Solkhar's World - Views from the Atlas

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE – MEDIA GETS ITSELF CONFUSED AND AGENDAS TAKE OVER THE SIMPLE TRUTH

2009-10-09T17:07:00.004Z

Today’s news from the Norwegian based Nobel Prize Committee that US President Barrack Obama won the Peace Prize was certainly a surprise to most, probably to Obama most of all. The reasons for giving the Prize for the media even more so, well it must be – simply because as the journalists, pundits, politicians and political commentators are making their views known – they are getting it all wrong. Why?

Some are predictable of course; a Republican Party politician played his rather sleazy hit on one part of the President’s acknowledgement of the honor and carefully avoiding the points given altogether. The President said he did not consider himself deserved of being put amongst the names of other Nobel Laureates - the sleazy comment was that “he acknowledges that he did not deserve it”. What a great example of how low political point-scoring will go.

But what surprises me is how the media is stuck on the word ‘accomplishments’ and ‘achievements’ and cannot accept that the Nobel Committee used the word “vision” and that under the guidelines and aspirations of that Committee, the President deserved and merited the prize.

Readers will know that I stay away from and have no opinion on domestic US politics, and thus am neither pro-Republican nor pro-Democrat. I am after all neither American nor do I live there. I have expressed, though, my support for Obama’s (and his Administration’s) recognition, vision for change and understanding of the correct place that the US and West has in the make up of this world. It is because of this vision for change and the forcing of a great u-turn in returning not only the US but the world back to constructive engagement that the Noble Committee has chosen President Obama as its laureate.

The arrival of Obama on the seen simply altered everything, particularly the eight years of stubborn, hawkish and self-centered Bush doctrine. It is not simply that the US became the obstinate, hard smacking, go-it-alone nation that disregarded the views of others’ during that period; it was that it had cemented a 30-year-long confusion in global-diplomatic-direction that started with the Iranian Revolution, oil crises and a dying cold-war. It needed the single survivor of the Cold-War super-powers to come on board with the desperate and tireless pleadings of professional diplomats everywhere. It certainly is only the beginning, and reform in the way nations deal with each other and the management of international institutions is still very lacking.

Considering that there are two major conflict zones in the world, global economic chaos, wide-spread religious and political radicalism as well as a multitude of other concerns, this change of direction is not only and important beginning, but in fact a globally critical move.

The media, however, is unable to fathom this at this early stage and as I write this note, the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN are still asking “experts” and others what has the Obama Administration “achieved” and “accomplished” to merit this award. I do not understand why is the BBC commentator talking about not having Guantanamo Bay closed as yet being a non-achievement – it is not the point nor is it relevant. Good Morning America and the BBC both started their opening news item as “within only nine months in office”. They also did not get the point. It is the overall vision or should we say recognition - the speech in Cairo, the example of reaching out to the non-Western world as equals, drawing the line between how countries can deal with each other over issues, being united in standards such as non-proliferation, drawing the line with issues like climate change.

Certainly the motive and granting of this prize is both symbolic and as only a few have gathered, it is also there to motivate. As Obama put it, a “call to action”, or better put the Noble Committee said he received it for what he stood for. It is not Obama that won the prize; it is the vision that he and others of his ilk, that won it.

As an American President and his value and success domestically, I know not, that is perhaps something that needs to be judged on achievements and there is something to say about how he deals with the international issue and justifying his leadership as a Commander in Chief, but that is another issue and should never be confused to why he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

UPDATE - WERNER CRACKS UP A BIT.....MORE

2009-10-04T20:10:00.011Z

Has Werner, aka the Sheik, gone even a bit more radical than usual?

Perhaps knowing he has been properly exposed and does not allow any postings from a Moroccan ISP to avoid my reminding people who and what he really is, has made him a bit ....... annoyed.

His posting style has changed and is certainly more aggressive and frankly more ludicrous.

In a posting with a photo showing the US President meeting on AF1 with his top General managing the war in Afghanistan, Werner makes the comments that it is despicable that he was given 25 minutes with the President.

What is despicable is the fact that Werner, presuming there is some semblance of intelligence with the man from tropical Queensland's Cairns, that he very well knows from basic news watching that Obama two days before and on a regular bi-weekly basis has a 3 hour video conference with the General and his main staff along with all the Chiefs and experts back in Washington. We know that Werner Reimann is far-right, but in this case he may have fell over.

Another interesting thing, from the Kahane supporting radical Jew who professes on a number of times that he knows more than any Imam or other Muslim scholar on the subject of Islam and the history of Muslims, that he is unable to distinguish between the differences of the Hagia Sophia Cathedral of Byzantium that became the Aya Sofia Mosque in Istanbul and he called it The Blue Mosque. I thought perhaps that it was a simple accident but actually no, considering he went to great lengths to criticise the minarets and basically condemn it as a bastion of some pro-Sharia, Caliphate symbol. For such an "expert", we can assume then that it is all a deliberate lie, because any research or basic knowledge will come out with the fact that the Mosque/Cathedral was closed as a place of worship and has been a Museum to the City's great history and the two religions for many, many years now. The Blue Mosque is the city's principle Mosque and well known for its "state supporting" moderates. So, did Werner lie or was he just producing more and more foolish bullshit?

To be honest, he is a liar for his known agenda. On the above issue that was about bashing Turkey in any format possible he states that country has been put on the Watch List of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom or USCIRF. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Turkey was put on the list and has been not allowing religious freedoms of certain groups, the fact is that Werner Reimann avoids pointing out that of the 12 countries on this Watch List, six are Muslim and six are not. Here is the item from the USCIRF website set below:

USCIRF Watch List

In addition to its CPC recommendations, the Commission has established a Watch List of countries where religious freedom conditions do not rise to the statutory level requiring CPC designation but which require close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments.

Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey & Venezuela

I was pulling the plug on watching Werner's blog because of its basic Kahanist propaganda, but now it has become rather an interesting exercise in desperate actions of a madman exposed.

.........

UPDATE Oct 8.

Werner Reimann puts in his blog an item/comment by Jordan's King Abdullah that unilateral action by Israel could ignite a tinderbox in Jerusalem. A logical comment from someone who is up-to-date on the issue.

What does Werner comment - "no Arabs - no tinderbox".

Just more confirmation that Werner Reimann is in fact a violent-supporting radical of the same ilk as - Kahane, Bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin. We can all be thankfull that the businessman from Cairns in sunny Queensland, Australia is just that.

