...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

 

Another ‘toon tumult: If you don’t want to stir up the seething masses, you better not publish any offensive images of…cockroaches? From Front Page Magazine:

 

We all know that cartoonists can get into big trouble for drawing the Prophet Muhammad, but cartoonists around the world regularly get in big trouble for drawing all kinds of things. One cartoonist in Iran is in prison for drawing a cockroach.

Mana Neyestani drew a child talking to a cockroach; in the cartoon, a boy says the word "cockroach" in different ways, and the cockroach replies, "What?" in the Azeri language of Northern Iran. Mana has a lot of Azeri friends and colleagues, a minority group that constitutes about 25 percent of Iran's population and which is often the butt of local ethnic jokes.

It would seem that the Azeris have thin skins; when they saw Mana's cartoon, they rioted. Thousands of Azeris filled the streets to protest the cartoon; they set fire to a newspaper office then pelted government buildings and police with stones, injuring several policemen. Dozens of rioters were arrested. Mana and his editor were abruptly fired from their jobs at "Iran Friday," the weekend edition of one of Iran's largest newspapers, which ran a front-page apology for three days following the riots.

Iranian officials blamed America and Israel for the riots fueled by the cartoon, but threw Mana and his editor into Tehran's notorious Evin Prison where they face trial on charges of "insulting the Azeri minority." Mana's cockroach cartoon was published on May 12; the newspaper was closed down on May 23 and is awaiting a court decision on whether it may resume operations…

 

Update: The most beloved cockroach cartoon in history.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:55 | link | comments

A UC congregant speaks out: A member of the United Church expresses her disdain for the political turn her church has taken in a letter to the Globe and Mail:

Margaret Wente says perhaps United Church-goers will decide that, "instead of boycotting Israel, they should boycott their own church." Many of us have been doing that for years. The United Church has become a quasi-political organization. It has campaigned against free trade with the U.S. and against Canadian participation in U.S. ballistic missile defence, and it is now promoting a boycott of Israel.

Those looking to a church for spiritual nourishment are naturally put off by the politics, and those seeking political action can get that elsewhere -- without the distraction of hymn-singing and prayers. Until the United Church refocuses on its mission, its congregations will continue to shrink.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:44 | link | comments

 

Poor Ehud: As Caroline Glick explains, even with the crisis in Gaza threatening to escalate into a full-scale war, he’s as clueless as ever. From JWR:

…So does the fact that this week Olmert finally permitted forces to reenter Gaza mean that he now gets it? Does Olmert's decision to arrest Hamas parliamentarians and government ministers in Judea and Samaria in spite of Condi's objections signal that he has accepted that Israel must destroy its enemies' capacity to attack its territory, its forces and its citizens?

Does the fact that Olmert ordered IAF jets to overfly Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's palace mean that he understands that the war being fought against Israel is part of the global jihad?

Unfortunately, a close look at Olmert's counter terror measures makes clear that, no, in spite of the wailing of the international press corps, and the whining of the State Department and its European and Russian counterparts, in fact, Olmert still refuses to get it.

Olmert and his associates in the government have pointed their fingers at Hamas blaming it for the Palestinian guerilla attack on Israeli territory Sunday morning while ignoring Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah terror group's equal share of culpability. It was Fatah, not Hamas that kidnapped and murdered 18 year old Eliyahu Asheri. It is Fatah that is threatening to blow up Israeli embassies abroad. It is Fatah that is threatening to renew shooting attacks on Jerusalem and attack Israel with chemical and biological weapons. It is Fatah that is threatening to kill the IDF hostage Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

While Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin was preparing the list of Hamas leaders IDF forces arrested in Judea and Samaria Wednesday night, Abbas was finalizing his deal with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh for the formation of a Hamas-Fatah unity government. Abbas and Haniyeh not only agreed to form a unity government, they also agreed that Hamas would become a member of the PLO. Aside from that, they agreed that to establish a unified force for fighting their joint war against Israel. That is, this week, as Israel trained its rifles on Hamas alone, Abbas effectively unified Hamas with Fatah.

Rather than contending with this development, Olmert and his colleagues chose to ignore it. And this makes sense of course. Acknowledging that Fatah and Hamas are equally at war with Israel would mean that Israel has no option of giving away Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem to any of these groups…

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:59 | link | comments

 

Giving it to Norman: Here’s a transcript of a radio show in which Josh Block of AIPAC runs rings around Norman Finkelstein, the university professor who ranks just below Noam Chomsky as the most despicable Jewish Israel-basher in academe. I especially enjoyed this volley (link via Martin Kramer):

JOSH BLOCK: I fundamentally understand the facts, which clearly you do not, which are that Israel takes fundamental legal action to arrest individuals who are engaged in terrorist activity directed against its citizens. There is no moral equivalency to be drawn between a country acting in defense of its citizens and those engaging in terrorist activity in an effort to stabilize and destroy that free and peaceful society.

Look, Amy and Juan, as a Liberal Democrat who is a long-time listener of this program, I fundamentally believe that the audience and you are in a position to understand that liberal fundamental values, which are celebrated in Israel -- freedom of the press, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion -- are denied to those living in Palestinian areas and throughout the rest of the Arab world. There's an asymmetry that’s involved in the Middle East, which is a country of Israel that is based on fundamental free values, that is not replicated in the Arab world, where education systems inculcate children with hatred and teach them that martyrdom and death is preferred over science and math and education.

And fundamentally, after Israel's disengagement from Gaza less than a year ago, when the Palestinian people and the Authority that leads them had the chance to build a better life for their citizens, they chose not to do that. They destroyed the greenhouses, the economic infrastructure that was provided. They then took the opportunity not to fight terrorism and to provide security for their people and went the other direction. That's why when these attacks take place through the very arteries, the crossing points and the cargo points that benefit the Palestinian people, Hamas is intentionally harming their own society. That is the fundamental dynamic, none of the other speciousness that we're hearing from our other guest today.

 

Update: MEMRI has a translation of Norm’s interview on Lebanese TV. He’s trying to flog his new opus, another "exposé" of the "Holocaust industry":

...Finkelstein: I Wrote My Book Because "The Nazi Holocaust Was Being Used as a Political Weapon in Order to Silence Criticism of Israeli Policies in the Occupied Territories"

Norman Finkelstein: "The main reason I wrote the book is because I thought that the Nazi Holocaust was being exploited by Israel and its supporters in the United States against the Palestinians and against basic principles of justice. That is, the Nazi Holocaust was being used as a political weapon in order to silence criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

"There are also other reasons for writing the book. Obviously, there was a personal reason - namely, my parents passed through the Nazi Holocaust. Every member of their families was exterminated during the war, and I felt it was important to accurately represent what happened to them during the Nazi Holocaust."

[...]

"My book is mostly about the misuse or exploitation of the Nazi Holocaust for political purposes. The main claims I make in the book are, first of all, that this notion of Holocaust uniqueness - that is, no group of people in the history of human kind has suffered the way Jews have suffered.

"This notion of Holocaust uniqueness has no basis in historical fact and is an immoral doctrine, because it ranks human suffering, saying some suffering is better and some suffering is worse. The main purpose of this claim of Holocaust uniqueness is to immunize Israel, protect Israel, from criticism."

[...]

"There has Been a Gross Inflation of the Number of Survivors of the Nazi Holocaust… All the Historians Have Shown [That] Hitler's Extermination of the Jews was Very Efficient"

Finkelstein: "Well, one of the points I tried to make in the book is that there has been a gross inflation of the number of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. In fact, as all the historians have shown, Hitler's extermination of the Jews was very efficient. It was like a factory, an assembly line. Jews were processed to be murdered. When you have such an efficient system there can't be very many survivors. In fact, the best estimates show that by May 1945, that is, at the end of World War II, about 100,000 Jews had survived the death camps, the ghettos, and the labor camps. If 100,000 Jews survived the camps and ghettos in 1945, then 60 years later - that is, roughly around now - there can't be more than a few thousand survivors still alive."

The Holocaust Industry Claimed Hundreds of Thousands of Survivors to Blackmail Europe

Finkelstein: "But the Holocaust industry wanted to blackmail Europe in order to get compensation moneys. And in order to blackmail Europe they said there were hundreds of thousands of needy Holocaust victims who were still alive, and they started to inflate the number of survivors in order to blackmail Europe."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:50 | link | comments (1)

The context of hatred: The Canadian government has taken steps to keep “controversial” imam, Sheik Riyadh ul-Haq, from speaking at a Muslim youth conference in Toronto this weekend, and the man at the centre of the “controvery” is striking back. He says that he does not preach hate against Jews, Hindus and other non-believers (he’s also said to have it in for gays and moderate Muslims). In fact, says the "charismatic" imam, nothing could be further from the truth, since all he's doing is expressing the loving, tolerant message inherent in his faith:

"All I would like to say is that the picture portrayed from these quotes that I preach hatred against the Jews, the Christians or the Hindus is totally false," he told CBC.

Ul-Haq was interviewed in London on Thursday by officials from the Canadian High Commission, who have been in contact with Air Canada regarding his possible arrival in the country.

In an interview to be aired Friday on the CBC Radio program The Current, ul-Haq insists his words have been taken out of context and that he was actually condemning extremists of every religious persuasion who misinterpret their holy books to justify terrorism.

In an article today, the Toronto Star mentions some of these “uncontextualized” words:

In a speech posted online, ul Haq says Jews and idolaters are "the ones who are bitterest in their enmity towards Muslims" and that the only Muslims "considered moderates" are those who openly advocate lesbianism, don't believe in segregation and "feel no shame" in recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. He also says "we should follow in the footsteps of the shahada (martyrdom)."

Yup, that sounds like a clear condemnation of extremism to me. I wonder what kind of “context” you could put it in to make it sound otherwise.

I know, how about the “context” of dhimmi gullibility?

Update: I just heard on Ceeb radio that the imam may decide to pass up the youth conference due to “personal concerns.”

 

But, hey, maybe he can return once he sorts them out.

 

I hear The View is looking for someone new and “controversial” to replace Star Jones—which might be an excellent way to broaden his—and the show’s—audience.

Update: You can listen to the Ceeb’s interview with ul-Haq here.

Update: In his interview with Rick MacInnes-Rae, the imam says he never counselled shahada, martyrdom, that, in fact, he used another word that sounded like shahada but which actually means “companions”—as in the companions of Mohammed. He says his statement was truncated and mistranslated to make him look bad.

Since I don’t speak Arabic (aside from salaam alaikum and Allahu Akbar)  I’ll have to take the imam’s word on that one. And since I know that Muslims often mistranslate and fabricate the words of those whose message they want to discredit, I concede that it’s entirely possible that the imam’s words could have been subjected to the same sort of treatment by those on the other side. However, the words I did hear the imam speak—in clear, uninflected, articulate English, my mamaloschen—were a clear indication of what he does believe, and his overt, religiously-based animus toward the Jewish people. He spoke, for example, of the hatred inherent in Jewish scripture, a hatred which he says animates Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

Reality check: The adherents of which religion destroy churches, synagogues, mosques and ancient Buddhist statues, all in the name of serving their God?

Honnnnk. (That’s the game show buzzer indicating your time is up.) It ain’t The Chosen Few, imam.

 

Update: Just heard on Ceeb radio that the Sheik won’t be here physically, but he will be here—and speak twice—live, via video conferencing.

 

A triumph for free speech or hate speech? I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments

 

Steyn hits the nail on the head: During his regular Thursday conversation with Hugh Hewitt, Mark Steyn, in a single line, articulates how and why the West may lose the war:

 

Well, you know, you said you thought that we would in the end win this war. I think it is entirely possible that we could lose, simply because at the heart of all these things is the idea that somehow, you demonstrate your moral virtue by bending over backwards to be as accommodating as you can at people who want to kill you.

 

Bang on, Mark. You don’t win a war by being nice. But I suppose some folks don’t mind flushing Western civilization down the loo so long as their feelings of moral superiority can accompany them to their grave.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:59 | link | comments

 

Letter to Reverend Frances Combs, co-chair, the United Church of Canada’s Task Group for Ethical Investment in the Middle East:

 

Dear Reverend Combs,

 

I was extremely distressed to learn of your Church’s decision to join the international boycott of Israel organized and spearheaded by Israel’s enemies. While I have no doubt that you really believe this is the best way to enact “justice” in the region, I am certain that your good intentions would have dire consequences. By calling for people to divest in Israel and invest in the Palestinian territories, you are punishing Israelis and rewarding Palestinians—hardly an even-handed approach. By endorsing the so-called “right of return”—a central plank of the boycott—you are demanding that Israel commit suicide, a request that would never be made of any other nation in the world.

 

Reverend Combs, that’s not “justice.” That’s not following the compassionate teachings of Christ. That is being grossly unjust and unfair.

 

I would ask you to reassess your Church’s position both in light of this obvious imbalance, as well as the historical refusal of Palestinians and the larger Muslim world to countenance a sovereign Jewish presence in Israel. It is clear that, more that anything, this inability to come to terms with the fact of Israel is the biggest impediment to a true and lasting peace in the area.

 

Yours very truly,

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments (1)

 

No joke: I don’t know why Albert Brooks had such a hard time locating comedy in the Muslim world. All he had to do was visit France (or now, Quebec) to find Dieudonne, the high-larious Jew-hating comic.

 

Don Rickles, he ain’t.

 

From the National Post:

MONTREAL - Have you heard the one about the Holocaust-obsessed Jewish intellectual who goes to a market in France and haggles over the price of potatoes? "With six million dead, surely you could give me a better price," he complains.

Audiences packing a Montreal theatre this week for shows by the French comic Dieudonne have heard the joke targeting Bernard-Henri Levy, and according to press reports, they have been rolling in the aisles.

Dieudonne's increasingly virulent attacks on Israel and Jewish lobby groups have made him something of a pariah in his native France. Former colleagues have accused him of anti-Semitism, and last March a French court convicted him of "incitement to racial hatred" for saying that his Jewish critics were "slave traders, who had converted to banking, show business and, today, terrorist action." Mainstream venues have shunned him and he is reduced to performing in his own theatre.

But in Quebec, he is viewed as simply controversial, and his shows are hugely popular. The French-language side of the Just for Laughs festival has booked his one-man show for 10 nights at Theatre du Nouveau Monde, running until July 5, and he will co-host two large gala concerts later in the month. "He will dare to talk about controversial subjects that will leave nobody indifferent," the festival announced in its news release.

Leah Berger, co-ordinator of government and community affairs for B'nai Brith in Quebec, attended Monday night's premiere on behalf of the Jewish group and left anything but indifferent.

"We're very concerned by the so-called comedy of Dieudonne," she said. "We're deeply disturbed and offended." It is his fourth appearance at the festival, and her organization has complained in the past to the festival but seen no results.

Dieudonne Mbala Mbala, born in France in 1966, insists he is not an anti-Semite. "I am anti-Zionist and I oppose the power of the Zionist lobby in France," he told the British newspaper The Independent this year.

"The Zionists have perverted the values of the Republic so that only the suffering of the Jews is recognized officially, not, for instance, the suffering of blacks through the slave trade," he added.

His comments, whether on stage or to the media, frequently land him in trouble. In 2002, he was charged with being an "apologist for terrorism" when he said, "I prefer the charisma of Bin Laden over that of George Bush." He was acquitted.

The following year he provoked outrage when he appeared on a French television show dressed in orthodox Jewish garb, made a Nazi salute and shouted, "Isra-Heil!" This year he announced his candidacy for next year's French presidential elections, and his first move was to accuse the French Jewish association CRIF of setting the government agenda.

