A probing article providing some insight into the Sunni-Shi'ite rivalry in Iraq and beyond. I found it sad, dispiriting, and embarrassing that Muslims continue to slaughter fellow Muslims. Some will say religion or Islam is at fault... but is it really?
Islam explicitly forbids killing Muslims without reason, and also outlaws sectarianism. Yet, the killing continues as well as the division. Muslims are at fault for not following their Religion.
The secularists and atheists suggest that Islam and religion in general should be banned. Naturally, implementing universal atheism would be quite a tall order, indeed. What we should do, is ban sectarianism. From this point onward, no Muslim should be allowed to identify himself as Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Ismaili, or Salafi. The use of these terms, along with Takfiri, Safavi, Wahabbi, Deobandi, and others should be criminalized except for historical and academic purposes.
God's Law is God's Law. If we don't want to follow it in its entirety, why should we follow it at all?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Mutaa Marriages
An interesting story about the increasing use (and abuse) of temporary marriages in Iraq. In Islam, polygamy is allowed up to a limit of 4 wives per spouse, under the condition that the man is able to support the entire family and treat each wife fairly. Whether a person thinks polygamy is right or wrong, it was (and still is) a practical solution to a common social problem - the death of men in war.
In mutaa marriages, the man pays the temporary wife for the privilege only for the duration of the marriage. The mainly Shiite practice is said to lessen the hardship of women that have lost their husbands or potential mates to war. Children produced in such marriages are the responsibility of the father whose abandonment is discouraged upon pain of death.
Without much analysis, I feel that the practice is wrong. It smacks of prostitution. Paying a woman for sex is prostitution, no matter which way you slice it. As an anti-sectarian Muslim male, I nonetheless believe that those in this situation should adhere to the spirit of the Sharia by marrying fully (the Sunni position).
That's not to say that it isn't a difficult call, full of contradictions and hyporcrisy. Some in the West think prostitution is wrong, some think it should be legalized. Others lambaste Muslim men for divorcing their women. Catholics are against divorce all together. Others say divorce is one of the most important achievements of womens equality (Muslims have enjoyed this matrimonial recourse for 1400 years).
The Prophet Muhammad is smeared for allegedly marrying polygamously during the later part of his life (his first wife was 11 years his senior and his boss). Yet, in the Western culture, losing one's virginity in gradeschool is not uncommon, while having multiple girlfriends is seen as a sign of manlihood (studs, mac-daddy's).
Unlike the previous Western conflicts such as WWI and WWII, where most of the troops who perished were unmarried young men, many who have died in the "War on Terror" and in Iraq have been married 20 to 30-something men with young families. Should these women spend the rest of their lives as lonely widows? Should they pay for sex or remarry? And if they remarry, to whom? A new study shows that more than half of American women now live alone. Perhaps some sort of mutaa-like marriage could be of comfort to them, or maybe they prefer their independence or turn to lesbian relationships.
Its a strange world we live in where stable families are being outnumbered by single-parent homes, childless singles, gay marriages, and mutaa relationships. I don't know, call me old-fashioned but I don't see too many positives in this trend.
In mutaa marriages, the man pays the temporary wife for the privilege only for the duration of the marriage. The mainly Shiite practice is said to lessen the hardship of women that have lost their husbands or potential mates to war. Children produced in such marriages are the responsibility of the father whose abandonment is discouraged upon pain of death.
Without much analysis, I feel that the practice is wrong. It smacks of prostitution. Paying a woman for sex is prostitution, no matter which way you slice it. As an anti-sectarian Muslim male, I nonetheless believe that those in this situation should adhere to the spirit of the Sharia by marrying fully (the Sunni position).
That's not to say that it isn't a difficult call, full of contradictions and hyporcrisy. Some in the West think prostitution is wrong, some think it should be legalized. Others lambaste Muslim men for divorcing their women. Catholics are against divorce all together. Others say divorce is one of the most important achievements of womens equality (Muslims have enjoyed this matrimonial recourse for 1400 years).
The Prophet Muhammad is smeared for allegedly marrying polygamously during the later part of his life (his first wife was 11 years his senior and his boss). Yet, in the Western culture, losing one's virginity in gradeschool is not uncommon, while having multiple girlfriends is seen as a sign of manlihood (studs, mac-daddy's).
Unlike the previous Western conflicts such as WWI and WWII, where most of the troops who perished were unmarried young men, many who have died in the "War on Terror" and in Iraq have been married 20 to 30-something men with young families. Should these women spend the rest of their lives as lonely widows? Should they pay for sex or remarry? And if they remarry, to whom? A new study shows that more than half of American women now live alone. Perhaps some sort of mutaa-like marriage could be of comfort to them, or maybe they prefer their independence or turn to lesbian relationships.
Its a strange world we live in where stable families are being outnumbered by single-parent homes, childless singles, gay marriages, and mutaa relationships. I don't know, call me old-fashioned but I don't see too many positives in this trend.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Little Mosque On The Prairie
I caught the first episode of Zarqa Nawaz's CBC sitcom, "Little Mosque on The Praire." My initital impressions are that it is funny, but uneven, mildly cheesy, but earnest and realistic in portrayal of Muslim issues. It will improve over time, I think, a good show.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Rogue IDF Command Strikes Again
It was only a couple of nights ago that it was reported that Abbas and Hamas were close to agreeing on a unity Palestinian government aimed to ease the suffering of the Western economic blockade on the long-suffering people of Palestine.
After a military operation of considerable intensity, in which upwards of 50 Palestinians were killed, including unarmed women, the IDF, which had withdrawn from the Northern Gaza strip, including the town of Beit Hanoun, shelled a civilian compound there, killing 18 members of a family killing a mainly women and children.
As could be expected, the unity government talks have been postponed, while Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal called-off the truth with Israel and seemed to instruct his followers to attack American targets.
It is clear, through this action, and past one such as the Qana bombing, that there exists a powerful contingent within the Israeli military which does not want a cessation of hostilities between Israel, the Palestinians and its neighbours and seems willing to engage in military terrorism to destroy the prospects of peace.
After a military operation of considerable intensity, in which upwards of 50 Palestinians were killed, including unarmed women, the IDF, which had withdrawn from the Northern Gaza strip, including the town of Beit Hanoun, shelled a civilian compound there, killing 18 members of a family killing a mainly women and children.