CHRISTOPHER LOGAN - CHECK-UP RESULT - STILL ILL

2009-10-04T13:55:00.006Z

Christopher Logan's "Islam in Action" is unfortunately still producing the same agenda-based garbage, mind you I think it because he is a wanna-be Spencer or Fitzgerald (of the Jihad-Watch hate-site).

Christopher says in his About Me the following:

For those of you who do not know me, I have been researching Islamic theology, Islamic history and the current events of the Islamic community for approximately six years now. I have been speaking out on the worldwide problem of Islamofascism across the net, on talk radio shows and was also an administrator at JihadChat. I have studied from various sources including the Koran and the Hadiths. Also I am a content manager and writer for Right Side News, Infidels are Cool and have had several articles published on Ali Sinas popular Faith Freedom site. Most recently I have been asked to be a co-host and co-producer for the Evil Conservative Radio Show, based out of NY.

For someone who claims to know so much about Islam, the Qur'an (note he does not spell it as someone who studied it would) and the Muslim world in general, he fails to show it and in fact, based on his claim about knowledge, deliberately lies.

One point that I had made clear to Christopher on a number of occasions is that his careful and deliberate avoidance of showing the reality and certain facts is unprofessional and immoral. His pathological obsession of building the Shari'a Law issue is the basic one that those who follow this hate-agenda abuse. Of course anyone who has actually studied the Muslim World knows that the majority of Muslim countries do not have Shari'a Legal systems but are in fact SECULAR. Not only that, but of those that do, again the majority of them only have Shari'a Family Courts, with the rest being secular.

The other popular avoidance that is never mentioned by these hate-posters is that the average Muslim sitting in cafés in the Middle-East, North Africa and West Asia - discuss and debate with surprise why Europe allows such radicals to live there, let alone demand ridiculous things that do not exist in the real and actual Muslim world! Such demands, like a Caliphate, are only myths and perhaps not even known by the vast mass of the Muslims around the world.

So we can be sure, that six years of reading Spencer, Fitzgerald, blogs and being unable to correctly spell "Qur'an", that Christopher does not really know Islam. Thus, he is either a braggart or a liar.

Which one Christopher?

I also told Christopher that his main introduction is a lie in itself and that he should be honest and change it.

It says:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to exposing the worldwide issue of Islamofascism. The owner of this site is not calling for any violence or harassment of Muslims. He is looking for political solutions. One being putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

What it should say is:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to denouncing Islam. The owner of this site seeks harassment of Muslims especially by openly condemning the faith of the more than billion faithful. He is not looking for a political solutions as that would be silly, either Islam exists or does not. Muslims, he believes, are not welcome in the West.

...

FINAL NOTE ON THE WINDS OF JIHAD SITE OF WERNER REIMANN

2009-09-29T12:47:00.003Z

So that is my wrap up on WoJ, I dwelled a little to long but did so to fish out some more details and motives. Now that I have done so and have no longer need to spend my time playing the stupid tit-for-tat game with such fringe low-lifes, I can fill in gaps that some have been asking me.

The blog-owner is Werner Reimann of Cairns in the northern Australian State called Queensland. It is understood that the almost 60 year old Reimann owns or owned a shop at the local Airport. His identity was exposed a few years ago by journalist Gavin King whom in my part risked his reputation of independent journalism to point out that a Kahanist and avid Palestinian and Islam hater lived in his city and was publishing hate-filled bull shit under anonymity. Only for that reason alone, do I understand King's decision.

I had known the blog-owner's identify before starting the postings but did not point it out because he will certainly cut my posts and my real objective would have been lost. I note that now that I have posted his real name on his blog that the posts are instantly disappearing and the poor little "k" kahanist must be sweating. He was already very, very angry (and it showed in his postings) that I refered to the commonly known and accepted terminology of calling Islam one of the Three Abrahamic Religions (also known as The Abrahamic Tradition).

Aparantly, there are such low-lifes whom will do anything to fulfill their semi-political agenda and it is a shame that in this case it is a religeo-zionist whom has chosen to in the end only vilify his own religion instead of my own.

...

WINDS of JIHAD’S AGENDA EXPOSED – RADICAL JEWISH SUPPORTER OF KAHANE

2009-09-24T14:30:00.002Z

As I continue my inquiries into the cause, methods and reasoning behind anti-Islam hate-blogs, I have noticed how more and more radical, cynical and direct they are becoming. Why? Thus, instead of pulling the plug after my last post, I smelt a rather sinister rat behind the rather poorly run but nasty Winds of Jihad (WoJ) blog.

Thus, my pressing continued, simple prodding and provoking and drawing the rather gullible blog-owner into identifying his real reasoning and source, it worked of course.

On five separate threads the blog-owner confessed to supporting the religious-Zionist theorem of Israel expanding its borders to include the biblical lands of Samaria, Judea and Hebron.

Thus, carefully provoking a cut-out, I quoted ultra-orthodox Sabbath rules, talked about their similar violence to radical Muslims (since the subject was about a female Italian ultra-right politician who got punched during Ramadan and everyone said shame – but you get the same in west Jerusalem if you break the Sabbath there….). I then said did you hear about Kahane and a few others I named and out it came……… “I respect the teachings of Kahane very much.”

It is clear that this is the sole driving force behind this blog and perhaps even financially. His material source, being the typical right-wing anti-Islam propaganda from the same sources has for my part shown a lack of independent thought or seriousness. Also WoJ’s blogger continued to defend his position with the usual five methods which confirm that there is no logic and genuine independent concern that would normally be created. These, namely “single sources” (in this case the Spencer/Fitzgerald/Gellar group), “repetitive emotional half-quotes out of context” (single lines from the Qur’an and Hadiths), “your speaking taqiyya” (the laughable escape clause that no matter what you say I will call you a liar), “I don’t care” (emotional avoidance disregarding the fact that they raised the subject themselves) and lastly by simply changing the subject quickly over and over and to older posters and back again. In this case the WoJ blog-owner did that constantly. He added one more, saying that aspects of his blog is satirical.

Only two posters on the blog, though with strong opinions and on leaning to the right of political views, had interesting and genuine opinions and were willing to agree to points or argued logically and coherently. I had no problem with them at all, but do admit that I read one (named tjwork) wrong and incorrectly presumed he was another mindless ratbag. I, as I always do, admitted my error and apologised.

Last time I gave the blog a D- for unoriginality and lack of quality sourcing (completely relying on others to do the work for them) but in line with the fact that this poster is actually doing so for a known purposeful agenda and cause, it obviously has been re-rated as a complete F for fail as it is no longer considered a blog but a propaganda rag for someone else’s cause. The blog-owner does not actually own his blog.

