By Pamela Bone
US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton last week urged President George W. Bush to call on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to drop all charges against a 19-year-old Saudi woman who had been gang-raped at knifepoint, then sentenced to 200 lashes after she ostensibly confessed to adultery.
"As president I will once again make human rights an American priority around the world," Clinton said. The US State Department had earlier described the sentence as astonishing, while declining to call for the flogging to be stopped. Saudi Arabia is, after all, an ally in the troublesome Middle East.
An international outcry has persuaded the Saudi Justice Ministry to review the sentence. It's rare for such cases to attract such attention, and the only reason this one did was the bravery of the young woman and her lawyer in going public about the case.
Good on Clinton. Good on the 35 German female lawyers who wrote an open letter to the Saudi king calling for the sentence to be dropped. Good on those participants at last week's Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, who put pressure on the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, until he announced a review of the case.
I would like to be able to say, good on the thousands of Western feminists who rallied across the world for the cause, except that they didn't. I would like to be able to say, good on Australia's own famous feminist, Germaine Greer, who spoke out passionately in defence of the young woman during a visit to Melbourne last week, except that she didn't.
I must be fair to Greer. The human rights of Saudi rape victims were not the subject of her Melbourne address last week. She was here to give the opening night lecture on a conference on Jane Austen and her topic was the relevance of Austen to the young women of today. I must also confess I was the spoiler of the evening, who during question time asked Greer if she saw any parallels between the concept of family honour in Austen's Pride and Prejudice and the concept of family honour in Middle Eastern societies today. I then asked why it was that Western feminists seemed so reluctant to speak out against things such as honour killings.
Greer: "It's very tricky. I am constantly being asked to go to Darfur to interview rape victims. I can talk to rape victims here. Why should I go to Darfur to talk to rapevictims?"
Questioner (me): "Because it's so much worse there."
Greer: "Who says it is?"
Questioner: "I do, because I've been there."
Greer: "Well, it is just very tricky to try to change another culture. We let down the victims of rape here. We haven't got it right in our own courts. What good would it do for me to go over there and try to tell them what to do? I am just part of decadent Western culture and they think we're all going to hell fast and maybe we are all going to hell fast.
"But we do care. We do oppose these things. We are all wearing white ribbons this week, aren't we? A lot of good that will do."
This to thunderous applause. She was speaking to an audience of English teachers, nearly all women.
I can hardly blame Greer for her impatience. Just because 40 years ago she wrote a book, does that mean she has to carry the flag for oppressed women for the rest of her life? Who could blame her if at this stage of her life she would prefer to discuss English literature? I certainly don't blame her for not wanting to go to Darfur.
Yet actor Mia Farrow, who is only a few years younger than Greer, has been to Darfur several times. She goes there because she knows that to listen to the stories of the victims of this ongoing genocide validates their suffering and because, unlike Greer, she is willing to use her celebrity status to raise awareness of the human rights abuses of other women and men.
Yes, some of the points Greer made are valid.
If, in writing The Female Eunuch all those years ago, Greer was setting out to change a culture, rather than just expressing her anger at it, it was her own culture she was trying to change. Yes, it is "very tricky' to try to change another culture. Does that mean we should not try to?
Behind Greer's enthusiastically received comments is the dreary cultural relativism that pervades the thinking of so many of those once described as on the Left. We are no better than they are. We should not impose our values on them. We can criticise only our own. The problem with this mindset is that, with all its faults, Western culture is clearly, objectively, better.
Unlike the women I met in the refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border, who cannot leave the camps to get firewood without the fear of being raped, I could, after the Austen conference, walk home in the twilight through safe streets.
No, we don't have it right here on rape yet by a long way, but we don't require four male witnesses to prove a rape, we don't sentence rape victims to a flogging, we don't put adulterers to death.
Muslim feminist groups such as Women Living Under Muslim Laws are raising their voices against the misogyny of sharia laws but, with some honourable exceptions, there is no rallying by Western liberals against the gender apartheid under which women in large parts of the Islamic world live, as there was against racial apartheid in South Africa.
Is it the fear that by speaking out they will become targets of Islamist threats too?
I don't believe so. More likely it is, as Andrew Anthony described it in his recent book The Fallout, the new phenomenon of "Islamophobiaphobia": the great fear of being seen to be critical of Islam, of being seen to be racist, as if race had anything to do with it.
At its kindest, it is a fear of kicking the underdog. But there is a terrible confusion about who the underdog is. The underdogs are not the oil-rich sheiks, imposing their cruel laws on women. They are not even the upper-class women of Saudi Arabia (why should we fight for the right to drive a car when we have chauffers to take us everywhere?) The true victims, even in the most victimised countries, are poor women.
Odd that so many old feminists think racism is worse than sexism.
Pamela Bone, a Melbourne writer, is author of Bad Hair Days (Melbourne University Press).
Source: The Australian
H/T: Gramfan
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Islamists Target Michael Savage
By Cliff Kincaid
Americans don't have to look to Sudan to see Islamic fanaticism and extremism in action. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to destroy the Savage Nation radio show featuring Michael Savage. Having forced the firing of radio host Michael Graham from WMAL in Washington, D.C., CAIR is trying to force independent conservative Michael Savage off the air nationally by intimidating his advertisers. Officially, CAIR claims its mission includes encouraging "dialogue." But this is a big lie.
This so-called "dialogue" is a one-way street. CAIR has found Savage "guilty" of having an "anti-Islam" bias in the same way that a British teacher was jailed and expelled from Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohammed.
We had better wake up fast. "They're applying Sharia law here," says Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. "In the United States we're getting Sharia law by the inch. Islam cannot be criticized. It is a sin against Allah. What Savage has done is a grievous sin against Allah, Mohammed and Islam. They are not making this up. CAIR has no choice here. As a real Muslim, they must condemn anyone who criticizes Islam."