As could be expected, the unity government talks have been postponed, while Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal called-off the truth with Israel and seemed to instruct his followers to attack American targets.
It is clear, through this action, and past one such as the Qana bombing, that there exists a powerful contingent within the Israeli military which does not want a cessation of hostilities between Israel, the Palestinians and its neighbours and seems willing to engage in military terrorism to destroy the prospects of peace.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Dawkins and Religion
Richard Dawkins, the renowned evolutionatry biologist and atheist was on the CBC last night for a big discussion about his anti-faith documentary: "The Root of All Evil." The guest audience of Muslims, atheists, Christians, Jews, secularists, and philosophers were prodded and queried about Dawkins film by host Avi Lewis. They also got to put questions to Dawkins directly as he was connected to the show by satellite link.
To be honest, Dawkins came accross as erudite, knowledgeable, rational, and well-prepared. Unfortunately for the people of faith, they were roundly beaten by Dawkins and his ally in the crowd, a U of T philosophy professor. Even at weak points where, for example, one of the recurrent atheist slurs against religion was presented; that the catholic church is responsible for AIDS deaths in Africa, the response of the faithful was sadly inadequate.
One of the scenes in Dawkins film is of an interview between him and a Muslim man. I'm sure this brother was chosen to portray Muslims as "fundamentalist" and irrational as he was shown in an angry diatribe against the Western world's "slutty" women.
Alia Hogben, notable anti-Sharia campaigner as the president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women agreed with many of Dawkins points vis-a-vis "fundamentalism." The anti-fundamentalist brigade was bolstered by a contingent of new-age, gay-marriage advocating body of "moderate faith," individuals, whose leader kept repeating the silly "God is Love" mantra whenever she got close to the mic.
Also in the audience, Ali Hindi, the notorious Canadian imam. He responded to Dawkins very good point about the need for evidence and proof in determining the existence of anything, such as the theory evolution or the existence of God. Hindi responded as well as he could, considering his halting English, that the reason people believed in Jesus, and hence God, was the Jesus character, his life, and the miracles that he performed. Hindi's delivery was lacking, but he was getting to the crux of the matter. What proof is there that God exists?
Let me play the atheists advocate for a moment and engage in a little gedanken experiment. Let's assume that God does not exist. We will limit our system to life on earth, to make things a little easier. In terms of life, evolution takes God's place. It is responsible for creating our forms, our appearance, our behaviour and shaping society. Humans, therefore, have developed religion as a natural evolutionary response to our environment. It appears that we need it to survive just as we need to apply violence in the pursuit of food, protection, and the propagation of the species.
So in a way, "fundamentalist" Islam is very useful in a evolutionary perspective. There are 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims have the highest population growth rate of just about any people around. Muslims have the lowest rate of AIDS and other STD's. These are facts. Its obvious evolution is doing its job and Muslim DNA is the beneficiary. Maybe evolution is the root of all evil!
Back to faith: Dawkins uses quite a funny analogy to describe belief in God. He invents a myth of a teapot in space. Everyone is told that there is a teacup in space, and that it must be worshipped. Eventually, as the generations pass, everyone believes that this teapot is real, and people that doubt this are ridiculed. What he is saying is that God is a myth, much like the teapot, and like a number of other gods which we no longer believe in or worship. Fair argument.
What proof is there that God does in fact exist? For me, the proof abounds, though it is not scientific in nature. In Islam, these proofs are termed Ayat. They include Prophecy (i.e. correctly predicting the future), Revelation (The Holy Scriptures, the Qur'an, etc.), human history, and current events.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), predicted many things about the future 1400 years ago, including the current conflicts between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The Qur'an, a miracle in itself, lyrically and numerically coded, asks its reader to observe scientific phenomenon that could not have been observed at the time of its revelation (i.e. underwater waves and multidimensional space).
It is also interesting to note that most of the major geopolitical events of the current decade are a direct and indirect consqequences of the 9/11 attacks. I doubt Dawkins program would ever have been made if it weren't for Bin Laden. The simplistic view and ensuing conclusions of that event was that religion is bad and Muslims are bad. However, it did manage to get everyone talking about religion, and it did get us talking about God. On one of the Bin Laden tapes, he remarked to his buddy the stories of people who came to him of dreams of the attack, months and years before it took place (eg. Prophecy).
Maybe God is not as loving as people say. Perhaps He is capable of love as well as hate, unity as well as divisiveness, creativity as well as destruction. Maybe He is the God of the Old Testament, Allah in the Qur'an. He can reward as well as punish. If God is real, why should we try and define him and limit him? Why do we pick and choose what we want to believe in and follow, like the Christian leader on the CBC program. Life is full of shades of gray, but God, and the concept of God, is absolute. You either believe in Him, His revelations and commandments, fully, thoroughly, and without prejudice, or you don't believe at all. God is a black and white concept. Most people characterize this type of thinking as "fundamentalist," but in reality, it is just logic.
In the end, Dawkins is somewhat right, the proof is in the pudding. The ultimate proof will come when we die. The penultimate proof is what happens in this life. Will the prophecies come true or will science trump religion? Will Jesus return? Will the temple be rebuilt? Will Armageddon take place? Will Muslims conquer Rome? It seems to me, that the answers to these questions are close at hand. God Willing, we shall see...
To be honest, Dawkins came accross as erudite, knowledgeable, rational, and well-prepared. Unfortunately for the people of faith, they were roundly beaten by Dawkins and his ally in the crowd, a U of T philosophy professor. Even at weak points where, for example, one of the recurrent atheist slurs against religion was presented; that the catholic church is responsible for AIDS deaths in Africa, the response of the faithful was sadly inadequate.
One of the scenes in Dawkins film is of an interview between him and a Muslim man. I'm sure this brother was chosen to portray Muslims as "fundamentalist" and irrational as he was shown in an angry diatribe against the Western world's "slutty" women.
Alia Hogben, notable anti-Sharia campaigner as the president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women agreed with many of Dawkins points vis-a-vis "fundamentalism." The anti-fundamentalist brigade was bolstered by a contingent of new-age, gay-marriage advocating body of "moderate faith," individuals, whose leader kept repeating the silly "God is Love" mantra whenever she got close to the mic.
