Technorati Tags: Islam Muslim Muslims Moslems Video Youtube Britain
Expose Your Revulsion Of Islam
From: India
About me: Born in Kashmir, raised and educated in Western Europe. I presently live somewhere west of the Bosphorus and east of the Rocky Mountains.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
This is a debate that was originally broadcast on British television. It explores the issues related to free speech and the right to insult Islam among other things.
Technorati Tags: Islam Muslim Muslims Moslems Video Youtube Britain
Technorati Tags: Islam Muslim Muslims Moslems Video Youtube Britain
Sunday, October 29, 2006
The National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians in France has a new request/order for the Muslim population of France. This latest order comes after an attack by a husband of a Muslim patient who punched a consultant when the husband feared a male doctor was going to examine his wife after complications during child birth."The college said: "Thirty years ago, Muslim women came into our hospitals without any alarm at being taken into the care of doctors, most of whom were men, and there were none of these difficulties. Why are things going backwards? It is for Islam to adapt to the liberties that all must possess in a modern state." Xavier Bertrand, France's health minister, wrote to the college offering support and expressing his "indignation" at assaults on doctors."(Source: Daily Telegraph)
This must be said before anything else about this story; I absolutely condemn the assault of the doctor who was trying to carry out his duty of care to his patient to the best of his ability. Having said that I believe that this incident has been once again used to promote a vested agenda.
The statement tries to blame Islam for the fact that Muslim women do not want to be examined by male doctors. I dare say that this is not something that only Muslim women would object to. I am sure that there are many Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist and agnostic women who do not want a male "poking away" examing their insides. So why the special treatment for Muslims ?
I think that state hospitals should try to meet reasonable requests from patients even the Muslim ones. I do not think that hospitals are bound to fulfill all the requests of a patient. For example if a female doctor is available then they should provide her for the examination. I think that it is also irresponsible for a patient to demand a female doctor when no such medic is available.
In the case of private care I believe that the paying party namely the patient can demand anything they wish for at the end of the day they are paying for it.
In summary I believe that this another storm in a tea cup that some want to use as a stick to beat Muslims over the head with. It really is not that big a deal except for those that have an ulterior motive.
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims Media France Hospital Gynecologist
Saturday, October 28, 2006
When is racism not racism? When it is American ofcourse. The following two videos explore some of the questions that are raised when dealing with the matter of race.
The same derogatory N-word is used in different context. The first garners laughter but the second causes a suspension. They both have the ability to cause offence and corrupt perceptions. So what is the difference ?
Technorati Tags: America USA Racism Video Youtube
The latest "Islamic storm" to hit the world's media has been the statements of Taj al-Din Al-Hilali the "Mufti" of Australia in a sermon that was delivered originally over a month ago. The outrage only began after the newspaper "The Australian" reproduced his comments. Al-Hilali has been suspended from his job for up to 3 months in order to have time to reflect upon what he said."If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" Sheikh Hilali is quoted as asking during the sermon.
The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [headscarf], no problem would have occurred," (Source: BBC News)
The purpose of this post is not in anyway to defend Al-Hilali in his actions or statements. I wish to have a look in this post at the reaction from the media and the establishment to the words of Al-Hilali.
As I have noted before on this weblog one of the corner stones of a civil society is the freedom to express ones self. There are however certain constraints that a person must follow when exercising this right. One such constraint is not to incite violence against another party. Other than this rule and maybe concerns over national security everything else is "fair game" as they say.
In this light I wish to compare two recent incidents that have been on the world stage in the recent past. They both relate to "men of God" and to statements that they made that were considered outrageous.
The first example is that of Pope Benedict XVI in an air of debate and open dialogue he reiterated comments from a Byzantine Emperor regarding Islam and the manner in which it was spread, which according to him was namely by the sword. Muslims were outraged by this statement. In defense of the Pope were the "western media" in all its forms, the western establishment (governments and politicians) and the western peoples. They all retorted in unison that in a democracy people have an absolute right to say what they like to whom they like whenever they like. Muslims were told to stop bleating like sheep and to get over it! Islam is not so "precious" that it is above criticism,accusation and debate.