In a November 15 release, CAIR announced that OfficeMax "has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views." CAIR thanked OfficeMax "for its prompt response to Muslim concerns" and "is asking other Savage advertisers to follow that company's example."
The modus operandi is as straightforward as it is frightening―pressure companies to stop advertising on the show, and "The Savage Nation" will go off the air. Hence, a prominent critic of political Islam will be silenced.
Ironically, CAIR is distributing a column by Ibrahim Hooper on the Teddy Bear case insisting that "the Prophet had the opportunity to retaliate against those who abused him, but refrained from doing so." The article goes on to say, "After the Danish cartoon controversy and allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay, CAIR initiated educational campaigns as a peaceful, constructive response. This is an approach that people of all faiths can appreciate, as it helps us move toward respect and religious tolerance."
But CAIR isn't interested in the virtues of "dialogue" and "tolerance" in Savage's case. It isn't waging an "educational campaign" but is trying to force him off the air. It did the same thing with Michael Graham, who was fired from WMAL in 2005 for claiming Islam was a terrorist organization. At the time, CAIR welcomed WMAL's action "as a step toward reducing the level of anti-Muslim bigotry on our nation's airwaves."
What we are witnessing is a direct attack on the First Amendment disguised as a campaign against "hate speech" that comes from special interest groups, not government. But the use of government for this same purpose is being promised by liberal-left organizations that want a President Clinton or Obama to put in place a liberal majority at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to crack down on conservative talk radio. That is why AIM has titled its new book on the controversy, The Death of Talk Radio?
The CAIR vs. Michael Savage case provides a lesson in how this campaign will proceed once liberals control the White House. It is important to realize that, with a 3-2 majority on the FCC, the liberals won't even have to bother with pressuring advertisers. They will be able to directly use the full force of the federal government to pressure talk radio to toe the politically correct line. The FCC can bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, in order to suppress "hate speech" on the air, without a vote by Congress.
In fascinating comments on the Savage case, CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin was quoted as saying that it was "encouraging that companies nationwide are choosing not to associate with Mr. Savage's hatred and bigotry." She added, "Freedom of speech includes the right not to subsidize hate."
The right not to subsidize hate? What about the right to free speech? Notice how the First Amendment has taken a back seat to whether the speech meets with CAIR's approval. In effect, CAIR is setting itself up as a national arbiter of what should be permitted to be said on the air. CAIR even advises its supporters to "organize local coalitions with friends of the Muslim community to challenge Savage's hate rhetoric."
Those friends include Media Matters, the Hillary Clinton front organization which has publicized CAIR's complaints about "anti-Muslim" comments in the media.
The return of the Fairness Doctrine would give these groups direct access to the FCC.
The issue isn't whether Savage has been critical of Islam or even whether he has made some extreme statements. The issue is that a special interest group wants to muzzle its political enemies. And it is succeeding! It is just as dangerous as the campaign against the British school teacher in the Sudan.
Ironically, CAIR's vice-chairman received the ACLU's 2003 Liberty's Flame Award "for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties." But the civil liberties of Michael Savage don't matter in CAIR's scheme of things.
Whether you like Savage or not, he must not be forced off the air as the result of a special interest political pressure campaign. Beyond that, however, the public must be educated about how CAIR's campaign against Savage is part of the effort to force Sharia law on the world.
CAIR's opposition to "hate speech" is quite extraordinary, in view of the fact that the Islamic holy book the Koran declares that "They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers."
The Koran also declares that the "kafirs" should be killed through beheading. "When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly," it says.
The "kafirs" are usually described as the unbelievers. But Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam says the term has far more sinister connotations.
"The worst part of hate speech in the Koran is what we translate as unbeliever," he says. "But that is a ruinously false translation...A kafir can be tortured, killed, deceived, raped, and robbed. Allah despises the kafir. Allah deceives and plots against the kafirs. Allah hates the kafirs."
"The worst part of the hate language from the Koran is its name for us - you and me," he says.
Will Sharia law or the First Amendment prevail in the U.S.? The fate of Michael Savage will provide the answer.
---------
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Source: GOP USA
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Americans don't have to look to Sudan to see Islamic fanaticism and extremism in action. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to destroy the Savage Nation radio show featuring Michael Savage. Having forced the firing of radio host Michael Graham from WMAL in Washington, D.C., CAIR is trying to force independent conservative Michael Savage off the air nationally by intimidating his advertisers. Officially, CAIR claims its mission includes encouraging "dialogue." But this is a big lie. This so-called "dialogue" is a one-way street. CAIR has found Savage "guilty" of having an "anti-Islam" bias in the same way that a British teacher was jailed and expelled from Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohammed.
We had better wake up fast. "They're applying Sharia law here," says Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. "In the United States we're getting Sharia law by the inch. Islam cannot be criticized. It is a sin against Allah. What Savage has done is a grievous sin against Allah, Mohammed and Islam. They are not making this up. CAIR has no choice here. As a real Muslim, they must condemn anyone who criticizes Islam."
In a November 15 release, CAIR announced that OfficeMax "has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views." CAIR thanked OfficeMax "for its prompt response to Muslim concerns" and "is asking other Savage advertisers to follow that company's example."
The modus operandi is as straightforward as it is frightening―pressure companies to stop advertising on the show, and "The Savage Nation" will go off the air. Hence, a prominent critic of political Islam will be silenced.