Also in the audience, Ali Hindi, the notorious Canadian imam. He responded to Dawkins very good point about the need for evidence and proof in determining the existence of anything, such as the theory evolution or the existence of God. Hindi responded as well as he could, considering his halting English, that the reason people believed in Jesus, and hence God, was the Jesus character, his life, and the miracles that he performed. Hindi's delivery was lacking, but he was getting to the crux of the matter. What proof is there that God exists?
Let me play the atheists advocate for a moment and engage in a little gedanken experiment. Let's assume that God does not exist. We will limit our system to life on earth, to make things a little easier. In terms of life, evolution takes God's place. It is responsible for creating our forms, our appearance, our behaviour and shaping society. Humans, therefore, have developed religion as a natural evolutionary response to our environment. It appears that we need it to survive just as we need to apply violence in the pursuit of food, protection, and the propagation of the species.
So in a way, "fundamentalist" Islam is very useful in a evolutionary perspective. There are 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims have the highest population growth rate of just about any people around. Muslims have the lowest rate of AIDS and other STD's. These are facts. Its obvious evolution is doing its job and Muslim DNA is the beneficiary. Maybe evolution is the root of all evil!
Back to faith: Dawkins uses quite a funny analogy to describe belief in God. He invents a myth of a teapot in space. Everyone is told that there is a teacup in space, and that it must be worshipped. Eventually, as the generations pass, everyone believes that this teapot is real, and people that doubt this are ridiculed. What he is saying is that God is a myth, much like the teapot, and like a number of other gods which we no longer believe in or worship. Fair argument.
What proof is there that God does in fact exist? For me, the proof abounds, though it is not scientific in nature. In Islam, these proofs are termed Ayat. They include Prophecy (i.e. correctly predicting the future), Revelation (The Holy Scriptures, the Qur'an, etc.), human history, and current events.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), predicted many things about the future 1400 years ago, including the current conflicts between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The Qur'an, a miracle in itself, lyrically and numerically coded, asks its reader to observe scientific phenomenon that could not have been observed at the time of its revelation (i.e. underwater waves and multidimensional space).
It is also interesting to note that most of the major geopolitical events of the current decade are a direct and indirect consqequences of the 9/11 attacks. I doubt Dawkins program would ever have been made if it weren't for Bin Laden. The simplistic view and ensuing conclusions of that event was that religion is bad and Muslims are bad. However, it did manage to get everyone talking about religion, and it did get us talking about God. On one of the Bin Laden tapes, he remarked to his buddy the stories of people who came to him of dreams of the attack, months and years before it took place (eg. Prophecy).
Maybe God is not as loving as people say. Perhaps He is capable of love as well as hate, unity as well as divisiveness, creativity as well as destruction. Maybe He is the God of the Old Testament, Allah in the Qur'an. He can reward as well as punish. If God is real, why should we try and define him and limit him? Why do we pick and choose what we want to believe in and follow, like the Christian leader on the CBC program. Life is full of shades of gray, but God, and the concept of God, is absolute. You either believe in Him, His revelations and commandments, fully, thoroughly, and without prejudice, or you don't believe at all. God is a black and white concept. Most people characterize this type of thinking as "fundamentalist," but in reality, it is just logic.
In the end, Dawkins is somewhat right, the proof is in the pudding. The ultimate proof will come when we die. The penultimate proof is what happens in this life. Will the prophecies come true or will science trump religion? Will Jesus return? Will the temple be rebuilt? Will Armageddon take place? Will Muslims conquer Rome? It seems to me, that the answers to these questions are close at hand. God Willing, we shall see...
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Pope and the Last Crusade?
Well, in a move widely expected by "God's rottweiler," the leader of the world's billion strong Catholic community has called our Prophet, Muhammad (SAWS), "evil and inhuman." This speech, echoing the musings of an 14th century priest critical of Islam.
Germany's seemingly Islamophobic strongwoman, the leader of the ruling party Christian Democrats, and herself the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, has jumped up to defend the Pope's views. All of this talk has upset the hypersensitive Muslim masses, including the leading cleric and prime minister of Turkey, who has asked for the Pope's full apology ahead of his planned visit to the country.
Pope Ratzinger, together with Chancellor Merkel, have been hostile to the idea of Turkey's membership in the EU. The Turkophobicity of Europe is a well-known fact, especially in the Eastern states whose people came under Ottoman rule in the previous millenium. At least now we know where the Pope really stands, despite apologies given.
Some Muslims have urged calm in light of the slurs which have been characterized as "old as Islam itself." Muslims have been pictured with placards deploring Christianity's "hyprocrisy." It is often interesting how non-Muslims often remark that Islam was "spread by the sword," and that religion should never be a justification for violence (Merkel), yet completely ignoring the Christian and Western world's bloody and conquest-filled history.
So, if we follow their logic, Muslims are cruel and inhuman for defending their religion and land from invaders. Meanwhile, German forces are marching with guns to disarm the inhabitants of Lebanon and NATO forces are killing Afghans in the name of democracy. Right.
The problem with these two particular Germans is that they lack the sneaky British tact of statesman as Tony Blair. While Blair hopes to co-opt Muslims stealthily, by bringing nations such as Turkey into the EU club and keeping his enemies close, Merkel and Ratzinger just cannot keep their contempt for Islam and Muslims to themselves. Way to go guys ;-)
So, it is as the Prophet predicted it: Christians and Muslims are at war again. Perhaps, this crusade will be the last. I surely hope and pray it is. I urge our Iranian brothers and sisters to prepare for the Christian onslaught. Peace be upon you all.
Germany's seemingly Islamophobic strongwoman, the leader of the ruling party Christian Democrats, and herself the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, has jumped up to defend the Pope's views. All of this talk has upset the hypersensitive Muslim masses, including the leading cleric and prime minister of Turkey, who has asked for the Pope's full apology ahead of his planned visit to the country.
Pope Ratzinger, together with Chancellor Merkel, have been hostile to the idea of Turkey's membership in the EU. The Turkophobicity of Europe is a well-known fact, especially in the Eastern states whose people came under Ottoman rule in the previous millenium. At least now we know where the Pope really stands, despite apologies given.