In the second example we have Taj al-Din Al-Hilali and his comments that likened women that did not wear a hijab to a piece of meat. In this example neither did the western media nor the establishment (politicians) pronounce their support for the right of Mr. Al-Hilali to insult. In fact Mr.Howard the Australian Prime Minister is demanding that the Al-Hilal be sacked otherwise there will be consequences for the Muslim community in Australia. No one is heard telling the Australian non-Muslim population to "get over it" they are only words. No one is telling the Australian non-Muslim population to stop bleating like sheep their outrage at al-Hilali's comments. No one is telling the Australian non-Muslim population that western women are not so "precious" as to be above criticism,accusation and debate. I wonder why none of these sentiments are forthcoming in the second example?
Just to reiterate for you the reader I do not support the sentiments of al-Hilali. Rape is a terrible crime, there can be no excuse or justification for it and I do not wish it upon anyone. The purpose of this post is not to defend al-Hilali's sentiments it is however the expose the hypocrisy with which some wish to deal with Muslims. In the words of a great American James H. Shott what is good for the western goose is good for the Islamic gander. If Pope Benedict XVI has a right to insult and question Islam does Al-Hilali not also have a right to insult and question the ways of western women? Why is there is a difference in the response from the media and the powers that be ?
Technorati Tags: Islam Terrorism Muslims Moslems Christianity Pope Benedict Catholic Australia
Friday, October 27, 2006
The world is trying to figure its way around the "problem" that is Islam. A religion that kills indiscriminately all those that oppose it and even those that do not. Many a great mind in the West has put forward solutions in this regard. Reformation and regulation have played a part in the discourse so far.For those of you tired and impatient at how the fight is being taken to Islam maybe the following audio file will fill your hearts with a warm glowing feeling.
The author Richard claims that the West is too soft on Muslims. That in a war with Islam there is only one answer, an answer that will stop all future Islamic inspired terrorism. You may well ask yourself what is this "magic bullet" ? I will leave it to Richard to explain in his own words what the "answer" is:
Now that you have heard and had a chance to digest what Richard has to say I wish to ask you some questions;
(i) Is his hypothesis right that Muslims only understand one type of language?
(ii) Will the West ever carry out such an action ?
(iii) If the "answer" is ever implemented will it have the desired effect or will it inflame the situation even more?
(iv) Richard does not sound to me as if he has a typical American accent, am I wrong in this?
(v) Does Richard speak for you?
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims Terrorism War USA
Thursday, October 26, 2006
He is considered the most powerful man in the world, able to make decisions that will impact upon the lives of millions if not billions of people around the globe. However George W. Bush seems to be getting a very bad press at home and abroad. Considered not very clever a "few slices short of full loaf" George W. Bush has been the center of many a joke on the internet as well as other forms of media.Is this hardly surprising considering some of Mr. Bush's performances on the world stage ? Can he be likened to the greatest political minds of any generation? The answer to that question depends upon your own political orientation. For his supporters Mr. Bush is the only person saving them and the rest of humanity from a fate worse then death. A fate that would see them enslaved to the global forces of Islamofascism. To his detractors Mr. Bush is a dangerous war-monger,"class A dufus" and a person whose policies in Iraq are fuelling terrorism . As I said before take your pick as to which one you think best describes him.The following are two videos depicting George W. Bush as you normally see him and as you probably have not seen him before.
The first is taken from a news conference in which the President is asked a question that he not very skillfully is unable to answer for whatever reason:
The second is a video comparison between the George W. Bush the world has come to know and the George W. Bush of yester-year. The difference is tangible:
The premise of the second video is that George W. Bush suffers from a form of dementia. Not being medically qualified to give a reason for this condition I asked a doctor who speculated that the cause of this dementia maybe alcohol related. Without a proper neurological examination it is impossible to determine what Mr. Bush's real diagnosis is. It is safe to say that however he will remain the object of comment from both supporters and detractors no matter what the perceived "state of his mind" is.