Ironically, CAIR is distributing a column by Ibrahim Hooper on the Teddy Bear case insisting that "the Prophet had the opportunity to retaliate against those who abused him, but refrained from doing so." The article goes on to say, "After the Danish cartoon controversy and allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay, CAIR initiated educational campaigns as a peaceful, constructive response. This is an approach that people of all faiths can appreciate, as it helps us move toward respect and religious tolerance."
But CAIR isn't interested in the virtues of "dialogue" and "tolerance" in Savage's case. It isn't waging an "educational campaign" but is trying to force him off the air. It did the same thing with Michael Graham, who was fired from WMAL in 2005 for claiming Islam was a terrorist organization. At the time, CAIR welcomed WMAL's action "as a step toward reducing the level of anti-Muslim bigotry on our nation's airwaves."
What we are witnessing is a direct attack on the First Amendment disguised as a campaign against "hate speech" that comes from special interest groups, not government. But the use of government for this same purpose is being promised by liberal-left organizations that want a President Clinton or Obama to put in place a liberal majority at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to crack down on conservative talk radio. That is why AIM has titled its new book on the controversy, The Death of Talk Radio?
The CAIR vs. Michael Savage case provides a lesson in how this campaign will proceed once liberals control the White House. It is important to realize that, with a 3-2 majority on the FCC, the liberals won't even have to bother with pressuring advertisers. They will be able to directly use the full force of the federal government to pressure talk radio to toe the politically correct line. The FCC can bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, in order to suppress "hate speech" on the air, without a vote by Congress.
In fascinating comments on the Savage case, CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin was quoted as saying that it was "encouraging that companies nationwide are choosing not to associate with Mr. Savage's hatred and bigotry." She added, "Freedom of speech includes the right not to subsidize hate."
The right not to subsidize hate? What about the right to free speech? Notice how the First Amendment has taken a back seat to whether the speech meets with CAIR's approval. In effect, CAIR is setting itself up as a national arbiter of what should be permitted to be said on the air. CAIR even advises its supporters to "organize local coalitions with friends of the Muslim community to challenge Savage's hate rhetoric."
Those friends include Media Matters, the Hillary Clinton front organization which has publicized CAIR's complaints about "anti-Muslim" comments in the media.
The return of the Fairness Doctrine would give these groups direct access to the FCC.
The issue isn't whether Savage has been critical of Islam or even whether he has made some extreme statements. The issue is that a special interest group wants to muzzle its political enemies. And it is succeeding! It is just as dangerous as the campaign against the British school teacher in the Sudan.
Ironically, CAIR's vice-chairman received the ACLU's 2003 Liberty's Flame Award "for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties." But the civil liberties of Michael Savage don't matter in CAIR's scheme of things.
Whether you like Savage or not, he must not be forced off the air as the result of a special interest political pressure campaign. Beyond that, however, the public must be educated about how CAIR's campaign against Savage is part of the effort to force Sharia law on the world.
CAIR's opposition to "hate speech" is quite extraordinary, in view of the fact that the Islamic holy book the Koran declares that "They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers."
The Koran also declares that the "kafirs" should be killed through beheading. "When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly," it says.
The "kafirs" are usually described as the unbelievers. But Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam says the term has far more sinister connotations.
"The worst part of hate speech in the Koran is what we translate as unbeliever," he says. "But that is a ruinously false translation...A kafir can be tortured, killed, deceived, raped, and robbed. Allah despises the kafir. Allah deceives and plots against the kafirs. Allah hates the kafirs."
"The worst part of the hate language from the Koran is its name for us - you and me," he says.
Will Sharia law or the First Amendment prevail in the U.S.? The fate of Michael Savage will provide the answer.
---------
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Source: GOP USA
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Sudanese teddy saga lays bare Islamic inferiority complex
By Waleed Aly
That the British teacher Gillian Gibbons required a presidential pardon to avoid 15 days' imprisonment in Sudan for blasphemy over the naming of a teddy bear surely represents the high watermark of absurdity in relations between the Muslim and Western worlds. Even Samuel Huntington, as he theorised of an impending clash of civilisations late last century, could not have foreseen an odyssey so surreal.
The story begins normally enough. Gibbons introduced her seven-year-old students to a teddy bear they would each take home throughout the year, in the manner of a class pet. Asked to name it, the children chose "Muhammad". Gibbons wrote to parents to inform them of the activity. Of course, none objected. Then one day, the police came to call, arresting Gibbons for "insulting religion".
At this point, flabbergasting mysteries abound. Why would the alleged blasphemy be Gibbons's when it was the children who chose the name? And perhaps more fundamentally, what is so offensive about a teddy bear named Muhammad? Certainly, it is the name of the greatest prophet in the Islamic tradition, but it is also the most popular name in the world, and a very common one in Sudan. Indeed, one of Gibbons's students says the bear was named after him.
There is no evidence the children intended the teddy bear to be some prophetic representation, and even in the bizarre event that it was, it is scarcely the most offensive representation one could imagine. This is not remotely akin to the Danish cartoons. Perhaps if the name had been chosen for a pig …
Nonetheless, after Gibbons's imprisonment last week, protesters shrieked that it was not enough. They insisted, with unfathomable idiocy, that she be put to death. Some even specified that it should be by firing squad. "No tolerance - execution," they chanted as they turned the arrest into a matter of geopolitics: "Shame, shame on the UK."
And here, it seems, is the key to this unmitigated farce. Had Gibbons been Sudanese, or just non-Western, there would be no controversy here. Indeed Muslims have not generally been averse to naming their toys (and their children) with the names of prophets. For years, the Islamic Society in Britain sold a soft toy named "Adam the Prayer Bear", while in the US, a Muslim multimedia organisation continues to produce children's videos starring a Muppet-like character also named "Adam" - the name of Islam's first prophet. This saga ultimately has nothing to do with teddy bears, and everything to do with anti-Western sentiment - a fact most nakedly revealed by the collective response of senior Sudanese clerics, who branded Gibbons's conduct "a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam".