Some Muslims have urged calm in light of the slurs which have been characterized as "old as Islam itself." Muslims have been pictured with placards deploring Christianity's "hyprocrisy." It is often interesting how non-Muslims often remark that Islam was "spread by the sword," and that religion should never be a justification for violence (Merkel), yet completely ignoring the Christian and Western world's bloody and conquest-filled history.
So, if we follow their logic, Muslims are cruel and inhuman for defending their religion and land from invaders. Meanwhile, German forces are marching with guns to disarm the inhabitants of Lebanon and NATO forces are killing Afghans in the name of democracy. Right.
The problem with these two particular Germans is that they lack the sneaky British tact of statesman as Tony Blair. While Blair hopes to co-opt Muslims stealthily, by bringing nations such as Turkey into the EU club and keeping his enemies close, Merkel and Ratzinger just cannot keep their contempt for Islam and Muslims to themselves. Way to go guys ;-)
So, it is as the Prophet predicted it: Christians and Muslims are at war again. Perhaps, this crusade will be the last. I surely hope and pray it is. I urge our Iranian brothers and sisters to prepare for the Christian onslaught. Peace be upon you all.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Scottish Girl Abducted For Arranged Marriage in Pakistan?
According to the British media and her Scottish mum, poor little Molly Campbell had been abducted by her father's faily for an arranged marriage in Pakistan:
The mother of a 12-year-old schoolgirl appealed yesterday for the return of her "lovable little girl" after she was abducted and flown to Pakistan, where relatives fear that she could be forced to become a child bride.
But we found out today, it was another case of ugly anti-Muslim hysteria, magnified by racist stereotypes and willful exaggeration:
A 12-year-old girl from the Western Isles who is at the centre of abduction allegations said today that it was her "own choice" to go to Pakistan with her father.
A police operation was launched last Friday after Molly Campbell, also known as Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana, flew to Lahore with her father and 18-year-old sister Tahmina, without the knowledge of her mother, Louise.
Ms Campbell, 38, made an emotional plea for Molly's return earlier this week and there were fears that the 12-year-old was being forced into a marriage in Pakistan.
Today, Molly appeared at a press conference in Lahore after she and her father met with family friend Mohammad Sarwar, a Scottish MP, who arrived there this morning. Mr Sarwar said there was "no question" of forced marriage and that Molly had now spoken by phone to her mother in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis.
Sitting between Tahmina and her father, Sajad Ahmed Rana, Molly told reporters: "It was my own choice. I asked my sister if I could go with her. I went with my sister. I would like to stay in Pakistan with my father and my name isn't Molly, it is Misbah.
"I knew that my mum would miss me, but I miss my family. It was hard to not see my family and I had to live with my mum and I wanted to live with my family. I thought I could live with my dad and I could still see my mum."
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Woman To Lead Islamic Society of North America
The first woman president of the largest Muslim group in North America says that she's proud of her community for electing her.
Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam and an Islamic law scholar at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, was chosen to lead the Islamic Society of North America just ahead of its annual convention, which starts Friday in Rosemont, Ill.I'm not sure what the arch-conservative Muslims think about this, but the progressives and the "we are the world" types are probably happy to have an attractive, educated, white convert to Islam as the face of the North America's largest Muslim association.
Have they appointed Dr. Mattson for political optics? We shall see how she performs. But considering the negative perception of Muslims around the world, I doubt the organization was looking for a swarthy-complexioned, fully-bearded, one-eyed, hook-handed, periplegic sheikh to take the reins. Just a guess...
Friday, August 25, 2006
Romans Return To Middle East
The Romans are on the Middle East comeback trail. Things are about to get interesting...
Monday, August 14, 2006
Ceasefire
After over a month of fighting, a ceasefire has taken hold in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Despite the wanton destruction and nearly 1000 deaths on the Lebanese side, it appears that the loser is Israel. Why?
For starters, hardly any of Israel's strategic goals were obtained. Hezbollah was not defeated, its captured soldiers have not been freed, and the disarmament of the militant Shi'ite militia is not assured. What's more, nearly 150 Israeli's were killed, most of them soldiers, deflating the myth of Israeli military superiority over its arab neighbours and altering the psychological dimensions of Israel's strategic balance.
The political fallout in Israel, and even in the US, will become apparent before year's end. Sniping at Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has already begun. The coalition government will show signs of strain as Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu look to score political points. In the States, the Bush administration is coming under rhetorical fire from the neoconservatives for supporting such a "one-sided" UN resolution.
All of this could have been avoided if the Israeli leadership was humble and wise enough to accede to the reasonable prospect of a prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas. If they had returned the prisoners, the disputed territory, and normalized relations, Israel could have claimed the high-ground in any future attack coming from their neighbours territory and would be justified in an overwhelming response.
Instead, Israel's moral, political, and military standings have taken serious blows. Ariel Sharon continues to ail with his legacy crumbling. Meanwhile, the Romans (UN-EU) are resolved to return to the region, threatening the sovereignty of the Jewish state once more. In Israel's case at least, not negotiating with "terrorists" has proven an unwise policy.
For starters, hardly any of Israel's strategic goals were obtained. Hezbollah was not defeated, its captured soldiers have not been freed, and the disarmament of the militant Shi'ite militia is not assured. What's more, nearly 150 Israeli's were killed, most of them soldiers, deflating the myth of Israeli military superiority over its arab neighbours and altering the psychological dimensions of Israel's strategic balance.
The political fallout in Israel, and even in the US, will become apparent before year's end. Sniping at Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has already begun. The coalition government will show signs of strain as Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu look to score political points. In the States, the Bush administration is coming under rhetorical fire from the neoconservatives for supporting such a "one-sided" UN resolution.
All of this could have been avoided if the Israeli leadership was humble and wise enough to accede to the reasonable prospect of a prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas. If they had returned the prisoners, the disputed territory, and normalized relations, Israel could have claimed the high-ground in any future attack coming from their neighbours territory and would be justified in an overwhelming response.
Instead, Israel's moral, political, and military standings have taken serious blows. Ariel Sharon continues to ail with his legacy crumbling. Meanwhile, the Romans (UN-EU) are resolved to return to the region, threatening the sovereignty of the Jewish state once more. In Israel's case at least, not negotiating with "terrorists" has proven an unwise policy.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Rogue IDF Commanders Behind Qana Bombing
Since my last post about the bombing of the UN post in south Lebanon, the second round of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's diplomatic efforts to lebanon has been cancelled following the bombing in Qana (echoing a previous Israeli bombing in 1996) that killed 50 civilians, a majority of them children.
