Let’s Not Forget

Contrary to what the mainstream media might have you believe, Jews and Muslims can and do form friendships. Sadly, we don’t get to read much about this, but here’s a rather sweet story from The Jewish Chronicle which certainly made me smile – I hope it does the same for you.


Muslim joins the Kisharon team


Muslim orthodontist Siamack Bagheri ran the marathon for learning difficulties charity Kisharon as “my small step for peace”.

The Iranian-born 45-year-old said he had been inspired by a Bat mitzvah girl who was the daughter of a friend. “She said she did not want presents, but to give the money to a charity in Israel that looks after Israeli and Palestinian children of all persuasions, all with special needs. This touched my heart.

“Iran historically welcomed and encouraged its connection with the Jewish people and with all the bad news of today, it is nice to run for a Jewish charity like Kisharon, which is close to my heart.”

Now based in St John’s Wood, Dr Bagheri belongs to a long distance running club, through which he met Kisharon chief executive Beverley Jacobson.

As for Sunday’s race, he was “fine until 19 miles, then it got very tough. I had muscle spasm in my right thigh.

“I had to stop running and walked for half-a-mile before gaining the strength to start running again. I was determined to get through the pain and to get past the finishing line in less than 4 hours 15, which I did.”

Part of the £13,000-plus he raised will aid victims of an Iranian earthquake.

Advertisements

The Geert Wilders Travesty

 

So, it’s finally started. The trial in which Dutch MP Geert Wilders stands accused of, well, criticising Islam.   Of course, it’s being worded differently. Wilders is charged with ‘inciting hatred and discrimination toward Islam.’  If he’s found ‘guilty’, he could very well end up in prison.

Meanwhile, those extremist Muslims who constantly express hatred of all things non Islamic are at liberty to preach hatred and the Joys Of Jihad across Europe, including in the Netherlands where Wilders is now fighting to remain a free man.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: all religions are ideologies. They are thus open to critique and yes, condemnation. As long as those who wish to follow said religions are not prohibited from doing so, nor attacked for doing so, there is nothing wrong with openly criticising any faith.

Here are Wilders’ opening remarks:

 

” Mister Speaker, judges of the court, I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

 Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

 

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

 

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

 

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people.

 

 I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom. Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment.

 

Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few?

 

The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country. Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

 

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear: It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom.

 

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

 

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court. This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true?

 

If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam.

 

I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

 

Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial. “

Muslims Behaving Badly

Isn’t it astonishing that the same people who ranted and raved and marched over Israel’s response to years of terrorism from Gaza, remain silent over the atrocities in Saudi Arabia?

Imagine that the following item involved Israel. I’m sure we can all imagine the furore that would follow. No doubt Annie Lennox would appear on our screens, and the Guardian would spash the story across the front page. Oh, and the BBC would be sure to wade in as well.

But precisely because this travesty is set to occur in a nation other than Israel, the aforementioned parties are, well, distinctly disinterested. Never mind that barbarism like this happens in Islamic nations on a regular basis.

Muslims behaving badly isn’t news, you see .

Via The Australian:

HUMAN rights watchdog Amnesty International has called on Saudi Arabia to stay a sentence of 40 lashes handed down against a 75-year-old woman for breaching the kingdom’s sex segregation rules.

“The minister of the interior (Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz) is reported to have ordered the immediate detention and flogging of a 75-year-old woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, along with two Saudi Arabian men known only as Fahad and Hadyan,” the London-based watchdog said.

“The Saudi Arabian authorities must not carry out the imminent flogging and imprisonment of an elderly woman and two younger men.”

Amnesty said all avenues of appeal had been exhausted in Saudi courts against the trio’s March conviction for being in the company of members of the opposite sex who were not close relatives.

“It is abhorrent that an elderly woman is at risk of 40 lashes,” said the deputy director of the watchdog’s Middle East and North Africa Program, Philip Luther.
“We urge the authorities to prevent the imprisonment and flogging of Khamisa, Fahad and Hadyan.”

Sawadi and Fahad were sentenced to 40 lashes and four months’ imprisonment, and Hadyan to 60 lashes and six months’ imprisonment, Amnesty said.

Sawadi also faces deportation to her native Syria on completion of her prison term.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict version of Islamic sharia law and imposes corporal punishment for a wide variety of offences.

“Islamophobia”

Islamophobia’ – Well, isn’t this word a wonderful little weapon for Islamists the world over?

 

Whoever thought of it must be laughing all the way to the Mosque. Go on. Try it. Next time you’re in any social situation, with any group of people, try challenging the violent ideology at the heart of Islam.

 

 Chances are, faster than you can say ‘fatwah’ someone will give you a reproachful look and state: ‘You’re the one with the problem. You’re Islamophobic‘.

 

It shuts down all debate and leaves many decent folk feeling like racists – even when they’re not. So let’s just deconstruct the word ‘Islamophobia’ shall we?