He has posted comments on his Web site sympathetic to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and recently accepted an invitation to visit Iran. "In my opinion, it is less serious to go to Iran than to visit Israel, a country run by extremists, dangerous people, who are pointing 52 nuclear warheads at sheep pens and people who are unarmed," he told the Montreal weekly Voir this month. "I believe Iran has a legitimate position."

Sure, he can convulse ‘em in Moa-ray-all and Par-ee, but let’s see how he does in the Borscht Belt. (Which, these days, alas, is more like a Borscht Buckle.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:33 | link | comments

 

Seize and desist: The Ceeb is awfully fond of the verb “to seize”—but only to put a desciptive (and negative) spin on Israeli actions, never on Arab ones. For example, the other day I heard a Ceeb reporter refer to the time during the Six-Day War when Israel “seized” the West Bank. (So aggressive, those Jews.) And today, on its website, there’s a report that  Israel has “seized” Palestinian officials.

 

That unfortunate Israeli teenager, er, sorry, settler, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists, er, sorry, militants—he wasn’t “seized." He was only “kidnapped,” as was Corporal Shalit.

 

I guess in the “unbiased” Ceeb style book, Jews “seize.” Arabs, on the other hand, never do anything nearly that belligerent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

 

Pointing the finger: Two days into the new accord and it looks like cracks are already developing in the Hamas-Fatah united front. From the Jerusalem Post:

A senior Fatah member said on Thursday that although Israel should be condemned for its incursion into the Gaza Strip and the arrest of senior Hamas officials, it was the Hamas who brought these actions upon the Palestinian people.

He blamed Hamas' uncompromising, extremist approach - especially that of Hamas leader in Damascus Khaled Mashaal - turned the whole world against the Palestinians.

The official, an associated of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Israel Radio said that Mashaal interfered with any attempt at moderation or mitigation of the economic embargo on the Palestinians.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:39 | link | comments (2)

 

Getting shtupped: Here’s Harpoon Siddiqui’s latest piece of disinformation and pro-Mo propoganda, wherein he lauds a Dutch dhimmi for deftly towing the Islamist line.

 

And here’s the email I sent to the Toronto Star in response:

 

When I read about some of the ideas advanced by Jan Schoonenboom, the Dutch official who helped write a recent Dutch think-tank report, for building bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims, I couldn’t help but think of Queen Victoria’s advice to her daughter on her wedding night: “Lie back and think of England.”

 

According to Schoonenboom, the best way to deal with the threat of Islamism—a threat which continues to terrorize Europe and the Western world—is to close your eyes and accept the inevitable. To that end, he floats the patent falsehood that Islamic law, which allows for no separation between civil and religious authority, is compatible with democracy. He also recommends the EU and even Israel negotiate with Hamas, an avowed terrorist organization whose raison d’etre is the destruction of the Jewish state. His reasoning (if it can be called that): the Palestinians freely chose to put the terror regime in office, and it behoves us to acknowledge that choice.

 

I don’t know how it worked out for the Queen’s daughter, but I do know this: If we follow Schoonenboom’s advice, not only will the threat of terrorism not diminish, it will become even more pronounced, as terrorists, sensing weakness, will become emboldened by our apathy and fear. And at that point, we can more or less kiss our cherished Western freedoms goodbye.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:43 | link | comments

 

The boycotters’ shame: There’s a superb column by Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail. Wente lambastes the self-righteous leftists and their unhinged hatred of the Jewish state which cropped up yesterday when Toronto wing of Canada’s largest Protestant denomination signed on to the Palestinian-led boycott of Israel:

…Apartheid is a favourite word among this crowd. It evokes the glory days of Nelson Mandela and the boycotts against South Africa. "The South African apartheid regime never engaged in the kind of repression the Israelis exert against the Palestinians," said Richard Lee, a U of T professor who showed up at the press conference. He didn't mention Israeli-Arabs who make up about a fifth of Israel's population, ride on the same buses, shop in the same malls, vote in the same elections, get blown up by the same bombs, and are stitched back together in the same hospitals.

The Palestinians lead a miserable life, that's for sure. But they have rejected negotiating their own state time after time. And the only conditions that would satisfy CUPE and the United Church are the same ones demanded by Hamas. Israel must abandon all its settlements and let all the descendants of the displaced Palestinians return to reclaim their ancestral lands. That, of course, would mean the end of Israel.

Last year the Israelis came to the conclusion that the settlements in Gaza were, indeed, a bad idea. So they withdrew. In return, the Palestinians elected Hamas and fired a thousand Qassam rockets at Israeli border towns. This too, I learned, is all Israel's fault. One very angry woman, from the Jewish Women's Committee to End the Occupation, denounced "the Jewish lobby, but I guess I'm not supposed to say that" for their efforts to brainwash the Canadian public. She also denounced the Canadian government for siding with Israel. Obviously, demonizing Israel is a thoroughly ecumenical affair…

As an independent, unpaid and unacknowledged member of “the Jewish lobby” (where do these guys meet and, more to the point, who’s bringing the lox?), I salute you, Ms. Wente.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:31 | link | comments

 

CUPE and Israel: Kudos to the Globe and Mail for this editorial. At least someone at the Globe “gets it”:

When the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario branch, voted last month to support an economic boycott of Israel, it went well beyond simply taking sides in a complex dispute. The first part of its resolution makes clear CUPE Ontario's intention to delegitimize the Jewish state. "With Palestine solidarity and human-rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices." (Emphasis added.)

This is a message that harks back to the notorious Zionism-is-racism resolution at the United Nations in 1976. It is similar in its thrust to the long-running boycott by the Arab League aimed at Israel and anyone who did business with Israel. It rejects Israel for what it is -- a Jewish state.

It thus brings to mind an article published in these pages four years ago by three prominent Jewish Canadian leftists: trade unionist Jeff Rose, medical doctor Philip Berger and lawyer Clayton Ruby. The three were fed up with what they perceived to be anti-Semitism in the left. "The singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic." The three went on to say: "A balanced analysis of the Middle East should be based on universally accepted, measurable standards of conduct. Israel should be held accountable, but no more accountable than other nations, including Palestine." CUPE Ontario has not called for the boycott of any other country.

Adding insult to injury, the Toronto Conference of the United Church publicly commended CUPE Ontario yesterday and revived a three-year-old motion calling for an end to investment in Israeli companies with dealings in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. That motion, narrower than CUPE's, is regrettable at a time when the elected Palestinian government refuses to offer an open, direct acceptance of Israel's existence. More regrettable is the church's support for the CUPE resolution, a throwback to a time when the Arab world insisted that Israel could never belong to the community of nations.

Of course Israel should not be immune from criticism. But by the same token, those such as CUPE Ontario that would treat the Jewish state as a pariah will raise legitimate fears, as Messrs. Rose, Berger and Ruby put it, that anti-Semitism is a powerful force in the left-wing polemic.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:15 | link | comments

 

Just a coupla submissive chicks sitting around blogging: In the current issue of Maclean’s, Canada’s newsmagazine, there’s an extensive poll about Canadian beliefs and attitudes. In on question, Canadians were asked “whom do we feel uneasy around?” According to those polled, they feel most “uneasy” (odd word, that) around “Sex offenders” (96%) and “Alcoholics” (71%). In terms of unease around monotheists (the only religions mentioned in the survey), more Canadians are “uneasy” around “Born-again Christians” (31%) than they are around Muslims (18%); only 5% say they’re uneasy around Jews.

 

So much for Islamophobia.

 

I don’t know what all those scary born-again Christians are talking about online—the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Rapture?—but the Globe and Mail provides a window on what some Muslim women think about Canada and Canadians, and let’s just say they feel a lot more “uneasy” about us than we do about them.

 

The women—the wives of four of the alleged fertilizer of peace bombers—used to converse on an Islamist site, and, along with the usual feminine chit-chat—recipe tips, gripes about hubby—they shared their intense revulsion for all things Canadian, deriding that infidel entity which flagrantly separates Allah’s law from the laws of the state:

…Ms. Jamal's zealousness for homegrown Muslim causes is matched only by her rejection of just about everything Canadian. As the June, 2004 federal election draws near, she repeatedly advises Muslim youth to completely avoid the process. Voting, she tells them, inherently violates the sovereignty of God, making it the most egregious sin against Islam.

"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state?" she asks. "Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?"

Ms. Jamal's list of forbidden institutions goes beyond politics. Banking, membership in the United Nations, women's rights and secular law are all aspects of Canadian society she finds unacceptable.

But her deepest outrage, like that of so many Muslims, is time and again sparked by the treatment of her brothers and sisters around the world. In a May, 2004 post titled "Behold Your Enemy!" she posts multiple articles describing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers.

"Know what you will face one day," she warns fellow forum members. "Let them call you a terrorist, let them make you look like a savage, but know that THIS is the filth of the earth, the uncivilised destroyer of humanity.

"Know from this day that this is not an Iraqi problem, it is not an Afghani problem, it is not a Palestinian problem, it is not a Somali problem. IT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!"

Often, the conversation was quite tame. The women post advice on make-up, organizing sisters-only events and finding restaurants that offer truly halal Chinese food. Fahim Ahmad's wife, Mariya, posts a warning to other women not to go watch the brothers play soccer, because it makes them uncomfortable."Yea, and besides, their OUR husbands!" Ms. Jamal concurs. "Go get your own to stare at!"

But inevitably, it would come back to Islam, the very purpose for which Ms. Farooq created the forum in the first place. When it comes to religion, the wives of Mr. Amara, Mr. Jamal, Mr. Ghany and Mr. Ahmad exhibit a commitment to hard-line fundamentalism that rivals and often exceeds that of their husbands…

A clear case of infidelphobia, I’d say.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:07 | link | comments

 

Huh?: Um, don’t mean to be dense here but what two-state solution, what recognition? From Der Spiegel:

 

 

Abdallah Frangi, Gaza's highest-ranking Fatah official, made a decisive contribution to the Palestinian agreement on a two-state solution. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE he said Hamas has now recognized Israel and that relations between Hamas and Fatah will improve.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Frangi, Hamas and Fatah have agreed on a two-state solution. This allows for a Palestinian state which can coexist with Israel. Does this mean that radical Islamic Hamas has recognized the State of Israel?

Frangi: This is de facto recognition, even if Hamas did not say so explicitly. The purpose of this document is to force Hamas to take political responsibility.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the referendum that President Abbas demanded, with which he hoped to force Hamas to recognize Israel, now redundant?

Frangi: I don't think there will be a referendum. So indeed it has become redundant.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Israel is deploying a heavily armed force on the border of the Gaza Strip. Is the agreement a tactical maneuver to prevent Israel from a possible imminent occupation of the Gaza Strip?

Frangi: The talks between Hamas and Fatah have been going on for more than a week already, with the aim of ending Palestinian isolation. Israeli deployment in the Gaza Strip only played a minor role in this. But of course, the Israeli threat makes us stick together.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is an occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israeli troops imminent?

Frangi: It looks like it will be a short but fierce attack. The Palestinian side will suffer great losses. We are inferior to the Israelis in terms of military power.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will the achieved agreement between Fatah and Hamas also end the violent conflict between both parties? The conflict has become ever fiercer over the past few weeks in the fight for control of the security services and because of unpaid salaries.

Frangi: Signing the agreement will certainly help relax the general atmosphere. The nasty relationship will be defused.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Can an agreement between Hamas and Fatah really last? Won't other groups such as Islamic Jihad try and torpedo possible coexistence with Israel?

Frangi: A conflict between Hamas and Fatah is not in Islamic Jihad's interests. The group has stated clearly today that they are in favor of an agreement between all parties, but had reservations about an agreement with Israel. Their rejection will not have a big influence on Palestinian society.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The European Union decided last week to make €105 million available to the Palestinians. The money is supposed to bypass the Hamas government. Has some of it already reached its destination?

Frangi: Not yet. The victims of the boycott are mostly Fatah members, Hamas doesn't suffer so much from it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will the stated sum of money be enough?

Frangi: It will not be nearly enough. We want the entire economic system to function again and to avoid being reduced to paupers. The Europeans, the US and also Arab neighbors bear a responsibility here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:55 | link | comments

 

Paul’s puffery: Claudia Rosett—a reporter who knows a thing or two about UN malfeasance, having almost single-handedly kept the Oil-for-Food story on the front burner—reviews Paul Kennedy’s new book about Kofi’s wretched domain.

 

Let’s just say she’s not too impressed:

…”The Parliament of Man" is less a history of the U.N., however, than an apologia for it. Mr. Kennedy's pattern is to chronicle the mistakes, failures or irrelevance of a particular U.N. initiative and then conclude that, whatever the damage or cost, it was still worthwhile. Noting that many of the faults of the World Bank, set up in 1945, were replicated by the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), set up in 1965, he tells us: "Regrettably, many of the UNDP-supported projects were to exhibit the same weaknesses regarding accountability, quality control, and focus that plagued some of the Bank's investments, but" -- and this is the sort of "but" he repeats throughout the book -- "its very existence was a significant step forward, not just symbolically or as another source of funds, but as a challenge to the more traditional view about economic growth and development."

As for programs that Mr. Kennedy deems less problematic, he relies heavily on the U.N.'s praise of its own doings. In a section on U.N. development aid, for instance, he cites two "small success stories" in Kenya and Kyrgyzstan, noting that "they certainly deserve as much of a hearing as the tales of mismanagement and waste." One must flip to the end notes to discover that Mr. Kennedy's sole source on the success of these projects was the U.N. itself.

In this manner Mr. Kennedy tries to make the case that it is not so much the U.N. that has failed "humankind" as we who have failed the U.N. Looking ahead, he urges that we go "softly, softly" with reforms and buttress the U.N.'s corrupt system with its own 100,000-troop standing army, its own intelligence agency and a mandate to impose global taxes on the U.N.'s behalf. Repeatedly he denigrates the concerns of "conservative critics," however well-documented the U.N.'s duplicities and debacles may be. Warning that "suspicious neo-cons may whine at the idea of the world body having its own CIA," Mr. Kennedy urges that "all such yelps should be dismissed as self-serving and obstructionist."

As a rule, the more flagrant the scandal, the less Mr. Kennedy appears to notice it. He makes only one mention of the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food swindle, referring to it -- in a fumbling reversal of the U.N.'s own terminology -- as "food for oil." His lament is not that this U.N. relief program helped strengthen Saddam Hussein and enrich a global network of corrupt politicians, arms dealers and crooks but that the exposure of this corruption served to "haunt, and weaken" the U.N. According to a number of high-level investigations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was derelict in his oversight of the program, and an assortment of Mr. Annan's hand-picked top aides variously took payoffs from Saddam, shredded potentially germane documents and blocked damning audit reports from reaching the Security Council. Mr. Kennedy's sole allusion to this snake pit is to say that, "because of unfriendly and disdainful feelings toward the world organization in some quarters, the Secretariat needs to have a record that is spotless and unchallengeable."…

I might give Kennedy’s puff pastry a glance—for comedy value only, of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:20 | link | comments

 

Poor, poor pitiful them: The Beeb sheds copious tears for the Palestinians in this over-the-top piece of kitsch qua propaganda (with the most egregious parts italicized):

Many observers are puzzled by the mood of defiance and fatalism among the Palestinians amid the latest crisis in their relationship with Israel.

Many Palestinians sense they have nothing to lose.

Suffering is nothing new to the Palestinians, especially in the crowded, impoverished towns and refugee camps of the Gaza Strip.

They have grown used to economic hardship - and to Israeli retaliation following some act of violence by a militant group.

By and large, they have lost faith in the ability of their own - or the world's - politicians to bring an end to their plight.

These things may explain the psychology of Gaza.