Technorati Tags: Islam Bush Islamofascism Iraq Muslims Video Youtube Terrorism
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I am sure that for those amongst you that are regular visitors to this weblog will have noticed that a topic close to my heart and one that I regularly write about is Christianity. As a Muslim I believe that Jesus Christ was born of an immaculate conception, was sent by God as a sign and a Prophet, performed miracles by the permission of God and will return to earth in a second coming before the establishment of the Day of Judgment.The central difference between the Muslim view of Jesus and the Trinitarian Christian view of Jesus is that Christians claim Jesus is the Son of God/ God incarnate however Muslims reject this assertion whole heartedly. In my opinion the trinity is polytheistic in essence and idolatrous in practice. For a Muslim the Trinitarian concept of God is polytheism "dressed up" as monotheism.
This now brings me onto the subject of today's post. The Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Dovi Lior of Kiryat Arba in Israel was asked if it permissible for a Jew to pray in a reform synagogue ?
"A new Halacha ruling issued by Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba instructs Orthodox Jews to steer clear of participating in any events held by Reform Jews and prohibits entering their synagogues. These new restrictions have turned the attitude towards Reform Judaism into one less tolerant than extended to Islam. The Rabbi's ruling was posted to the Beit-El Yeshiva website, after one of the visitors submitted a question on the matter to the Rabbi.
Jewish law forbids Jews from entering churches as Christianity is viewed as idolatry, while entering mosques, however, is permitted." (Source: Ynetnews.com)
The main thrust of the article in Ynetnews was not about Islam nor Christianity but rather the relationship between different strands of Judaism such as the orthodox and the reform. It appears that the message from the Rabbi is that Jews are not allowed to enter churches nor Reform synagogues but are allowed to enter the Muslim house of worship the mosque.
Since Judaism is the oldest of the monotheistic religions on earth I thought that the Jewish view of Christianity was particularly informative. It appears that the Jewish Law and Islam view the trinity in the same light they both consider Trinitarian Christianity to be idolatry.
Technorati Tags: Islam Judaism Muslims Moslems Christianity Jews Church Synagogue Mosque
An "expose" of Fox News and its owner Rupert Murdoch. The video is self explanatory so enough of me.
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims USA Fox News Google Video Rupert Murdoch
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims USA Fox News Google Video Rupert Murdoch
Monday, October 23, 2006
I want to take this opportunity to wish the Muslim readers of this weblog a very happy Eid al-Fitr.
Eid al-Fitr marks the end of the Holy month of Ramadan and is observed throughout the Muslim world.
Kolo 3min wa antom bi khair
Mabrouk al-Eid
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Iraq has been a lot in the news lately. With a spiraling death count, forthcoming mid -term elections in the United States and comments by the head of the British army. We have been afforded analysis by the news media from every possible perspective. I am unable to offer any solution to the misery that modern day Iraq has become. It is a very complicated and fluid situation that can change at any time either for the better or the worse. As an outsider and one who does not have to suffer the pain of being Iraqi in these days I think it would be the of the upmost of arrogance to offer them solutions in the current circumstances.In this post rather than look at the current situation in Iraq I wish to take the reader back a few years. To the year 2003 infact and the coalition invasion that brought about the down fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
I am sure that anyone who followed the events of the invasion will immediately remember the man pictured above. For those of you who do not know who he is let me assist you. This is Muhammad Saeed As-Sahaf the former Iraqi Information Minister. He became famous throughout the western world for giving Iraqi state propaganda during the lead up to and invasion of Iraq. He statements were so obviously unconnected with any reality that he fast gained popular support as the mouth piece of the enemy. Labeled as "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali" Saeed As-Sahaf forthrightly refused to acknowledge any type of truth when giving his daily press briefings. His fame has reached such a stage that he even has a website run by "supports" of his wild claims during the invasion. The site can be found by clicking on the link: We Love The Iraqi Information Minister.com
Purely for the sake of nostalgia I present a video of the former Iraqi Information Minister ( The clip begins in Arabic with English subtitles and then moves onto English).
