A mosque is to be built just a few blocks away from the site of the WTC in New York. The Imam behind it is someone who has stated to Arabic audiences that he wishes to see Shari'a law implemented in America, and that inter-religious dialogue is a meaningless concept.
Bizarrely, he has said to English speaking audiences that he wishes to see more inter-religious dialogue. Some mistake, surely.
The feelings of the families of those affected, clearly, mean nothing here.
Here's a letter that expresses the outrageous agenda behind this move. Feel free to send it to the Mayor yourself:
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
We urge you, in the strongest terms I can possibly gather, to reverse your position on the mosque at Ground Zero.
We do not understand how you could even countenance such a symbolic gesture of vulgar insensitivity to be paraded in front of the very families of those who suffered so tragically on 9/11.
What you are allowing is the construction of something rather different than the promotion of understanding and dialogue. As Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself has said of the notion of inter-faith dialogue: "Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers".
How then does this man seriously believe this initiative will be successful in uniting faiths, when he himself has clearly said it is never possible?
And how does a Shari’a-compliant ‘community centre’ fairly serve the interests of any diverse, secular community?
It is essential that you listen to the huge outcry against this provocative act. Your desire to show your tolerance you does NOT outweigh the feelings of the 9/11 families.
It would be like authorising a US Cultural Center being built in the middle of Hiroshima and your responsibility in making this decision transcends your Office.
This is a project that, in the words of its founder, does not (cannot) seek reconciliation; rather, its location and sponsors appear to make it seem a vulgar, tasteless attempt at constructing a symbol of strength – rather than of humility - in the shadow of something terribly sacred.
We beg you in the strongest possible terms to grant the mosque to be built in a location which is less offensive to so very, very many Americans.
Sincerely,
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Adult Breastfeeding
Earlier this week, an interesting story from Saudi Arabia, that fine bastion of liberty and civilisation.
It is well known that men and women are strictly forbidden from mixing together - in public, with separate entrances for them in shopping malls - and in private, with only relatives allowed in cars, or in houses. The conservatives in the Kingdom, in their glorious wisdom, warn that such 'free-mixing' is the very essence of capitulated Evil, the absolute sign that the end of the world has come and we are in the final days. Not something, therefore, that they are ever going to be prepared to accept. And why should they? When an unrelated man and woman are together, so the story goes, the third person present is the Devil.
What about the quandary of men, such as drivers, who have to drive women around and be in their presence? This is highly problematic. The Gulf News of Saudi Arabia reported that:
Attiyah was then removed from his position because he sounded like an idiot. That has not stopped a Saudi scholar and advisor at the Royal Court revisiting this topic and suggesting a more moderate solution, that
Even the Saudis think this is ridiculous and have removed it from their news sources. Fragments of the story do exist on the web, of course. But the story shows something more important. The question of the extent to which the faithful are able to navigate away from literalism in their religion.
Adult breastfeeding goes all the way back to the time of the Prophet and is referred to in the hadiths of Sahih Muslim and the Sunan of Abu Dawud and Ibn Maja. To reject it is tantamount to rejecting the force and power of Shari'a law. All that is new with this scholar's revised position is that the milk be poured into a cup and not drunk out of a nipple. That is the essence of moderation here. What hope then for change or modernisation, when even in matters as foolish as this, literal adherence stays constant?
It is well known that men and women are strictly forbidden from mixing together - in public, with separate entrances for them in shopping malls - and in private, with only relatives allowed in cars, or in houses. The conservatives in the Kingdom, in their glorious wisdom, warn that such 'free-mixing' is the very essence of capitulated Evil, the absolute sign that the end of the world has come and we are in the final days. Not something, therefore, that they are ever going to be prepared to accept. And why should they? When an unrelated man and woman are together, so the story goes, the third person present is the Devil.