SPENCER & JIHAD-WATCH - DOWNWARDS SPIRAL OVER BARY FIX

2009-09-20T19:58:00.007Z

Attached is a well placed item over a debate between a journalist Michael Kruse and far-right Spencer confident Andrew Bostom and how clearly the Rafiq Bary has been hijacked by Spencer ..... er I mean Bostom. Kruse had been covering the case of the Muslim girl who converted to Christianity and noticed not all has been correct.

Quoted in total with appreciation, link at end.

......

Andrew Bostom Takes on Michael Kruse–Loses

Andrew Bostom (well over due for a LoonWatch piece), a close friend of Robert Spencer’s, and another self-proclaimed “Islamic scholar” is lauded on JihadWatch as having “taken on and crushed” Mchael Kruse, the St.Petersburg Times reporter who has been covering the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
It’s a popular tactic amongst Islamophobes, especially Robert Spencer to try and twist what is clearly a negative outcome for themselves into a self-declared victory with a peppering of congratulatory self-adulation. This was the case with Spencer in his confrontation with Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, when his alter-ego Hugh Fitzgerald proclaimed “victory” for Spencer and “defeat” for Bassiouni.
The truth is Spencer and company are ever more becoming isolated on the fringes of an increasingly radicalized segment of the Right-Wing, the company he keeps consists of neo-fascists, birthers, conspiracy theorists, Glenn Beck types, etc.

In this recent episode Bostom says that Kruse was wrong for stating that Spencer believes that “Muslims are in America to take over,” which from the body of Spencer’s work and the company he keeps is more than likely an accurate presumption, in context it is also the impression that he was trying to give at the press conference outside the courtroom of the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
A case which is proving to be very embarrassing for Spencer, as evidence after evidence keeps coming out that the charges made by bloggers such as him and Pamela Geller that Rifqa’s life was/had to be in danger and that she was abused by her parents turn out to be bogus. Spencer’s reputation has taken a big hit and he is doing everything in his power to try to salvage some face.

Let’s look at an interesting part of the exchange between Bostom and Kruse:

Kruse to Bostom:

It’s my job to listen to everybody. It’s not my job to assign everybody equal credibility. When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst. I can’t do that, though, can’t just ignore him like that, because he, and Pam Geller, too, are so much a part of this story, and certainly reasons it’s turned into what it’s turned into. Judging from his e-mails and how he talks in person, Rob strikes me as a pretty smart guy, but he’s a pretty smart guy with a very specific worldview. Everything he writes or says gets filtered through that static narrowness. Here is a relatively new dynamic: The other day in Orlando, Rob and Pam were speakers at a news conference, advocates for one “side” of this whole thing, and THEN they covered it as members of the press. They’re covering a story they’ve helped create, or at the very least stoke. The front row of the courtroom was for media, and there was the AP, some newspaper reporters, some TV reporters, some radio reporters, and there was Pam, a woman who last fall wrote a story on her blog saying Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcom X. All of it is an interesting piece of the sprawling Rifqa Bary story, worth watching and considering now, and during the next story like it, and the next one after that.

Here Kruse devastates Bostom and Spencer by pretty much objectively telling it like it is, or as Dave Chapelle used to say Keepin’ it real. This is incomprehensible to polemicists and subjective ideologues such as Bostom and Spencer. It is incontrovertibly true that Spencer (and Bostom for that matter) is completely and thoroughly rejected by academics, we have noted that before here.

Yet, Kruse makes the point that he as a reporter cannot reject Spencer and Pamela Geller out of hand because THEY ARE PART OF THIS STORY. In fact, he points out they have in many ways CREATED this story or at the very least stoked it.

That is absolutely true, ever since the story broke Spencer and Pam have been on a crusade, whipping up their supporters in the blog world to “save Fathima Bary” from a sure “honor killing.” They knew nothing about the family or the context, they cared nothing for this little girl or her future, but eager to make Muslims and Islam look barbarous they attempted to castigate this family in front of the public thereby destroying any chance in those early days of reconciliation.

When fact after fact came out confirming the family’s story, supported by the Ohio police and Children Services, Pamela Geller resorted to making accusations which she claimed she heard from “anonymous sources” that Rifqa Bary was abused throughout her whole life, and that she was even sexually abused by her uncle.

Spencer applauded her in all this, extolling that the mainstream media was ignoring this “mountain of evidence” secured by Pamela Geller that showed that Rifqa Bary’s family was fundamentalist crazy and had abused her. For some reason the police were unable to unearth any evidence of these libelous accusations? Probably because they are made up whole-cloth.
Kruse, highlights how incongruous it is for a woman such as Pamela Geller, who claims Obama is a Mooslim, anti-Semite, Socialist son of Malcolm X to be in the press area covering a story that she is actively creating. Bostom responds with more polemic,

Bostom to Kruse:

I deal with your non-sequiturs about Robert and Pamela, below. But first, you deliberately and grossly misrepresented what Robert said and the very specific context in which he made his statement–despite standing right next to him, as one can see in the videotape. That reflects very poorly on your own credibility and your ability to judge anyone else’s for that matter.
Do you not see that? Do you not see your own transparent–certainly to me– “static narrowness?”

As for scholarship, who are you to judge? What do you know about Islamic doctrine and history??

I asked you to contact Ibn Warraq via e-mail–He says he never heard from you, and judging from your responses to my repeated questioning you never obtained his definitive scholarly assessment of apostasy, “Leaving Islam”–so clearly real scholarship on the subject matter at hand—apostasy from Islam–does not even appeal to you.

Have you attempted to contact another high profile apostate from Islam, Nonie Darwish, who recently published “Cruel and Usual Punishment,” and wrote about a high profile apostasy case ongoing NOW in her native Egypt, in early August??

I have compiled, edited, and introduced two critically acclaimed scholarly compendia–one on the jihad, the other on Islamic Antisemitism. I have also read and on several occasions reviewed Robert’s books, and they easily exceed most of what passes for “scholarship” on Islam in today’s academy–despite targeting, deliberately, the larger lay audience. Regardless, they are solid works in their own right that are meticulously documented. Have you read them and found identifiable flaws in any of them??

As for Pamela, excuse me, but from my where I sit, she is doing the basic shoe leather investigative reporting those like yourself have thus far refused to do.
How many of Rifqa’s friends have you interviewed, starting for example with the now publicly identified Jamal Jivangee? What sort of of financial investigation of Mr. and Mrs. Bary’s businesses have you conducted??

