...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.
Run, don’t walk…: To the nearest mega-bookstore to purchase a copy of Diana West’s The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization. West is second only to the great Mark Steyn in her ability to make you laugh out loud while bringing you the grimmest of news about our society's chances for survival.
On second thought, better order your copy online, since the nearest mega-bookstore is probably stocked with so many Chomsky tomes and the collective “wisdom” of the rest of the Bush=Hitler crowd that there’s likely little room left (pun intended) on the groaning shelves for the likes of West. To whet your appetite, here’s a tasty sample:
It is surely a paradox that the rest of the world—meaning the nations of the non-Western world about which the Western world is so assiduously “inclusive”—remains strikingly, immovably and unapologetically nondiversive, uniform even, in every way: ethnically, religiously and culturally. For example, you may speak Urdu, Arabic, Pashtun and Turkish in British, French, Dutch and German schools; they don’t, however, speak English, French, Dutch and German in Pakistani, Arab, Afghani and Turkish schools. Mosque construction breaks ground all over Europe and the United States, but churches and synagogues do not rise in the Islamic world. The president of the United States adds a Koran to the White House library for Ramadan; Bibles are confiscated and destroyed by the Saudi Arabian government. Born in Benin, Achille Acakpo teaches traditional African dance and percussion in Vienna; who born in Vienna is teaching Strauss waltzes in Benin?
Good question. The conclusion to draw from this: multiculturalism is a one-way street that ultimately leads to our own dead end.
The price of ricin: I’m not one to jump to conclusions every time something blows up or an odd white powder is detected in a plain brown package, but I had to giggle at this NYT report about an as yet unnamed individual who has fallen victim to deadly toxin found in his Vegas motel room. (To be clear, I wasn’t giggling at the man’s plight but at the way it was reported):
Police in Las Vegas said a man is in critical condition after staying in a motel room where ricin, a deadly poison, was later found.
Skip to next paragraph The victim called for an ambulance two weeks ago, while he was staying in the room, complaining of breathing difficulty. Police said a man identifying himself as a relative went to the room, which has been unoccupied since, on Thursday to retrieve personal items belonging to the sick man and discovered vials of powder in a plastic bag.
Local public health officials confirmed Friday that the powder is ricin.
The man who discovered the poison is one of seven people hospitalized in the incident, but six of those people were admitted only as a precaution. He was not identified by police.
Police said the ricin did not appear to be intended for use in a terror attack…
Of course not. No doubt it was intended solely for his personal use.
Back from the dead: It's a miracle!
Scare mongers: Muslims are upset that Islam is being dragged into the campaign to scare people away from voting for Obama. From the San Jose Mercury News:
Muslim rumors have dogged Barack Obama throughout this presidential campaign, but the political arrows flew fast and furious this week, leaving Maha ElGenaidi anxious that her community would be further wounded in the aftermath.
"The outcome of this game they're playing amongst themselves is possibly tragic for Muslims in
American Muslims complain their faith is being used as a scare tactic, possibly inflaming prejudices already heightened by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the subsequent war and terrorist bombings. The recent ploys, leaders say, insinuate that simply being or associating with Muslims is sinister.
This week, a photo of Obama in a turban surfaced, flashing across television and computer screens coast to coast. At a Republican campaign rally in
The Muslim faith group also finds itself politically isolated. Though candidates have been courting voters in this tight race, none of the three top contenders has met with major Muslim groups. Neither, they say, have major interfaith groups and politicians rallied around them to loudly condemn the anti-Islamic strategies.
"It would be good if the president and leaders of both parties would say 'Enough. We're better than this,' " said Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. "It's disconcerting to me they haven't."
Republicans have criticized some of the tactics, as has the National Council of Churches. Muslim leaders say while the politicians' admonishments are needed, they fall short of the full-throated defense other religions would receive.
"They're not apologizing for the bigotry, but rather it's unstatesmanlike to insult each other," ElGenaidi said.
John McCain repudiated the conservative radio host at the
And after complaints, the Tennessee Republican Party altered a memo that used Obama's full name and a photo of him in tribal African garb, inaccurately labeled as "Muslim" dress.
Bill Hobbs, spokesman for the Tennessee GOP, said he didn't commonly use someone's full name and he couldn't remember why he made an exception for Obama. Obama is named after his late father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. As for the photo,
"The photo seemed to fit the issue being discussed - whether his policies would lean toward
He acknowledged that Obama isn't Muslim - he's a member of the United Church of Christ - but noted it was understandable that people questioned his religious affiliation. "His name, not just his middle name, brings that up, especially after Sept. 11,"
ElGenaidi wonders if such moves would be tolerated against another religious group. Imagine the furor, she said, if photos of a candidate wearing a yarmulke were circulated, along with whispers of, "You know his middle name is Jewish."
