader in numbers of animals slaughtered that many are making it out to be.

 

There's 1 billion Muslims. If you say 50% of these can afford to sacrifice an animal (an unusually high estimate, really!), and there's 4 people to a family, that's still only 125 million animals killed for  Eid (less than number of mammals slaughtered just in US /year) . And also take into account that it's 7 shares per cow, and the number of animals slaughtered just for Eid pales in comparison to just the regular slaughter of turkeys in US alone for Thanksgiving. So we can safely say:

 

More turkeys are slaughtered in US for Thanksgiving than animals in the whole of the Muslim world for Eid.

 

2. The slaughter of Eid animals happen in a cruel manner. They are transported in highly constrained spaces and killed in an inhumane manner.

 

All developed countries have slaughter houses where slaughter of animals happen in a humane fashion, following the law, and the process is monitored by the government and all meat is inspected by the appropriate authority. The same is true of all of the Gulf Arab countries, Malaysia, Turkey etc. Muslims living in the West, as well as these countries, therefore slaughter animals in a humane and proper method.

 

This leaves us poorer countries such as Bangladesh, Egypt etc. The fact that inhumane slaughter happens here is not being denied, but it is not an Eid or Muslim specific problem, it is a social economic problem. And numbers wise, it is (far) less than the number of animals slaughtered properly in the developed world.

 

It should also be remembered, many of the sheep and lamb to be slaughtered (even in poor Muslim countries) comes from New Zealand where they have been raised following the law.

 

3. It is better to give charity to Syria or feed the poor than to sacrifice an animal meaninglessly.

 

You can do whatever acts of charity you wish. Charity is good for you and it is good for your wealth and health. However, no charity can take the place of a religiously mandated act of ritual that is part of this Eid. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) always performed an animal sacrifice on Eid, and it is accepted by most Islamic scholars as sunnah muakkadah (a strongly recommended sunnah). Hanifis consider it wajib (almost obligatory).

 

Also, consider this. The animal sacrifice is not a mere “tradition” or "ritual", but it is a commandment from Allah.

 

“Whoever can afford to offer a sacrifice but does not do so, let him not approach our place or prayer.” [hadith in Musnad Ahmad and Ibn Majah.]

 

“Turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice to Him alone.” [Surah al-Kausar; 108:2]

 

No one is denying the need for charity, but this is one day many poor folks look forward to as they know they can eat meat on this day.

 

4. I disagree with Big Farming practices and think animal husbandry and livestock is not an ecologically sustainable practice.

 

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not eat meat often, but he was not a vegetarian. His favourite meat was the shank of a lamb. Eating meat is part of the sunnah, just as eating in moderation, not eating to your fill, and eating meat sparingly, etc.

 

A vegetarian can be a Muslim, as it is not fard (obligatory) to eat meat. But it cannot be denied that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ate meat. What is needed is for people to work together to reform Big Farm practices and find a sustainable, economically viable and morally ethical alternative farming practices - and this again is a social problem that has nothing to do with Islam or Eid.