Again, I strongly suspect the culprit is a rogue element within the Israeli defence command that wants to sabotage any attempts at a cessation of hostilities. This unit aims to press the campaign in Lebanon, prevent UN troops from arriving in the area, and drive a wedge between Israel and the so-called "international community."
By all appearances, the plan seems to be working. The UN headquarters were ransacked by enraged protestors demonstrating the latest Israeli war crime and confusion has broken out in diplomatic and Western ranks as Jack Straw is leading a rebellion against the Blair-Bush-Harper "measured response" position.
It's not all-out war yet, but God-willing, it will get there. Over the next couple of months, keep your eye out for the Iranian nuclear issue causing big problems, and over the next couple of years, monitor the situation at Al-Aqsa...
Israel
Lebanon
Again, I strongly suspect the culprit is a rogue element within the Israeli defence command that wants to sabotage any attempts at a cessation of hostilities. This unit aims to press the campaign in Lebanon, prevent UN troops from arriving in the area, and drive a wedge between Israel and the so-called "international community."
By all appearances, the plan seems to be working. The UN headquarters were ransacked by enraged protestors demonstrating the latest Israeli war crime and confusion has broken out in diplomatic and Western ranks as Jack Straw is leading a rebellion against the Blair-Bush-Harper "measured response" position.
It's not all-out war yet, but God-willing, it will get there. Over the next couple of months, keep your eye out for the Iranian nuclear issue causing big problems, and over the next couple of years, monitor the situation at Al-Aqsa...
Israel
Lebanon
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Why UN Post Was Bombed By Israel
As Reuters reports, despite vehement denials by Israeli officials, Kofi Annan believes the attack on a UN observer post that killed 4 UN observers was "apparently deliberate."
Why would the Israelis want to attack the very organization which they hope will deploy peacekeepers and implent resolution 1559 which calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah?
It is no secret that Israel has a love-hate relationship with the UN and the "international community." On the one hand, Israel completely ignores UN resolutions which condemn its actions and its supporters attack the legitimacy of the organization whenever it does so.
On the other hand, it was the UN that recognized Israel 50 years ago and resolutions which are congruent to its interests are always given the utmost attention by all those on its side.
Nevertheless, the Israeli polity, despite claims to the contrary, is not a homogenous body. Israel is made up of a large centre, with peaceniks flanking on the left, and ultranationalists, zionists, and religious extremists on the right. Due to the fact that virtually all of Israeli society passes through the ranks of the IDF, with the exception of Orthodox Jews, its obvious that the ideologies that make up the mosaic of Israeli political thought are also represented in its cadres.
Though most of the erudite and well-spoken Israeli political elite including Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni would like nothing more than to earn the sympathy and support of the UN and the world for their policies, surely there exist extreme reactionaries, zealots and xenophobes with Israel which see not only "Islamic terror" as Israel's enemy, but also the gentiles that make up the rest of the world (Christians included).
My supposition is that exteme rogue elements within the Israeli military command organized and supported the attack for the purpose of torpedoing the plan to establish foreign troops in a buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah. Perhaps they perceived a deployment of foreign troops as an infringement of their sovereignty and an unwelcome curtailment of the free hand with which they have pummeled the Arabs since the state's inception.
Maybe extreme zionist elements fear a UN deployment would prelude an eventual UN occupation of not only Lebanon, but of Israel as well. The Romans occupied ancient Israel and the zealots rose up in response. It could be that modern neo-zealots within the IDF are trying to prevent foreign occupation from happening again, despite the assertions of Biblical Prophecy suggesting just that.
Israel's military has a history of attacking its supposed allies in incidents such as the deadly targetting of the USS Liberty in the six-days war in 1967. There are other incidents such as the bombing of the King David Hotel by militant zionists and apparent plans by such groups as the
Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement, whose leader was once an IDF commander, to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque in hopes of rebuilding the temple.
If history is any guide, this war, taking on religious tones and dimensions, will get worse before it gets better. There are people on both sides who will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. The bombing of the UN post was no mistake, but a deliberate strike by a minority splinter within the Israeli military establishment to drive a wedge between Israel and the rest of the world.
Israel
Lebanon
Why would the Israelis want to attack the very organization which they hope will deploy peacekeepers and implent resolution 1559 which calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah?
It is no secret that Israel has a love-hate relationship with the UN and the "international community." On the one hand, Israel completely ignores UN resolutions which condemn its actions and its supporters attack the legitimacy of the organization whenever it does so.
On the other hand, it was the UN that recognized Israel 50 years ago and resolutions which are congruent to its interests are always given the utmost attention by all those on its side.
Nevertheless, the Israeli polity, despite claims to the contrary, is not a homogenous body. Israel is made up of a large centre, with peaceniks flanking on the left, and ultranationalists, zionists, and religious extremists on the right. Due to the fact that virtually all of Israeli society passes through the ranks of the IDF, with the exception of Orthodox Jews, its obvious that the ideologies that make up the mosaic of Israeli political thought are also represented in its cadres.
Though most of the erudite and well-spoken Israeli political elite including Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni would like nothing more than to earn the sympathy and support of the UN and the world for their policies, surely there exist extreme reactionaries, zealots and xenophobes with Israel which see not only "Islamic terror" as Israel's enemy, but also the gentiles that make up the rest of the world (Christians included).
My supposition is that exteme rogue elements within the Israeli military command organized and supported the attack for the purpose of torpedoing the plan to establish foreign troops in a buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah. Perhaps they perceived a deployment of foreign troops as an infringement of their sovereignty and an unwelcome curtailment of the free hand with which they have pummeled the Arabs since the state's inception.
Maybe extreme zionist elements fear a UN deployment would prelude an eventual UN occupation of not only Lebanon, but of Israel as well. The Romans occupied ancient Israel and the zealots rose up in response. It could be that modern neo-zealots within the IDF are trying to prevent foreign occupation from happening again, despite the assertions of Biblical Prophecy suggesting just that.