What about the quandary of men, such as drivers, who have to drive women around and be in their presence? This is highly problematic. The Gulf News of Saudi Arabia reported that:
Exactly three years ago, on May 22, 2007, an Egyptian scholar was disciplined by Al Azhar University, one of Islam's most prestigious institutions, after he issued a fatwa calling upon women to breastfeed their male colleagues. Dr. Izzat Attiyah said that his fatwa offered a way around mixing of the sexes in the work place since breast-feeding established a maternal relation even if the beneficiary was not the woman's biological son or daughter.
Attiyah was then removed from his position because he sounded like an idiot. That has not stopped a Saudi scholar and advisor at the Royal Court revisiting this topic and suggesting a more moderate solution, that
women could give their milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women. [Because] a man who often entered a house and came in contact with the womenfolk there should be made symbolically related to the women by drinking milk from one of the women. Under the fatwa, the act would preclude any sexual relations between the man and the donor woman and her relatives.
Even the Saudis think this is ridiculous and have removed it from their news sources. Fragments of the story do exist on the web, of course. But the story shows something more important. The question of the extent to which the faithful are able to navigate away from literalism in their religion.
Adult breastfeeding goes all the way back to the time of the Prophet and is referred to in the hadiths of Sahih Muslim and the Sunan of Abu Dawud and Ibn Maja. To reject it is tantamount to rejecting the force and power of Shari'a law. All that is new with this scholar's revised position is that the milk be poured into a cup and not drunk out of a nipple. That is the essence of moderation here. What hope then for change or modernisation, when even in matters as foolish as this, literal adherence stays constant?
Caning it - so to speak
The shocking outrage (for that is the right word - as in, outrageous) news in the Republic this week has been the appalling behaviour of the Swiss expat who, in cahoots with a Brit, grafitti-ed an MRT train.
The real source of the embarrassment could be that the transport authorities allowed the train to run for two days before anyone even noticed that the train had been damaged - believing passively that there must be some kind of On Da Street "Arts Festival" going on.
His partner-in-crime, the Brit, fled to Hong Kong straightaway after the damage was done. Such is the level of offence caused, he is apparently being extradited back here from HK. That's right, an extradition treaty is being invoked over this - that's one hell of a statement. Normally, extradition is reserved for murder, arson and robbery - surely? To extradite for an action that happens in cities like New York or London on an almost daily basis seems remarkable for its severity in relation to the deed itself.
But extradition is nothing compared to being caned - which awaits them both - once they are convicted. This isn't a kind of "hold out your hand you naughty, naughty boy" but a full-on beating that involves the recipient to be stripped down to his bare-cheeked buttocks, with his spine and kidneys protected against destruction by a long wet rattan cane, soaked in water for extra flexibility. This long and rather painful instrument is whelped down on the skin with such force that it apparently causes prisoners to piss themselves in pain, and frequently to pass out unconscious.
There's a useful little diagram showing how it's done on here : http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/caning-violates-international-norms/
Such deviation from the pre-ordained norms is, in itself, a source of outrage it seems. What with demarcated smoking areas, jaywalking tickets (with photographic evidence of the misdeed) handed out in the city, arrows for showing the direction to walk along busy passageways (with surly warnings such as 'Do Not Cross The Line') ... it's hard to miss the message that Crossing The Line Is Not Good - At All.
Indeed, the reaction of the MRT workers, who presumed the dirty deed to be there by approval of the authorities (for how else could it have happened?) poses some interesting questions about the Individual and their relationship to the State. Their reluctance to comprehend that anything could happen that had not been pre-ordained at some higher level, is noteworthy.
Indeed, that it was even possible that the Line could have ever been Crossed in the first place.
The real source of the embarrassment could be that the transport authorities allowed the train to run for two days before anyone even noticed that the train had been damaged - believing passively that there must be some kind of On Da Street "Arts Festival" going on.