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims USA Arabs Iraq War Youtube Video
This an excellent article signed by 38 eminent Muslim scholars refuting the comments of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II that Pope Benedict XVI used in a speech given at the University of Ragensburg in September 2006. Much fanfare surrounded the Pope's speech both from Muslims and non-Muslims at the time. However a scholarly refutation of the Pope's claim that Islam is violent and cannot be reconciled with reason was not forth coming until now.The article is fairly long and as such I just want to deal with some of the points that it raises. By necessity quotes will deal with intricate points of Qur'anic exegesis, Prophetic tradition and Islamic history. These tools are essential in examining this topic and giving the fair and balanced approach that it requires and deserves.
Let us begin with the accusation that Islam orders Muslims to convert non-Muslims by force under pain of death. Muslims point to a verse from chapter 2 verse 256 to refute the this claim:
"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error;"
This is what the Muslim scholars had to say about this verse and the Pope's accusation relating to it:
"You mention that "according to the experts" the verse which begins, There is no compulsion in religion (al-Baqarah 2:256) is from the early period when the Prophet "was still powerless and under threat," but this is incorrect. In fact this verse is acknowledged to belong to the period of Qur'anic revelation corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community.
"There is no compulsion in religion" was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another's heart to believe.
"There is no compulsion in religion" addresses those in a position of strength, not weakness. The earliest commen-taries on the Qur'an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam."
"There is no compulsion in religion" was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another's heart to believe.
"There is no compulsion in religion" addresses those in a position of strength, not weakness. The earliest commen-taries on the Qur'an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam."
The Muslim scholars then move onto the topic of "Holy War" a term that was orginally devised by Christains.
"We would like to point out that "holy war" is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a "war".
The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles:
1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.
2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.
3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbours. "And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God" (al-Anfal 8:61). However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defence and maintenance of sovereignty.
Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery. If a religion regulates war and describes circumstances where it is necessary and just, that does not make that religion war-like, anymore than regulating sexuality makes a religion prurient. If some have disregarded a long and well-established tradition in favour of utopian dreams where the end justifies the means, they have done so of their own accord and without the sanction of God, His Prophet, or the learned tradition. God says in the Holy Qur'an: "Let not hatred of any people seduce you into being unjust. Be just, that is nearer to piety"(al-Ma'idah 5:8). In this context we must state that the murder on September 17th of an innocent Catholic nun in Somalia-and any other similar acts of wanton individual violence 'in reaction to' your lecture at the University of Regensburg, is completely un-Islamic, and we totally condemn such acts.
The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles:
1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.
2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.
3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbours. "And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God" (al-Anfal 8:61). However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defence and maintenance of sovereignty.
Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery. If a religion regulates war and describes circumstances where it is necessary and just, that does not make that religion war-like, anymore than regulating sexuality makes a religion prurient. If some have disregarded a long and well-established tradition in favour of utopian dreams where the end justifies the means, they have done so of their own accord and without the sanction of God, His Prophet, or the learned tradition. God says in the Holy Qur'an: "Let not hatred of any people seduce you into being unjust. Be just, that is nearer to piety"(al-Ma'idah 5:8). In this context we must state that the murder on September 17th of an innocent Catholic nun in Somalia-and any other similar acts of wanton individual violence 'in reaction to' your lecture at the University of Regensburg, is completely un-Islamic, and we totally condemn such acts.
Next the Muslim schoars looked at the topic of forced conversions in more details:
"The notion that Muslims are commanded to spread their faith "by the sword" or that Islam in fact was largely spread "by the sword" does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and mission-ary activity. Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting. Indeed, many of the first areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force, there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in the Islamic world. The command There is no compulsion in religion means now what it meant then...