This discourse is deeply implausible, especially when you consider Gibbons's love for the Sudanese people and long-term desire to assist with their education. This kind of response discloses a siege mentality; one that must position the Muslim world as the victim in a global - but particularly Western - conspiracy against it. As a corollary, the West must have a singularly oppressive role in the conspiratorial imagination. It exists to repress Muslims, and makes its policy decisions only to undermine Islam, as though the West has no independent interests of its own.
There is arrogance in this assumption that the humiliation of Muslims must be the central goal of others, but more deeply it is the expression of an inferiority complex. Such stifling paranoia is not a trait of the confident, but of the humiliated. The result is a disposition that is avid for scandal, a seemingly incurable desperation to be offended, and to pin the blame on Western civilisation. By responding violently to such offence, the humiliated feel a sense of faux-empowerment. They rehabilitate their status by lashing out.
Accordingly, the evidence on which they do so is usually flimsy. During the Danish cartoons furore, protesters in Pakistan burnt effigies of George Bush and set fire to a KFC as they denounced the "American cartoons". Just over a year ago, we witnessed pseudo-clerics calling for the Pope to be killed for daring to suggest Islam is inherently violent - indicating that they had utterly failed to grasp his meaning.
It is, of course, the tiniest of minorities that engage in this sort of behaviour. Many Muslim groups have condemned each of these outbursts, just as they called for Gibbons's release. Even Muslim Facebook groups formed in her cause. But the problem for the Muslim world is that this splinter faction is so loud it is defining the Muslim public image.
Ultimately, it is Muslims who have the most to lose. Perpetual victimhood, though an emotional balm, is disempowering and self-fulfilling. By clinging to it, and even imagining ourselves victims when we are not, we are ultimately victimising ourselves.
Waleed Aly is the author of People Like Us: How Arrogance Is Dividing Islam And The West (Picador).
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
H/T: Gramfan
That the British teacher Gillian Gibbons required a presidential pardon to avoid 15 days' imprisonment in Sudan for blasphemy over the naming of a teddy bear surely represents the high watermark of absurdity in relations between the Muslim and Western worlds. Even Samuel Huntington, as he theorised of an impending clash of civilisations late last century, could not have foreseen an odyssey so surreal.
The story begins normally enough. Gibbons introduced her seven-year-old students to a teddy bear they would each take home throughout the year, in the manner of a class pet. Asked to name it, the children chose "Muhammad". Gibbons wrote to parents to inform them of the activity. Of course, none objected. Then one day, the police came to call, arresting Gibbons for "insulting religion".
At this point, flabbergasting mysteries abound. Why would the alleged blasphemy be Gibbons's when it was the children who chose the name? And perhaps more fundamentally, what is so offensive about a teddy bear named Muhammad? Certainly, it is the name of the greatest prophet in the Islamic tradition, but it is also the most popular name in the world, and a very common one in Sudan. Indeed, one of Gibbons's students says the bear was named after him.
There is no evidence the children intended the teddy bear to be some prophetic representation, and even in the bizarre event that it was, it is scarcely the most offensive representation one could imagine. This is not remotely akin to the Danish cartoons. Perhaps if the name had been chosen for a pig …
Nonetheless, after Gibbons's imprisonment last week, protesters shrieked that it was not enough. They insisted, with unfathomable idiocy, that she be put to death. Some even specified that it should be by firing squad. "No tolerance - execution," they chanted as they turned the arrest into a matter of geopolitics: "Shame, shame on the UK."
And here, it seems, is the key to this unmitigated farce. Had Gibbons been Sudanese, or just non-Western, there would be no controversy here. Indeed Muslims have not generally been averse to naming their toys (and their children) with the names of prophets. For years, the Islamic Society in Britain sold a soft toy named "Adam the Prayer Bear", while in the US, a Muslim multimedia organisation continues to produce children's videos starring a Muppet-like character also named "Adam" - the name of Islam's first prophet. This saga ultimately has nothing to do with teddy bears, and everything to do with anti-Western sentiment - a fact most nakedly revealed by the collective response of senior Sudanese clerics, who branded Gibbons's conduct "a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam".
This discourse is deeply implausible, especially when you consider Gibbons's love for the Sudanese people and long-term desire to assist with their education. This kind of response discloses a siege mentality; one that must position the Muslim world as the victim in a global - but particularly Western - conspiracy against it. As a corollary, the West must have a singularly oppressive role in the conspiratorial imagination. It exists to repress Muslims, and makes its policy decisions only to undermine Islam, as though the West has no independent interests of its own.
There is arrogance in this assumption that the humiliation of Muslims must be the central goal of others, but more deeply it is the expression of an inferiority complex. Such stifling paranoia is not a trait of the confident, but of the humiliated. The result is a disposition that is avid for scandal, a seemingly incurable desperation to be offended, and to pin the blame on Western civilisation. By responding violently to such offence, the humiliated feel a sense of faux-empowerment. They rehabilitate their status by lashing out.
Accordingly, the evidence on which they do so is usually flimsy. During the Danish cartoons furore, protesters in Pakistan burnt effigies of George Bush and set fire to a KFC as they denounced the "American cartoons". Just over a year ago, we witnessed pseudo-clerics calling for the Pope to be killed for daring to suggest Islam is inherently violent - indicating that they had utterly failed to grasp his meaning.
It is, of course, the tiniest of minorities that engage in this sort of behaviour. Many Muslim groups have condemned each of these outbursts, just as they called for Gibbons's release. Even Muslim Facebook groups formed in her cause. But the problem for the Muslim world is that this splinter faction is so loud it is defining the Muslim public image.