 

Phobia = an extreme, irrational fear that interferes with everyday life. It is a psychological, clinical term, and this is the correct definition. We all know what a phobia looks like; most of us have seen grown adults collapse into quivering wrecks at the mere sight of a spider/wasp/snake. Above all, a phobia sufferer will go to great lengths to avoid the object of fear.

 

Now I don’t know about you, but I’m not aware of a single soul who is huddled at home, frozen with fear, refusing to leave their house because of the existence of Islam… Nor have I seen a single person jerking to a halt in the middle of a street, shrieking in terror ‘There’s a Muslim! There’s a Muslim! Save me! Save me! Aaaaghhhh!’ before sprinting across the road and into oncoming traffic, just to avoid said member of Islam.

 

Indeed, often the very people accused of ‘Islamophobia’ are those who are extremely interested in Islam! They talk about it, read about it, blog about it, and study it – in a bid to better understand it. Hardly ‘phobic’ behaviour, is it…?

 

So let’s be blunt. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is meaningless. It’s foolish. In short – it’s nothing more than a linguistic sham. Because nobody has an ‘irrational fear’ of Islam.

 

What many of us do have is a rational fear of what Muslim terrorists do in the name of Islam. We also fear the hatred that Islam inculcates in many of its followers. And who the hell can blame us?

 

If people with red hair continually sauntered onto buses and trains, into restaurants and schools the world over, with bombs strapped around their waists, before cheerfully blowing both themselves and any living soul around them into tiny bits, then I submit that many of us would develop a rational fear of red heads!

 

But ‘islamophobia’? Oh, purleease. It’s just a device used by *some* Muslims – and the PC-at-all-costs, liberal brigade – to shut down vital debate. And if we let them get away with it? Then shame on US.

 

While we’re on the topic, let’s just clarify what does and does not constitute ‘racism’: I could, if I wanted, criticise and challenge and yes, condemn Islam all day long – and it would not be ‘racism’. Islam is a faith and an ideology. And no ideology is exempt from scrutiny. Nor does anyone have the right to stop me from assessing an ideology – not as long as I live in a democratic society.

 

But, if I then begin making unfair, negative, nasty generalisations about ‘all muslims’ then this would be racism. See the difference?

 Critiquing and challenging and condemning an ideology = not ‘racism’!

Condemning any group of people purely on the basis OF their religion = racism

 

Or to state it even more simply:  ‘All Muslims are terrorists’ = racism

Clearly there are millions of peaceful Muslims.

 

‘Most terrorists are Muslim’ =  not racism

Most terrorism is Islamic terrorism.

 

So just as I am free to condemn the beliefs of, say, the vile British National Party(BNP), or Scientologists, or the KKK, without anyone branding me a ‘racist’, so too am I free to condemn Islam.

 

Words have objective meanings. It’s time we remembered that, and worked to wipe out this lunacy which even now, is pushing for Islam to be legally ‘protected’ from criticism. So next time anyone tries to insist you are an ‘islamophobe’, shut them down. Fast.

Christians Suffering In Somalia: The ‘religion of peace’ Beheads Two Boys

 

Ah yes – yet another example of  Muslim ‘respect’ for their Christian neighbours.  This is a disturbing account of how two young Christian boys have been beheaded in Somalia – for refusing to rat out a Church leader. And now apparently those ‘peaceful’ Muslims are searching for the boys’ father, to deliver the same fate.

 

 The boys’ father, Musa Mohammed Yusuf,  lead an underground Church in Yonday village, Somalia. He had been taught about the Christian faith by  Salat Mberwa.

 

Then, in February, terrorists from the Islamic group al Shabaab arrived in Yonday, made for Yusuf’s home, and interrogated him about his friendship with Mberwa. Mberwa is a leader of a small Somali Christian  fellowship.  Meetings are held at his house.

 

 Yusuf told his interrogators that  he knew nothing of Mberwa and had no connection with him. The Islamic extremists left but threatened to  return the next day.

 

“Immediately when they left, I decided to flee my house for Kismayo, for I knew for sure they were determined to come back,” Yusuf said.

 

At noon the next day, as his wife was making lunch for their children in Yonday, the al Shabaab militants showed up. Batula Ali Arbow, Yusuf’s wife, recalled that their youngest son, Innocent, told the group that their father had left the house the previous day.

 

The Islamic extremists ordered her to stop what she was doing and took hold of three of her sons – 11   year-old Abdi Rahaman Musa Yusuf, 12 -year-old Hussein Musa Yusuf and Abdulahi Musa Yusuf, aged 7.

 

Several  neighbors beseeched the militants not to harm the three boys, tragically to no avail.

 

Arbow said:

I watched my three boys dragged away helplessly as my youngest boy was crying. I knew they were going to be slaughtered. Just after some few minutes I heard a wailing cry from Abdulahi running towards the house. I could not hold my breath. I only woke up with all my clothes wet. I knew I had fainted due to the shock.”

 

The following day, Arbow buried the bodies of her two sons.

 

In Kismayo, Yusuf received the news that two of his sons had been killed and that the Islamic militants were looking for him, and he fled on foot for Mberwa’s home. It took him a month and three days to reach him, and the Christian fellowship there raised travel funds for him to reach a refugee camp in Kenya.