During the debate Tuesday, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton took pains to "denounce" and "reject" Farrakhan for his past anti-Semitism. They've also met with Jewish groups and stressed their support for
Despite their concerns, Muslim leaders say they're careful not to overly criticize the candidates themselves.
"We know these candidates will do what they have to do to get voted in," said Safaa Ibrahim, director of the
Hurray for “
Cute: The front of the Globe and Mail's review section has this header about the new Portman/Johansson flick --"Boleyn for dollars."
“Deep” thinker: The Globe and Mail’s resident aging radical, Rick Salutin, offers another of his embarrassing rants, today on the subject of Prozac, “change,” and Barack Obama:
In praise of placebos
It's been a Prozac world for 20 years now, yet an international team of researchers has just concluded that Prozac is no more effective than placebos or sugar pills. This is big news, considering all the lives in which antidepressants are lodged.
It's not an inherently negative finding. It doesn't mean Prozac doesn't work. Lots of people "improve" when they take it. But they feel about as good when they take placebos, which they think are Prozac.
This is complicated. Could you just take placebos, if your doc prescribed them, and get relief? No. Because placebos work when you think they're Prozac, which you think works. And if people stopped taking either, they'd stay depressed, whereas they now feel better.
It's a bit like organized religion. Almost any version seems to lighten people's load. So why can't they just tolerate other religions, letting them work for other people? Because often, it seems, if you aren't sure your faith is the "true" one, and others are false, then it won't work for you either.
Of course drug companies are defiant and say the study ignores clinical experience. But no one denies the experience. It's just that it isn't the ingredients in the antidepressants that produce the results, it's something else. What might that be? How about - hope? The doc says, "Take this, it should help." People yearn to get better - and SHAZAM! What does it prove? People want change, they need hope. It's the Obama effect!...
As for the restorative effect of Barack Obama, it may be "working" because expectations of actual change in the world have been ratcheted down so far that people are ready to settle for a strong feeling of hope for change, a feeling that change is merely possible, full stop. This seems to be an era of feelings and mood swings in politics, rather than action. What I've never got about fervid right-wingers is why they care so much who's in power. It doesn't affect their real lives - even if it's a Clinton or Chrétien. Yet they need to feel their side has won and that the dark side hasn't.
This kind of internalized politics may be just as well for Barack Obama, if he gets to be president, since there are vast limits on what any president can do.
Profound social change tends to be based on mass movements, such as civil rights, anti-war or labour movements - with vast numbers of ordinary people beavering away. I know the term is used for the Obama campaign, but it looks a lot like a sugar pill to me.
My letter:
Rick Salutin mentions new research showing that the anti-depressant Prozac—which is celebrating its 20th anniversary—is no more effective than a placebo. At the same time, though, he wants us to swallow an even older, more radical “remedy”, one which dates back to the 1960s: the notion that we’re in desperate need of “profound social change.”
I’m not really sure what kind of “profound social change” Mr. Salutin is seeking; for some reason, those who advocate “change”—whether it’s “profound” or the shallower, Obama-esque variety—often tend to be fuzzy on the details. But for the short-and-long-term health of our society—which, all in all, is in pretty good shape—it’s probably best to opt for incremental “changes” rather than “profound” ones: History has shown that, all too often, “profound social change” can devolve into chaos and tyranny.
If Mr. Salutin finds the “go-slow” approach too depressing, he could always try taking a placebo.
Buh bye, mass gasser: "Chemical Ali" is toast--or will be soon:
Saddam’s “cuz”, Chem Ali, was defanged.
Though like him, he harrumphed and harangued.
But alack and alas, er,
Ali was a gasser,
And now he is going to be hanged.
Dear Jews: Simon Rocker in The Jewish Chronicle picks apart a letter from “Muslim scholars” which, at first blush, seems to be quite conciliatory. In fact, as Rocker reveals, it’s about as conciliatory toward today’s Jews as Muhammad was to the Jews of his time:
Let me be clear from the start that this is not a criticism of the interfaith intentions of the letter from Muslim leaders covered in today’s news pages; rather, a critique of its inaccuracies, lack of sources and methodology, and the questionable overall efficacy of such a letter. I am fully aware of the several important Muslim names that are given as allegedly having written this letter (issued through the Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations in Cambridge).