Ultimately, it is Muslims who have the most to lose. Perpetual victimhood, though an emotional balm, is disempowering and self-fulfilling. By clinging to it, and even imagining ourselves victims when we are not, we are ultimately victimising ourselves.
Waleed Aly is the author of People Like Us: How Arrogance Is Dividing Islam And The West (Picador).
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
H/T: Gramfan
Expert: 'Christian groups in PA to disappear'
By Etgar LefkovitsThe ever-dwindling Christian communities living in Palestinian-run territories in the West Bank and Gaza are likely to dissipate completely within the next 15 years as a result of increasing Muslim persecution and maltreatment, an Israeli scholar said Monday.
"The systematic persecution of Christian Arabs living in Palestinian areas is being met with nearly total silence by the international community, human rights activists, the media and NGOs," said Justus Reid Weiner, an international human rights lawyer in an address at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where he serves as a scholar in residence.
He cited Muslim harassment and persecution as the main cause of the "acute human rights crisis" facing Christian Arabs, and predicted that unless governments or institutions step in to remedy the situation - such as with job opportunities - there will be no more Christian communities living in the Palestinians territories within 15 years, with only a few Western Christians and top clergymen left in the area.
"Christian leaders are being forced to abandon their followers to the forces of radical Islam," Weiner said.
Facing a pernicious mixture of persecution and economic hardships as a result of years of Palestinian violence and Israeli counter-terrorism measures, tens of thousands of Christian Arabs have left the Palestinian territories for a better life in the West, in a continuing exodus which has led some Christian leaders to warn that the faith could be virtually extinct in its birthplace in a matter of decades.
The Palestinian Christian population has dipped to 1.5 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, down from at least 15% a half century ago, according to some estimates.
No one city in the Holy Land is more indicative of the great exodus of Christians than Bethlehem, which fell under full Palestinian control last decade as part of the Oslo Accords.
The town of 30,000 is now less than 20% Christian, after decades when Christians were the majority. Elsewhere in the Palestinian territories, only about 3,000 Christians, mostly Greek Orthodox, live in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, out of a strongly conservative Muslim population of 1.4 million.
"In a society where Arab Christians have no voice and no protection it is no surprise that they are leaving," he said.
In his address, Weiner pointedly downplayed the effects that Israeli security measures, such as the security barrier being built between Israel and the West Bank, have had on the Christian Arabs living in the West Bank.
The barrier, which is especially conspicuous at the entrance to Bethlehem where it is a concrete wall, is an issue which many Palestinian Christian clerics have pointed to, along with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a central cause of Christian emigration.
Weiner argued there was a "180 degree difference" between the public statements coming out of the mainstream Christian leadership in the Holy Land - who "sing the PA's tune" and blame Israel for all the Christian Arabs' ills - and people's experience on the ground.
"The truth is beginning to come out," he said. "The question is what is being done with the truth."
His comments come just months after a prominent Christian activist, Rami Khader Ayyad, 32, was killed in Gaza.
"For too long the plight of Christian Arabs has been put on the back-burner or ignored altogether," said Rev. Malcolm Hedding, executive director of the International Christian Embassy, a Jerusalem-based evangelical organization.
The Evangelical leader, who has drawn the wrath of Catholic leaders in the Holy Land for his strong support for Israel, said that "power politics" has prevented the major Christian leaders in the Holy Land from speaking out on this issue.
"There is a one-sided debate in which Israel is responsible for everything," he said. "The Christian world needs to stand up and speak out about this."
Top right: AP Photo - Flames are seen at the entrance of an Anglican church hit by a firebomb in Nablus.
Source: Jerusalem Post
H/T: TFO
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Hospital staff told to make sure Muslim patients' beds face Mecca five times a day
The job of the nurse used to one of caring for the sick and needy.
But not - it would seem - in today's politically-correct Britain.
Now, nurses are being encouraged to spend valuable time turning around the beds of Muslim patients up to five times a day - so they can face Mecca.
In a bid to promote cultural understanding, they are also expected to provide patients with running water so they can wash before prayer.
And then, of course, they are required to turn the beds back around to return the wards to normality. The measures are being pursued by Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust to ensure Muslim patients have a "more comfortable stay in hospital".
Hundreds of staff have attended tax-payer-funded workshops with Muslim GPs and ethnic-minority support groups on how best to help patients.
During these meetings, nurses have been told that if a patient asks for water to bathe in, or for their bed to be turned to face Mecca, then this should be considered.
If the measure is deemed "practically possible" and does not impinge on other patients, then it should be carried out.
And if it is not practical, nurses are encouraged to find them a bed that faces Mecca permanently.
But an experienced nurse at Dewsbury and District Hospital in Yorkshire where the ideas are being tested, has blasted the scheme.
She said: "It would be easier to create Muslim-only wards with every bed facing Mecca than deal with this.
"We have a huge Muslim population in Dewsbury and if we are having to turn dozens of beds to face Mecca five times a day, plus provide running water before and after prayers, it is bound to impact on the essential medical service we are supposed to be providing.
"Although the beds are designed to be moved, the bays are not really suitable for having loads of beds moving around to face a different direction and, despite our best efforts, it does cause disruption for non-Muslim patients."
Conservative MP David Davies also criticised the idea, saying: "Hospitals should be concentrating on stopping the spread of infections than kowtowing to the politically-correct brigade."
The workshops - led by the hospital's chief matron Catherine Briggs - looked at Muslims' religious concerns over being in hospital.
A key part of Islamic faith is praying five times a day to Mecca, Saudi Arabia - revered as the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed.