But the plain fact is that, over recent months, the Palestinians have paid a high price for defiance - and are likely to continue to do so.

Election consequences

The election of a Hamas-led government in January was not primarily a message to the outside world.

It was a message of rejection directed at Hamas' more nationalist rival, Fatah, which had dominated Palestinian politics for decades and had become tainted by corruption.

Hamas' victory had little to do with its Islamist ideology or its stance on Israel, and everything to do with the perception that it was more honest and competent than Fatah.

But whatever the voters' intentions, the election had consequences.

The United States, the European Union and other countries declared they could not do business with a party formally committed to Israel's destruction.

They broke off contact with the Palestinian Authority and cut off the economic aid on which it is heavily dependent.

As a result, most of the authorities' employees - teachers, doctors, civil servants and members of the security services - have not been paid their due salaries since March.

While the economy has slumped, there have been violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah gunmen - and a power struggle between the government and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

It is too soon to tell whether the political accord reached between the various factions on Tuesday will end the factional strife and lead to the creation of a national unity government.

A good deal of bitterness remains…

What kind of horrible, unjust world do we live in when Palestinians, whose sole motivation for electing a regime of genocidal Jew-loathing jihadis was to rid themselves of endemic corruption, are forced to suffer for their good intentions?

 

I ask you.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:10 | link | comments

 

Grovel, grovel: If you want to get some idea of the mentality of the United Church of Canada, it's on excruciating display here. It's the letter the Church sent to two Muslim Canadian clerics following the publication of the Danish ‘toons in the Western Standard.

 

I didn’t think it possible, but the letter is even more toadying and dhimmified (and clueless) than the Canadian Jewish Congress’s condemnatory new release:

 

Dear Imam Patel and Imam Slimi;

Greetings in the name of Jesus, whom both Christians and Muslims honour.

On behalf of The United Church of Canada we wish to express to you and through the Council of Imams, to the Islamic communities of Canada, our deepest regret that the name of Muhammad has been so tragically misused in the depictions of cartoons first published in Europe, but now also in Canada.

We believe that the intention of publishing the cartoons has little to do with freedom of expression and much to do with incitement to racial and religious hatred. As you have noted in your recent press release, the cartoons suggest that Islam itself teaches, condones and encourages violence, bombings and the mistreatment of women. Furthermore, the implication is that all Muslims believe so as well. This we know to be untrue. The answer to your question of "why publish such cartoons?" we believe is simply racial hatred. In other forms it has been called Islamophobia.

These attitudes should have no place in Canada. Because we all share responsibility for the society in which we live, we wish to offer our sincere apologies that such attitudes can persevere in a country that we believe can and should be a model for the world of racial and ethnic respect.

May God's peace be with you.

All together now: Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya…

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:26 | link | comments (1)

Au courant anti-Semitism: On the day when the Toronto Division of the United Church of Canada--a division representing 300 Ontario churches--is set to announce it's joining the boycott of Israel, the following passage seems particularly timely. Written by Norman Podhoretz, it's from an essay called "Israel: A Lamentation from the Future" and appears in the 1993 book With Friends Like These: The Jewish Critics of Israel:

If it had not been obvious before 1975, when the United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, it should have become obvious by then that there was a large component of anti-Semitism in the denial to Israel of this right to conduct itself in accordance with universally accepted norms and practices. Banished in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust from domestic society in the countries where once it flourished, anti-Semitism had been given a new lease on life by the reappearance after so many centuries of a Jewish state in the world. Thus the technique of applying double standards to individual Jews or to the Jews as a minority group was now extended to the Jewish state, with the result that Israel was condemned for actions that were regarded as justified or even praiseworthy when practiced by all other states.

For example, for exercising the right of national self-determination, the Jews of Israel were accused of the crimes of racism and imperialism. For defending themselves against armed attack, they were accused of the crime of aggression. And for holding onto territories conquered in the course of a war launched against them with the stated purpose of wiping their country off the map, they were accused of violating international law. Indeed, of all the millions of square miles of territory conquered through aggression by various nations since 1945 alone, only those taken by Israel in a war of self-defense were expected to be returned. "It is natural enough," said J. William Fulbright, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time of the Six-Day War, "for Israel to resist the honour of being the first modern military victor to be obliged to abide by the principles and specifications of the United Nations Charter, especially when the greater powers who dominate the Security Council have set such a wretched example. Be that as it may, the principle is too important to be cast away because of the hypocrisy or self-interest of its proponents." In other words, as one commentator sardonically remarked, "all the self-interested hypocrites have a right to ask of Israel what they would not dream of doing themselves."

Something for the snillingers of the United Church to stew over as they aver that their boycott has nothing to do with Jew-hatred.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:08 | link | comments

 

Nonsense in New Westminster: This letter to the editor from Akbar Javer, M.D. of New Westminster, B.C., appears in the current issue of Maclean's:

 

Perhaps we need to take some steps back and try to understand the root causes of militant Islam: my sense is that it has a lot to do with the plight of the Palestinian people over the last 60 years.

 

Yeah, that must be it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:06 | link | comments

 

Ken in the clear: It’s official. London Mayor Ken Livingstone is not an anti-Semite, and I, for one, am relieved.

 

A report handed down by the Greater London Authority clears the Mayor of Jew-hatred. It found that his suggestion that the Rueben brothers—two of the U.K. most well-known developers, who are well known to be Jewish—go back to where they came from was not evidence of any animus towards Jews in general. (The Mayor was angry at the brothers because their construction of London’s Olympic village wasn’t going quickly enough for his liking.) Apparently, the Mayor thought the brothers, born in Bombay to Iraqi parents, came from Iran. An honest, if very odd, mistake.

 

Later, the Mayor did muster the wherewithal to issue an apology--to the people of Iran for making such an offensive suggestion.

 

The report described the Mayor’s reaction to the brothers’ laggardly construction practices as “proportionate” and “robust.”

 

Funny, that’s exactly how I’d describe those anti-Kenitic diatribes I enjoy reading and writing so much.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments (1)

 

Nuketown song: The Supreme Ayatollah (and I ain’t talkin’ Diana Ross) says he isn’t interested in hashing out his nuclear differences at a confab with Great Satan. And anyway, he only want all that enriched uranium to top up Iran’s energy needs.

 

In private, however, I’m sure he’s singing a different (Motown) tune:

 

“We need nukes, nukes,

To make us strong.

We need to build, build

Some nukes—it isn’t wrong,”

Khamenei says,

 

“You can’t hurry nukes.

No, you just have to wait.

They say uranium’s easy.

It’s a piece of yellowcake.

 

You can’t hurry nukes,

No you just have to wait.

You’ve got to trust, give it time,

No matter how long it takes

 

But how many A-bombs

Can we build

Before our terror aims

Have all been filled?

Each time I string along

Great Satan’s crew

It gives me time

To follow through.

I remember what I said:

 

You can’t hurry nukes.

No, we just have to wait

They say uranium’s easy.

It’s a piece of yellowcake.

 

You can’t hurry nukes,

No you just have to wait.

You’ve got to trust, give it time,

No matter how long it takes.

 

Now, nukes, nukes, nukes, don’t come easy.

But I keep on waitin’

Anticipatin’ for that loud blast,

That mushroom cloud,

That will make our voice

Ring clear and loud.

I keep waintin’

I keep on waitin’

But it ain’t easy.

It ain’t easy.”

Khamenei says:

“You can’t hurry nukes.

No, we just have to wait

They say uranium’s easy.

It’s a piece of yellowcake.

 

You can’t hurry nukes,

No you just have to wait.

You’ve got to trust, give it time,

No matter how long it takes…”

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:30 | link | comments

Gang amity: For a brief moment yesterday, some of the MSM were positively giddy over the news that Hamas and Fatah were about to “implicitly” recognize Israel--whatever that means. The “implicit” recognition was supposed to have come as a result of high level meetings between the two organizations, during which they agreed to adopt the plan devised by what ABC News describes as “senior Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.”

Because, as we all know, those “senior” prisoners command so much more authority and respect than the junior ones.

One small problem with initial reports—they were totally bogus. Not only was there no recognition of Israel—implicit, explicit, crypto, extant or defunct—but according to a senior Palestinian official, one not currently being held in jail, “This was not on the table. This was not in the dialogue.”

It’s nice to see the rivals getting along so well, though. Looks like they realize there’s more that unites than divides them—like their shared loathing for Jewish sovereignty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments (1)

 

The wrath of Khan: It’s an all Globe and Mail day over here at scaramouche. Next up: CAIR-CAN founder and occasional Globe columnist Sheema Khan’s take on the “Islamophobia” which she says has sprung up in the wake of the recent terror arrests, and which now threatens to ripple the calm waters of our multicultural Trudeaupia.

 

And by “Islamophobia” she’s not referring to a real and irrational prejudice against Muslims, because such a phobia has yet to manifest itself in any genuine way. No, she’s taking about her dismay at those folks in the media who bothered to notice that those scooped up in the recent terror arrest were Muslims, were dressed in the same kind of traditional Muslim garb favoured by the Taliban, and that their complexions were, shall we say, not quite as fair as Michael Jackson's (his current complexion, not the one he was born with).

 

Ms. Khan believes that noticing any of these things is overtly “racist” because—and please try to follow her meandering logic here—when members of the Bandidos motorcycle gang appear in court, no one ever mentions how they look (what, you mean fat, unkempt and covered in tattoos?—ed).

 

True enough, but Ms. Khan doesn't mention the fact that the Bandidos, who  are more or less defunct as a going concern, have never been part of a long-standing global effort to thwart Western civilization. All they want to do is ride their hogs and maybe make a few bucks pushing crystal meth. But if they ever decide to “revert” and appear at a bail hearing dressed like Osama bin Laden, you can be sure that some local reporters—the ones who haven’t succumbed to the loopy imperatives of political correctness—will be sure to mention it.

 

That’s just the way it is in a free society when some people, despite being labelled “Islamophobic,” refuse to get with the program and pretend that the buck nekkid Emperor is wearing a beautiful bespoke suit. Unlike, say, our mayor and police chief, who not only think the suit is beautiful, but want to know the name of the tailor.

 

Ms. Khan wants us to know that because of all our “Islamophobia” and “racial profiling,” Canadian Muslims are feeling mighty victimized these days. They perceive that it has become a “crime” to be “Canadian while Muslim.”

 

Cue the violins, Mr. Welk.

 

Because of this perception (actually, misperception), Muslims are having to work overtime to convince us that they’re just as nice and non-threatening as all the other tiles in the multicultural mosaic. For example, a nice Muslim woman who's due to give birth soon to her second child (which makes her a nice pregnant Muslim woman--bonus points for that) was profiled recently on CBC radio. The woman, Saira Absar, “has decided to wage her own jihad—struggle—against those who have perverted the faith.”

 

Guess it must be one of those personal, interal jihads we've heard so much about.

 

And a curator in Victoria, B.C--who I don't think is Muslim--has organized an art exhibit to show the work of 15 contemporary Canadian Muslim artists.

 

I'm not sure how many of the artists are nice, although the idea that they're creating something and not destroying notable landmarks or critical infrastructure sure is. Nice, I mean.

 

Not that I think that most Muslims are terrorists. Far from it. I happen to know for a fact that most Muslims are not terrorists. Sure, some of them may financially support terror outfits, and sure, many others, who may not actually give them any money may support their aims, but the vast majority of Muslims are content to lead lives of quiet desperation, like the rest of us. Well, maybe not always so quiet. However, it’s also true that most Muslims—the practicing ones, anyway—are literalists. And since the literal words of Koran are literally the source of the problem, I don’t think the efforts of one or two or even 15 potentially nice and very artistic Muslims amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

 

But, hey, that’s just my extensive reading about Islam and inherent pessimism speaking.

 

Also, I'm nowhere near as nice as the pregnant stuggler or the B.C. art gallery curator.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:01 | link | comments (2)

Enough already with “ the context”: This impassioned letter to the editor from Naftali Lavie of Toronto appears in today’s Globe and Mail:

As someone who has served in an Israeli tank unit near Kibbutz Kerem Shalom, I have nothing but sympathy for the families of Lieutenant Hanan Barak and Sergeant Pavel Slutzker, killed on Sunday in a daring Palestinian commando raid in which Corporal Gilad Shalit was taken captive (Israel, Hamas In Turmoil After Raid On Outpost -- front page, June 26). But some perspective and some context are necessary.

This tank base is one of the locations from which Israel has been relentlessly shelling the Gaza Strip for several weeks. Moreover, just one day earlier, on Saturday, Israeli commandos had raided Rafah in the Gaza Strip and captured two brothers, Mustafa and Osama Muamar, who, according to the army, were in the "final stages of planning a large-scale terror attack." All of this is well known but did not make it to the front page. Can it be that Palestinian lives are nothing, Israeli lives everything? That Palestinian captives are nothing, Israeli captives everything?

To answer your queries, Naftali: No, it cannot be that Palestinian lives are nothing, Israeli lives everything. And it cannot be that Palestinian captives are nothing and Israeli captives everything.

 

But, forgive me for saying so, you seem to be the only one making such ridiculous assertions. Certainly, I have yet to read or hear them in any of the news reports I’ve read on the subject of Corporal Shalit’s kidnapping.

 

But while we’re at it, let’s take a mo’ and put things in their proper "context (Man, I’m sick of that word). The "context" is that Gaza is populated by crazed Jew-hating jihadis who are determined to push the Jews into the sea and put an end once and for all to Jewish sovereignty in Israel. The "contex is that they are now tunnelling into Israel and capturing Israeli soldiers, trying to ransom them for some of their terror confreres who are living the good life (at least compared to life in Gaza, which I’ve heard is fairly wretched) in Israeli jail cells. The "context" is that well-meaning “snillingers” (the Norwegian word for “do-gooders,” which Bruce Bawer mentions in While Europe Slept, his invaluable book how the politically correct EUnuchs have ceded their continent to radical Islam) are blind to the faults of those they champion and hyper-sensitive to the supposed faults of their own societies.

 

That enough “context” for you, fella?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:07 | link | comments

 

On Sheiky ground: The lead editorial in the Globe and Mail pleads the case of “controversial” British cleric, Sheik Riyadh ul Haq. The editorial says we should allow the Sheik in to preach to Muslim youth at a conference in Toronto at the end of the week, even though in the past he has sometimes says hateful things about Jews, Hindus and Christians. It’s alright to allow him to say whatever it is he has to say, writes the editorialist, because his views will be offset by more moderate voices, like the one belonging to “Sheik Habib Ali of Toronto.” The Sheik made a tape about jihad on which he said that “the most important thing that a human being can do for his own soul is to kill another human being.”

 

Obviously, the Toronto Sheik is one of those Meccans, the ones who make credulous infidels (like the editorialists) feel all warm and fuzzy about the one true faith. Unfortunately, Sheik ul Haq seems to be a Medinan. He follows those teachings of the Prophet which came later in time and abrogate his earlier ones. Thank heaven those earlier ones are still there in black and white. Otherwise, how could we ever be persuaded, for example, that there’s no compulsion in religion, he who kills one man actually killing the whole world, and that Islam means us non-believers no harm?

 

The Globe would like to give conference organizers, who have hosted the Sheik on three previous occasions, the benefit of the doubt:

Perhaps the foundation feared that its message would be rejected if it were seen to be spoon-feeding pre-approved ideas to young people; or perhaps it simply wasn't aware of some of Mr. ul Haq's views, which one Islamic scholar has suggested are a misreading of the Koran.

Yeah, I’m sure that must be it.