However, it is unclear whether these
“Muslim scholars throughout the world” are generally supporting good relations between Jews and Muslims, or this particular letter with its naïve and condescending approach.
Having spoken with several Muslim academics, it seems to me that this letter is more appropriate as an RE essay by a 15-year-old than a scholarly letter addressed to “rabbinic leaders and the wider Jewish communities of the world”. To assume that the problems of Muslim-Jewish relations worldwide can be resolved simply because we all worship a Unity, give charity and eat kosher and halal food is intellectually offensive equally to both sides.
There are a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the letter. However, there is only room to deal with a few here. The letter quotes several passages in English from the Qur’an to show the positive and ecumenical approach of Islam towards Jews and Christians. However, the letter does not inform us which particular translation has been used, which, firstly, leads to confusion regarding the numbering of the verses in different editions; and, secondly, the translation at times seems to be a free translation.
More importantly, for a letter supposedly written by scholars, it quotes the verses out of context — historical, geo-political, theological, and hermeneutical. This means, regrettably, that almost all the verses quoted are from chapters 2, 3 and 5, which contain the majority of the strongest anti-Jewish verses in the Qur’an. Therefore, each quote, put in its correct context, is actually an admonition of the Jews or the Children of Israel.
One example is Qur’an 2:62, the verse that opens the letter. This verse, which is part of the narrative of the rebellion of the Israelites against God during their wanderings in the wilderness, was part of the verses revealed during the period of strife and animosity between the Muslims and Jews in Medina. It shows similarities between the actions of the Jewish tribes of Medina and their Israelite ancestors.
The verse is preceded by Q.2:61 “And so, ignominy and humiliation overshadowed them, and they earned the burden of God’s condemnation: all this because they persisted in denying the truth of God’s messages and in slaying the prophets against all right: all this because they rebelled [against God], and persisted in transgressing the bounds of what is right” (The Message of the Qur’an, Translated and Explained, by Muhammad Asad).
No one denies that any positive interaction at any level between Muslims and Jews should be appreciated and supported. But if we genuinely want to appeal to the religious leaders and academics, which this letter intends to do, we need to have the academic courage and rigour to be impartial. Only then can we move on.
The letter also refers to a few hadiths (traditional sayings of the Prophet). The only one quoted with the source reference is about the Prophet standing up respectfully when the bier of a Jew is passing. Once again the letter gives an imaginative punch line translation.
When the companions of the Prophet ask him why he stands up in respect for a dead Jew, the letter quotes: “Is he not a human being!” The Arabic text of al-Bukhari reads: “Whenever you see a funeral procession, you should stand up.” Again, I question the scholarly value of jazzing up of classical text for effect. It could be misunderstood and misleading.
There are no source references for the other iconoclastic hadiths — unusual for a scholarly letter. One in particular is astounding. The letter states that Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet worked for a Jew: “She would spin for him in return for grain.” No one I spoke with has ever heard of such an illogical hadith. She was married to Ali, the Prophet’s cousin. By that time the Prophet was a wealthy man. Why should his daughter perform such a menial task in return for food?
The letter refers to the Jewish wife of the Prophet. He married one of the captured women after the fall of Khaybar, the Jewish stronghold near Medina. The letter calls her “Sofia”. Sofia is a Greek name; her name was Safiyya. It is an Arabic name with a completely different root to that of Sofia. It beggars belief that a Muslim scholar would make such a mistake.
The paragraph on the Constitution of Medina — the agreement between Muhammad and the Jewish and Arab tribes— suffers from the familiar absence of sources, free translation and re-adjustments of phrases and sentences. Furthermore, it is academically imbalanced. It fails to make any mention of the confiscation of land and property and exile of the two Jewish tribes of Medina and the beheading of all the males of the third tribe of Banu Qurayza, whose women were sold into slavery. This evasive approach and lack of academic rigour does not encourage bilateral trust and genuine dialogue.
Finally, no Muslim-Jewish talk or article is complete without the vapid and superficial reference to Maimonides, and this letter is no exception. The usual claims for Maimonides being the physician to the great “Sultan Salah-ud-din” abound, but this letter also states “philosophical exchanges between Ibn Rushd and Maimonides” without giving any source reference.
This is not surprising since this is a complete fantasy; no such document has ever existed. It seems to me that the information on Maimonides was gathered more from a Google search than academic research.