Muslims are also meant to wash themselves in running water prior to prayer.
Although staff said they would do everything possible to help patients fulfil these obligations, a request by Muslim women to be seen by female-only doctors was not guaranteed.
The scheme comes just a year after some NHS hospitals introduced Burka-style gowns for Muslim patients who did not want to show their face during operations.
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust confirmed that nurses were encouraged to help meet individual requests.
She said: "Nurses have not been ordered to move beds or provide running water - they have just been encouraged to help meet patients' needs wherever possible.
"If a sick patient requests that their bed be moved to face Mecca, then it is right that the hospital looks at this request - even if it is more than once a day.
"If it is practically possible - and is not inappropriate or inconvenient to nurses or other patients - then it is right that nurses try and carry it out.
"We can also try and move the patient to a bed that faces Mecca permanently."
Source: Daily Mail
H/T: AtlasMid Yorkshire NHS Trust
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
But not - it would seem - in today's politically-correct Britain.
Now, nurses are being encouraged to spend valuable time turning around the beds of Muslim patients up to five times a day - so they can face Mecca.
In a bid to promote cultural understanding, they are also expected to provide patients with running water so they can wash before prayer.
And then, of course, they are required to turn the beds back around to return the wards to normality. The measures are being pursued by Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust to ensure Muslim patients have a "more comfortable stay in hospital".
Hundreds of staff have attended tax-payer-funded workshops with Muslim GPs and ethnic-minority support groups on how best to help patients.
During these meetings, nurses have been told that if a patient asks for water to bathe in, or for their bed to be turned to face Mecca, then this should be considered.
If the measure is deemed "practically possible" and does not impinge on other patients, then it should be carried out.
And if it is not practical, nurses are encouraged to find them a bed that faces Mecca permanently.
But an experienced nurse at Dewsbury and District Hospital in Yorkshire where the ideas are being tested, has blasted the scheme.
She said: "It would be easier to create Muslim-only wards with every bed facing Mecca than deal with this.
"We have a huge Muslim population in Dewsbury and if we are having to turn dozens of beds to face Mecca five times a day, plus provide running water before and after prayers, it is bound to impact on the essential medical service we are supposed to be providing.
"Although the beds are designed to be moved, the bays are not really suitable for having loads of beds moving around to face a different direction and, despite our best efforts, it does cause disruption for non-Muslim patients."
Conservative MP David Davies also criticised the idea, saying: "Hospitals should be concentrating on stopping the spread of infections than kowtowing to the politically-correct brigade."
The workshops - led by the hospital's chief matron Catherine Briggs - looked at Muslims' religious concerns over being in hospital.
A key part of Islamic faith is praying five times a day to Mecca, Saudi Arabia - revered as the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed.
Muslims are also meant to wash themselves in running water prior to prayer.
Although staff said they would do everything possible to help patients fulfil these obligations, a request by Muslim women to be seen by female-only doctors was not guaranteed.
The scheme comes just a year after some NHS hospitals introduced Burka-style gowns for Muslim patients who did not want to show their face during operations.
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust confirmed that nurses were encouraged to help meet individual requests.
She said: "Nurses have not been ordered to move beds or provide running water - they have just been encouraged to help meet patients' needs wherever possible.
"If a sick patient requests that their bed be moved to face Mecca, then it is right that the hospital looks at this request - even if it is more than once a day.
"If it is practically possible - and is not inappropriate or inconvenient to nurses or other patients - then it is right that nurses try and carry it out.
"We can also try and move the patient to a bed that faces Mecca permanently."
Source: Daily Mail
H/T: Atlas
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Hitler – Hero of "Voice of Palestine" contest
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
"His golden year was 1940, when his armies invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Holland, and Belgium and defeated France ... By mid 1942, his country controlled the largest land area in Europe… He refused to surrender and continued to fight for two more years, but, his bitter end came in the spring of 1945 when he took his own life…. Who is he?"
[From Voice of Palestine radio contest, Nov. 27, 2007]
Read more ...
Source: Palestinian Media Watch
H/T: TFO
Muslims Against Sharia denounce Bush Administration's decision to increase economic aid to Palestinian Authority. If the criteria for economic aid is poverty, lack of education, bigotry, admiration for Hitler and hatred of Jews, the Bush Administration should focus its economic aid on American Neonazi groups which also fit the aforementioned criteria.
"His golden year was 1940, when his armies invaded Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Holland, and Belgium and defeated France ... By mid 1942, his country controlled the largest land area in Europe… He refused to surrender and continued to fight for two more years, but, his bitter end came in the spring of 1945 when he took his own life…. Who is he?"
[From Voice of Palestine radio contest, Nov. 27, 2007]
Read more ...
Source: Palestinian Media Watch
H/T: TFO
Muslims Against Sharia denounce Bush Administration's decision to increase economic aid to Palestinian Authority. If the criteria for economic aid is poverty, lack of education, bigotry, admiration for Hitler and hatred of Jews, the Bush Administration should focus its economic aid on American Neonazi groups which also fit the aforementioned criteria.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
CAIR: Free Speech Doesn’t Apply To Michael Savage
On November 27th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, D.C.-based Islamist hate group, called for a boycott of the Michael Savage radio program by advertisers. According to CAIR, Savage made comments about Islam that CAIR has found insulting to the faith.CAIR, part of a new group called “Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition” (HHA) has managed to get several advertisers to abandon Savage’s radio program in submission to CAIR’s/HHA’s calls to end sponsorship.
Just who is the HHA?
(HHA's Coordinator is Sabiha Khan, CAIR-Orlando Executive Director)
Who are the members?
What is the agenda?