As with the rules of war, history shows that some Muslims have violated Islamic tenets concerning forced conversion and the treatment of other religious communities, but history also shows that these are by far the exception which proves the rule. We emphatically agree that forcing others to believe-if such a thing be truly possible at all-is not pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we believe, and Muslims have always believed, that "Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether." (al-Ma'idah 5:32).
As with the rules of war, history shows that some Muslims have violated Islamic tenets concerning forced conversion and the treatment of other religious communities, but history also shows that these are by far the exception which proves the rule. We emphatically agree that forcing others to believe-if such a thing be truly possible at all-is not pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we believe, and Muslims have always believed, that "Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether." (al-Ma'idah 5:32).
As I have said much media coverage was given to the Pope's comments and the insuing events however I doubt that you will be seeing this refutation on your night news broadcast to which I say I wonder why?
Technorati Tags: Islam Terrorism Muslims Moslems Christianity Pope Benedict Catholic
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The BBC World Service has commissioned a poll spanning 25 countries. More than 27,000 people were asked if they thought the use of "some forms" of torture was permissible against suspected terrorists. While most of the respondents were against the very notion that any type of torture should be employed, a large portion of respondents to the poll thought that some forms of torture were permissible.
The country with the largest percentage in favor of torture was Israel coming in at 43%. The country with the lowest percentage in favor was Italy with 14%. The United States come in at 36% in favor and the United Kingdom came in at 24% in favor. The poll demonstrated that out of the people asked around the world a third supported the use of torture.
The usual caveat must be applied when considering these results which is namely that polls can be used to prove any point of view that one so wishes. Having said that I think that this poll does show us a general swath of opinion on the use of torture in the fight against terror. Most of the countries in the world are signatories on the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Therefore any legislative edict to promote torture by state authorities is unlikely but these things never work like that. They are always done in the extremities of societies in places that are by their very nature secretive and against those who have no voice or value.
I think that the current debate in the west around the question to torture or not raises some fundamentally difficult questions relating to the nature of a civil society. The point of national security and how this is balanced with the human rights of suspects ( I stress suspects and not convicts) in custody will have to be taken into consideration by the greatest of legal minds that the west has to offer.
Many in the west wish to re-establish and re-affirm the Judaic-Christian culture that underpins western societies as a way of combating Islam and Muslims . I think that those wishing to legalize torture whether implicitly or explicitly are in good historical company and following a well established Judaic-Christian tradition. A tradition that has seen Jews and Christians killing and torturing their opponents for thousands of years.
Will the future use of torture help or hinder the way that the West wishes to interact with Muslims only time will tell. I am reminded at this point by the words of Matthew 26:52. Jesus is reported to have said:
The country with the largest percentage in favor of torture was Israel coming in at 43%. The country with the lowest percentage in favor was Italy with 14%. The United States come in at 36% in favor and the United Kingdom came in at 24% in favor. The poll demonstrated that out of the people asked around the world a third supported the use of torture.
The usual caveat must be applied when considering these results which is namely that polls can be used to prove any point of view that one so wishes. Having said that I think that this poll does show us a general swath of opinion on the use of torture in the fight against terror. Most of the countries in the world are signatories on the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Therefore any legislative edict to promote torture by state authorities is unlikely but these things never work like that. They are always done in the extremities of societies in places that are by their very nature secretive and against those who have no voice or value.
I think that the current debate in the west around the question to torture or not raises some fundamentally difficult questions relating to the nature of a civil society. The point of national security and how this is balanced with the human rights of suspects ( I stress suspects and not convicts) in custody will have to be taken into consideration by the greatest of legal minds that the west has to offer.
Many in the west wish to re-establish and re-affirm the Judaic-Christian culture that underpins western societies as a way of combating Islam and Muslims . I think that those wishing to legalize torture whether implicitly or explicitly are in good historical company and following a well established Judaic-Christian tradition. A tradition that has seen Jews and Christians killing and torturing their opponents for thousands of years.