There is no shortage of Islamic scholars in the UK, I have known and worked with many of them for almost two decades. There is also no doubt about the goodwill from the majority of British Muslims. This “open” letter and its timing do not sit comfortably with all of that. One wonders.
One does indeed.
Paper tiger: When he held the post of UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan was well known for papering over some unpleasant truths. Like, say, ones pertaining to a certain oily little Saddam scam.
No surprise, then, that in his current guise as elder-statesman-at-large--he's currently trying to straighten out some tribal differences in Kenya--Kofi is still trying to paper things over.
Maybe he should just stay home and count his paper money.
Palestinian cannon fodder:
Maybe not. The "cannon-fodder" seems to be balking at its assigned role.
Avi at A-J: It’s official! Clueless Ceeb spieler and Hirsi Ali scourge Avi Lewis has jumped ship and signed up with Al Jazeera. I know for a fact that his parents, Michele Landsberg and Stephen Lewis, are inordinately proud of their spawn. (Well, the apple certainly didn’t fall far from that tree.)
In “honour” of Avi’s new position, I’ve revised my song parody about the Arab TV station, a haven for useful Western media idiots. No doubt Avi will fit in there just fine.
Come on boys, we’re gonna paint the news,
And Al that Jaz.
We’re gonna praise some ‘rabs
And then we’ll slam some Jews,
And Al that Jaz.
Start your day with sights that will engage.
It’s sure to stir the blood, inspire fits of rage.
But then we’ll say again
It’s just like CNN
And Al that Jaz.
Come on friends, those scenes from
And Al that Jaz,
Are gonna rev you up and really blow your mind,
And Al that Jaz.
Who’s to blame?
You know it’s hard to tell
If it’s
Or if it’s Is-ra-el.
There’s a conspiracy
Behind your misery
And Al that Jaz.
Oh, we’re gonna scoop with an Osama tape,
And Al that Jaz.
Then go on to show you who decapitates,
And Al that Jaz.
Poke some fun at Arab despots;
See who shows up in our guest spots:
Someone who thinks just like you,
And Al that Jaz.
Hey, there, Av, we got a spot for you,
Here at Al Jaz.
We know that you’re in synch,
And you know you are, too,
With Al that Jaz.
That wife of yours is such a smokin’ chick.
And such a famous feminine apparatchnik.
But will she be allowed
To ever wear a shroud
And Al that Jaz?
Oh, just tune us in and then turn off your brain,
And Al that Jaz.
You will soon be hooked and singin' this refrain,
And Al that Jaz:
“Golly, it’s so good to see ya,
Better than al-Arabiya.
We’re so queer for al-Jazeer’
And all that Jazz.”
Delusions of totalitarian grandeur: The Shoa-denying Shia supremacist crows, "We're numro uno!"
Must be all that "peaceful" nuclear energy that's making him feel so empowered.
The price of “nice”: Conventional (Democratic Convention-al) wisdom holds that the world will “like” America a whole lot more once that nasty rabble-rouser, GWB, saddles up his horse and moseys off into the sunset. Victor Davis Hanson takes out a sharp object (his mind) and bursts that bubble. From RealClear Politics:
…Won't adversaries back off when the Christian cowboy George Bush rides back to Texas -- and we have a kinder, gentler commander-in-chief who offers hope, or at least change, to the world?
Hardly.
There are plenty of problems that both antedated George Bush and are likely to continue well after he's left office.
For starters, the next American president will have to deal with Vladimir Putin's Russia, which is proud and angry for reasons that go well beyond the Bush administration. Russia is flush with petrodollars, still smarting over lost empire and tired of lectures about human rights from impotent European states.
Iran, which repeatedly snubbed the efforts of the Clinton administration to normalize relations, will still want a bomb, will still intimidate neighbors and will still threaten Israel. Indeed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Hitlerian fashion, has called the Jewish state "filthy bacteria" and promised to wipe it off the map. He didn't say these things because George Bush is president, and he won't stop when Bush is gone.
Sen. Barack Obama, who looks more and more every day like he'll be the Democratic presidential nominee, has said he'd be in favor of taking out "high-value terrorist targets" inside Pakistan on our own if the Pakistani government won't. But so far we haven't done that because Pakistan is nuclear and friendlier to jihadists than it is to us. That won't change, either.
Osama bin Laden's attacks on Americans also predated George Bush. The war on terror started only when we finally decided to strike back in 2001. And it will end only when we destroy the jihadists and alter the conditions that created them -- or give in and return to the earlier policy of inaction.