And the Globe is pretty sure that, whatever the Sheikh has to say, even it happens to have a negative influence on impressionable young people, as denizens of a democracy, we should be willing to suck it up in the name of free expression:

Some Canadians will feel uncomfortable at tolerating the expression of despicable views from an outsider; but there is, and should be, a high hurdle for barring those views in a democracy. That does not mean Canadians are powerless in dealing with those views. The Muslim community in particular, having issued an invitation to this man, now has the chance to explain forcefully why he is wrong.

Mind you, this is the same Muslim community that allowed two radicals to continue spewing their hatred at local mosques without lifting a finger to silence them. (Well, to be fair, one of the radicals also did double duty as the mosque caretaker, and we all know how hard it is to find good help these days.) But I have no doubt that the community would have no problem setting the Sheik in the right direction, if ever he should waver off course.

Then again, it looks like he may not have the chance. According to a story in the Toronto Star, Air Canada officials have been told not to let the Sheik board the plane until he reports to the Canadian High Commission in London to answer a few questions.

Like “the context” of some of his past remarks, perhaps?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:07 | link | comments (2)

 

Soccer akbar!: Some devout Dar al Islamists are upset that the faithful seem to be worshipping another God, and want them to cut it out, dammit. From YNet News:

 

A British jihadist website has warned Muslims against being drawn in to what they described as "the new religion of soccer."

 

The Saved Sect website, which calls on Muslims to work to establish an Islamic state in Britain, has attacked "football fever," saying that soccer has "captivated the masses, dedicating their time and effort towards it."

 

Comparing the allegiance of soccer fans to Islam and jihad, the organization said: "Football is the deen (religion) by which people live their lives by and are willing to die for. Their jihad is to fight against those who are arch rivals against their team. Their da'wah (call, invitation) is to publicize, defend and justify their team, inviting others to support them in this."

 

"People will spend hundreds and thousands of pounds for this religion of theirs, traveling to other parts of the world in support of their team… showing affection, supporting and caring about… They will jump down the throats of those who so much as even dare to criticize their god rising to defend it at all costs," the Saved Sect website said.

 

Claiming that soccer plants the seeds of nationalism, and is therefore part of a "colonial crusader scheme" to divide Muslims and cause them to stray from the vision of a unified Islamic identity, the website told readers: "The sad fact of the matter is that many Muslims have fallen for this new religion and they too carry the national flag.

 

The statement, aimed at calling on British Muslims to disassociate themselves with the World Cup in Germany, ended with a quote by Islam's prophet, Muhammad, condemning nationalism.

 

Can’t have any of that “nationalism” compromising the solidarity of Mo’s one big happy ummah, can we?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:11 | link | comments (1)

 

Jingo lingo: Despite a few missteps, and despite all the dire warnings about how “scary” he was going to be once he got into office (covert agenda! Bush-lite!), Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t give the fear-mongers much to go on.

 

Veteran CBC pundit (and old-school Socialist) Larry Zolf isn’t fooled for a moment, and wants everyone to return to the good old days, when Harper was perceived as an unpredictable Conservative (to employ the word that Ceebers find even scarier than “terrorist,” a term they have eschewed as a matter of corporate policy).

 

Here’s how Zolf (who, physically, always reminded me of Today Show movie reviewer, Gene Shalit--don't ask me why) tries to revive fears about "scary" Harper (with the “scariest” bits bolded by moi):

 

Stephen Harper's conservatism is new to Canadian politics. It is really a neo-conservative, social conservative government which, unlike any other Tory government, has peculiar rules it plays by.

 

Above anything else, Harper believes that the state is inherently evil and cannot be trusted with anything.

 

In Harper's Tory land, the state has no role to play in climate change or controlling long guns, and has no right to intervene in the economy.

 

He loathes Keynesian economics, and believes the ideal state is by definition a non-socialist society.

 

To Harper, socialism is Friedrich Hayek's "Road To Serfdom" totalitarianism. Any government action is by definition socialist, and therefore goes against free enterprise.

 

His love of free enterprise is shown by his taking on the job as head of the National Citizens Coalition, a body that stands for unfettered free enterprise, and is patently anti-labour and opposed to the welfare state.

 

Harper's Hayek views and his pro-American views on the economy make him a big neo-conservative indeed. As a Reformer, he was violently opposed to day-care centres because he saw them as bastions of socialism, and he believed firmly that state day care was pure socialism and therefore a violation of the Hayek credo.

 

A Buckley-Harper comparison

 

Harper's hero worship of William Buckley Jr. reflects Buckley's belief in untrammelled free enterprise and the withering away of the state. Buckley's desires to whittle down the state are in complete harmony with Harper's paranoia about the state.

 

Harper's disavowal of Kyoto is based on his belief that oil-rich Alberta has the right to be untouched by federal regulations on climate change. His law-and-order stance and his enormous respect for the military also show how little use he has for traditional Canadian liberal values.

 

The Liberals, in their leadership race, have not attacked Harper for his free enterprise and pro-military views. In their confusion, the Liberals are playing right into Harper's hands.

 

Michael Ignatieff's stand on the war in Afghanistan is really arguing that Canada should abandon its traditional liberal values and embrace Harper's jingoism and militarism…

 

To the Ceeb and its audience the above must sound frightening and grim. To others, who have come to shun the Trudeaupian statism so beloved by the Ceeb (and by Zolf, the consummate Mothercorp man), "Harper's Tory land" comes as a great relief.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:55 | link | comments

 

Terror, Inc.: Remember that tender scene of President Bush strolling hand-in-hand with an egregiously oily Saudi royal?

 

So sweet.

 

An NRO piece notes that the President’s soft spot for the unctuous Wahabbis is not only absurd, it goes against his own oft-stated goal of rooting out terrorism.

 

How, for instance, is Hamas, an avowed terror regime, supposed to be persuaded to change its evil ways (to quote that old Santana song) when the oil ticks keeps sneaking them the payroll?

 

…How does this terrorist group continue operating despite the international boycott? An incident on June 13 involving PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar is telling. The Hamas leader was briefly stopped, but otherwise unhindered, as he transited through the international airport in Cairo with seven suitcases stuffed with an estimated $20 million. At the Rafah crossing-point from Sinai to Gaza, European monitors asked al-Zahar to explain the small fortune in his luggage, but did not detain him when he proved unresponsive. Then Palestinian Force 17 militiamen aligned with Fatah and President Abbas asked him to sign a guarantee that the money would be deposited in the Palestinian exchequer. Al-Zahar told them that he would think about it, then drove off. The foreign minister is the third Hamas official to enter at the Rafah crossing into Gaza carrying large amounts of cash. Last month, a Hamas lawmaker passed through with $4.5 million in banknotes. Before that, a Hamas spokesman brought in $800,000. Not a single dollar of these cash deliveries ever reached official Palestinian national coffers. Rather, Palestinian sources report that the cash covered the wages of Hamas’s militiamen and “security forces” — that is, the hired killers of “one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world today.”

And the provenance of this money? Ironically, given President Bush’s pledge that “those who do business with terror will do no business with the United States,” much of it comes from a country whose princes are regular guests at the Crawford Ranch.

According to Israel’s Center for Special Studies, as of 2003, up to 60 percent of Hamas’s annual budget came from Saudi Arabia, including from official sources, government-sponsored telethons, and government-run charities, as well as from Saudi individuals and organizations. The Saudi flow of money to Hamas has been so great, historically, that long before he became PA president, Mahmoud Abbas was complaining about it, as attested to by a December 2000 letter he wrote to Prince Salman, governor of Riyadh, discovered by Israeli forces during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002.

Matthew Levitt, formerly a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and now deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury, has just published Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. He notes that last September Israel arrested an Israeli Arab, Yakub Muhamad Yakub Abu Etzev, who played central militant, political, and financing roles for Hamas in coordination with what Israeli authorities described as a “Hamas command in Saudi Arabia.” Until he was arrested, Abu Etzev was in contact via e-mail with senior Hamas officials in Saudi Arabia. According to Israeli authorities, Abu Etzev confessed to receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Hamas headquarters in Saudi Arabia as well as instructions, which he passed on to Hamas field operatives. The funds entered the West Bank through human couriers and money changers, often under the cover of dawa (Islamic charity and proselytism work).

Saudi officials insist that then-Crown Prince Abdullah officially withdrew the kingdom’s support for Hamas in early 2002. However, late last year, Saudi television was still running a program on the “jihad” in Palestine that implored viewers to donate funds to the intifada. A caption on the screen informed prospective donors that they could send funds through the “Saudi Committee for Support of the al-Quds Intifada’s Account Ninety-Eight … a joint account at all Saudi banks.” The government-created account continues to fund Palestinian organizations, preeminent among them Hamas.

Michael Barone recently noted that President Bush has a much better sense of history than do many of his critics. The president, Barone argues, understands the need for bold action to confront an existential threat better than any president since Harry Truman. Yet, somehow, Bush has a blind spot when it comes to this desert kingdom, and it threatens to undermine the central pillar of his presidency.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:07 | link | comments

I'm rushing right out to my local Indigo to get one:

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:39 | link | comments

 

A dhimmified response: The New York Times Magazine has a lengthy piece about Londonistan (yup, that’s what it’s called in the article) and how officials in the U.K. are trying to cope with and understand the problem of radical Islam in their midst.

 

As the article unfolds, it becomes evident that they’re coping by falling back on the tried and true—i.e. close your eyes and act like good little dhimmis. Or alternatively, blame it on the usual suspects—marginalization, segregation and the like.

 

As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who are p.c.

 

In this except, for example, Londonistan’s Police Comish demonstrates his utter cluelessness about Islam and its problematic religious imperatives—as does the NYT scribe who applauds him for it:

…If the "religion" causing problems is not really about religious things at all, then the risk of talking at cross-purposes is high. The "national" government wants to talk about local integration and facilities and role models, while "local" representatives want to talk about the West Bank. Sir Ian Blair, the police commissioner, has suggested broadening the interchange with Muslims following what he calls a "traffic light" system. The government will obviously speak to community leaders (green), and it obviously won't speak to terrorists (red), but it will speak to certain "amber" (yellow) interlocutors whom Americans might be reluctant to touch. Among those who fit in the amber category might be Yusuf Qaradawi, the telemufti of Qatar, who has issued several fatwas in support of suicide bombing. Lecturing in the United States recently, Commissioner Blair granted that Qaradawi "has views on the Palestinian intifada that probably would not be very acceptable either here or in the U.K.," but also said that he was impressed that "he can command an audience of 50,000 young people at the drop of a hat."

Sir Ian once said that "there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim, any more than there is anything wrong with being a fundamentalist Christian." He was assailed in the press, but he had a point. What if terrorism does not come from a certain attitude toward religion but from a certain attitude toward politics? Pushing Muslim identity in a more "fundamentalist" direction could mean more contemplation of God and less contemplation of grievance. Pushing Muslim identity in a more "mainstream" direction could mean encouraging grandstanding and political ultimatums…

With all due respect, Sir Ian is a dick. But then, Toronto’s tread-gently Police Chief, Bill Blair, who was so pleased that during a press conference following the arrest of 17 Muslim terrors suspects the word “Muslim” wasn’t used even once, isn’t much better.

 

Update: An article on The American Thinker site puts police blindness in another context. It's a self-defensive, reflexive reaction to criticism in the media and elsewhere that police counter-terrorism measures have been unduly harsh:

…Although there may be a temptation to feel angry with the Muslims, it is important to realize that they are only partially to blame. The relentless portrayal of them as victims and of the police as abusers has created an environment which almost calls for this kind of reaction. This in turn brings about a situation where a terrorist-breeding community can freely condemn those who try to stop its members from committing acts of terrorist destruction.

The combined assault on the security forces by the media, Muslim leadership and leftwing politicians is a certain prescription for disaster. Put upon and criticized, the police are being forced to place politically correct patterns of behavior above public safety. That the pressure is taking its toll is evident from their repeated claims that the Muslim community is made up of peaceful people from whom there is nothing to fear. Such assertions fly directly in the face of reality.

It is an obvious fact that western Europe is being terrorized by Muslims within. We have everything to fear from them, for they harbor those who would destroy us if they could. Not all Muslims, to be sure. But some. Yet the very people tasked with dealing with this problem are afraid to say the truth. Disturbingly, it appears that this fear has infected police forces all throughout the western world. Only recently we saw a striking instance in Canada when after having thwarted a terrorist plot, police officials went into absurd lengths to avoid the obvious…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:18 | link | comments (4)

 

Like a virgin: One of the advantages of canoodling with incorporeal houris up in Paradise is that they are instantly restored to their intact, pristine condition after every incorporeal sexual encounter.

 

So much easier than what terrestrial women have to go through, enduring painful, expensive surgical procedures so they’re fit to marry the car-b-cue boys. From the Toronto Star:

 

SAINT-DENIS, France—Chastity can exact a painful price from young Muslim women, forced into lies or surgery to go to the marriage bed as virgins.

 

Hymen repair, fake virginity certificates and other deceptions, said to be commonplace in some Muslim countries, are practised in France and elsewhere in Europe, where Muslim girls are more emancipated but still live under rigid codes of family honour.

 

Such ploys have saved many a young woman from scorn and worse. But they also clash with the more liberal social mores of France and Europe, where some decry it as an attack on human rights. The procedures are legal but shrouded in silence — "something that passes through nonofficial channels," via friends or the Internet, said Dr. Nathan Wrobel.

 

Wrobel is one of an unknown number of gynecologists in France willing to repair hymens, the membrane usually broken by the first act of sexual intercourse. He says women come to him convinced the procedure will somehow reverse the irreversible. "They tell me, `I'll be a virgin again. You will make me a virgin,' which in reality is totally false ... It's a secret we share."

 

Other doctors issue false virginity certificates or offer such tricks as spilling a vial of blood on the sheets to fool families into believing the bride has passed their purity bar.

 

Through the ages, virginity has been prized across religions and cultures, and doctors note only a few generations back European brides also had to furnish "proof" of chastity.

 

In today's France, with an estimated 5 million Muslims — the largest such population in western Europe — it's part of the larger question of how to deal with culture clashes ranging from the ban on head scarves in schools to sexual segregation in swimming pools.

 

A 2005 government report addressing culture clashes in hospitals mentions the virginity issue, asking doctors to refuse to issue false certificates.

 

Isabelle Levy, author of "Religion in the Hospital," decries both certificates and hymen repair, saying deception "increases the moral suffering."

 

Wrobel, who teaches at the University of Paris, says he and another doctor at his clinic in a Paris suburb stitch up seven to eight hymens a month in 20- to 30-minute operations.

The price, $500 (U.S.), is steep for a young woman in a poor family and possibly unemployed. A German doctor advertising on the Internet charges $1,250.

 

Dr. Emmanuelle Piet, who heads family planning clinics in an area north of Paris, says she has been issuing a half-dozen virginity certificates a year for three decades. But instead of hymen repair, she suggests less drastic measures, like spilling blood on the sheets.

 

"It's easy to be like a virgin," she said.

It's deceptive but "it's one way to help the girls," said Piet. "They are stuck in things so terrible.''

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:36 | link | comments

 

Suspicious minds: Someone—was it Emerson?—once said that consistency was the hob-goblin of little minds. Or something like that. Enduring words of wisdom, indeed, but I think I’d update them as follows: Conspiracies are the hob-goblin of little minds.

 

Witness this past weekend’s events in Los Angeles, when 1,200 small-minded conspiracy theorists convened at a cushy hotel to reconfirm each others’ belief that the terror attacks of 9/11 were actually—hold on to your hats!—perpetrated by George W. Bush and his merry band of war mongers.