Israel's military has a history of attacking its supposed allies in incidents such as the deadly targetting of the USS Liberty in the six-days war in 1967. There are other incidents such as the bombing of the King David Hotel by militant zionists and apparent plans by such groups as the
Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement, whose leader was once an IDF commander, to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque in hopes of rebuilding the temple.
If history is any guide, this war, taking on religious tones and dimensions, will get worse before it gets better. There are people on both sides who will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. The bombing of the UN post was no mistake, but a deliberate strike by a minority splinter within the Israeli military establishment to drive a wedge between Israel and the rest of the world.
Israel
Lebanon
Double Standards
Great little post from Maya's Blog:
Rule # 1 : In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it’s always Israel who defends itself. This is called “retaliation”.
Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called “terrorism”/
Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called “self-defense”, or these days “collateral damage”.
Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the “reaction of the international community”.
Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.
Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: “terrorism”
Rule # 7: When you say “Hezbollah”, always be sure to add “supported by Syria and Iran”
Rule # 8: When you say “Israel”, never say “supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries”, for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don’t mention the words “occupied territories”, “UN resolutions”, “Geneva conventions”. This could distress the audience of Fox.
Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called “neutral journalism”.
Rule # 11: If you don’t agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn’t democracy wonderful?)
Rule # 1 : In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it’s always Israel who defends itself. This is called “retaliation”.
Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called “terrorism”/
Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called “self-defense”, or these days “collateral damage”.
Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the “reaction of the international community”.
Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.
Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: “terrorism”
Rule # 7: When you say “Hezbollah”, always be sure to add “supported by Syria and Iran”
Rule # 8: When you say “Israel”, never say “supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries”, for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don’t mention the words “occupied territories”, “UN resolutions”, “Geneva conventions”. This could distress the audience of Fox.
Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called “neutral journalism”.
Rule # 11: If you don’t agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn’t democracy wonderful?)
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Lebanon War: Where are the Christians?
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan blames Christians for not speaking out about the Israeli destruction of Lebanon by Israel:
There are a myriad reasons why Americans are with Israel:
Israel
Lebanon
Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.As usual, American public opinion is against him and firmly with Israel and the killing of civilians in the name of self defence. Of course, "terrorist" groups are notoriously difficult to destroy (Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Kashmiri seperatists) and seem to thrive under the most dire conditions.
But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.
But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
There are a myriad reasons why Americans are with Israel:
- Trauma of September 11 attacks
- Shared Judeo-Christian tradition
- Zionism
- Islamophobia
- Racism against Arabs
- History of state terrorism against civilians (Hiroshima) and of conquest (Native Indians, African slavery)
Israel
Lebanon
Monday, July 10, 2006
Circumcision Can Prevent AIDS
Perhaps God knows a thing or two about science after all: Scientists have concluded AIDS deaths could be drastically reduced via circumcision.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Hirsi Ali Row Brings Down Dutch Government
The Dutch government is resigning after losing the support of one of its coalition partners, says Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.
D66, the coalition's smallest member, withdrew its support in a row over Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk.
Ms Verdonk had threatened to strip former politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali of her Dutch passport because of false information she gave in 1992.
Mr Balkenende said he would tender the government's resignation on Friday.
The D66 party pulled its support because Ms Verdonk, known as "Iron Rita" for her tough stance on immigration issues, refused to resign over her treatment of Ms Hirsi Ali.
Ms Hirsi Ali, 36, wrote a controversial film about the treatment of women in Islam, which was directed by Theo Van Gogh, who was later murdered by a Muslim extremist.
Mr Balkenende's announcement came after two days of debate in the parliament, where Ms Verdonk had done a U-turn on her stance on Ms Hirsi Ali, claiming she had found a legal loophole that would allow the Somali-born woman to stay.
The resignation of the government could lead to new elections in October.
This is what happens when people follow liars and anti-Muslim rabble rousers: chaos. Why the Dutch people allowed their country to be used by Ali is beyond me.
There are many practical lessons to be learned from this debacle. One of the most important is that a country of laws cannot allow politics and the shrill cries of attention seeking dissidents to trump its legal precepts and principles.
Lying on an asylum application in Holland is illegal and results in the offender being stripped of citizenship and deported. This is the law. Regardless of Ali's supposed value to Dutch society in her vehement denunciations of Islam, the rules cannot and should not be bent towards her will.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Getting Ready For Armageddon
The apocalyptic activities of John Hagee, a popular evangelist, as well as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have caught the eye of a reporter in the Los Angeles Times:
John Hagee says a lot, as well as his Jewish allies:
Actually, from what I understand from the Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad's prophecies, and even Biblical ones, Islam will be far from over. A quick Muslim layman's outline for the end times:
- Wars and rumours of wars (WWI and WWII).
- Other signs such as natural disasters and social behaviour changes (Raunch culture, SSM).
- Jews brought together (ie. in Israel).
- Crusader war between Christians and Muslims ("War on Terror?").
- Al-Aqsa Mosque destroyed, temple rebuilt = more war with Muslims.
- One world government formed by "Kings of the North" (EU, UN, neo-Rome).
- The antichrist or dajjal will rule.
- Antichrist will enslave the worlds people with "mark of the beast" (RFID chips?).
- Muslims will be the only ones to resist under leadership of Mahdi.
- Muslims will be surrounded, on the verge of defeat in Syria.
- Jesus will return, lead the Muslims.
- Armageddon in Israel, Jesus will kill the dajjal then abolish the cross.
- Muslims will conquer Rome, Jesus will live out the rest of his natural life.
- Things will fall apart after Jesus dies.
- Muslims will die out from disease, Qur'an will disappear.
- The Gog and Magog tribes will lay waste to what's left of the world.
- God will destroy the earth while those left on it will bear witness.
- Judgement Day!
Whew... Are you ready!?
Tags:Christianity, Islam, Eschatology
For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it.It seems like even scientists like Hawking are planning for the end of the world.
Their endgame is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah.
For some Christians this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.
With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission: to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus' message. Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a far different vision. As mayor of Tehran in 2004, he spent millions on improvements to make the city more welcoming for the return of a Muslim messiah known as the Mahdi, according to a recent report by the American Foreign Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank.
To the majority of Shiites, the Mahdi was the last of the prophet Muhammad's true heirs, his 12 righteous descendants chosen by God to lead the faithful.