I think you are being very disingenuous, and your pretense of “objectivity” is simply ludicrous.

As we mentioned Kruse did not misrepresent Spencer, Spencer just spoke very badly and it is not a stretch for Kruse to say that Spencer believes “Muslims are in America to take over” because that is exactly what he was insinuating at that right-wing blogger “press conference.”

Then Bostom attempts to accuse Kruse of being ill-informed and not knowing anything about Islam (ironic) and then lists himself (in a bit of shameless self-promotion) and another Islamophobic writer, Ibn Warraq as “experts” that Kruse should have contacted.

This is a highly rich and whiny statement at the same time, what part of discredited do Bostom and Spencer not get? People don’t choose you guys as experts in the field of Islam because you are a pair of polemicists with deep hatred for Islam and Muslims. You can’t blame people for not considering you suitable candidates. He also trots out Nonie Darwish who believes there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, she dumps all Muslims in the radical camp, she also compares Islam to Nazism amongst other interesting Islamophobic anecdotes.

By this time Kruse is almost done, knowing by now where Andrew Bostom comes from, i.e. the far right lunatic camp and says,

Kruse to Bostom:

I should stop, I know this, but I just have to ask: We’ve talked on the phone, we’ve e-mailed, and you seem like an intelligent person, so how can you possibly take Pam Geller seriously?

Bostom to Kruse:

Excuse me, but just as you have calumniated Spencer–with a live video record to debunk you and prove your deliberate misrepresentation—you’ve now done the same with Geller.

From here:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

“The ‘Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child’ charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama’s many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer’s documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did — but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing.”

As a scrupulously honest, painstakingly objective journalist you must know that Pamela has written “I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did”? Would you even care if you did know?

We know the answer to that, as your calumny against Spencer makes plain.

As we demonstrated Kruse didn’t calumny against Spencer or Geller but Bostom does by trying to defend Pamela. Pamela is thoroughly discredited for more then her posting of the Malcolm-X-is-the-father-of-Barack-Obama-conspiracy, which she attempts to half-heartedly disavow now, but also for her other conspiracies that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he was indoctrinated into Jihad in Pakistan, that he hates Jews and is an anti-Semite, that he is not an American citizen and was not born in America; all that doesn’t even touch a bit of what she says about Palestinians, Arabs, and real Muslims.

On her post about Barack Obama being the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, which she now claims she doesn’t support, there are some troubling questions that it seems Bostom doesn’t want to raise or answer. Like the obvious as day and night, why did she post that crazy article in the first place? Is that any way to prove that there was “no way that Obama’s mother could have been in America when Obama was born?” The fact is that Pam posted the piece with out any qualifiers, she posted it in her name without attributing it to anyone else. That brings her story of never having supported it into high doubt, the attempt to cover it up now and sweep it under the rug is not going to work especially when her track record has been loonier than the loons.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/andrew-bostom-takes-on-mike-kruse-loses/

.

An email from Peter

2009-09-01T13:15:00.002Z

Yesterday I read an email from someone whom I have posted here (with permission) that includes my response. Peter has been polite, civil and though we have ideology differences over the subject of faith and religion, we share an understanding that it is important to know and understand people and probably more - be civil about it. If only those bloggers that I point out were so inclined....

.....

Solkhar

I found your blogspot after reading your posts on the Winds of Jihad site..

I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on a couple issues and you certainly sound like you know what you are talking about ..

Would you agree that never in the history of mankind has a particular religion or ideology come under so much scrutiny as Islam.?

It seems the whole world is looking at Islam under a microscope. Every time you turn the TV on in Australia there is some documentary about it, a day doesn't go by without every major newspaper at least having some articles on Islam/muslims and it has certainly been the hot topic for political and social analysts since 9/11.

I myself have purchased a number of books on Islam including Karen Armstrongs "Mohammed", not to mention the Koran itself. In fact I feel I know as much about Islam now as i do about Christianity - the religion I was born into and grew up with ( I am now an atheist ).

The point I am tring to make is that the more we scrutinise the world's major religions the more we realise that they are just based on ancient superstitions that have absolutley no relevance to the way the world is today.

Australia has an atheist population of 25pc however only 10pc of the population are regular churchgoers. The numbers keep declining by the day and I can't ever see this trend reversing as long as technology and science keeps improving. In some western European countries the atheist population is as high as 70pc ( this is true for all of the Scandinavian countries). In Japan it is also about 70pc.

I honestly believe if every man, woman and child in countries like Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia had access to the internet the decline of Islam would be rapid. One hundred years ago the atheist population of Australia was less than 1pc. Currenlty in many Islamic countries the atheist population is zero.

I have been trying to google information on atheists movements in the Middle East and other Islamic countries and it almost impossible to find any information at all.

Do you know if countires like Egypt, Iran , Pakistan etc etc have atheists? Are there any well known atheists who live in Islamic countries?. I mean surely there must be free thinking people like Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hrisi Ali and Wafa Sultan even in countires like Saudi Arabia. It is just plain human nature and natural for humans to question why we are here and whether there is a god .

I would love to hear your opinions and comments on what I have written.

kind regards

Peter

......

Peter,

thanks for the email, questions and your civility, I mention that because like the blog you referred to, some do not have civility but rather ugly agendas.

I agree, Islam is under the greatest of scrutiny, it has to do with many factors I believe, the current war on terrorism, globalization (ie the now constant interaction between cultures and faiths) and global media - before the Internet and access to other and traditional media is dominating life.

It would be correct, I think, to add that with the interactions from globalization, mass migration and conflict also comes politicizing the issues, thus it has become a subject of scoring for domestic consumption - ie the far right, radical leftists, radical evangelism etc. There is, of course, war going on as well and mankind has always uses the "us versus them" emotion in times of crisis.

That you purchased a Qur'an (note the spelling, it is closer phonetically to the correct pronunciation), is good - not that I am trying to sell my faith (I do not do that) - I would rather talk to someone who has attempted to read it than those that simply read blogs.

Peter, the subject of faith for me is a personal one and as the word implies in all its variations, it is a matter of faith. I have no issue with you being an atheist by the way. But I would say and take you to task on your comment about "ancient superstitions that have absolutely no relevance to the way the world is today", considering that faith is also a subject of culture, history, identity, community and social cohesion (or disruption). I would go further and say that the basis of moral standards comes from religion and faith.