 

Of course it was. Everyone knows that. Also, Dick Cheney’s much-derided hunting accident during which he mistook a Texas attorney for game was a set-up. The Veep is really the crackerjack marksman who took aim at a passing motorcade while standing on a grassy knoll in Dallas.

 

Oops. Sorry, wrong conspiracy.

 

Or maybe not…

 

Anyway, tabloid denizen and conspiracy buff Charlie Sheen was the “big name” at the conference, a testament to the kind of deep thinker attracted to this sort of confab.

 

And if Charlie is looking for something to do in between 9/11 conventions and hooker diddling, he might want to attend a confab being held later this year in Teheran. According to IranMania (a name which always evokes a chuckle), despite much criticism from outsiders, Moo Jihad has decided to go ahead with his Holocaust conference. (Also with his nukes, but that’s another story.) He aims to resolve, once and for all, the issue which has exercised some of the most addled of addlepated minds: is the Shoah a myth and, if so, does that mean we can finally get rid of those pesky Jews, say a week from next Thursday?

LONDON, June 26 (IranMania) - Iran said it was still going ahead with its plan to host a conference questioning the Holocaust, with the event now scheduled for later in 2006, AFP reported.

The controversial idea emerged after hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the systematic slaughter of an estimated six mlnJews (sic) during World War II as a "myth", and the event was initially set for early this year.

"It is going to be held in (the month of) Aban," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters, referring to the Iranian month which starts on October 23.

Asefi also said there was nothing wrong with the idea, saying that the delay in the timing of the event was because "in Aban the weather in cooler".

"We do not consider it harsh to host a conference that will historically, scientifically and analytically talk about an event".

Ahmadinejad, an ultra-conservative who came to power in a surprise victory last June, has provoked international condemnation with a number of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish remarks.

They include labelling Israel a "tumour" and calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" or moved as far away as Alaska. On the Holocaust, he has claimed it is merely a Western invention used to legitimise Israel.

In January, British Prime Minister Tony Blair described plans for the conference as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid", and advised Ahmadinejad to "come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe".

But Iran responded by inviting Blair to take part in the conference and "defend the Holocaust" as an historical fact.

Personally, I think Moo is a conspiracy by the mullahs. They’re tired of everyone calling them mad and think that if they set their deranged Mahdi-wannabe loose, they’ll look sane in comparison.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:06 | link | comments

 

Hirsi Ali gets Harpooned—again: The Toronto Star’s Moby dick, Harpoon Siddiqui, keeps up his “misinformation for dhimmis” campaign. In the latest instalment, Harpoon once again insists that, all evidence to the contrary, up is down, black is white, and non-Muslims, like that “Islamophobic” and divisive Ayaan Hirsi Ali are bad—really, really bad—while the two nice Dutch Muslims he describes in today's column—call them the anti-Alis—are on the right track:

 

THE HAGUE—He was an infant when his father left their Turkish village for Holland. He followed, with his mother, at the age of five. He didn't speak a word of Dutch. He had never even seen a bike.

 

Today, Coskun Cörüz, 43-year-old lawyer, is a Christian Democratic member of parliament.

 

Elected in 2001, he's deputy chair of the parliamentary committee on integration. Lean, lanky and stylishly dressed, he looks like a corporate executive.

 

She came to Holland at age two, with six siblings, to join their parents who had left their Turkish village two years earlier. Nebahat Albayrak, 38-year-old lawyer who speaks five languages, has been an MP for the leftist Labor Party since 1998 and has been chair of the parliamentary committee on defence.

 

Dressed in trendy khakis, and discussing hot-button topics with the calm precision of a policy maker, she fits no clichés.

 

Albayrak and Cörüz are among nine Muslim MPs, of varying degrees of faith, seven of them women, caught between the extremes of ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the one hand and militant Muslims on the other.

 

Cörüz recalls dealing with Hirsi Ali at a session with visiting Scandinavian parliamentarians.

 

"She took the microphone and painted a shocking tableau of Islam: `All Muslim women were being beaten up. All safe houses in Holland were full of Muslim women. Islamic schools were creating apartheid.'

 

"My colleagues kept nudging me to intervene. I finally did.

 

"I said that the safe houses were built long before the Muslims came. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish schools have long been part of Dutch tradition.

 

"And I told her that `when you attack hijabi women, you are talking about my mom. My mom wears a hijab and I am proud of my mom.'

 

"She got angry with me. She's not used to being contradicted."

 

Albayrak has debated Hirsi Ali several times, and "proved her wrong by just being myself."

 

Albayrak said the past five years "have been Hell. I had to explain myself as a Muslim all the time, and why I even believed in God.

 

"Secularism has been interpreted in a strange way, as a political tool against Muslims, against Islam. Muslims are told every day in the media, `You are worth nothing, your religion is worth nothing.'"

 

She thinks of Hirsi Ali as "a segregationist, who has divided the Dutch into Us vs. Them, the latter being Muslims born here, to people who themselves have been here 40 years" — far longer than Ali, who came in 1992.

 

Albayrak attributes Hirsi Ali's fame to two factors: a fearful public's susceptibility to Islamophobia and a concerted effort by rightwingers to feed it.

 

"She had lots of backup, by the (anti-Muslim) VVD party and by right-wing intellectuals who propagate the idea that Islam and the West are incompatible."

 

They back extremists like the late Pim Fortuyn, the late Theo Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali, whom they hold up as "courageous."

 

The ensuing polarization is a blot on Dutch democracy, says Cörüz. "Democracy means debate, yes, but it also means mutual respect and civility. Political correctness has been replaced by political rudeness."…

 

 

And we’ve learned to our horror what can happen in Holland to politically rude “Islamophobes”—they can be silenced forever by those who subscribe to a particularly uncivil and disrespectful form of religious correctness.

 

Also—is it just me, or does that “blot” remark sounds an awful lot like the one uttered by that noted Islamophile, Moo Jihad? Moo, you'll recall, described the Jewish state, the only functioning democracy in his 'hood, as being “a blot” on the impeccable Muslim landscape.

 

Looks like Mr. Coruz could use a Rorschach test to test his "blot" acumen.

 

A "blot" which could be taken to represent the polarization of Dutch society, with Muslims on one side, Dutch on the other, and the divisive Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the middle

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

 

Moor or less: If, as some scientists believe, the need to believe in a higher powered is programmed within human DNA, then something seems to have gone seriously askew with the way it was encoded in the genes of Nareal Batiste. Bastiste is the nutter in charge of the bizarre cult of plotters who were said to have their set their sights on Chicago’s Sears Tower. Although bombing plans had progressed no further than the discussion stage, the group had recently pledged allegiance to a faux-al Qaeda operative who was really working for police, at which point authorities decided to swoop in and shut them down.

 

The group seems to have practiced a bizarre admixture of all three Abrahamic faiths, with Islam tending to predominate. In this report from the Times Online, they sound like a freaky gang of societal outcasts, part Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army, part al Qaeda as perceived through a Hip Hop consciousness.

 

In other words, as weird as all get out:

 

THE ringleader of the seven men accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago was a “Moses-like figure” who carried a crooked cane and wore a cape as he sought to recruit followers to a religious cult called the Seas of David.

Narseal Batiste, 32, a martial arts enthusiast, led his oddball group of what he called “soldiers” seeking to wage a “full ground war” against America, according to charges brought last wee

The father of four, known to his followers as Prinze Naz, sometimes wore a bathrobe when entering the shabby warehouse in Miami that FBI officials claim was the base of the would-be terrorists.

Alberto Gonzales, the US attorney-general, claimed the arrested men, five from the US and two from Haiti, were inspired by a “violent jihadist message”. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, called the group a “very real threat”.

Batiste and his followers swore an oath of allegiance to Al-Qaeda and requested help from an undercover agent to buy weapons, explosives and uniforms, according to the indictment. He sought $50,000 to fund his mission and boasted that his attacks would be “as good or greater than 9/11”.

Batiste’s targets were said to have included the Miami FBI building as well as the Sears Tower, America’s tallest building. He was secretly recorded and filmed by the FBI, which infiltrated the group after a tip-off from a member of the public.

No weapons or explosives have been found at the windowless warehouse that Batiste called the “temple” in a rundown area of Miami.

Batiste grew up in Chicago and, as a young man, joined the Guardian Angels, a beret-wearing citizens’ crime prevention group. In 1994 he told his father, a former preacher, that he was “joining the Muslims” but his beliefs bear little relation to orthodox Islam.

A close friend said his teachings came from the Moorish Science Temple of America, an early 20th century religion founded by the Noble Drew Ali, a wandering African-American circus magician who claimed to have been raised by Cherokee Indians and to have learnt “high magic” in Egypt. Ali went on to style himself an “angel” and prophet of Allah.

The Seas of David borrows tenets from Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam and emphasises self-discipline through martial arts.

Batiste was known to hate President George W Bush and the war in Iraq. Neighbours would see his followers practising martial arts but paid little attention to them. “It seemed like a military boot camp,” said one…

Funny, he doesn’t look Moorish.

Update: Here’s moor, er, more about the Moorish Science Temple of America. It seems to be an inherently peaceful religion that has been twisted out of all recognition by a handful of misguided followers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments (1)

 

If other events were reported like alleged Toronto terror plots:  It might sound something like this:

 

A tiny minority of football (soccer) fans rioted following a match yesterday in Stuttgart, Germany.

 

Authorities were quick to say that this should not reflect badly on the World Cup, an international competition held every four years. “Football in a peaceful sport,” said Klaus Schmetterling, Mayor of Stuttgart, who pointed to riots that had occasionally occurred following matches in other professional sports.

 

Helmut Fahrvernugen, Chief of Stuttgart police, said while we must remain vigilant and on guard against such loutish behaviour, it is also essential to be sensitive to the larger non-violent population of football fans. He suggested that instead of referring to the trouble makers as “football rioters,” they should be described as “rioters who abusively invoke their fandom of football.”

 

“You’ll notice that I call them ‘fans’ not ‘football fans’,” said the Chief, citing concerns about casting the immense population of peaceful football fans in a negative light.

 

“Did you know that Timothy McVeigh was a NASCAR fan?” he added..

 

Update: And here’s the kind of “good news” report you could only read on Islam Online:

 

CAIRO — Superstar Muslim footballers leading several high-profile European teams in Germany 2006 FIFA World Cup are contributing to a paradigm shift, showing a face of Islam some have not seen and many others have claimed never existed.

"Muslim players in European soccer teams are a proof that their faith and cultures are not stumbling blocks hindering contribution to the development of their societies in all domains," Anas al-Tikriti, former chairman of the Muslim Association of Britain, told IslamOnline.net.

"They can help clear misconceptions about Islam and prove that the Muslim faith is a way of life," he added.

Many Muslim players have captured the limelight during their participation in the world football gala.

Among them is French playmaker legend and three-time FIFA World Player of the Year Zinedine Zidane.

His expected successor, midfielder Franck Ribery, has also made headlines during his country's opener against Switzerland.

Ribery, a native French revert, raised his hands and supplicated to God like a typical Muslim before the kickoff…

Soccer is swell. Now, if they could only do something about that “stumbling block” of the jihad…

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:22 | link | comments

“Dink” Floyd: I had a spare mo', so I thought I'd post this one:

Roger’s gone to rock Israelis.

Bringing with a heavy grudge.

Should have left it back in England

With the other hateful sludge.

All in all he’s just

Another dick at “the wall.”

All in all he’s just

Another dick at “the wall.”

 

He don’t need no education.

He don’t need no clarity.

Only one way to explain things:

Jewish wall’s iniquity.

"Hey, Jews, tear it down for me!"

All in all he’s just

Another dick at “the wall.”

All in all he’s just

Another dick at “the wall…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

Taking a break: I have family obligations which preclude my blogging for the next few days.

See y'all Monday.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:58 | link | comments

 

Inviting extremism: In light of the recent arrests of 17 Muslims, the Islamic Foundation of Canada is very concerned about the possible spread of extremism among Muslim young people in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). You can read all about these concerns on its homepage:

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

 

THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE ISLAMIC FOUNDATION OF TORONTO TODAY.  WE WISH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE BETTER ONES.

 

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR:  CANADIAN MUSLIMS ABSOLUTELY CONDEMN ANY ACTS OF VIOLENCE, OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDING TERRORISM IN ALL ITS FORMS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF CANADA AND CANADIANS.

 

WE, AS ALL CANADIANS, ARE SHOCKED BY THE RECENT ARRESTS OF YOUNG MUSLIM MEN AND TEENAGERS AND THE VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THEM.

 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION OR FAITH. SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, AND IN SOME CASES JUSTIFIABLE ANGER, ABOUT POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SITUATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.  HOWEVER, THAT SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR ANY HATEFUL, EXTREME OR VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR BY ANY PERSON, iOR GROUP.

 

WE HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL PROVIDE THE ACCUSED WITH A FAIR, OPEN, AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS SO THAT THE ACCUSED WILL BE JUDGED FAIRLY, THE TRUTH BECOME KNOWN AND JUSTICE SERVED.

 

WE REMIND OURSELVES AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT THESE ACCUSED HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  WE CAUTION AGAINST ANY RUSH TO JUDGEMENT OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR FAMILIES.  

 

IF THE ISLAMIC FOUNDATION CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THIS MATTER, PLEASE CONTACT US. 

 

Most comforting. And yet, this same organization is bringing a radical British imam to Canada to speak to impressionable youngsters at the annual Youth Tarbiyah Conference at the end of the month.

 

The cleric, Sheikh Riyadh al-Haq, has been very vocal about the low esteem in which he holds Jews, Christians and Hindus (but especially Jews). Given the current climate and the organization’s stated willingness to co-operate with authorities, you would think they might think twice about inviting him to speak at this particular moment.

 

Then again, since they’ve invited him to speak at the conference of three previous occasions, it’s not like he’s going to say anything new, right?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:51 | link | comments

The broken historical record: Did you know that the Jewish people have no claim--historcially, at least--to Jerusalem.

This ga-ga version of history brought to you courtesy the demonto "one-statists" over in the P.A.  By Daniel Pipes (on the JWR site):

…By 1990, the Islamic focus on Jerusalem reached such surreal intensity that Palestinians evolved from celebrating Jerusalem to denying the city's sacred and historical importance to Jews. The Palestinian establishment — scholars, clerics, and politicians — promoted this unlikely claim by constructing a revisionist edifice made up in equal parts of fabrication, falsehood, fiction, and fraud. It erases all Jewish connections to the Land of Israel, replacing them with a specious Palestinian-Arab connection.

 

Palestinians now claim that Canaanites built Solomon's Temple, that the ancient Hebrews were Bedouin tribesmen, the Bible came from Arabia, the Jewish Temple "was in Nablus or perhaps Bethlehem," the Jewish presence in Palestine ended in C.E. 70, and today's Jews are descendants from the Khazar Turks. Yasir Arafat himself created a non-existent Canaanite king, Salem, out of thin air, speaking movingly about this fantasy Palestinian "forefather."

 

Palestinian Media Watch sums up this process: By turning Canaanites and Israelites into Arabs and the Judaism of ancient Israel into Islam, the Palestinian Authority "takes authentic Jewish history, documented by thousands of years of continuous literature, and crosses out the word 'Jewish' and replaces it with the word 'Arab'."

 

The political implication is clear: Jews lack any rights to Jerusalem. As a street banner puts it: "Jerusalem is Arab." Jews are unwelcome…

 

In that case, I say Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were there first (a fact which, unlike the above, is beyond dispute.

 

Update: And speaking of revising history, here’s how PBS (linked above) santitizes and justifies the messy brutality that is the jihad:

 

Muhammad's religious career is often divided into two periods: the Meccan Period which lasted for thirteen years, from the start of his revelations to his emigration to Medina; and the Medinan period, which lasted the remaining ten years of his life.