Long-term global challenges are bipartisan concerns -- neither caused by conservative Republicans nor solved by easy answers from liberal Democrats.
Should we guarantee the new independence of Muslim-dominated Kosovo, if Christian Serbia and its Russian patrons seek to get it back by force? If so, consider the chance of another bloody war inside Europe, and no appreciation for our help in Kosovo from the Muslim world.
Should we press China to clean up its trade practices and grant basic human rights to its own citizens? If so, be ready to see hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese-held U.S. government bonds sold off.
Should we extend formal diplomatic recognition to Iran and begin talks? If so, be prepared that, with even less worry, Tehran will accelerate efforts to get the bomb.
It is a cop-out to say George Bush caused all these problems. They loom large mostly for two reasons. One, the United States promotes global democratic capitalism, and our military ensures international free commerce in the air and on the seas. This bothers regional dictators and terrorists eager to carve out their own spheres of influence, regardless of who's sitting in the Oval Office.
Two, billions of people in India, Russia, China, Asia and Latin America, having copied American business and culture, are now doing better, and demand the same good lives we take for granted.
Our rivals suspect that we are played out, short of energy, long on debt, and hogging the world's resources. They see no reason to stop pushing just because of our past strength and reputation. They think the future is theirs, the past ours. And so all over the globe they will surely challenge the next president, however nice, to prove them wrong.
The question is: Will a “nice” president be up to the challenge?
R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Rami Khouri offers a very Motown-esque explanation to account for Muslim glumness. From The Muslim News (U.K.):
…A fascinating new global poll by the Gallup organization, covering societies with 1 billion Muslims, clearly reaffirmed something that those of us who live in Muslim-majority societies have long recognized as a prevailing reality: Muslims most resent the West's "disrespect of Islam" and are critical of many American policies, not American values. The commitment to democratic norms, even the definition of democracy, is virtually identical among Americans and Muslims, the poll found. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed have just published an important new book on the poll results, titled "Who Speaks for Islam."
Backed by massive polling data - not so new in itself, since other polls have shown similar results, but never on such a scale - they make a critically important point that cannot be over-emphasized: Muslims' sense that they and their religion are disrespected by the US leads to a widespread feeling of humiliation, and also of being threatened and controlled by others. This can spill over into radicalism in some cases.
The centrality of "respect" for Muslims, Arabs and others who resent American or Western double standards and mistreatment needs to be better appreciated. This is especially true if we wish to reduce global tensions and the violence now routinely practiced by the US armed forces and official and private armies throughout the Arab-Islamic world.
The good news is that this message is getting through to some Americans who make the effort to listen and understand, and in turn expect Arabs and Muslims to reciprocate the courtesy. One example was the concluding review of the gathering by Brookings Institution Vice President Carlos Pascual. He acknowledged the "reinforcing paranoias" in both societies, affirmed the need for law-based regional and global orders that treat all people equally, and concluded that "respect" was the elusive point of convergence that could gather together the rights and aspirations of all concerned. This "call to coexistence," he said, requires reciprocal understanding, human capacity, good policies and action…
So you see, folks, it has nothing to do with global jihad in both its soft and hard forms. It’s all about the West “dissing” “Muslims, Arabs and others who resent American or Western double standards,” and how that can’t help but reinforce global “paranoias”. Give ‘em that full-blown Aretha treatment (“What you want/Baby I got/What you need/Do you know I got it?”) and, presto, reciprocal understanding and “peace” will prevail.
Of course, so, too, will Dar al Islam. But, hey, that’s a small price to pay for “peaceful” coexistence, right?
Hot zones: In an attempt to get a handle on a “home grown” problem, the Brits are getting set to “map” the areas of the country most prone to “extremism”. From the Daily Mail:
Every part of Britain will be mapped for its potential to produce violent Muslim extremists under a new strategy drawn up by senior police officers, it has emerged.
At its counter-terrorism conference in Brighton this week, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) approved a blueprint for how to prevent al Qaeda recruiting fresh supporters.
The 40-page document aims to stop extremist ideas gaining hold in schools, colleges, prisons and over the internet.
It includes advice for parents on how to stop their children searching for jihadist websites.
"The internet is a potential area where a tendency towards violent extremism can be exploited..." it reads.
"Parents and carers have a need for advice on how to control access for their children and to understand what defines the legal-potentially illegal divide."
The strategy also outlines details of an anti-extremist agenda to be included at every level of state-maintained education from primary school to university by 2008-09.