Anti-CAIR visited the HHA website, and as of today we noticed that it has had only 942 unique visits since the website was created. The website appears to be totally dedicated to attacking Savage and includes a button on the right side of its home page that invites people to “Join the Coalition”.
After checking the list of “members” of the HHA coalition, Anti-CAIR joined up to see just how easy it is join a group that seems to us, at first glance, to be largely made up of anti-American and anti-freedom organizations and individuals. Our sign-up was accepted. This leads us to believe this group was assembled on the spur-of-the-moment to provide a meeting place for like-minded bigots to meet and reinforce their feelings of superiority over lesser, unenlightened Americans.
The website gives the appearance that HHA is a giant organization, with hundreds of thousands of followers. Numbers apparently meant to impress...deceive...and force the hand of advertisers...advertisers that will cut and run at the first sign of controversy rather than investigate before making a decision on sponsorship.
Continue reading by clicking here.
US aims to up Palestinian economic aid to 400 mln dollars: Rice
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States plans to boost its economic development aid to the Palestinians in this year's budget to around 400 million dollars, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday.
"The US is making an unprecedented effort to increase opportunities for Palestinians," she told the independent Aspen Institute.
"For the next fiscal year, we have asked the Congress to approve 400 million in economic support for the Palestinian government and its people," she said, referring to the 2007-2008 budget which began on October 1.
Rice was taking part in a meeting of a partnership between the private and public sector launched this year by the administration of President George W. Bush in a bid to boost the Palestinian economy.
The budget went before Congress for approval on October 22 and has yet to be passed but would represent a huge increase compared to the 50 million dollars spent in 2007 for supporting Palestinian economic development.
The 2007-2008 budget sets out some 350 million dollars for economic support for the Palestinian territories.
But the Bush administration asked for another 25 million dollars to be released to help the Palestinians finance the fight against drugs.
No money was specifically set aside to fight against drugs in the 2006-2007 budget.
The proposed US budget also includes some 35 million dollars for humanitarian aid for refugees, which includes Palestinian as well as Iraqi refugees.
Source: AFP
H/T: Atlas
Why would anyone in their right mind finance the Masters of the World?
Bush Administration
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
"The US is making an unprecedented effort to increase opportunities for Palestinians," she told the independent Aspen Institute.
"For the next fiscal year, we have asked the Congress to approve 400 million in economic support for the Palestinian government and its people," she said, referring to the 2007-2008 budget which began on October 1.
Rice was taking part in a meeting of a partnership between the private and public sector launched this year by the administration of President George W. Bush in a bid to boost the Palestinian economy.
The budget went before Congress for approval on October 22 and has yet to be passed but would represent a huge increase compared to the 50 million dollars spent in 2007 for supporting Palestinian economic development.
The 2007-2008 budget sets out some 350 million dollars for economic support for the Palestinian territories.
But the Bush administration asked for another 25 million dollars to be released to help the Palestinians finance the fight against drugs.
No money was specifically set aside to fight against drugs in the 2006-2007 budget.
The proposed US budget also includes some 35 million dollars for humanitarian aid for refugees, which includes Palestinian as well as Iraqi refugees.
Source: AFP
H/T: Atlas
Why would anyone in their right mind finance the Masters of the World?
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Validity of Islam. A discussion with a reader.
Dear Khalim Massoud:
I appreciated reading your comments in your Front Page Magazine interview with Jamie Glazov. I applaud your courage to speak out and ask some questions that need to be asked.
The central question you raised during your interview seems to be: "How could Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be the source of 'kill [infidels] them wherever you find them'?" Indeed!
According to your website: "Islamic scholars...believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time" to explain the glaring differences between the Holy Bible and the Noble Koran. You stated in your interview that: "The only logical explanation is that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries..." to explain the glaring differences within the Noble Koran itself.
Muslim scholars have posited this "corrupted-Bible" theory, but have never been able to show any proof of how, when , or even that any corruption occurred. Meanwhile continued archaeological discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the accuracy of current biblical texts.
Similarly, you have stated that: "We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries." Indeed, don't Muslims take great pride in the Noble Koran being given by one God to one man in one language--Arabic--in which it has been preserved?
I agree with your premise, Mr. Massoud. If what we know today as the Nobel Koran is truly the final revelation from God--or even a revelation from God--then why do so many Koranic verses contradict each other? However, I see no basis for your conclusion, that "the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries."
In considering your premise, let's look at what we know for sure:
1) Both the Bible and Koran are purported to be from the one, eternal God;
2) There is no evidence that either the Bible or Koran have been corrupted in their original languages;
3) The Koran disagrees at critical points with the Bible;
4) The Koran disagrees at critical points with itself.
Given these four things we know for sure, Mr. Massoud, what explanation appears most logical?
Thank you for your kind consideration of my thoughts. I pray that the Lord protects and guides you in your search for the truth.
God bless you,
D.
I appreciated reading your comments in your Front Page Magazine interview with Jamie Glazov. I applaud your courage to speak out and ask some questions that need to be asked.
The central question you raised during your interview seems to be: "How could Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be the source of 'kill [infidels] them wherever you find them'?" Indeed!
According to your website: "Islamic scholars...believe that both the Old and the New Testament came from God, but that they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians over time" to explain the glaring differences between the Holy Bible and the Noble Koran. You stated in your interview that: "The only logical explanation is that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries..." to explain the glaring differences within the Noble Koran itself.
Muslim scholars have posited this "corrupted-Bible" theory, but have never been able to show any proof of how, when , or even that any corruption occurred. Meanwhile continued archaeological discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the accuracy of current biblical texts.
Similarly, you have stated that: "We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries." Indeed, don't Muslims take great pride in the Noble Koran being given by one God to one man in one language--Arabic--in which it has been preserved?