I have no knowledge of the statistics of atheism but I would be certain that there are of course Muslims whom declare they are but in fact are atheists. As I am sure you are aware, atheism is under the haddiths that control most of the clerical and present religious habits of Muslims worse than apostasy and in many of the more backward nations, a death sentence. So you can imagine, inside many Muslim countries, declaring oneself especially say to a statistic count that they are an atheist is simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

A last few points, I find Christopher Hitchens interesting, I certainly allow him his right to his opinion but I am one who says it is not religion that is evil and has caused hate and wars in the world, it is in fact mankind that is capable of evil, hate and wars and they will automatically declare faith and religion is on their side. That is radicalism, extremism and fundamentalism.

As for Ayan Hrisi Ali (whom I know) and Wafa Sultan - I think they are sell-outs and use and abuse Islam to sell books and be famous, simple.

p.s. may I post your question and my response on my blog? In this case with the civility of your question, I will give the same in asking. I would cut your full name and no email, just the name Peter.

kind regards

Solkhar

Dinah Babbitt, 1923-2009

2009-08-31T13:27:00.004Z

The following is repeat from an article sent to me about the life of Dinah Babbitt whom recently died. Who is she?

This short obituary from the Sydney Morning Herald says it all. It shows the greatest and the most basest of what mankind is capable of, but most of all it tells of survival. I give full credit, reference and acknowledge rights to SMH and hope they do not mind my putting this out in full. Reference and link as at the end of the docuement.

The artist Mengele spared to document his wicked work
August 28, 2009

Dinah Babbitt, 1923-2009

DINAH BABBITT'S life was spared at Auschwitz by Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi physician known as the Angel of Death, because of her skills as a portrait painter.
Mengele, with a flick of his hand, selected Dinah for survival on the basis of a fresco she had painted in the children's barracks of Birkenau. In 1943 her skills were deemed to be superior to colour photography. The fresco was a reconstruction of a scene from the film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which she had seen in Prague; she had removed her yellow star, which Jews were forced to wear, to get into the cinema.
Mengele provided Dinah with watercolours and said that she was to illustrate his experiments. He fancied himself as an anthropologist and told her that he wanted to document the inferior physiognomy and organs of Jews and Gypsies.
She bargained for the life of her mother, threatening to run into the camp's electric fence unless she, too, was spared. ''I'm not staying here without my mother alive,'' Dinah said she told Mengele.
While painting a portrait of Mengele, he asked her if she had noticed something about him that only his wife had ever observed. Without pause, she mentioned a flat, round birthmark, which she had likened to the tags inserted in the ears of stuffed dachshunds sold as children's toys. He laughed and nodded.
Such was the wit, intelligence and manipulative genius of the painter, who spent two years in Auschwitz - a feat of survival matched by few others. She said humour and a tradable skill were keys for survival. Locksmiths, plumbers, doctors or artists survived; so, too, did twins.
Babbitt, who has died of cancer in Felton, California, at 86, was born Annemarie Dinah Gottliebova in Brno, Czechoslovakia, and studied art in Prague until Jews were turned away from school. She spent a year as a prisoner in Theresienstadt, where she fell in love and, despite the terror, described that time as the happiest year in her life. She was then shipped to Auschwitz.
Babbitt liked to describe a scene that exemplified the use of humour of concentration camp life. A double latrine with two stalls stood in the family compound, separated by a flimsy piece of see-through material. As Dinah was leaving one stall and a man the other, he said to her: ''My lady, not to anger the gods by saying so, you look still well.'' This was a panegyric. He was referring to the fact that he had seen her backside through the partition.
Her lover from Theresienstadt died from typhus in the last few days of the war. After a few months in Paris, where she scandalously, at the time, had an affair with a black musician in Duke Ellington's band, she worked as an animator with Warner Brothers in California and married Art Babbitt, the animator who had worked on Snow White. She worked on characters including Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Tweety Bird.
Dinah Babbitt reared two children, attended wild Hollywood parties, divorced and later loved again. She prolonged her good looks with several facelifts, told bawdy jokes and even in her 80s talked about death, sex and life.
A sad aspect was that, in 1973, she learnt that the Auschwitz Museum held some of her Gypsy portraits. She travelled to Auschwitz, determined to finally liberate at least the memory of those she had painted by taking the portraits home and perhaps to the Holocaust Museum in Washington but the Polish museum authorities refused, saying that if the paintings belonged to anyone, it was Mengele's descendants.
Her nephew and a pair of Mengele twins, Annetta Able and Stephanie Heller, live in Melbourne. Babbitt and her mother helped the twins survive Auschwitz. Two daughters survive her.

(http://www.smh.com.au/national/obituaries/the-artist-mengele-spared-to-document-his-wicked-work-20090827-f14n.html

..

Acceptance, Tokenism or Hypocrisy

2009-08-30T14:44:00.006Z

I was sent from Australia the photo and Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au) front page item about Hazem El Masri the NSW Rugby League play-maker's final match. It came with a wonderful photo (displayed) that shows him, justifiably proud and his wife (in hijab) and children. That is great and I am happy for him and rather proud to see Aussie celebration directed at a Muslim family and there is no comments or pointing fingers at the wife in her hijab. Great!

But it raises a question, how much is normal and justifiable happiness for a sports celebrity and how quickly it is forgotten and the bigotry and the usual "us & them" rhetoric comes back. This is not about Australia but about the West at all.

Westerners, like other parts of the world, follow the human habit of madly adoring sports. I wonder how many of the bigots and radical right-wing agenda freaks and blogers whom demand the shutting down, eradication or deportation of Islam and Muslims - then goes and supports their favourite football team that has a number of Muslims as part of their integral team. Are the French right-wingers aware that the super-star status Nicolas Anelka (see photo below with Samir Nasri), Éric Abidal and Franck Ribéry are all Muslim converts, let alone those born Muslim such as Zinadine Zidane? In fact Zidane is a perfect example of being identified with France and Football but is he identified and acknowledged as being Muslim?

Perhaps the greatest ever boxer Mohammed Ali has been clearly identified as Muslim because of his public battle to do so, but how much of that latter support, enthusiasm and loyalty actually included the value that he took so seriously - and how many that supported him in the ring actively despise his faith as "evil". Was it the case with fellow boxers Anthony Mundine from Australia, Britain's Danny Wilson and American boxers Bernard Hopkins and Mike Tyson.

Football is probably the thing that catches out the armchair bigots whom declare a hatred (and worse) against Islam but will go out and celebrate and get drunk over a football match, hypocritically ignoring the bigotry for the duration of the match. Even British hooligans who will later go out and punch a Paki or two but will sing the Notts County Anthem not realising that their star striker Lee Hughes is a Muslim convert and most Rotterdamers like myself do not realise that their famous "son" and international footballer Robin Van Persie is a Muslim (and married to a Moroccan like myself as well).