 

Later that month his family met up with him at the refugee camp.When the family fled Somalia, they were forced to leave their 80-year-old grandmother behind and her whereabouts are unknown. Since arriving at the Kenyan refugee camp, the family still has no shelter, though fellow Christians are erecting one for them. Yusuf’s family lives each day without shoes, a mattress or shelter.

 

But Arbow said she has no wish to return.

“I do not want to go back to Somalia – I don’t want to see the graves of my children,” she said amid sobs.

 

Meanwhile, Western intelligence agencies say that al Shabaab is merely a proxy for  Al Queda. Christians in Somalia are suffering terribly and those in refugee camps are desperate.

 

“We have nowhere to run to,” Mberwa told Compass. “The al Shabaab are on our heads, while our Muslim brothers are also discriminating against us. Indeed even here in the refugee camp we are not safe. We need a safe haven elsewhere.”

 

Al-Shabaab has been waging a bloody war against the fragile government of Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In a show of power in the capital city  of Mogadishu, last week  Islamic insurgents sentenced four young men each to amputation of a hand and a foot as punishment for robbery.

 

After mosques announced when the amputations would take place, the extremists carried them out by machete in front of about 300 people on Thursday (June 25) at a military camp. It was the first such double amputation in Mogadishu by the Islamists, who follow strict Sharia Law  (Islamic law) in the parts of south Somalia that they control.

 

Al Shabaab militants are battling Ahmed’s government for control of Mogadishu while fighting government-allied, moderate Islamist militia in the provinces. In the last 18 years of violence in Somalia, a two-and-a-half year Islamist insurgency has killed more than 18,000 civilians, uprooted 1 million people, allowed piracy to flourish offshore, and spread security fears round the region.

 

Hmmm…. odd. Where is the outcry from the international media, denouncing these Muslims terrorists as ‘Nazis’…? Oops! Silly me! That’s reserved for Israelis seeking to defend their civilians against Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

 

And when you read about the atrocities in Somalia, and elsewhere, that result from Sharia Law, remember: this is the religious system that Barack Obama praised and paid tribute to in Cairo. Clearly Obama doesn’t intend to ‘meddle’ on behalf of Christians in Somalia. No, he’s far too busy ordering Israelis not to have any more children if they live in Judea and Samaria.

 

And this upsetting tale from Somalia is not an isolated atrocity. Christians in Muslim countries around the world are suffering and are in need of support and help.

 

All of which begs the question: why isn’t Obama – himself a Christian – doing more to help his co-religionists…? Why is he instead busy sending increased aid to Muslim countries and banging his head against a brick wall in his continued bid to make Iran his New Best Friend…?

 

 

Original story at Compass Direct News

Deja Vu

 

Throughout Jewish history, enemies have burned and destroyed our books. People who know Jews and who understand the Jewish religion and even more, the Jewish psychology, understand that we are a people who revere books and the written word. Indeed, as one commentator on Judaism once wrote, while we are banned from worshipping anything bar G-d, the closest we ever come to this is our deep love and adoration of the Torah.

 

So it was with a sense of historical deja vu that I read today’s headlines about Arabs attacking a yeshiva in Samaria yesterday, and torching dozens of books including a Torah and also volumes from the Talmud. The attack was pure spite – the arsonists ignored everything else there and attacked only the books. Clearly, some of our Arab cousins do understand the Jewish love of words and books – and struck us where they knew it would wound.

 

Rabbi Elishama Cohen, head of the yeshiva, said: “It was a horrible sight to see dozen of holy books of the Talmud and Bible burned almost completely.”

 

And he added:

“The Arabs did this very thoroughly and carefully. We succeeded in saving the remains of some of the burned books and several pages where the letters still are recognizable, the same pages we learned the past several days.”

 

Rabbi Cohen said that instead of the spirit of the yeshiva students being broken, their numbers will increase next year as a reaction to desecration. Samaria Regional Council chairman Gershon Mesika called on the police to search and arrest the perpetrators. Police said they have begun an investigation.

 

Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon commented:

 

“Whoever has not yet understood with whom we are dealing should look at the pictures of the burnt holy books. If Jews had burned dozens of Muslim books, the whole world would be shaking.”

 

Yule Edelstein, Minister of Information and Diaspora Affairs, said. “To my sorrow, this grave incident is a result of classic anti-Semitism and a reminder of the dark days of the past. It is sad to think that if there were permanent homes and official security, we would not be witness to this grave incident.”

 

Sharia Courts In Britain – Ruling Against British Law?

Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.

Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.

Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that  both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.

But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases.  Now Civitas notes that many  Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.

“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”


Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.

In this case, British law  prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.

As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts,  MacEoin has  had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:

Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.

Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.


Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …

…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …

a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …

fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”

Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:


“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal.  A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”


Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.

But Addison begs to differ:

“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”


Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid  any legal action on the part of the victim.


Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?

Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!

But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.

It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.

Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.

And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.


But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of  democracy…?