I agree with your premise, Mr. Massoud. If what we know today as the Nobel Koran is truly the final revelation from God--or even a revelation from God--then why do so many Koranic verses contradict each other? However, I see no basis for your conclusion, that "the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries."
In considering your premise, let's look at what we know for sure:
1) Both the Bible and Koran are purported to be from the one, eternal God;
2) There is no evidence that either the Bible or Koran have been corrupted in their original languages;
3) The Koran disagrees at critical points with the Bible;
4) The Koran disagrees at critical points with itself.
Given these four things we know for sure, Mr. Massoud, what explanation appears most logical?
Thank you for your kind consideration of my thoughts. I pray that the Lord protects and guides you in your search for the truth.
God bless you,
D.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Turkish Court: Marital Rape Not A Crime; Turkish Columnist: Decision Turns Women Into Sex Slaves
In response to a ruling by Turkey's Supreme Court of Appeals that marital rape is not a crime, İsmet Berkan wrote in his column in Radikal that because of the ruling, if a woman "resists and is killed by her husband in the end, his penalty even could be reduced due to 'grievous provocation!' We learned [about] this during the 'Stop Violence Against Women' week..."
He continued, "Unfortunately, the court's decision has the effect of turning women into sex slaves in marriages... Forcing someone into sexual intercourse is called 'rape.' In Turkey, which is making efforts to end violence against women, the Court of Appeals decision must have been a really bad coincidence..."
Source: Turkish Daily News / MEMRI
H/T: Atlas
He continued, "Unfortunately, the court's decision has the effect of turning women into sex slaves in marriages... Forcing someone into sexual intercourse is called 'rape.' In Turkey, which is making efforts to end violence against women, the Court of Appeals decision must have been a really bad coincidence..."
Source: Turkish Daily News / MEMRI
H/T: Atlas
Koran to be criticized in a film
THE HAGUE - The Associated Press
A Dutch conservative lawmaker said he is making a film to highlight what he describes as "fascist" passages in the Koran, his latest high profile criticism of Islam.
The interior and justice ministers said they were concerned, but believed they had no authority to prevent the lawmaker, Geert Wilders, from screening his film.
Wilders plans to depict parts of the Koran he says are used as inspiration "by bad people to do bad things."
Less than 10 minutes long, the film is expected to air in late January. It will show "the intolerant and fascist character of the Koran," said Wilders, whose anti-Islam campaign helped his Freedom Party win nine seats in parliament in last year's election.
In the past, Wilders has said that half the Koran should be torn up and compared it with Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf." He has claimed the Netherlands is being swamped by a "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants.
Immigrants from Muslim countries number about 1 million of the country's 16 million people.
Reminiscent of 'Submission'
Wilders' planned broadcast is reminiscent of the film "Submission" a fictional study of abused Muslim women with scenes of near-naked women with Koranic texts engraved on their flesh.
"Submission" director Theo van Gogh was shot and had his throat slit by a Muslim extremist on an Amsterdam street in 2004. Prominent Muslim critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay, was threatened in a note left on Van Gogh's body. She now lives under round-the-clock protection in the United States.
Justice Ministry spokesman Wim van der Weegen said the government is "taking measures" before the broadcast of Wilders' film. He declined to elaborate.
"Based on the discussion, the ministers have expressed concern," Van der Weegen said. "But at the same time [they] have said that Mr. Wilders has freedom of expression."
Wilders said he is not afraid of reprisals if his film angers Muslims. "I have lived with 24-hour protection for three years," he said.
"I will make the film and see what reaction it creates."
Dutch Muslim leaders did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Source: AFP
Its certain, the need for security will not dwindle away any time soon. With video surveillance camera equipment capturing and tape recording crucial areas of possible terrorist activity, consider placing a security camera into your own residence.
A Dutch conservative lawmaker said he is making a film to highlight what he describes as "fascist" passages in the Koran, his latest high profile criticism of Islam.
The interior and justice ministers said they were concerned, but believed they had no authority to prevent the lawmaker, Geert Wilders, from screening his film.
Wilders plans to depict parts of the Koran he says are used as inspiration "by bad people to do bad things."
Less than 10 minutes long, the film is expected to air in late January. It will show "the intolerant and fascist character of the Koran," said Wilders, whose anti-Islam campaign helped his Freedom Party win nine seats in parliament in last year's election.
In the past, Wilders has said that half the Koran should be torn up and compared it with Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf." He has claimed the Netherlands is being swamped by a "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants.
Immigrants from Muslim countries number about 1 million of the country's 16 million people.
Reminiscent of 'Submission'
Wilders' planned broadcast is reminiscent of the film "Submission" a fictional study of abused Muslim women with scenes of near-naked women with Koranic texts engraved on their flesh.
"Submission" director Theo van Gogh was shot and had his throat slit by a Muslim extremist on an Amsterdam street in 2004. Prominent Muslim critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay, was threatened in a note left on Van Gogh's body. She now lives under round-the-clock protection in the United States.
Justice Ministry spokesman Wim van der Weegen said the government is "taking measures" before the broadcast of Wilders' film. He declined to elaborate.
"Based on the discussion, the ministers have expressed concern," Van der Weegen said. "But at the same time [they] have said that Mr. Wilders has freedom of expression."
Wilders said he is not afraid of reprisals if his film angers Muslims. "I have lived with 24-hour protection for three years," he said.
"I will make the film and see what reaction it creates."
Dutch Muslim leaders did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Source: AFP
Its certain, the need for security will not dwindle away any time soon. With video surveillance camera equipment capturing and tape recording crucial areas of possible terrorist activity, consider placing a security camera into your own residence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