Apart from the many African favourites playing in the European football leagues many of the great personalities are just "footballers" and are forgotten that they have faiths and beliefs that some of these bigoted fans ignore. Frederick Kanoute, Sevilla , El Hadji Diouf, Salomon Kalou, Nihat Kahveci, Diomansy Kamara, Samir Nasri, Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Hassan Salihamidzic are all sung and cheered and then later condemned.

I wonder with all the remembrance, memorials and rebuilding of Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five that anyone cares that Jermaine Jackson is also a Muslim convert.

Winds of Jihad - Scrutinized with a D- for originality

2009-08-23T18:16:00.005Z

The continuing processes of looking at hate-sites and agenda-based blogs has brought out in me a level of expectations. The usual format is now common-place with misquotes, mixed with mostly right-wing politics and the often well-written but still misguided and questionably motivated blame that Islam is the evil in this world.

It is with this expectation that coming the Winds of Change blog by sheikyermami is such a great disappointment! As mentioned in my postings before, here we have the master of unoriginality and in fact the question is given to why it exists in the first place.

The blog owner does not come up with items himself but copies the works of others - we can only assume because it will make his own blog look a bit more better than it really is. His postings are rather mouthing off when he actually does attempt to write himself and he makes wild allegations and mixes them with pretty poor history examples.

I took him to task a few times over his understanding of history. He goes under the basis that everything and anything touched by Islam is and must be backwards and thus he found it unacceptable to contemplate facts and events that tell us otherwise. He chose to pick on the history of Al Andalus and quoted the failed academic Spencer whom is detested by the academic world. When I pointed out that Al Andalus at times during its 800 year existence in the south of Iberia was the most culturally advanced community in Europe - he attempted to defend the indefensible. His constant and irrational attempt to prove otherwise by quoting subjects like slavery and events in the 11th century as evidence was laughable to say the least. Of course there were events in every nation that were dark hours and quoting one period out of 800 years is not a cheap shot but an academic and intellectual failure. "sheikyermami" in fact had tried to copy the style of Robert Spencer and did a piss poor job of it. Spencer being the master of making accurate quotes and descriptions of events but ensuring that he chooses out a long history only those that suit his point (and carefully avoiding those more numerous events that would prove otherwise).

The blog-owner obviously became rather afraid that his non-serious but ugly Islam bashing and hate-mongering was being pointed out and thus more and more avoided answering directly any points I made - knowing well enough that he had failed. But he made some rather stupid accusations and I would not let him lose on it.

He tried to falsely accuse me of avoiding his own questions - that did not exist. He sort of asked a non-serious one and since I did not answer he stated "Solkhar did not answer my 10 questions!". Going through the entire blog, there was no ten questions so I said give them to me. No such thing, eventually a "question 2" occurred. So much for the existence of the now infamous 10. In fact he later remarked on the Question no.4 posting (yep he is still trying) that he acknowledges and thanks those that have contributed possible questions, confirming that of course the original 10 did not exist.

He made one accusation on Islam that I decided to take him to task on and not let go, knowing full well that he would rather have me cut from posting than answer. He stated that the Jihad (Jihad al Sghrir) is an integral part of Islamic doctrine and that all Muslims must support it and to do otherwise is apostasy or heresy. So I returned the favour and asked him the question and told him that I will not answer his invisible and still not existing 10 questions on Islam until he answers me. So I asked:

"Where in the official institutions of Islam, such as the Five Schools of Islam, is there support, declaring of or sanction any Jihad?". Before I asked that question he tried to quote individual clerics, mostly radicals whom at various times mentioned the word Jihad. When pointing that out, he did the usual squirm and talked about violence in Pakistan or the like.

He will not answer that question because he will avoid denying that he simply lied to support his no-holds-barred mouth-off on Islam. It is a sign of unprofessionally and I simply am disappointed, considering how cheap and nasty his blog is compared to others whom at least try and be smart about their hate-mongering.

A D- is given in this instance because frankly speaking the quality and content are shit.

As a footnote, he has come up with the "I set the conditions for you to post here, Solkhar, not you." Plus added the threat "From now on I will delete any and every post of yours unless you answer the 5 questions I posted for you. Give it your best shot or take your camel and ride!" which is the confirmation that he will avoid answering and not tolerate anyone pointing out what a hypocrit he is. He not only sets nothing but flooding his blog with hate-rhetoric but also allows Christian prosthelitizing along with it.

The marriage of religious radicalism with militancy and when it fails

2009-08-15T18:37:00.003+01:00

I have spoken before about the theory that the current explosion of radicalism and terrorism comes from the horrid marriage between radical and extremist Islam and militancy. These events of 1978 in Iran had created an excuse for every radical cleric to search for a militant force willing to follow it. The catastrophic merge and its success also created fear amongst those countries with a strong radical presence, such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan to capitulate to its own radical clerics with results that are still dominating its society and also producing the backbone of terrorists as well as some of the worse terrorists themselves.

But that marriage is a costly one and both parties have to give something and sacrifice others. In the case of the Iranian Revolution, the militants that became the Revolutionary Guards that still control much of the security infrastructure of Iran to this day were not always just subservient slaves to the founder Ayatollah Khomeini. During those very first days of that event, the revolutionaries stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and that was not at the order of the Supreme Leader, in fact he was angry and tried to have it cancelled. As we all now know the story well, he wanted to stop this infringement of International Law and he feared the legitimacy of the Islamic Revolution was now at doubt but when he witnessed the support and anti-American sentiment amongst the crowds (and that it had already occurred) that it was impossible to back-down. Most certainly though, Khomeini recognized that the newly named Revolutionary Guard was a power to be reckoned with, or to put it another way – he was stuck with them as much as they were with him.

We have witnessed now in present day Islamic Republic of Iran that the current President is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard – and was one of those that stormed the US Embassy. His revolutionary rhetoric is classic, somewhat like that of Saddam Hussein’s phrases that are certainly only important for domestic consumption targeting the bulk of the less literate population that is the backbone of support. Thus when in an international audience is listening in or gathered around him there is an instant clash and confusion to what is being said or to be blunt, sounds ludicrous and stupid.

But this image should not be played too lightly, he is an important figure with a great deal of power and he represents that ever present factor in current Iranian power – the Revolutionary Guards. Even now the current Supreme Leader is obviously not happy with the rather clumsy international Statesmanship of the President but is not willing to deal with him, even though he has the option of more moderate but still patriotic and pro-theological politicians such as former Presidents.