Ahmadinejad hopes to welcome the Mahdi to Tehran within two years.
Conversely, some Jewish groups in Jerusalem hope to clear the path for their own messiah by rebuilding a temple on a site now occupied by one of Islam's holiest shrines.
Artisans have re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets and solid-gold menorahs to be used in the Holy Temple — along with two 6½-ton marble cornerstones for the building's foundation.
John Hagee says a lot, as well as his Jewish allies:
"I truly believe John Hagee is at once a daring, beautiful person — and quite dangerous," said Orthodox Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, vice president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership in New York.Big statements.
"I sincerely recognize him as a hero for bringing planeloads of people to Israel at a time when people there were getting blown up by the busloads," Hirschfield said. "But he also believes that the only path to the father is through Jesus. That leaves me out."
Meanwhile, in what has become a spectacular annual routine, Jews — hoping to rebuild the Holy Temple destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 — attempt to haul the 6 1/2 -ton cornerstones by truck up to the Temple Mount, the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock shrine. Each year, they are turned back by police.
Among those turned away is Gershon Solomon, spokesman for Jerusalem's Temple Institute. When the temple is built, he said, "Islam is over."
Actually, from what I understand from the Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad's prophecies, and even Biblical ones, Islam will be far from over. A quick Muslim layman's outline for the end times:
- Wars and rumours of wars (WWI and WWII).
- Other signs such as natural disasters and social behaviour changes (Raunch culture, SSM).
- Jews brought together (ie. in Israel).
- Crusader war between Christians and Muslims ("War on Terror?").
- Al-Aqsa Mosque destroyed, temple rebuilt = more war with Muslims.
- One world government formed by "Kings of the North" (EU, UN, neo-Rome).
- The antichrist or dajjal will rule.
- Antichrist will enslave the worlds people with "mark of the beast" (RFID chips?).
- Muslims will be the only ones to resist under leadership of Mahdi.
- Muslims will be surrounded, on the verge of defeat in Syria.
- Jesus will return, lead the Muslims.
- Armageddon in Israel, Jesus will kill the dajjal then abolish the cross.
- Muslims will conquer Rome, Jesus will live out the rest of his natural life.
- Things will fall apart after Jesus dies.
- Muslims will die out from disease, Qur'an will disappear.
- The Gog and Magog tribes will lay waste to what's left of the world.
- God will destroy the earth while those left on it will bear witness.
- Judgement Day!
Whew... Are you ready!?
Tags:Christianity, Islam, Eschatology
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Beef-eating Hindus Censor Own History
Hindus in India have deleted references in textbooks which show that Hindus used to eat beef:
Victory for Hindu fundamentalists
Education council unhappy with move
Jun. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
SHAIKH AZIZUR RAHMAN
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Calcutta—References to the beef-eating past of ancient Hindus have been deleted from Indian school textbooks following a three-year campaign by Hindu hardliners.
For almost a century, history books for primary and middle schools told how in ancient India, beef was considered a great delicacy among Hindus — especially among the highest caste — and how veal was offered to Hindu deities during special rituals.
"Our past" chapters in the texts also detailed how cows used to be slaughtered by the Brahmins, or upper caste Hindus, during festivals and while welcoming guests to the home.
The passages that offended the Hindus, who now shun beef, have been deleted from new versions of the books delivered to schoolchildren last week.
However, the National Council of Educational Research and Training, which is responsible for the texts, now seems unhappy with the changes that were agreed to by a former council director.
Council lawyer Prashant Bhushan said ancient Hindus were indeed beef-eaters, and the council should not have distorted historical facts by deleting the chapters.
Noted Calcutta historian Ashish Bose added: "NCERT has committed a mistake by dropping those facts from the textbooks. It is a victory for Hindu fundamentalists who have lodged a misinformation campaign. Historians should unite against this cowardly move by the council."
Hardline Hindu activists, who consider cattle holy and have been seeking a ban on slaughter by Muslims and Christians, said the beef-eating references were meant to insult Hindus.
In 2003, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party held federal power, the educational council decided to delete the references. Congress and leftist opposition parties protested, but the move was approved by Jagmohan Singh Rajput, then council director.
The process took longer than expected, however, and Hindu fundamentalists alleged last year that the council was dragging its feet.
Two activists asked the Delhi High Court to order the immediate deletion of the chapters from new textbooks, but the court has not ruled on the suit.
When the litigation was filed, firebrand Hindu leader Praveen Togadia, general secretary of the World Hindu Council, declared: "Most of the facts in the chapters are not true. Some low-caste dalit (untouchable) Hindus used to eat beef. Brahmins never ate it."
Accusing textbook author Ram Sharan Sharma of shoddy research, Togadia said: "The chapter is poisoning the minds of little children. They will not respect their own religion in future. They will not turn out to be good Hindus and it will cause harm to the nation."
Dwijendra Narayan Jha, a history professor at Delhi University, says there is plenty of evidence showing ancient Hindus, including the Brahmins, slaughtered cows and ate beef.
"There are clear evidences in the Rig Veda, the most sacred Hindu scripture (from the second millennium BC), that the cow used to be sacrificed by Hindus during religious rituals. Ancient Hindu text Manusmriti lists the cow as one of several animals whose meat can be eaten by Hindus. The great epic, the Mahabharata, too speaks of beef being a delicacy served to esteemed guests," he said.
Jha's 2002 book, The Myth of the Holy Cow, presented historical evidence that Hindus ate beef long before the Muslim invasions in the 10th century, and provoked such a furor it was banned. The professor, himself a Hindu, feared attacks by fundamentalists and was given police protection.
The slaughter of cattle is banned in most Indian states, but not in Kerala, West Bengal and seven northeastern states. However, Muslims — the largest minority in the country — sometimes ignore state bans and slaughter cattle, which can spark communal tension.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Media Watch: Canadian Papers Now Neocon
Its no great suprise that the National Post has a neoconservative editorial policy. It is a coming together of its pro-Israel Jewish owners and its conservative Canadian readership. The Toronto Sun is its low-brow counterpart, with nominally Muslim, "pro-democracy" columnists like Salim Mansur seemingly taking a crack at his supposed co-religionists every day. Suprisingly the paper continues to employ contrarians like Eric Margolis who dares to speak truth to the incessant barrage of anti-Muslim claptrap that spews from the Islam-bashers that sully the reputations of the respective publications.