It speaks of a "pressing need" to develop relationships between the police and the education sector "at every level" with regard to preventing violent extremism.
It also warns: "Research last year revealed that the police service would be very low on the list of agencies that the Muslim community would turn to if they had concerns about a member of their community who embraced violent extremism...
"The police service has a long way to go in building a relationship of trust around these issues."
The strategy will be rooted in "neighbourhood profiling" to establish what is normal and what is unusual behaviour.
An unnamed senior source told The Guardian that it was important to map areas of the country for their tendency to produce extremists…
Let me take a stab at it: the “neighbourhoods” (no-go areas?) with a higher concentration of radical mosques, jihad-spewing imams and impressionable Muslim youngsters are more likely to be spawning grounds for “extremism.”
There, and it didn’t cost the British government a farthing.
The man who should be Archbish: The Bishop of Rochester is as stalwart, brave and clued-in as his Archbish is invertebrate, craven and clueless. From FrontPage Magazine:
…Nazir-Ali’s father was a convert from Islam to Christianity, a decision that could have resulted in his death in Pakistan . After himself becoming an Anglican bishop in Pakistan at age 35, Nazir-Ali had to resettle in Britain because of Islamist death threats. So this bishop has few illusions about the threat posed by creeping Islamization. Nor is he a stranger to the possibly lethal consequences of challenging radical Islam.
"If you disagree, that must be met by counter-arguments, not by trying to silence people,” he explained to The Telegraph about the latest dangers his remarks have aroused. “It was a threat not just to me, but to my family. I took it seriously, so did the police. It gave me sleepless nights."
For many of Britain’s cultural and religious elites, Britain’s Islamic minority is merely an opportunity to burnish their multicultural credentials and atone for the real and imagined sins of Christendom across the centuries. Just as British appeasers of 70 years ago sanctimoniously believed themselves virtuous because of their zeal to accommodate fascism, today’s multiculturalists are smugly blind. They want to pretend that radical Islam will neatly fit into their dreams of a beautiful social mosaic. They are loath to admit that multiculturalism is the hobby of Western liberals, who can freely enjoy their hobby only thanks to Western concepts of tolerance. That which they seek to appease in fact would ultimately smash their rainbow kaleidoscope, if permitted the power.
"The recovery of Christian discourse in the public life of this nation is so important,” Nazir-Ali told The Telegraph. “It's that discourse that will allow us in a genuine way to be hospitable to those who come here from different cultures and religions." Having come from the Global South, the Bishop of Rochester knows that humanity is overwhelmingly religious by nature. Europe ’s brief flirtation with aggressive secularism will not persist. "The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years,” the bishop warned. “When you have such a moral vacuum something will fill it.”
Nazir-Ali prefers Britain ’s historic religious traditions to the traditions of his native Pakistan : "If people are not given a fresh way of understanding what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Christian-based society then something else may well take the place of all that we're used to and that could be Islam."
The Telegraph reported that many Church of England clerics rallied to defend their chief prelate, Rowan Williams, when he was criticized around the world for his voluminous pontifications about possible civil recognition of Islamic Law. Few senior prelates offered a similarly robust defense of Nazir-Ali, despite the death threats against him.
"I don't court popularity,” Nazir-Ali told The Telegraph. “If I say something it's because I think it's important enough to say it.” But he is perplexed by the reluctance of other British bishops to address the Islamization of some British cities that even some British civil authorities openly acknowledge: "I can't guess why they haven't talked on the issue. I'm not responsible for other people's consciences." When The Telegraph asked if Britain’s religious officials are silent due to cowardice, the Bishop of Rochester responded: "You'd have to ask them."
Nazir-Ali told The Telegraph that Islamist teachings about polygamy, women’s rights and freedom of belief would undermine British civil concepts about equality: "People of every faith should be free within the law to follow what their spiritual leaders direct them to, but that's very different from saying their structures should replace that of the English legal system because there would be huge conflicts."
The Bishop of Rochester speaks clearly when many of his fellow Church of England clerics, presiding over empty museum-churches, prefer to obfuscate. But having fled his native land once in the face of Islamist threats, Nazir-Ali seems undeterred.
Reminds me of another encounter/collision between a brave individual whose family lived under oppressive sharia and who became champion of freedom, and a clueless lefty who couldn’t even begin to fathom what such oppression is all about.