The above examples is how the union between radical religious groups and revolutionary militants is not always simple marital bliss, now we will see a recent example of how a militant group has rejected the marriage proposal of a radical religious group – because they are not needed.

Yesterday’s announcement by the radical Jund Ansar Allah Cleric and founder Abdel-Latif Moussa in Rafah (Hamas controlled Gaza Strip) of a declaration of an Islamic Emirate and Shari’a Law resulted in a gun-battle by Hamas killing the Cleric and 21 other supporters. Why?

Simply put there was no need by the militants to declare God is on their side as they were already on in power and they have an infrastructure. To add to that, they are now over the phase of gaining control “no-matter-what” and are now in the phase of trying to legitimize their status. Thus it is not only a bad move to side with radicals of the religious side but they want to show that they are in control and the authority, not seeking to introduce a new one. That is why Hamas is no friend of most other militant groups connected to religious ideologies – such as Al Qaeda.

Another way to look at it and coming back to the main principle of this theory – they are not religious – though they may claim it anyhow, but are in fact a radical political militant group.

Either way, we see the birth of an interesting situation, a terrorist-linked militant group not only refusing to join the marriage game with a radical and extreme religious group but attacking it based on recognition that such unions are literally a “marriage made in hell”.

The Bigot Word and the Taqqiya Escape Clause

2009-08-15T14:59:00.003+01:00

I noticed on a far right-wing blog site the following phrase to try and defend against the now regular use of the accusation of Bigotry.

“The left should be warned: The libelous smear of racism has lost its sting. If everything is racism, then nothing is. The charge has lost its power. The more that leftists pull this evil trick, the more folks will shrug.”

Perhaps the word is overused by the leftists in their battles against them, but I certainly have seen many bigoted statements against Muslims and Islam in general.

I thought of something though, the incredible use of the word "taqqiya" as being an escape clause by far right-wingers (whom are classic text-book bigots) that any response given by a Muslim is a well planned lie or "taqqiya". I bet you most Muslims, even native Arabic speakers would not even know that word means.

Thus, using the above format, I put on that blog site the comment below:

“The far-right should be warned: The libelous escape clause of taqqiya has lost its sting. If every response is taqqiya, then nothing is. The excuse has no value and is diminishing. The more that agenda based far-rightists pull this evil trick, the more folks will laugh for what rubbish it is”.

War Crimes, Attrocities, Blame and the IDF-Gaza Issue

2009-08-15T12:55:00.003+01:00

This morning I read a well put article by Petra Marquardt-Bigman called "Israel responds to war crimes allegations", on the Harry's Place blog site. It identifies and critiques the IDF report and response and perhaps that is correct, but I think there is a bigger picture and I expressed it as a comment. Here it is.....

The item by Petra Marquardt-Bigman is very well presented and correct in all its reporting and I commend it.
Having said that, it shows how as another mentioned, the international processes are not geared towards insurgency, revolution, terrorism and the like.
There is no doubt that civilians were targeted, illegal weapons were used, brutalities and murders had occurred by IDF forces and there is also no doubt that the Israeli people are subjected to bombings, rocket attacks, threats of violence by organized militant groups and more. All are not only without doubt, they are documented.
The problem is dealing with it, or not.
War is brutal, deadly - that is a reality. Since the onset of open media, journalism, the video camera and now the mobile phone and Internet reporting the realities that happen in war, we are now all aware of what is happening. This started during the Vietnam War and since then war has become unpopular and ugly and every act has been scrutinized, judged and condemned and every military and their government has been trying to suppress it. This has not been altered.
Again, the question is the problem of dealing with it or not.
The proof is that a military exercises has victims, the target may be a legitimate military but often enough it is civilian or civilian infrastructure. The targeting of the Taliban in Afghanistan and P

akistan by drones has been successful militarily but the civilian targets are politically a failure. The sending of thousands of troops into a zone to fight and occupy, particularly when the enemy are indistinguishable from the civilians, results in frustration and anger by the troops and indiscriminate killings will certainly follow and you see that everywhere.
So these are difficult realities but there are those that can be worked on, targeted as unacceptable and this should be perhaps the focus.
There are instigators and politicians that provoke the targeting of peoples and if combined with military force ensures the atrocities and there are military forces that are driven by ideologies, radicals and extremists that are capable of anything. Rawanda and Bosnia are perfect examples as is what is happening in Darfur. By making the politicians, ideologues and rogue generals responsible, the targeting of war criminals is easily achieved and will go a far way towards distinguishing between the ugly realities of war and the deliberate horrors of crime through the deliberate use of the ugliness of war.
Terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah have crossed the line a multitude of times and its leadership are responsible. The issue of the IDF force should not so much be about the individual actions on the battle-field but how much of that was simple military brutality but what was organized and provoked from within - how much of it was political and by whom?

The tour of anti-Islamic sites continues - so does the banning....

2009-08-13T17:11:00.004+01:00

I previously mentioned a blogger known as "sheikyermami". He rather thinks of him/herself as some form of expert on a moral crusade to fight Islam and in reality just a cut & paste exercise using the works of others. He is a self-confessed friend and admirer of Robert Spencer - the would-be anti-Islam saviour of America whom created Jihad-Watch.

This blogger thinks he knows history but rather believes what he thinks it should be rather than its reality. He wrote an item about Al Andalus, quoting Spencer's distortions and though I can commend him for blindly supporting his friend and mentor, he laughingly embarrasses himself constantly defending non-existent history. Spencer has left him in the lurch so to speak.

Spencer argued against recognised academics whom referred to the important periods of Al Andalus (Arab Iberia) that lasted 800 years and of course Spencer attacked it citing events in the 11th century as proof. Note only some events out of 800 years! No historian or academic would ever embarrass himself in doing so, unless he is a propagandist with an agenda such as Spencer. Thus when identifying this, the blog-owner in question will flatly deny the historical events and when pressed changes the subject. In this case, the blogger changed it to the Ottomans, a bad move as it is a favourite subject of mine, not to mention being posted there. Wild comments about Ottoman laws and the abuse of Jews and Christians making it out as systematic and binding administrative, coordinated abuse (he tried and failed on that one about Al Andalus) all fell flat when I gave him a lesson on Ottoman jurisprudence and its system. But the entire point was like his beloved mentor Spencer, he quoted an event by a single source and counted as proof of the entire period. No one doubts how horrid and ugly history has been as well as how inspiring it was - it is after all "history" and it takes no sides. The point I make is that there is no problem making statements and identifying events - but do not lie.