His partner-in-crime, the Brit, fled to Hong Kong straightaway after the damage was done. Such is the level of offence caused, he is apparently being extradited back here from HK. That's right, an extradition treaty is being invoked over this - that's one hell of a statement. Normally, extradition is reserved for murder, arson and robbery - surely? To extradite for an action that happens in cities like New York or London on an almost daily basis seems remarkable for its severity in relation to the deed itself.
But extradition is nothing compared to being caned - which awaits them both - once they are convicted. This isn't a kind of "hold out your hand you naughty, naughty boy" but a full-on beating that involves the recipient to be stripped down to his bare-cheeked buttocks, with his spine and kidneys protected against destruction by a long wet rattan cane, soaked in water for extra flexibility. This long and rather painful instrument is whelped down on the skin with such force that it apparently causes prisoners to piss themselves in pain, and frequently to pass out unconscious.
There's a useful little diagram showing how it's done on here : http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/caning-violates-international-norms/
Such deviation from the pre-ordained norms is, in itself, a source of outrage it seems. What with demarcated smoking areas, jaywalking tickets (with photographic evidence of the misdeed) handed out in the city, arrows for showing the direction to walk along busy passageways (with surly warnings such as 'Do Not Cross The Line') ... it's hard to miss the message that Crossing The Line Is Not Good - At All.
Indeed, the reaction of the MRT workers, who presumed the dirty deed to be there by approval of the authorities (for how else could it have happened?) poses some interesting questions about the Individual and their relationship to the State. Their reluctance to comprehend that anything could happen that had not been pre-ordained at some higher level, is noteworthy.
Indeed, that it was even possible that the Line could have ever been Crossed in the first place.
Monday, 7 June 2010
the Gaza Flotilla - Qatar and the ICJ - some thoughts
It is truly humbling to see how the righteous Doha regime is "leading the way" on Gaza. This would be so great if it weren't for the fact that the Arabs really don't care about the Palestinians one little bit - something that is really surprising given how fixated they are on this tiny group of people- although they are of course pumped up about it on a weekly basis by the likes of the useless Qaradawi, and thousands like him who dream of seeing the downfall of the West and the rise of their own cause. They care about the 'idea' of them, much more than about THEM. Thus, does Egypt closes its border with Gaza and won't let so much as a mosquito through; thus do Arab countries refuse to give them asylum and citizenship.
Now tell me: could this ICJ be in any way related to the ICC - the same body which charged Sudanese President Bashir for his central role in the genocide - mass slaughter - of how many millions of hopelessly innocent people in Darfur?
Millions of dead Muslims. You'd think somebody, somewhere would be upset about that. Seriously.
But no. Surely it could not be the same Bashir. For that would be double standards - and we know how the Arabs deplore double standards - Israeli double standards especially. After all, the Emir sat down with some fine dinner and Arab hospitality in his palace with Bashir just over a year ago.
I wonder - did he pat him on the back? Shake his hand? Congratulate him? Perhaps - quite probably - they talked about Gaza.
Because everybody 'talks' about little, occupied Gaza as though the future of humanity rests upon this tiny place - that Egypt occupied - WITHOUT A WORD OF PROTEST - from 1948 - 1967.
Then, Israel faces a ship filled with a handful of lefty 'activists' who were camouflaging the Turks - people who'd written their wills before setting sail ("we reach Gaza, or we reach Martyrdom"), on a mission funded by the IHH, an organisation with strong ties to terror. A ship they had already told "we will let you send your cargo, once it has been inspected. Dock in the port and matters will be peacefully sorted out." An offer which was of course declined - as was the aid which, according to Hamas, they didn't WANT if they couldn't get it from the Turks.
What country would put up with this bunch of hoods? If I were Netanhayu, frankly I would have torpedoed it after a number of warnings and been quite clear to make sure the world knew the exact profile of those on board, and their true intentions towards the safety of the people who'd elected me and whose lives I was charged with protecting from daily rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
Because, what this issue really boils down to is a resurgent political movement numbering millions, driven by a kind of Ottoman neo-Imperial fantasy. It aims to take over the world and the best place for that battle to be fought, more than anywhere, is Israel - the symbol of western power and a humiliating affront to the Arabs every time they challenge it.