The Meccan Period is characterized by the more elliptical and otherworldly portions of the Qur'an, and by the story of the rejected and persecuted prophet. Had the assassination plot against him in 621 succeeded, his religious career would have been similar in broad outline to that of Jesus.

However, Muhammad escaped the trap set for him and went to live in the oasis of Medina. There he evolved from the charismatic head of a small group to the political and spiritual director of a large community. For the first time he had to wrestle with the challenges of creating a new society. The Qur'an continued to be revealed to him, but the focus of the message broadened now from the purely spiritual to include the more temporal issues of community building, lawmaking, and social institutions. Muhammad also came under formal military attack for the first time in Medina. Consequently, the Qur'an and Muhammad's teaching also focused on delineating the concept of the just war. Formal permission to fight is first applied in the Medinan Period:

 

"They will question you concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: 'Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar people from God's way, to disbelieve in Him and the Holy Mosque and to expel its people from it - that is more heinous in God's sight; and persecution is more heinous than fighting." (Qur'an 2:217)

 

Through most of the Medina period, the Muslim community was in mortal danger and surviving in a defensive mode. Between 624 and 627 especially, the Muslim community was often quite literally fighting for its life. It is no accident that the concepts of jihad and martyrdom were developed at this time.

Though the Qur'an takes on more temporal issues in the Medinan Period, it does not abandon the notions of spiritual striving and God consciousness that were hallmarks of the Meccan Period. Even the concept of defensive warfare is placed within the larger concept of jihad as striving for what is right. Though jihad might involve bloodshed, it has the broader meaning of exerting an effort for improvement, not only in the political or military realm, but also in the moral, spiritual, and intellectual realms. Muhammad is often cited in Islamic tradition for calling the militant aspect of jihad the "minor" or "little" jihad, while referring to the improvement of one's self as the "greater" jihad.

Other revelations and rulings during this period concerned the proper treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants, the sanction against killing innocent civilians, and the respectful treatment of enemy corpses (in contrast to the custom of the time, which was mutilation.) The wanton destruction of property or agricultural resources was put off limits too. Even words of consolation for prisoners of war are found in the Qur'an:

 

"Prophet, tell the captives you have taken: 'If God finds some good in your hearts, He will reward you with something better than was taken away from you, and forgive your sins, for God is forgiving and kind." (Qur'an 8:70)

 

Various Muslim traditions define the time and place when the concept of martyrdom first appeared. One tells the story of a young man who becomes a Muslim and is killed the next morning in a skirmish. The young man's distraught wife comes to Muhammad, asking what will be the fate of her husband's soul, as he never prayed or performed even one act of worship. Muhammad answered that dying in defense of faith is the sign of ultimate submission to God. A person dying this way would be considered a martyr and go to heaven. At the same time, the Prophet warned against those who claim to be fighting for the sake of righteousness, but in fact are fighting for selfish or unjust reasons. Such a person will not be rewarded. Those who die in certain other ways, including women who die in childbirth and people who die in natural catastrophes including burning buildings, are considered martyrs too.

With many of the billion-plus Muslims living in poverty or oppression, Islam has become a rallying point for independence movements worldwide. Since jihad and martyrdom were placed within a religious context during the Medinan period, some of these independence movements have deployed the same concepts as sanctified tools for motivating combatants in the face of overwhelming odds. Thus, some seek a military solution to their political aspirations…

At the far end of the spectrum lies a fairly recent tendency to justify acts of terror with quotations from the traditions of Islam. This exercise in legal sleight of hand, placed beyond the pale by all except the terrorists themselves, has bred enormous doubt throughout the world about the essentially peaceful nature of Islam…

 

Oh, brother. What a load of codswallop.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:57 | link | comments (2)

How the "do-gooders" facilitate the jihad: "Humanitarianism," indeed.

By Cox & Forkum:

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:25 | link | comments

 

Where’s the hysteria?: It turns out that the martyrdom-minded have been operating freely in Toronto for some time—and right under the noses of all those “moderates.” Stewart Bell in the National Post (link available by subscription) reports that “witnesses” (who?—the janitor, some passers-by?) saw the alleged ringleader of the alleged plotters allegedly handing out DVDs at Scarborough's Salaheddin mosque which hailed the 9/11 hijackers as “martyrs” and “heroes.”

 

The DVD, a 38-minute glorification of jihadi exploits, implored the faithful to participate in the holy war. “Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah”—that was one of the messages. “Come forth to kill the Jews and Americans, for killing them is foremost of obligations and the greatest form of worship. Do not consult anyone in killing the Americans, go forth with the blessing of Allah.”

 

Kind of a bloodthirsty dude, that distant Moon God.

 

I’m sure the vast majority of those who came across this over-the-top DVD either discarded it immediately, or, if they watched it, were thoroughly disgusted by its message and imagery. At least, that’s what everyone keeps telling us, and, heck, isn’t it a great comfort to keep thinking all those soothing multicultural thoughts NO MATTER WHAT?

 

The National Post plays up the story a bit more than the Globe and Mail. The Post’s story, with some frames of the DVD, occupies ¾ of page 4; the Globe buries a much shorter piece on the subject on page 16. (The Toronto Star, the newspaper with the largest circulation, doesn't mention the story at all.) Some in the do-gooder and Muslim communities are convinced that such coverage—indeed any coverage—constitutes a kind of “hysteria,” and are taking steps to ramp it down. Tomorrow night, for example, there’s a public meeting designed to assure us all that “ISLAM IS NOT THE ENEMY.” The meeting, organized by the International Socialists (there's a shocker), is meant to quell our fears and inform us that “War and racism are not the answer.”

 

Well, who, aside from the jihadis, said they were?

 

The notice posted in downtown Toronto (I saw a bunch of them near the University of Toronto yesterday) offers the following summary of the current situation:

 

“Once again, anti-Islamic hysteria is sweeping Toronto after the arrest of 17 people on charges of terrorism. The last time such a sweep happened, almost three years ago, no charges were laid, but the anti-Islamic stain remained. Come and discuss the background to this hysteria, and the way it dovetails with the war drives of Stephen Harper, Tony Blair and George Bush.”

 

I’m very tempted to go, but I don’t think I’d find the company, shall we say, congenial.

 

In any case, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard the message before. It’s one which “dovetails” with the war drives of the Islamists.

 

And, anyway, I don’t want to get trampled in a rampage of “hysterical” Torontonians (the ones attending the meeting, not the ones, like our Mayor and that RCMP official, who keep assuring us of the inherently peaceful intentions, all evidence to the contrary, of the one true faith.)

 

Update: This puff piece about the Salaheddin mosque and its “misunderstood” worshippers appeared February, 28, 2004 in the Toronto Star:

…The eight-year-old Salaheddin Islamic Centre is a place of worship for as many as 2,500 Toronto Muslims and a private elementary school for 215 students. It now has become a magnet for security services both here and abroad.

Even attending Salaheddin to pray runs the risk of a visit from agents with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), according to its administrators.

"I don't know what they think goes on here," says Salaheddin's outspoken director and imam Aly Hindy. "They keep imagining something. If you tell them 'good morning' they think there's something behind it."

Hindy says agents recently set up shop in a nearby doughnut shop to interview those who attend Salaheddin.

"One guy told me he had an appointment at Tim Hortons, he was going to meet an agent at six o'clock. Another one has one at seven, another an hour later," Hindy says.

"Once you start to speak they start showing you pictures, do you know this guy, do you know this guy and by just saying yes I know him, you become linked, it's terrible."

Ahmed Said Khadr may have been the first Canadian to attract CSIS agents to Salaheddin. American authorities claim Khadr used his charity work in Afghanistan and Pakistan to raise funds to finance Al Qaeda and when he lived in Scarborough his family attended the Salaheddin to pray and socialize.

Khadr died on Oct. 2 in a battle with Pakistani soldiers and two of his sons were captured and held in the American camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One son was released last year.

Then there are two men who the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) believes joined Ansar al-Islam, the group Washington said provided a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. They led prayers at the Salaheddin mosque during Ramadan.

Hindy says any connections of the allegations facing these men and Salaheddin are unfair. This "CSIS bias" he claims resulted in the detentions and questioning of two of Salaheddin's administrators this year in Syria and Egypt. Why else, he asks, would those countries have any interest or information concerning a Canadian Islamic centre?

That accusation is dismissed by Martin Rudner, director of Ottawa's Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies.

"This notion of doing favours is nonsense, they don't have time to do favours," Rudner said. "So if Mr. X is being held in Syria or Egypt based on information that has come through channels from Canada, they're not doing it for us, they have their own direct suspicions."

And former CSIS agent Michel Juneau-Katsuya says it's no secret that agents will monitor certain mosques, paying close attention to what is being preached, sometimes passing that information to foreign governments.

"Islam is an integral part of (a Muslim's) life. In the western world we created a difference between politics and religion and Islam hasn't," said Juneau-Katsuya who recently retired from CSIS after 21 years as an agent. "(CSIS will) keep an eye on it because we know through historical observations and analysis and case studies etc., etc. that radical or more fundamental interpretation of Islam is often associated to more radical practices."

When asked about CSIS' handling of mosques, spokesperson Nicole Currier said the agency does not profile individuals or groups. They gather information, she says, and "then go wherever that takes us."

Allowing a reporter and photographer to walk through the halls of Salaheddin this week, was not welcomed by some who pray or teach there. Not because there's anything to hide, Hindy explains, but because with so many misconceptions about Islam many worry that any mention of Salaheddin in the media is damaging.

Muslims also covet their modesty and privacy, he says.

But with the detentions abroad and the desire to show that there is no nefarious activity inside the walls of the modest two-storey building nestled behind Scarborough's strip malls, Hindy says they have no choice.

"Either we keep quiet about people disappearing or we speak up, if you speak up there's bad publicity and people get scared but also, I can't leave people in jail for no reason."

The doors of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre open at dawn and remain unlocked until the sun goes down.

Walk through the doors for women under the sign "sister's entrance," and you pass the closed bookshop.

That's where 63-year-old Helmy Elsherief worked before his 20-day detention in Egypt last month. He is now staying with relatives in Cairo, hoping to get his passport back today so he can return home. Elsherief had planned to visit with relatives on his way home from the pilgrimage to Mecca when he was taken without explanation at the Cairo airport.

Down the hall, most days you'll find Hindy sitting behind his large desk, often talking to more than one person with his cell phone also demanding his attention. On Friday afternoons the office door is closed while Hindy leads the prayers in the mosque, reached through the doors of the "brother's entrance."

Past Hindy's office are the stark halls he proudly describes designing himself, drawing on his engineering background. The centre was built using money collected locally, making it, he says, one of the few mosques in the city that doesn't draw funding from backers in Saudi Arabia…

You mean those nasty Wahabbis aren’t the only ones responsible for extremism?

Does CSIS know about this?

More to the point, does Tarek Fatah?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:59 | link | comments

Civic politesse: According to the Reader's Digest, Toronto ranks as the third most polite city in the world, after New York City and Zurich.

Of course it does. As recent experience has shown, we always say "please" and "thank you" when people want to blow us up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

 

The hills are alive with the sound of jihad: Today’s musical selection--an old favourite from The Sound of Mullahs. The original song dealt with a problematic, well-scrubbed novitiate named Fraulein Maria. This version deals with a problematic set of religious laws:

 

It’s all about submission

To a force you cannot see.

It’s grandiose yet picayune,

As many would agree.

Its fundamentalism is a threat to you and me.

Sharia’s the antithesis of freedom.

 

It’s always got another rule

That’s meant to rein you in.

It always strives to bind you and get underneath your skin,

So you can’t tell where you stop and the ummuh does begin.

Sharia’s the antithesis of freedom.

 

It’s hard to say a word in its behalf.

Sharia is no laugh.

 

How do you solve a problem like sharia?

How do you keep the people all in line?

How to define the law that is sharia?

“Intrusive” and “harsh,” “Draconian” or “Divine”?

Ev-er-y-thing you know it wants to tell you.

Ev-er-y-thing to do with your belief.

But, intrusive as it can be,

Believers have come to see

Its verities always offer a relief.

Oh, how do you solve a problem like sharia?

How do you keep your hand if you’re a thief?...

 

How do you solve a problem like sharia?

How can we keep its certainties at bay?

How to defend ourselves against sharia?

Give up and give in? Ignore it and turn away?

Eventually, you know you’ll have to face it.

Eventually, you’ll have to take a stand.

Unless like the EU elite

You’re willing to face defeat,

You’ll have to admit it’s getting out of hand.

Oh, how do you solve a problem like sharia?

How to ensure it doesn’t take command?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:24 | link | comments

 

Aversive diversity: I think as a matter of policy and for the good of the country, it’s a good idea for Stephen Harper to stay as far away as possible from the United Nations and any of its associated bodies. Because, with few exceptions, what invariably seems to happen when you participate in some UN confab is that you can’t help but assimilate some of that high-falutin’ but essentially vacuous UN/infallible consensus-speak, which gums up your powers of reasoning. And for the sake of our long-term viability, Canada needs a Prime Minister who’s firing on all cylinders.

 

Yesterday, for example, the Prime Minister’s cranial engine definitely needed a tune-up. He participated in a UN conference on something-or-other, during which he assured the attendees that Canada is all for “diversity”; diversity being one of those au courant terms, like “human rights,” to which everyone pays lip service but which have come to mean something completely different than their dictionary definition. The Prime Minister was using the term to mean the “diversity” of Canada’s multicultural society, one which, he says, would be harmed were Canada to put the brakes on unfettered immigration. (Diversity in the UN/infallible consensus sense means diversity of provenance and ethnicity, not, heaven forefend, diversity of opinion.) No, says Mr. Harper, if we were less open, it would be as if the terrorists had won. Much better to let in all and sundry, even if a scant number, a mere handful, a tiny minority of a "broad strata" of fertilizer-of-peace bombers are allowed to enter. After all, “reasons” the P.M., newly-infused with the One World spirit, it would serve them right: “They hate open, diverse, democratic societies like ours, because they want the exact opposite.”

 

Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, and if you let in a sufficient number of them, “the exact opposite” may well be within their reach. And even if they don’t manage to achieve it by blowing up significant Canadian landmarks—because, after all, that’s so messy and time-consuming—they have a far more effective weapon at their disposal: demographics.

 

I would remind the p.c. (and I ain’t talkin’ “Progressive Conservative”) P.M. of another place that practiced “an open door policy,” one which turned out to have grave consequences for the larger body politic: ancient Troy.

 

Live and learn, Mr. Harper: Just as “video killed the radio star,” the horse of “diversity” killed the Trojans.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:47 | link | comments

 

Irreconcilable differences: A couple of Muslim American clerics, one a “revert,” are trying to convince American kids that Islam and American culture are compatible.

 

They aren’t, of course, but they might become so if these two have their way. From Islam Online:

 

CAIRO — With accent-free Arabic and rarefied Qur'anic grammar and being equally at home in Islamic subjects and modern American culture, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir are on a mission to reconcile Islam with American culture.

"Sheik Hamza and Imam Zaid have grown up here after having studied abroad, and you can really connect with them," Ebadur Rahman, 19, told the New York Times.

"The scholars who come from abroad, they can't connect with the people. They're ignorant of life here," insisted the New Yorker.

Rahman, the son of Bangladeshi immigrants, is one of six full-time students in the first Islamic seminary in the United States.

Yusuf and Shakir are hoping to train a new generation of imams and scholars who can reconcile Islam and American culture.