Jews for Bambi: Apparently “he shares many of Judaism's values, including social justice, education, and family.” Good to know. In an ideal world, these “shared values” would be enough to offset the fact that he attends a racist, black power church whose leader, Bambi’s “spiritual advisor,” is a big fan of loopy NOI Jew-hater, LouFa (his rapper name). In the real world, however, the one that we’re stuck with, these “values” are likely to colour his perceptions of the Jewish state--and not in a good way.
Condi Rice, whose experiences growing up in pre-Civil Rights-era Mississippi, caused her to misperceive the problems and misrepresent the Palestinians as being the new Negroes, was bad enough. One cannot even begin to imagine what kind of fresh hell is in store for Israel when Bambi brings his “spiritual values” to the perpetual “peace process.”
Kent’s condensation: A friend sent me this—former TV news anchor and would-be Tory M.P. Peter Kent’s thumbnail sketch of the Canadian press:
The Globe and Mail is read by people who think THEY should run the country...
La Presse is read by people who USED to run the country...
The Ottawa Citizen is read by the WIVES of people who think THEY run the country...
Le Devoir is read by people who think the country ought to be run AS ONE COUNTRY...and ANOTHER country...
The Toronto Star is read by people who are convinced this country IS run by another country...
The Financial Post and Report on Business are read by people who OWN the country…
The National Post is read by people who THINK they need a few more seats to run the country better…
And, the Toronto Sun is read by people who DON'T CARE who runs the country..so long as the Leaf's win..and there's a little cheesecake and beefcake…somewhere in the paper.
I would add one more item to the list—a broadcaster, not a newspaper, this time: The CBC is watched/listened to by people who think that anyone who runs the country should have a world view that’s in synch with the Ceeb’s. (Which is why they’re so miffed that Stephen Harper and his “scary” Tories are still in charge.)
A timely quote: In a blog post about the sources of Muslim zaniness re: “the Jews,” historian Andrew Bostom cites a quotation by Maimonides:
We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation…All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment [by Muslims] which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition.
Maimonides made that statement 850 years ago: He could just have easily been commenting on the situation today, when the Canadian Jewish establishment finds it necessary to humble itself—and sell out basic Western values—in order to curry favour with Muslim faux-moderates, and the Israeli establishment continues to extend a hand of peace, even as the Islamic Jew-loathers laugh at such fecklessness, and stir up the strife and sedition meant to bring about Israel’s demise.
(B)arf!: When last we heard from the Toronto Star’s Oakland Ross, he was breathlessly recounting how Palestinians in Gaza had formed themselves into a human chain to engage in a radical new tactic: peaceful protest.
How very John Lennon/Mahatma Gandhi of them.
My letter to the Star:
I can understand why Oakland Ross would want to make such a fuss about a peaceful protest in Gaza. In light of the usual commotion there—bloody civil unrest, rockets being hurled into Israel, barriers to Egypt being toppled—such behaviour is so atypical that it falls into the “man bites dog” category of news. I’m guessing that’s also the reason why, on the same day, a peaceful protest in Toronto which rallied an estimated 2,000 people to support Sderot, the Israeli city which for the past seven years has found itself in the crosshairs of Palestinian Qassam rockets, rated nary a mention in your paper.
A report about thousands of Israel supporters rallying peacefully to draw attention to a war crime—the tormenting of civilians though daily bombardment; children being purposefully targeted and killed: Ho hum. Just another one of those “dog bites man” stories, I suppose.
Not every Anglican is a squish like the Archbish: I was surprised and delighted to find this.
Creative spin: When I heard Toronto’s new Israeli consul-general, Amir Gissin, at one of those lunch ‘n’ learn thingys at a downtown law firm not long ago, he was energized by his “new” idea for sprucing up Israel’s tattered image. The idea: “branding.” I won’t go into all the details. Suffice it to say that Gissin asserted that the only way ahead was to market Israel based on a number of key messages. The first message: “Israel is entrepreneurial.” Apparently, the world is supposed to be so blown away by its creative zest (“Did you know that the cell phone was invented in Israel?”), that it would forthwith be embraced by the international community.
My problem with the idea—aside from the fact that it ignored current realities as well as those associated with the “longest hate”: Some of the folks to whom you’re touting Israel’s creativity reached the height of their creativity back in the Middle Ages. Their last truly creative endeavour of note—and one they’re still mighty proud of, I might add—was when, quite some years ago, they supposedly invented algebra. And these folks don’t give a fig about the Jewish state’s contributions to humanity, impressive though they may be. They want Israel gone a.s.a.p. because it’s the Jewish state.
