Ramadan in places where the sun does not set

Ramadan is a period, around this time of the year, when Muslims are supposed to fast during daylight and eat when the sun sets. (And fasting means eating nothing and drinking nothing, not even water or beer.) That's supposed to be a religious duty commanded by god. The issue is this however: In Uppsala, the sun hardly sets these days and further north it does not set at all.

So there is a problem. Clearly,  if they eat nothing at all they'll get sick or die. So they came up with new rules. See here and here:

Mohammed Kharaki, a spokesman for Sweden's Islamic Association, said the organisation had this week issued guidelines that said Muslims should fast between the times that the sun was last clearly seen to rise and fall - despite this concession, this could well amount to a 19-hour fast.

Sure, one would argue, they had to come up with something. But could they not come up with the obvious fact that there is a contradiction?

Clearly, the author of the "holy" books that tell people to fast during daylight and eat when it's dark did not know that there were places on the planet where the sun does not set. (For all I know, he could very well be under the impression that the Earth was flat.) The claim is that the author of these books is supposed to be god, who, by the way, is omniscient. So we have a contradiction.

So, instead of realizing that this contradiction leads to the obvious conclusion that the author of the books is not omniscient, they decided to change the rules.

But this is the nature of religion: regardless of the amount of evidence against its tenets, religion will not accept any contradictions. In fact, the larger the amount of contradictions religious folk are faced with, the stronger their belief. This, in my opinion, is the most fundamental aspect (perhaps the defining aspect) of religion.

The Uppsala mosque, picture taken from the Independent

Alcohol in Sweden

Alcohol in Sweden is very much restricted. There is only one company, Systembolaget, from which one can buy alcohol. And it only opens certain days, excluding Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Also, their prices are extremely high and the selection limited in quantity and in quality (which is to be expected if there is a monopoly). I'm being told that things are good now because, in the not-so-distant past, that company was allowed to be open only one day per week, resulting in huge queues consisting of people taking time off work in order to buy their wine.

The company claims that the only reason they exist is because they care about people's health and they have conducted scientific researches to show that if the monopoly seized to exist then catastrophic things would occur. They present their case here in flash form. The page contains the whole scientific report too. Here are some of the "catastrophic" consequences that would result if the monopoly seized to exist. (Images are captures from their page.)

So? What's wrong in being able to buy alcohol in more places? And what's wrong in buying wine where I buy my food? I DO want both of them. But, according to Systembolaget, these are among the dire consequences of abolishing the monopoly. Totally absurd, isn't it?

In another place, they claim that

They don't explain, but, presumably they mean deaths occurring by drunk drivers. So, I suppose, they care about maintaining safety on the road. This is good. I am all for that. However, it's not entirely right that they care about safety. To wit, of all the countries I know, Sweden is the only one where you can drive your car and speak on your cell phone at the same time. It's ok for drivers to chat, text, whatever. It's funny how such an obviously dangerous activity is legal, while, at the same time, consumption of half a bottle of beer will get you into trouble while driving because the alcohol limit is zero. Although I'm not an expert in these things, I maintain that speaking on the cell phone, like many idiots around, is far more dangerous than having drank half a bottle of beer. This is, then, dishonesty.