Most American mosques import their imams from overseas — some who preach extremism, some who cannot speak English, and most who cannot begin to speak to young American Muslims growing up on hip-hop and in mixed-sex chat rooms.

While there is no scientific count of Muslims in the US, six to seven million is the most commonly cited figure.

Knowledge Beacon

Yusuf, who reverted to Islam after a near-fatal car accident in high school, believes that many Muslims lack "religious knowledge."

He regrets that many of the seminaries that once flourished in the Muslim world are now either gone or intellectually dead.

Yusuf noted that now smart Muslims go into technical fields like engineering, not religion.

He hopes for more Muslims to be schooled in their faith's diverse intellectual streams and had a holistic understanding of their religion.

"Where you don't have people who have strong intellectual capacity, you get demagoguery."

Yusuf named his school the Zaytuna Institute — Arabic for olive tree, and also the name of a renowned Islamic university in Tunisia.

Although many universities have Islamic studies departments, including a program at Hartford Seminary to accredit, there is no program in the US like Zaytuna, according to the New York Times.

Hundreds of Muslims come for evening and weekend classes on Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), the Noble Qur'an and the Arabic language.

Still in its pilot phase, the institute's full-time seminary program has only six students, including two women - one a former software engineer, the other a former prenatal genetic counselor.

It is expected to double its enrollment next fall.

Most American mosques import their imams from overseas — some who preach extremism, some who cannot speak English, and most who cannot begin to speak to young American Muslims growing up on hip-hop and in mixed-sex chat rooms.

Increasing Clout

Yusuf and Shakir, who have spent years in the Middle East and North Africa studying Islam, enjoy a much higher profile than most imams and draw overflow crowds in theaters, mosques and university auditoriums that seat thousands.

Their books and CD's are pored (sic) over by young Muslims in study groups.

During a recent presentation at the University of Houston, every seat in the auditorium was taken, and the crowd was standing in the back and spilling out into the lobby, straining to hear.

Yusuf told the audience to beware of "fanatics" who pluck Islamic scripture out of context.

"That's not Islam," he said. "That's psychopathy."

He urged his attentive audience to pray for the victims of kidnappers in Iraq, saying that kidnapping is just as bad as American bombings in which the army describes the civilian victims as "collateral damage."

"They're both sinister, as far as I'm concerned," he said. "One is efficient, the other is pathetic."

Shakir, who teaches as a scholar in residence in Zaytuna, urged Muslims to serve humanity at large.

"Where are the Muslim Doctors Without Borders? Spend six months here, six months in the Congo. Form it!"

When one student asked if assistance should be aimed at Muslims only he said: "The obligation is to everyone. All of the people are the dependents of Allah."

The crowd included students in college sweatshirts, doctors, limousine drivers in suits, immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and the grown children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the immigrant generation.

There were plenty of African-Americans and a sprinkling of white and Hispanic reverts.

After waiting for more than an hour to greet them, Sohail Ansari, an information technology specialist originally from India, marveled: "I was born a Muslim, and these guys are so far ahead of us."

Of course they are, because they have the same frame of reference and can speak the same language as the kids they're hoping to engage. And sure, they seem to say all the right things—the Muslim “Doctors Without Borders, indeed—but I have my doubts, since at the same time, they’re unwilling to tackle those, shall we say, problematic areas of the text, like all those passages being taken “out of context.” (Because, writes scaramouche, barely able to contain her rueful sarcasm, the words are so much more innocuous if you leave them where they are, in context.) Until and unless they do, there’s no way reconcile Islam and American culture, unless it’s to say that Islam is like Ms. Pac-Man and wants to gobble up America.

Update: The New York Times has more about these charismatic “moderates.” In an article which almost swoons with admiration for the pair, the reporter does her part to shill for the verities of the one true faith. Here, for example, is her take on Mr. Yusuf, who seems to be one of those hippy-dippy, crunchy-granola, Marin County type of “reverts”—the kind that could probably inspire a lot of folks like them to follow in their footsteps:

Mr. Yusuf lives on a cul-de-sac in Danville, a Northern California suburb, in a house with a three-car garage. The living room is spread with Persian rugs; it is mostly bare of furniture. He held a dinner with guests in traditional Arab style — on the floor, while the smallest of his five sons curled up in the rugs and fell asleep. His wife, Liliana, tired from a day of home-schooling and driving the boys to karate lessons, passed around take-out curry. She converted to Islam after meeting Mr. Yusuf in college, to the chagrin of her Catholic Hispanic parents. The couple married outdoors, in a redwood grove.

Mr. Yusuf received the Arabic title of sheik from his teachers in Mauritania, in West Africa. There the honorific is usually given to old men with a deep knowledge of Islam who serve their communities as wise oracles, but Mr. Yusuf was only 28. His given name was Mark Hanson, and he was raised Greek Orthodox in a bohemian but affluent part of Marin County, just north of San Francisco.

He converted to Islam after a near-fatal car accident in high school sent him on an existential journey. He said that the simplicity of "no God but Allah" made far more sense to him than the Trinity, and he found the five daily prayers a constant call to awe about everything from the sun to his capillaries.

“A constant call to awe from everything from the sun to his capillaries”—what the heck is that supposed to mean? That he has awesome capillaries? Is that supposed to be a plus in religious observance?

Later on, after insisting at length on the pair’s “moderate” outlook, she inserts a paragraph which seems to call this assertion into question:

Islamic studies experts say that what Mr. Yusuf and Mr. Shakir are teaching is traditional orthodox Islam, and that it is impossible to characterize their theology as either conservative or liberal. They encourage but do not require women in class to cover their heads. They have hired a female scholar, who teaches only women. Last year, Mr. Shakir published a rebuttal to a group of progressive American Muslims who argue that Islamic law allows women to lead men in prayer.

Mr. Yusuf says he has become too busy to teach regularly at his own school. He writes books, translates Arabic poetry, records CD's, tapes his television show. He meets with rabbis, ministers and the Dalai Lama, and travels annually to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Mr. Yusuf's fame grew after he was invited to the White House nine days after the Sept. 11 attacks, making him the only Muslim leader along with five other religious leaders who were called to meet with President Bush. He suggested that Mr. Bush change the name of the military's impending operation in Afghanistan, "Infinite Justice," because it would offend Muslims, who believe the only source of infinite justice is God. Mr. Bush responded by changing the operation's name to "Operation Enduring Freedom," and in the news media Mr. Yusuf gained a title other than sheik: "adviser to the president."

Mr. Yusuf, however, said that Mr. Bush since then "hasn't taken any of my advice."

It could be just be me, but he sounds kind of p.o.’d about it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments

Prizing cluelessness: Cluless gay pacifist James Loney is going to get an award tomorrow--for being a clueless gay pacifist.

Way to go, James!

From canoe:

TORONTO (CP) - In the early days of what would become four months as a hostage in Iraq, the fact James Loney is gay became a life-death secret - one he feared his captors were just a few harmless keystrokes away from learning.

"I imagined that they would Google us, each of us, to check our background," Loney said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"I was worried that if the captors did find out, that it would substantially change my treatment or would, or could, endanger my life. It would have entered a whole kind of range of unpredictability into the situation that didn't need to be there."

Loney made international headlines in November last year when he was kidnapped in Baghdad along with three other peace activists from the Christian Peacemaker Teams, one of whom was later shot dead.

Loney's friends, family and partner, Dan Hunt, also kept his sexuality a closely guarded secret. A photo taken of the couple the night before he left for his mission in Iraq was released to the public with Hunt's image cropped out.

The couple will be recognized for their perseverance through the harrowing hostage ordeal with the "Fearless" award at a posh fundraising gala and awards dinner Tuesday benefiting Pride Toronto.

"Fearless" is also the theme for Pride Week 2006, Canada's largest celebration of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, which kicks off Monday in Toronto.

"We were both quite surprised, and, I guess, moved by this recognition that was being offered to us," Loney said of the honour.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty will present the award to the couple at the ceremony, which will recognize and celebrate contributions made by members of the gay and lesbian community when it takes place in Toronto's historic Distillery district.

Olympic gold-medal swimmer Mark Tewksbury, best-selling author Irshad Manji and Duncan Tucker, director of the Oscar-nominated film Transamerica, are among the honourees. MAC Cosmetics co-founder Frank Toskan will receive the lifetime achievement award.

"I think (the theme) is very appropriate, because it speaks to the idea of us as queer people living our lives and loving free of fear," said Pride Toronto co-chairman David Anderson, who credits Loney and Hunt for being longtime advocates of peace and tolerance in the face of adversity…

Well, if they continue enabling the Islamists through their bellicose “peace-keeping” efforts, they’re really going to face adversity—the kind that nets you a death sentence for being queer. And, sadly, the Ontario Premier will probably have to give them that award posthumously.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:54 | link | comments

 

Cognitive dissonance, cont’d: The reconstituted international arbiter of “human rights” is debuting today, and the woman who presides over it, Louise Arbour, couldn’t be more pleased. To her mind, having the most repressive, unfree, anti-Western nations in the world gang up on and bully the world’s free nations is an excellent way to ensure that people everywhere receive every last frikkin’ “human right” to which they’re entitled. (“Human rights” being the Orwellian way we in the modern world talk about ensuring that everyone tows the line espoused by the One Worlders, a.k.a., the infallible consensus.)

 

Another instance of trying to tart up a dysfunctional UN body in the pretty clothes of high-mindedness and self-righteousness. Underneath it all, however, it’s still the same old drag queen, with smeary makeup and no morals.

 

Here’s how Ms. Arbour sees it. (For those who wish to spare themselves the delight of reading her typical UN bureaucrat boilerplate, which, admittedly, is unintentionally amusing in spots—I’ve highlighted those that tickled me--I can condense it as follows: blah, blah, blah, new beginning...blah, blah, blah, proud legacy…blah, blah, blah, universal mechanism...blah, blah, blah, setting a new standard.) From the Toronto Star:

 

Today, armed with a powerful new mandate, the members of the new Human Rights Council take their seats, embarking on a major enterprise aimed at strengthening the United Nations human rights system and equipping it to respond better to the challenges of our time. The council represents a defining moment for the UN's work for "the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

 

Yet it is profoundly wrong to believe that we are starting from scratch. The 61-year-old UN human rights system has a proud legacy, which the now defunct commission helped to form.

 

It has codified a wealth of international human rights norms and standards, established numerous independent mechanisms to monitor those standards, and stood up for rights defenders, victims and the vulnerable in countries around the world. The challenge now will be to ensure that the new council lives up to that rich historic legacy, while doing what is needed to promote and protect human rights in today's conditions.

 

Several new features give us reason to believe that the council will be a significant improvement on its predecessor. Even the way its members were elected last month marked a welcome departure from "business as usual."

 

The commission's members were pre-selected behind closed doors and then "elected" by acclamation. By contrast, the new members of the council had to compete for seats and successful candidates needed to win the support of a majority of all member states in a secret ballot. For the first time, candidates gave voluntary commitments to promote and uphold human rights and will be expected to meet them or else face possible suspension from the council.

 

The resolution establishing the council stresses the importance of ending double standards, a problem that plagued the past commission.

 

What the politicized debates of the past often obscured is the irrefutable fact that all states have human rights problems and all must be accountable for their shortcomings.

The test, then, is not membership, but accountability. To that end, a new universal periodic review mechanism will offer the council — and the world — the opportunity to examine the records of all 191 member states of the UN. This is a dramatic development with the potential to improve human rights throughout the world…

 

 

To paraphrase a beloved Dickens character, “God help us, every one.”

 

Update: Like I said, same old, same old. From the CBC:

The United Nations inaugurated its new Human Rights Council on Monday, promising the new body would be more effective in preventing human rights abuses than the Human Rights Commission it replaces.

"The eyes of the world, especially the eyes of those whose human rights are denied, threatened or infringed, are turned towards this chamber and this council," Secretary General Kofi Annan told the 47-member council in Geneva, Switzerland.

"This council represents a great new chance for the United Nations and for humanity, to renew the struggle for human rights. I implore you, do not let the opportunity be squandered."

In March, Canada was one of 170 nations that voted to create the new human rights body to replace the 60-year-old UN Human Rights Commission.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is in Geneva for the council's first meeting. The session runs to June 30.

MacKay has pledged that Canada would work with other countries to ensure the council has the resources to be effective.

The previous commission was criticized for protecting countries with poor human rights records, and was often marked by confrontation.

"Never allow this council to become caught up in political point-scoring or petty manoeuvre," Annan said. "Think always of those whose rights are denied."

The 47 members of the council were elected by the UN General Assembly. The United States declined to stand for membership, while others such as Sudan, Venezuela and Iran failed to win a seat.

Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and China were elected to the council despite objections.

In the new system, the rights records of all council members will be periodically reviewed…

Reviewed, and in the case of Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan and China, quickly ignored.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:45 | link | comments

 

No respite: The Toronto Star reprints a Washington Post story about how women in Somalia “saved themselves” from being tampered with sexually by members of the ruling secular militia. This sexual interference rendered women them soiled and worthless in Islamic eyes and ruined their chances for marriage. It was Somali women who offered key support to the Islamic militias, who they saw as saving them from that “fate worse than death” (which, in the Muslim world, often results in a death sentence in order to reclaim her family’s lost “honour”) and this support enabled the Islamists to take control of the country:

 

MOGADISHU, Somalia—Sometimes, the women here said, it began with a knock on the door after dark or with a kidnapping in broad daylight. And sometimes, the gunmen who ruled this city would use a long, sharp knife to slice open the tin shacks of poor families and snatch their daughters away.

 

The girls would return — if they returned — in the morning, sobbing and marked permanently as castoffs in a traditional Islamic society that demands virginity at marriage.

 

"Four-year-old girls, 5-year-old girls were raped," said Anab Mohamed Isaaq, 35, a solemn, long-faced widow who has two girls among her five children. "I was scared for my daughters.''

 

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.

 

That helped the militias win the support of Mogadishu's increasingly influential women, who in recent years had joined the job market en masse to support their families in the midst of a collapsing economy. "Women were doing what men used to do here," said Shariff Osman, 45, dean of the faculty at Mogadishu University. "They were paying the bills.''

 

When fighting broke out in January, the airwaves suddenly were full of angry denunciations of the secular warlords and support for the Islamic militias fighting them. Most of the callers were women.

 

And though it was guns and not words that chased away the warlords, the intensity of the public revulsion for them provided crucial support for the Islamic militias as they advanced, analysts, activists and business leaders say.

 

"Somalia was saved because of the Somali women," said Khadija Ali, 47, founder of a women's group here and a graduate student in conflict resolution at George Mason University.

 

At the top of the list of their concerns, Ali and other women said, was curbing murder, robbery and rape in one of the world's most dangerous cities.

 

Unfortunately, they have traded one kind of slavery for another:

 

In the absence of a central government city leaders chose to deal with crime by establishing traditional Islamic courts and not all women say their stature has grown as the country moves toward Islamic law.