Will the future use of torture help or hinder the way that the West wishes to interact with Muslims only time will tell. I am reminded at this point by the words of Matthew 26:52. Jesus is reported to have said:
Friday, October 20, 2006
The history of North America begins for many in the year 1492. That was the year Christopher Columbus boarded his ship financed with monies from the Christian kingdoms of Spain and headed off to find a route from Spain to India through the west. Little did Columbus know that he would never reach India but rather that he would "discover" the New World and change human history forever.What has followed in the intervening 514 years has been in no uncertain terms an absolute disaster for the indigenous peoples of both north and south America. Through the use of every stratagem of war and its crimes whether it be murder or rape or disease or alcohol Europe has made itself at home in the Americas. From the English and French to the north and the Spanish and Portuguese to the south Christ and European culture has been violently and firmly imposed on the peoples and the land of the Americas.
However it appears that Columbus and the Europeans that followed him on his journey may not have been the first to "discover" the Americas. New rock carvings from the American state of Colorado are lending weight to a theory that Arabs discovered the Americas long before Columbus or the Mayflower ever existed. The rock carvings are in an ancient language found in the regions of southern Arabia. The term South Arabian Semitic languages covers a group of languages that were used in the area that makes up present day Yemen and Oman. This group of languages had their own written alphabet and the very oldest examples have died out except for a few remote areas in the region. Once such place is the Yemeni island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean and another is the Dhofar region of Oman.The carvings found on boulders in Colorado are identical to carvings written in the same language that are to be found in southern Arabia. What does this mean ? Well it lends credence to the claim that the Americas were not first discovered by Christopher Columbus and that Arabs were in the Americas long before he was around. Does this news really change anything for us today ? Not really I do not think that Americans of European descent are likely to give back America to the "Red Indians" much less Arabs however it will be good to see how much mainstream media attention that this research receives. I suppose the image of Europeans not being the first to discover the Americas is a pill too bitter for some to take.
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims USA Arabs Dhofar Christopher Columbus Google Video
Thursday, October 19, 2006
William Kristol is a famous individual from America. For the American visitors to this weblog he needs absolutely no introduction. For the rest of us mere earthly mortals here is quick re-cap of this man's achievements.(i) He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Washington political magazine "The Weekly Standard".
(ii)He was Chief of Staff to Former American Vice-President Dan Quayle.
(iii)Head of the project for a Republican future.
(iv) He is on the board of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
(v) He is the founder of the Project for the New American Century.
(vi) He is a regular political contributor to the Fox News Channel.
(vii)He is also considered a leading "neo-conservative" who backed the American invasion of Iraq and the subsequent toppling of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
There are conspiracy theories about most ground breaking events. From the assassination of President Kennedy to the death of Princess Diana and to more recently September the 11th. Any major development usually has a host of individuals claiming that the official version is just a smoke screen and that the real perpetrators of the event are powerful establishment forces. Whether it be the Mafia/C.I.A and the murder of John F. Kennedy or the British Royal Family and the death of Princess Diana or the neo-conservatives and the attacks on September 11 2001, there are a whole host of groups and private individuals prepared to point the finger of blame at the establishment.
I am not sure how much to believe of this propaganda that organizations put out over the internet and other media. Most people are inclined to rubbish these claims at the first instance and so am I. Having said this how come so many others are taken in by the claims ? Do they have some type of secret truth radar that allows them to known what the rest of us can only consider as looney allegations? I am sure that they are completely convinced by what they believe in.
Moving onto today's post the following is a video taken of a lecture that William Kristol gave recently at the University of Texas. The speech was to deal with the current political climate however it descended into something more uglier when a hostile segment of the audience demanded answers to questions relating to 9/11.
I am sure that Mr.Kristol was probably annoyed, embarrassed and maybe even scared by the turn of events. However one question remains in my mind after watching this video. That question has nothing to do with Mr. Kristol's politics or the looney allegations of some in the audience. That question is, why does Mr.Kristol appear to have a smug smirk on his face ?