In FrontPage Magazine, the director of a news agency takes a look at Muslim “creativity,” i.e. the marked lack thereof:
…BetBasoo: Let me preface my remarks by saying that I do not claim that Muslims have made no accomplishments. Individual Muslims have been successful in the full range of the human scientific and artistic endeavor. But a closer examination of these successes reveals that they came about because these individuals stepped outside of the Muslim realm. For example, today Muslim scientists and scholars are trained in the West. I claim that Islam is not conducive to the pursuit of rational inquiry, and when Islam asserts itself, it borrows, co-opts and ultimately, when time has passed and memory forgotten, claims that these borrowed and co-opted things were originated by Muslims, not by the native cultures that preceded the Muslims.
If something cannot be so expropriated, it is often destroyed. The most recent example was the Taliban's destruction of the 2500 year-old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan . In Iran , the UNESCO world heritage sites, Pasargadae and Persepolis , are threatened by the construction of the Sivand dam, and the Mullahs simply don't care, though they claim the water line will be below these cities, which date back to 560 B.C..
In Iraq , history text books teach that the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians were in fact Arabs -- never mind that these civilizationsexisted a good 5600 years before Arabs/Muslims came into Mesopotamia .
In the Middle East it is nearly impossible to separate Islam from Arabs, they are two sides of the same coin. Hence, if you are an Arab, you must surely be a Muslim, and your accomplishments as well. If you are not a Muslim, then you need to be.
In India , over 3500 Hindu temples have been occupied and converted to Mosques, the most famous being the Taj Mahal. In Kosovo, under the auspices of the UN "peace" keeping force, over 600 Serbian churches and monasteries have been occupied or destroyed by the Muslim Kosovars. Kosovo is the most important religious center for the Serbians.
FP: So how about Muslim claims of accomplishment that aren’t real?
BetBasoo: Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India . The concept of zero? From Babylonia . Parabolic arches? From Assyria . The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology.
Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years.
There are many more examples, but I think these are enough to make the point.
FP: Why, in your view, does Islam fail in producing scholars and thinkers?
BetBasoo: It is a bold assertion to say that Islam fails in producing thinkers. Yet one is lead to this conclusion by a historical examination of Islamic civilizations. The putative "Golden Age of Islam", the Abbasid period, has been shown to be not the product of Muslims, but of their Christian subjects. In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary's lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period. This "Golden Age", incidentally, came to an end after the Caliphs had forcefully converted enough Christians to Muslims (through the Jizya) that the Christian numbers fell below the critical threshold needed for sustaining the intellectual enterprise.
Given that this intellectual enterprise during the Abbasid period was the product of Christians, we ask the question: has there ever been an Islamic golden age? There was none during the rule of the Mamluks, who overthrew the Abbasids. Can we say the Ottomans, who followed the Mamluks, ever had a golden age?
In his book Religion of Peace, Robert Spencer has offered a penetrating and incisive analysis of why Islam fails to produce thinkers. His explanation is theological and theoretical. I will summarize it now and then give my own complimentary explanation, which is practical.
According to Robert Spencer, the Muslim god, Allah, is capricious. He is not subject to any laws and can, in fact, change laws arbitrarily without restraint. Quoting the Pope, Spencer says:
“for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”
Spencer continues:
"the Pope was not so much saying that in the Islamic view Allah would command his people to do evil, but that he might change the content of the concepts of good and evil. In other words, Allah would always enjoin “justice and kindness,” but what constitutes “justice and kindness,” just as what constitutes “innocent blood,” might change."
And
"He [Allah] was thus not bound to govern the universe according to consistent and observable laws. 'He cannot be questioned concerning what He does'" (Qur’an 21:23 ).
And
"Accordingly, there was no point to observing the workings of the physical world; there was no reason to expect that any pattern to its workings would be consistent, or even discernable. If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow. Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest and physicist, explains that it was al-Ghazali, the philosopher that the authors of the Open Letter recommend to the Pope, who 'denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah.' He adds that 'Muslim mystics decried the notion of scientific law (as formulated by Aristotle) as blasphemous and irrational, depriving as it does the Creator of his freedom.' Social scientist Rodney Stark adds that 'it would seem that Islam has a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science. Not so. Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy in that they deny Allah’s freedom to act.'"
Thus there is no incentive for Muslims to pursue rational inquiry, since any results obtained can be invalidated by Allah at his whim…
Interesting that the marked absence of rational inquiry and its resulting creative fruits hasn’t hampered their ability