The leftist activists on board no doubt believe that if only America would lose her power, if only the Western world could just reach out - we'd all be somehow holding hands on grassy floral meadows like true brothers and sisters of humanity and teaching the world to sing the language of PEACE and LOVE.
The others on board, given their backing and pedigree, had less laudable intentions. For them and their ilk, Sudan doesn't matter. Muslims killing each OTHER in Pakistan don't matter. Israel matters. Israel alone. And so, Darfur, and other atrocities like it, don't even make it onto the radar.
They are inconsequential because it comes down to the showdown at the nexus between the power and glory of the Islamic world in the face of the USA and the Western world.
Gaza, Israel, Palestine, the Arab League - these groups are all irrelevant- they are a kind of collection of metaphors, for want of a better word, for the powerful forces behind the great clash of civilisations that is currently being played out before us.
And perhaps it will be that the future of humanity, in a very real way, does in fact centre around Gaza.
Now tell me: could this ICJ be in any way related to the ICC - the same body which charged Sudanese President Bashir for his central role in the genocide - mass slaughter - of how many millions of hopelessly innocent people in Darfur?
Millions of dead Muslims. You'd think somebody, somewhere would be upset about that. Seriously.
But no. Surely it could not be the same Bashir. For that would be double standards - and we know how the Arabs deplore double standards - Israeli double standards especially. After all, the Emir sat down with some fine dinner and Arab hospitality in his palace with Bashir just over a year ago.
I wonder - did he pat him on the back? Shake his hand? Congratulate him? Perhaps - quite probably - they talked about Gaza.
Because everybody 'talks' about little, occupied Gaza as though the future of humanity rests upon this tiny place - that Egypt occupied - WITHOUT A WORD OF PROTEST - from 1948 - 1967.
Then, Israel faces a ship filled with a handful of lefty 'activists' who were camouflaging the Turks - people who'd written their wills before setting sail ("we reach Gaza, or we reach Martyrdom"), on a mission funded by the IHH, an organisation with strong ties to terror. A ship they had already told "we will let you send your cargo, once it has been inspected. Dock in the port and matters will be peacefully sorted out." An offer which was of course declined - as was the aid which, according to Hamas, they didn't WANT if they couldn't get it from the Turks.
What country would put up with this bunch of hoods? If I were Netanhayu, frankly I would have torpedoed it after a number of warnings and been quite clear to make sure the world knew the exact profile of those on board, and their true intentions towards the safety of the people who'd elected me and whose lives I was charged with protecting from daily rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
Because, what this issue really boils down to is a resurgent political movement numbering millions, driven by a kind of Ottoman neo-Imperial fantasy. It aims to take over the world and the best place for that battle to be fought, more than anywhere, is Israel - the symbol of western power and a humiliating affront to the Arabs every time they challenge it.
The leftist activists on board no doubt believe that if only America would lose her power, if only the Western world could just reach out - we'd all be somehow holding hands on grassy floral meadows like true brothers and sisters of humanity and teaching the world to sing the language of PEACE and LOVE.
The others on board, given their backing and pedigree, had less laudable intentions. For them and their ilk, Sudan doesn't matter. Muslims killing each OTHER in Pakistan don't matter. Israel matters. Israel alone. And so, Darfur, and other atrocities like it, don't even make it onto the radar.
They are inconsequential because it comes down to the showdown at the nexus between the power and glory of the Islamic world in the face of the USA and the Western world.
Gaza, Israel, Palestine, the Arab League - these groups are all irrelevant- they are a kind of collection of metaphors, for want of a better word, for the powerful forces behind the great clash of civilisations that is currently being played out before us.
And perhaps it will be that the future of humanity, in a very real way, does in fact centre around Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