Technorati Tags: Islam William Kristol Moslems Bill Kristol Muslims Neo-Cons Google Video
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
This is an excellent video looking at Dubai. The city is located in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E) which in turn is situated in the Arabian peninsular over looking the Persian Gulf. With Iran to its north and Saudi Arabia to its west the U.A.E became famous in American recently when its port authority was refused a contract to manage security at 6 America sea ports. The "suspicion" at the time was that the U.A.E was harboring terrorists and a threat to America's national security.In this video Ray Hanania a former Vietnam war veteran , reporter and comedian takes you on a trip through the desert sheikhdom. The video is a bit shaky however the message is quite clear. Many a westerner might be surprised at what is to be found in this most Arab/Muslim of cities. Without any more delay I hand you over to Ray and the magic that is modern day Dubai.
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims Media Ray Hanania Dubai UAE USA Video
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
It is really difficult for a woman never mind a man to realize how tormenting an experience wearing a niqab (face veil) is in the west. Some Muslim women are forced by a male member of their families however I do not think that this the case in a large percentage of female Muslims especially those in the west.Let me at this point interject a "pearl of wisdom" from my own experience. I come from a Muslim family and I cannot remember ever seeing any of my female relatives whether in America, Europe or Kashmir ever wearing a niqab. In fact most of the females in my family do not even wear a head scarf. This is the reality for many Muslim families. I have found that the majority of Muslim women that wear the niqab especially in the west do so because they feel it brings them closer to God.
As any one who has worn a niqab or walked with some one who wears a niqab in the west will soon realize it is not the most "pleasant of experiences". In some ways I really respect and admire such women. It cannot be easy for them to "go against the grain" but they still do it as an act of devotion to God. As a result they are punished, penalized and demonized. I am sure that the human out cry against the niqab would not have been so loud if for instance we were taking about the Amish or Orthodox Jews. Both groups practice a lifestyle that is at variance with modern day life. Whether it be the Amish and their eschewing of modern technology or the orthodox Jews and their adherence to the Shabbat and not performing anything that can be construed as work. Both groups seem like clinging onto a religion and an age that has long been superseded by modernity and technology.
What does all of this have to do with the title of this post I hear you ask ? Quite simply put the connection is Jacqui Morley who is pictured above. She is not a Muslim but did wear the niqab for a week in the northern English sea-side town of Blackpool. She is a local reporter who went undercover to see what life feels like for a veiled Muslim women in today's Britain.
Here are some quotes from her article:
".....spat upon by a stereotype, a shaven headed man, in his 20s. I am groped by two "stags". Another, a good humoured drunk, tries to untie my veil, double knotted on the advice of helpful girls at the Hijab Centre. It spares my blushes. He swings his arm around my shoulders, tries to squeeze a breast, and takes a photo on his mobile phone."
Recollecting how she was treated by members of the public after wearing the niqab she writes:
"Now most react by avoiding eye contact, out of politeness or indifference or even fear? Some veer out of my path on the Prom, in shops, on streets. One woman almost screams when she bumps into me and turns to apologise. Some stare. Children are tugged away by parents.
"Would you like me to explain the veil?" I asked parents of a child transfixed at Tesco.
"We're not interested in your sort," the father responds.
I feel slapped.
I'm racially abused, several times in person, twice from cars. I'm sexually taunted by two stag parties on the Golden Mile, mobbed by one, jostled by another. Two attempts are made to remove my veil. One's just a tug - two kids running off laughing. I'm spat at twice." (Source: Blackpool Today)
For many Muslim women wearing a veil is a painful act of devotion to God. They will not be intimidated by those that wish to scare them into removing their veils. However what does it say about us as human beings and us as a society that we cannot even stand a symbol of innocuous religious piety such as a niqab in our midsts?