It is with great concern that I've been noticing a very discernible neoconservative positions being taken by the editorial boards of what I once considered to be the two leading Canadian papers of our time, The Toronto Star, and the Globe and Mail.
Examples?
For the last two or three days, the Globe has been bumping an article entitled "Turning The Taliban To Our Side". Even the title of the article should raise alarm bells. Since when did independent, supposedly neutral newspapers start picking sides in non-opinion pieces? I guess when you brandish an array of Islam-bashing columninsts like Margaret Wente, Marcus Gee, Lysiane Gagnon, and Marcus Gee, your editorial policy probably will not maintain the journalistic standard of impartiality, at least when it comes to Muslims.
The Toronto Star has been taking a lot of neoconservative positions, particularly when it comes to the war in Afghanistan or the democratic election of Hamas earlier this year. They've just copied and pasted an editorial from the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram about how Arabs have failed in Sudan and Somalia:
Can the Toronto Star really, in good conscience post an editorial from an Arab country, notorious for its anti-democratic government, violence against its own citizens, and support for the most despotic regimes (including Sudan) talking about how it should deal with other's "problems." Egypt has shown nothing but contempt for its Sudanese African refugees, and now when black Muslim Somalians have taken control of the security of their own country, they have the gall to proclaim they've "failed."
The Toronto Star, mind you, is published by a Jew. There a known homosexuals on the editorial board. Not that I'm against either group, but in the context of Islam, its important to determine where the paper's sympathies lie. The one Muslim, Haroon Siddiqui is an emiritus member of the board and only writes his own columns.
Its also interesting to note that when Christian Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper announced his intention to re-open the debate on same-sex marriage in the fall, there was nary a protest from either paper, despite their editorial policies of individual and civil liberties and progressivism (The Star had a huge Gay Pride Week spread last week). They would never come out and say it but they are surely operating under the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The secularists and neoconservatives, many of them shaping the opinions and views of the Canadian and Western polity as writers, editors, columnists and authors have been engaged in a very insidious campaign. This campaign is directed at Islam specifically and religion in general. Despite the fact that the leaders of all the major Western countries engaged in wars in Muslim ones are Christian (Harper, Blair, Bush, Howard, Merkel), many of whom oppose the secularists wanton social liberalism, the secularists and neocons restrain their rhetorical barbs, in the hopes that their uncomfortable Christian allies crusade to "reform" the Muslims and convert them into pro-Israeli, neoliberal sycophants will succeed (at the barrel of a gun if necessary). After this victory, surely the secularists, militant liberalists, and neocons will turn on the same Christians they quietly supported for nothing more than believing in God, Jesus and opposition to SSM.
Tags:Media, Islam, News
It is with great concern that I've been noticing a very discernible neoconservative positions being taken by the editorial boards of what I once considered to be the two leading Canadian papers of our time, The Toronto Star, and the Globe and Mail.
Examples?
For the last two or three days, the Globe has been bumping an article entitled "Turning The Taliban To Our Side". Even the title of the article should raise alarm bells. Since when did independent, supposedly neutral newspapers start picking sides in non-opinion pieces? I guess when you brandish an array of Islam-bashing columninsts like Margaret Wente, Marcus Gee, Lysiane Gagnon, and Marcus Gee, your editorial policy probably will not maintain the journalistic standard of impartiality, at least when it comes to Muslims.
The Toronto Star has been taking a lot of neoconservative positions, particularly when it comes to the war in Afghanistan or the democratic election of Hamas earlier this year. They've just copied and pasted an editorial from the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram about how Arabs have failed in Sudan and Somalia:
We've failed Somalia, just as we failed Sudan before it. We've failed to identify problems in their early stage and do something about them. This is something we tend to do, but nowhere more so than in the southern stretches of our world, where Africa and the Arab region merge. We get obsessed with problems on our eastern front — Iran, Iraq — and forget about the south.What a patronizing load of propaganda.
Can the Toronto Star really, in good conscience post an editorial from an Arab country, notorious for its anti-democratic government, violence against its own citizens, and support for the most despotic regimes (including Sudan) talking about how it should deal with other's "problems." Egypt has shown nothing but contempt for its Sudanese African refugees, and now when black Muslim Somalians have taken control of the security of their own country, they have the gall to proclaim they've "failed."
The Toronto Star, mind you, is published by a Jew. There a known homosexuals on the editorial board. Not that I'm against either group, but in the context of Islam, its important to determine where the paper's sympathies lie. The one Muslim, Haroon Siddiqui is an emiritus member of the board and only writes his own columns.
Its also interesting to note that when Christian Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper announced his intention to re-open the debate on same-sex marriage in the fall, there was nary a protest from either paper, despite their editorial policies of individual and civil liberties and progressivism (The Star had a huge Gay Pride Week spread last week). They would never come out and say it but they are surely operating under the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The secularists and neoconservatives, many of them shaping the opinions and views of the Canadian and Western polity as writers, editors, columnists and authors have been engaged in a very insidious campaign. This campaign is directed at Islam specifically and religion in general. Despite the fact that the leaders of all the major Western countries engaged in wars in Muslim ones are Christian (Harper, Blair, Bush, Howard, Merkel), many of whom oppose the secularists wanton social liberalism, the secularists and neocons restrain their rhetorical barbs, in the hopes that their uncomfortable Christian allies crusade to "reform" the Muslims and convert them into pro-Israeli, neoliberal sycophants will succeed (at the barrel of a gun if necessary). After this victory, surely the secularists, militant liberalists, and neocons will turn on the same Christians they quietly supported for nothing more than believing in God, Jesus and opposition to SSM.
Tags:Media, Islam, News
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Women Factor Behind Somalian Islamic Militia
Islam defends the rights and safety of women:
An epidemic of sexual violence during 15 years of lawlessness in Somalia was among the factors that strengthened opposition to this city's notorious warlords, residents said. The Islamic militias who drove them out in months of recent fighting were embraced as keepers of public order, as a force strong enough and pious enough to keep Mogadishu's daughters safe.And who were the champions of freedom, democracy, and women's rights supporting? The warlords.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)