 

"The militias patrol our areas looking to see if girls are going out with boys," said Ubah Mohamed, 34, who now wears a hijab out of fear of what the newly powerful militias might do. In a city where residents report that public viewing of World Cup soccer has been curbed, she predicted that beauty shops, including hers, would be closed soon as well.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

The brightest spot of the weekend: A Ghanan who plays for an Israeli soccer teams holds the flag of Israel aloft when one of his teammates scored a goal against the Czech Republic. Ghana went on to win the game 2-0:

The Islam Online report whinges that the "Jewish lobby" is making too much of the incident; well, really, what do you expect the Wahabbists to say? All the same it feels awfully good to see that someone from Africa hasn't been bamboozled by all that "apartheid state" nonsense.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:41 | link | comments

 

A missive to Michael: I sent the following e-mail to Michael Enright, host of CBC radio’s Sunday Edition:

 

Dear Mr. Enright,

 

I listened with great interest to your comments this morning about British journalist Robert Fisk. Mr. Fisk had written a commentary in The Independent in which he asserted that the way Canadian had covered the recent arrests of 17 Muslims in Toronto was irredeemably “racist.” I could tell at the outset that you took umbrage at these words, but it took a while for you to get to the source of your upset. It wasn’t the fact that, all in all, these alleged terrorists had been treated with kid gloves, not only by the local media, but by police and government officials—a reality which would torpedo Fisk’s fatuous assertion right off the bat. No, it turned out to be the way Fisk had failed to distinguish between the different media outlets, and had lumped you all together. He had placed newspapers like The Globe and Mail and the National Post, which had dared to suggest that perhaps the alleged terrorists did not, in the words of that RCMP official, represent “a broad strata of society,” that, in fact, perhaps their religious affiliation had something to do with their alleged activities, in the same category as media outlets like the CBC and the Toronto Star, for whom, for the most part, never was heard a discouraging word. About the suspects and their beliefs, that is. About all the rotten things the larger society had done to push them into a life of extremism, and about an immense backlash which, aside from a few broken windows at a mosque, failed to materialize--alas, we heard plenty.

 

So please forgive me if I take a little umbrage here. Not only do I beg to differ with your contention that Robert Fisk is “a great reporter,” since a close reading of his writings reveals him to be a Johnny-One-Note who consistently offers a distorted and one-sided version of events, I would say that in this instance, he’s not the only one who, in your words, “missed the story.” You did, too.

 

Warmest regards,

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:03 | link | comments

Ingrates: Apparently, beggars can be choosers. From the Telegraph:

Palestinians have given a muted welcome to an international emergency aid plan which will bypass the Hamas-led government.

 

Under the plan agreed by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia yesterday, money would flow by early July to fund Palestinian health services and utilities.

 

However, an overall funding freeze imposed by international donors after Hamas came to power in March will remain in place.

 

Some 165,000 Palestinian government employees have gone unpaid for the past three months. Hardship has deepened in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza amid inter-factional violence, raising international fears of a plunge into chaos.

 

Hamas, which won elections in January, has refused to meet US, EU and Israeli demands that it recognise the Jewish state, renounce violence and accept past interim peace deals.

 

The temporary aid, bypassing the Hamas administration, will provide essential supplies to the health sector and payments to health-care service providers, utilities including fuel, and cash allowances to meet the basic needs of the poorest sections of the population.

A European Union spokeswoman said the EU's executive had proposed providing €100 million (£68 million) for the programme.

 

"We hope for an expeditious implementation," said the Palestinians' chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, after the President, Mahmoud Abbas, called the "temporary mechanism" a good step but inadequate.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:18 | link | comments

 

Harpoon hails dhimmitude: The Toronto Star’s supreme purveyor of smoke and mirrors, Harpoon Siddiqui is at it again. Today he applauds Amsterdam’s Jewish Mayor for acting like a good little dhimmi (Siddiqui and the Mayor have a different term for it: being “a softie”). He also dabbles in some historical revisionism—a personal specialty—when he misrepresents the “truth tellers” who dared to speak out against the dangerous encroachments of Islam. And to top it off, he frames it as an issue of all the bad things that have been done to Dutch Muslims, instead of all the grim ways in which Dutch Muslims are foisting their primitive world view on the Dutch. (And, for that matter, on all of Europe. For more on the subject, see Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept, a chilling account of how the EU elite have willingly colluded in their Continent’s demise.)

 

Anyway, here’s Harpoon’s trifecta of bafflegab—a truly revolting read:

 

AMSTERDAM—If Christians are lobbing rhetorical bombs at Muslims, who better to tamp down tensions than a soft-spoken Jewish intellectual? Job Cohen has done so as mayor of this city of 800,000, 1 in 8 of whom is a Muslim.

 

No sooner had the long-time Labour politician and former deputy minister of justice settled into the job in 2001 — the mayor is appointed by the federal cabinet while the council is elected — than he found himself dealing with the fallout of 9/11.

 

Anti-Muslim anger was fanned to dangerous levels by gay politician Pim Fortuyn (murdered in 2002 by an animal rights activist), filmmaker Theo van Gogh (murdered in 2004 by a Muslim), and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the "ex-Muslim" poster girl of Islamophobes (forced to resign recently as an MP for having lied on her citizenship application).

 

Amid all the hysteria, Cohen kept his cool.

 

First, he led street protests to condemn the Van Gogh murder. He then made a point of publicly meeting Muslims, especially clerics, considering them the key to influencing Muslims.

 

He told the Muslims: "You are much needed in this country. You are the hope of this country." He told everyone else: "Islam is here to stay. We have to get along with each other."

 

Cohen cracked down on petty crime, especially among young Dutch-Moroccans. But he also went after the disco owners discriminating against them.

 

His partner in peace has been a Muslim councillor.

 

Moroccan-born Ahmed Aboutaleb warned the Dutch against the debilitating effects of discriminatory immigration policies. He told the Muslims who were bemoaning the decadence of the Dutch that they were free to take a flight to Casablanca.

 

I talked to both Cohen and Aboutaleb here at city hall, overlooking the Amstel River.

Cohen said the Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders "unbalanced the people of the Netherlands in an enormous way," unleashing a wave of blame.

 

"First it was, `a little group of Moroccans are causing problems.' Then, after Van Gogh, it was, `the Muslims are causing a lot of trouble.'

 

"Voices were raised against fundamentalist Islam and then it became a discussion about Islam itself. But nobody knew much about Islam."…

 

People complained about Islamic opposition to homosexuality. But "what about the Torah or the Bible re homosexuality?"

 

On terrorism, too, "it's not Islam you should discuss, but the behaviour of Muslims. The Bible has been abused by Christians. Slavery was justified with the Bible. So was apartheid — a Dutch word. The conflict in Ireland was carried out in the name of religion," said Aboutaleb.

 

Cohen and Aboutaleb have had an effect. The Anne Frank Centre, which tracks racism, said that of the 106 incidents of arson and other acts of retaliation against mosques following the Van Gogh murder, only one was in this city.

 

In the municipal elections in March, the 45-year-old Aboutaleb topped the polls, drawing 10,000 more votes than the local Labour leader on the proportional representation ballot.

And, according to national polls, the 59-year-old Cohen is the most popular Labour politician in Holland, a future party candidate for prime minister.

 

This lets him take comfort that his so-called soft politics works. "Yes, I belong to the softies.

I am glad I belong to the softies. I think that's the only way you can handle issues like this."

 

Update: The e-mail I sent to the Star:

 

Haroon Siddiqui applauds the way Amsterdam’s Jewish Mayor has helped douse the fires of “anti-Islam” hysteria. Siddiqui says that the Mayor’s “soft”, non-confrontational approach has gone a long way toward defusing the incendiary situation in his city, one that was “fanned to dangerous levels” by Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 

What an appalling distortion of the facts. Rather than fanning any flames, these three individuals dared to speak out against the threat posed by an increasingly belligerent and vocal minority within Holland which despises Western freedom and seeks to turn back the clock on the world’s most liberal and free-wheeling nation. Their bravery had dire consequences. Two of them were murdered (Fortuyn, by an animal-rights activist who had imbibed all the lies spewed about the politician’s supposed “racism” towards Muslims; van Gogh by an educated Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim, who used a dagger to attach his “grievances” to the outspoken filmmaker’s chest). The third, Ms. Ali, was recently hounded out of her adopted homeland, where she has risen to become a member of the Dutch parliament.

 

For Siddiqui to turn this reality on its ear, and make it a matter of Muslims being mistreated by the Dutch, and, further, to applaud the efforts of those, like Amsterdam’s “soft’ Jewish mayor, who choose to ignore the problem and appease the malcontents, is truly unconscionable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

 

Gresham’s law adapted for Islam: Instead of bad drives out good, radicals drive out moderates (with a little help from George Galloway). A companion piece for the story below. From the Times Online:

 

A RADICAL Muslim who ousted a leading moderate cleric from his mosque on the south coast with a campaign of violence has said he believes Tony Blair is a “legitimate target” for terrorists.

Abubaker Deghayes, who now runs the mosque in Brighton and whose brother Omar is a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, told an undercover reporter that he endorsed the views of George Galloway, the Respect MP, who said an attack on the prime minister by a suicide bomber could be morally justified. Deghayes said he prayed for Allah to support anyone who attacked Blair.

Court documents show Deghayes took over the mosque using violence, intimidation and threats. Dr Abduljalil Sajid, a leading imam and a government adviser on Islam, was forced out as head of the mosque by Deghayes and his supporters.

It is understood Sussex police Special Branch held a number of meetings with Sajid about extremist elements at the site, but no overt action was taken. Sajid, chairman of the Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, is understood to have raised his concerns about the mosque with Blair.

Police sources have confirmed that in the past extremist literature had been found at the site and that some of those attending the mosque were suspected of having fought as “mercenaries” abroad.

The Charity Commission, which has jurisdiction over the mosque because it is run as a charity, said it did not know how the mosque was receiving and spending money and added that it was operating “in breach of legal requirements”.

A reporter spent two weeks undercover at the Al-Quds mosque, which is in a detached house in Brighton. On Fridays, it can attract 100-200 worshippers. Deghayes made his extremist views clear while chatting to the reporter. Asked whether he shared Galloway’s view that the prime minister was a legitimate target for suicide bombers, he replied: “Yes, I do, I do.”

In another conversation, Deghayes said: “He is a legitimate target. Him and Bush are part of all that we see now.”

Later asked if he ever prayed for Blair to be attacked by a Muslim, he said: “I pray to Allah to support them. Of course, I know anybody who attacks in the name of Islam, Allah will take care of him.”…

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:46 | link | comments

 

Fitting in: Charles Moore in the Telegraph considers the fundamental difference between Jews and Muslims. This difference, writes Moore, has enabled Jews to adapt to whichever nation they happen to call home, including his own, England. Essentially, it boils down to two elements. First, a willingness to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Second, and despite everything you might have read in the Muslim media, the absence of any agenda for world conquest:

…The key, perhaps, is to be found in one of the earliest reports of Jews in England after their return. On October 14, 1663, Samuel Pepys found a way of visiting a synagogue in London (something very unusual for a Gentile at that time). In his diary, he described the service which he witnessed. He did not like it ("I never… could have imagined there had been any religion in the whole world so absurdly performed as this"), but he also noted that the Jews said a special prayer for the King. In other words, they accepted the civil power.

The Jews did not do this just to save their skins by sucking up to Charles II: they did it because it was part of their religious duty. It still is. No believing Jew will obey a civil law that forces him to disobey his religious law - eat pork, for example. But if there is no conflict, his religion teaches him that he must obey the law of the land. In the Talmud, the question arises of whether you should pay taxes to a secular king. Yes, comes the answer, because "The law of the kingdom is the law". In the standard collection, called Ethics of the Fathers, which brings together rabbinical wisdom over the centuries, Jews are told: "Pray for the welfare of the government, for, without the fear of it, people will swallow one another alive."

Even the most cursory study of Jewish life shows that it is full of disputes. There are splits between orthodox and reformed Jews, and within orthodoxy. There are thousands of secular Jews who feel very Jewish, but refuse to have their Jewishness defined by religion. There is ceaseless, often angry argument: when you read the Christian Gospels, you find that one of the most common scenes is of learned men quarrelling. That is still the case in Jewish culture.

But because of this basic agreement among Jews about the status of the secular law, the effect of these quarrels on the wider society is minimal. It is significant that virtually no one reading this article will have heard of Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu. He is the chief justice of the Beth Din, the Chief Rabbi's court which adjudicates on the endless delicate points of Jewish law, often relating to diet or Sabbath observance, which come up within the community.

If Judaism were an aggressive religion, seeking to lay down its law for all mankind, then this supremely learned old gentleman could acquire menacing power. Like the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran after 1979, Dayan Ehrentreu could tell people to kill in the name of God. Instead, his effect is the opposite. By policing so meticulously the difference between the precise duties of Jews and the duty to society at large, this scholar helps define the space necessary for people with beliefs quite at variance with those of the majority to live harmoniously among them. In this sense, people can be "fundamentalist" and yet perfectly at home in a society which is not. For 2,000 years, Jews have developed a subtle understanding of the difference between the ideal society that would exist if God's laws prevailed everywhere and the world as it is.

Without this understanding, people do indeed "swallow one another alive" and - one might add in the era of suicide bombings - swallow themselves in the process.

With this understanding, a minority community can develop enough confidence and win enough acceptance to do good beyond the confines of itself. The Jewish concept of mitzvah, on which David Cameron dwelt when he made a speech celebrating the 350 years last week, means a good deed done for its own sake. Such deeds are visible in the importance that Jews attach to charity and to education. British society needs a lot more mitzvahs. There is also the idea of "chesed", man's kindness to all men, as first shown by Abraham when he entertained angels unawares. Thus does a potentially very closed community open itself out. The difference between majority and minority is very real - but not antagonistic.

In the past half-century, Muslims have come where the Jews came earlier, and in much larger numbers. Like such Jews, they have sometimes experienced the unhappiness that comes when one's religion is misunderstood or derided. Unlike the Jews, too many of their leaders tend to teach them that such slights must be avenged, that existence as a minority is just a temporary misfortune, not a state to be lived with, and that the law of England is virtually no law at all. If that attitude continues, society is reduced to a conflict about who will swallow whom alive. To avoid that is a huge and urgent task.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:33 | link | comments

 

The lost Mrs. Hitler: According to this review of a new biography of Eva Braun, which tries to paint her as a "tragic heroine," it should probably have remained lost. From The Age:

…According to Angela Lambert, who has made it her task to recover Eva Braun's "lost life", Hitler's mistress likely felt a sense of "deep satisfaction" at finally achieving her goal of becoming Frau Hitler. Having spent 14 years humiliatingly relegated to the shadows, Braun finally received what to her seemed a long-overdue reward for her years of uncomplaining love and devotion.

Lambert's speculation on Braun's feelings on her marriage seems reasonable but many of her other judgements in this disappointing new biography are less sound and much less persuasive. Lambert is intent on demolishing the conventional view of Braun as an insubstantial, vain, flighty, feather-brained bimbo blindly and self-destructively devoted to a man who neither loved nor respected her. In the end, however, her efforts remain unconvincing.

Lambert's Eva Braun is loyal, brave, strong, generous, proud, subtle, strong-willed, kind, considerate and resilient, a woman of formidable emotional intelligence who mastered the demanding job of providing pleasure to one of last century's most despicable dictators.

This overwhelmingly positive evaluation is based more on an extremely sympathetic reading of the existing evidence than on the discovery of any substantial new source material. The Hitler-Braun letters remain lost. Lambert relies primarily on the recollections of relatives and members of Hitler's inner circle, and on material that has long been available to researchers, including the 22 pages of Eva Braun's 1935 diary (which detail the mental anguish caused by Hitler's neglect of her in the period leading up to her second unsuccessful suicide attempt)...

Considering the amount of unread material on my night table, it’ll probably take me a while to put the lost Eva on my list. However, I can think of a couple of guys with lots of time on their hands who probably can’t wait to get to it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments

 

Wake up and smell the café au lait: Baron Rothschild, in an astonishing feat of denial, insists to the Jerusalem Post that his beloved homeland isn’t a hot-bed of seething Jew-hatred:

As Ehud Olmert made his inaugural visit to France as prime minister, leading Jewish philanthropist Baron Eric de Rothschild told The Jerusalem Post that the extent of anti-Semitism in his native France