Technorati Tags: Islam West Moslems Britain Muslims Veil Niqab Religion Theology
While visiting Hakawi from the east a member of my blog roll (by the way for those thinking he is not a Muslim but an Arab Christian) I came across this image. It really struck me for its simplicity. Having said that one thought came to my mind, is this image purely telling the story of one little girls tragedy or is this girl being used for political propaganda ? Its a hard question to answer and maybe the only "right" answer is that maybe a little bit of both.In these times of perpetual fear and constant war we sometimes forget that the "enemy" are humans beings just like us. They feel pain if you cut them and they bleed just like us. War is a terrible thing and nearly always the ones to pay the highest price are the ones least able to afford it. Victims like this young girl whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"..found her in the remote southern village of Abu Floos, where she lives with her family.Her name is Asraa' Amir Mizyad. She was severely injured in a missile attack perpetrated by the US military on the morning of January 25, 1999. She had just finished a test at the Al Najed primary school and was walking home from school when the missile struck. A large piece of shrapnel severed her right arm below the shoulder and she suffered chest and abdominal wounds. A metal fragment remains lodged in her skull, a souvenir of the American Empire; doctors could not remove it for fear of killing her. Asraa was nine years old." (Source: nomorevictims.org)
Technorati Tags: Islam Moslems Muslims Media Iraq Terrorism War
Monday, October 16, 2006
The Cambridge Dictionary defines asylum-seekers as follows:"someone who leaves their own country for their safety, often for political reasons or because of war, and who travels to another country hoping that the government will protect them and allow them to live there" (Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online)
When the term asylum-seeker is used what normally passes through your mind ? For those of us who are a little bit older the term conjures up images of Jewish refugees escaping the Nazis in Europe . In modern times the first image of an asylum seeker is normally that of a person from a backward totalitarian murderous third world dictatorship. The second is normally the image of a person from a war-torn region of the globe escaping to start a new life. With this in mind say the term "asylum-seeker" and an image of an Afghan or a Kurd or a Somali or a Pakistani or a Zimbabwean is conjured up. However news is reaching this weblog that citizens of the latest country to be added to the list of states that "oppress" their nationals and that Britain considers asylum applications from is the United States of America. That is correct I have not mistyped Syria or Libya or Turkey it really is the U.S.A.
"BRITAIN is such a soft touch that even AMERICANS are coming here to claim asylum and sponge off the state."
As strange as it sounds the claim is true. What could possibily make Americans leave their homes and families ? It appears that racial discrimination and more importantly a free go at the British welfare/benefit system.
"A couple of years ago I met two black guys from the States who were over here because they thought they could get a better standard of living."
"One was from Ohio and the other from Kansas. They claimed asylum because they said they were racially discriminated against at home.
But they freely admitted they were here for the free healthcare and accommodation." (Source: The Sun Online)
It now looks like that when one sees a queue of asylum-seekers the "usual suspects" are represented namely the Somalis , the Kurds, the Pakistanis and the Zimbabweans but one must now also add to that list Americans.
Technorati Tags: Britain Immigration Asylum Seeker Refugee USA America The Sun
Sunday, October 15, 2006
This video examines the topic of democracies in Muslim countries and in particular the Arab world. The documentary looks that recent successes that three Islamist groups have had by standing in elections. The Council For The National Interest Foundation an American organization visits in turn Egypt, Judea and Sumaria and Lebanon. The program examines the interaction of modern Islamic politics and democracy.
The documentary brings up fundamental questions relating not only to the Middle East but to all Muslims countries. How can the West or even liberal, pro-western secular Muslims voice support for democracy if that support only brings Islamists into power? It is a question that many have not answered in the head long rush to modernize and democratize the Muslim world. However it is a question that is at the root of future development in the the Muslim world.
Technorati Tags: Islam Hamas Moslems Democracy Muslims Lebanon Hezbollah Google Video
The documentary brings up fundamental questions relating not only to the Middle East but to all Muslims countries. How can the West or even liberal, pro-western secular Muslims voice support for democracy if that support only brings Islamists into power? It is a question that many have not answered in the head long rush to modernize and democratize the Muslim world. However it is a question that is at the root of future development in the the Muslim world.
Technorati Tags: Islam Hamas Moslems Democracy Muslims Lebanon Hezbollah Google Video