The blogger "sheikyermami" admitted that the "We are the wake-up call. Resisting Islam, raising awareness and demanding a reversal of Mohammedan immigration is self-preservation and a sacred duty for every non-Muslim. " and that says it all, he has an agenda that is very questionable and ugly, as ugly as radical, extremist Muslims.

My last post is now under "awaiting moderation" which means probably he has not the balls to post it, so to not lose the item I have posted it below, I expect to be banned from his blog as well. He and another agenda based commenter laughed when I used the word "music" arguing that there is no music in Islam and the Muslim World, and to back up the point, the blogger tried to pull the Hadith Qursi items.... as if he is now an expert on Islamic Studies. I should give him the web addresses of the hundreds of Music Video Satellite stations and magazines........ .

"Two issues there Dear Blogger, I noticed rather than take up points that I correctly make you carefully change them and avoid the subject of history altogether to come back to the same theme of the events of today, and I was not aware that you dislike my attempt to put lipstick on your snout?? Sorry, I am not a native English speaker and have no idea what that meant.

There is no need to proclaim each time events of history and then ignore them later on when returned. The Turks committed a genocide against the Armenians and though they like to not admit it, they will and are coming to terms with that rather like the British are still coming to grips with the genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals. Yep history is an ugly thing, that is the first thing one learns and placing them as examples for justification for modern behaviour simply does not stick – but then any academic or someone who respects history and politics knows that.

I stand by the history that I have given, go seek a real academic and not your beloved Spencer and you will see the difference, I do not play up to cut & paste portions, I look at the history as a whole. I acknowledge both the ugly and stupidities of all in history as well as the events that should be admired.

Calling me a jihadist is the funniest of all, I guess that is the sign of an self-admitted anti-Islam crusader with a “sacred duty”, when I have spent a good part of my life fighting them. You may have forgotten that I am involved in the tracking of terrorism-financing here in North Africa (mostly by the way via counterfeiting of products for Hezbollah’s battle against Israel) and I have a portion of my right wrist scared for life because of a radical’s letter bomb when I was posted in Jakarta – so your rather obnoxious taunt falls more than flat. Your pipe dream that every Muslim lives in tents and plans jihad is just that and because of that view, you have played into the real radical and militant Islamist’s hands by alienating all Muslims.

As for your putting Hadith Qudsi, so what? Are you again trying to put the references of the 7th century and considering them obligatory for today, does that make you the radical extremist? Why is it that if you put Saudi, Sudanese, Lybian or even Iranian television you will find music played? Why is it that Al Andalus established religious singing and harmonics? Perhaps it is you who wishes to believe that radicalism and extremism is correct and blinding ignore what real Muslims believe and accept because it makes your rantings irrelevant and falling flat.

Just so you know, to the average non-radical or extremist Muslim, the messages from Hadith Qudsi is very clear, that during the time of the Prophet, entertainment was placed far above faith and devotion and thus at that time he outlawed it. So the average Muslim knows that he can love, adore and enjoy Music, even find devotion to God through it, but when it comes to religious obligations, it is not something of importance in comparison. My 5yr old son knows this, but aparantly Western right-wingers do not.

I was booted off GoV for two reasons, the first because I was monitoring them and reporting on it, that I had never denied and second because in the end they did not like the fact that a Muslim was on their blog for a long period and it provoked the bigots and racists that were there and contribute regularly.

GoV does deserve credit for trying to moderate this bunch of fanatics and for attempting to put as much original material and arguments as possible. I do not care about their political right-wing views or agendas as long as it does not include bigotry or lies.

This is frankly were you fall flat on your arse each time. Apart from your subservience to Spencer and using Jihad-Watch as some imaginary authority – like your Islam and Science item above – you come out with items such as your crossed-the-line of dignity item on Islam and Females (now closed) that was just a cut & paste dump of agenda based BS and pornographic items.

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself in trying to pretend to be sophisticated and educated in your postings when in fact you have failed in both. Your agenda is now self-confessed and your take on the reality of the past and present is more than obvious, it stands out and is smacking you in the back of the head. "

FGM and the right-wing agenda profitting from it

2009-08-11T00:48:00.004+01:00

FGM or Female Genital Mutilation is a horrible tribal/cultural habit done in many parts of the world, but mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa and were those communities are linked to.

Though now illegal in most parts of the world, it is a back-door event done in secrecy by those whom do not know better and supported by radicals who want to keep control over the female population. That this is done in many Muslim countries, it is also done by Christians and animists in the same regions.

Radical and extremist Islamists proclaim that it is Sunna (the way of the Prophet) and thus Islamic, though it is not mentioned in the Qur'an or by the most accepted of haddiths. Certainly it is this radical link to ensuring the tribal customs are followed - simply because it keeps control over the population and especially by keeping women locked in the house with no rights and no education. That is why they support the burqa, the veil as well as child marriage, wife beating and threats of stoning. All unacceptable by the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

I noticed the right-wing bloggers trying to profit from the link to radicals, claiming instantly and like a pronouncement that FGM is Islamic, catching on to the claims by the most radical member of the Al-Azhar university, someone whom also supports the terrorism, destruction of Israel and all the Jews in it and other radical hate-filled rhetoric.

The blogger known as Sheikyermami came out with his usual BS and anti-Islamic ranting (mostly copied from other blogs and not actually very imaginative), made such an article.

Stating items that came out all over the anti-Islam sites about Cleric Farahat Said Al-Munji's statements on television on 10 May 2007 claiming that it is Sunna and proscribed. The right-wingers must have loved that making the most of the statement in their blogging rants.

What they all ignored was that ........ well let me show you what I posted.

Al-Munji declared on 10 May 2007 that it is Sunnah. He is only one of many clerics of Al-Azhar and a known radical.
What the report did not say was that a month later on 14 June 2007 (a month later) the Grand-Mufti of Egypt, Ali Goum announced that: “… this custom is prohibited”.
Al-Munji arleady had knowledge of this edict by the Mufti and in fact by his boss Mohammed Sayed Tantawi the Shiek of Al-Azhar. It was made clear at a 2006 international conference:
“TARGET, a German human rights group, sponsored a conference on FGM in Cairo, Egypt. Muslim scholars from many nations attended. At the conclusion of the conference on 2006-NOV-24, their final statement declared FGM to be contrary to Islam, an attack on women, and a practice that should be criminalized:
“The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam’s teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being. … The conference reminds all teaching and media institutions of their role to explain to the people the harmful effects of this habit in order to eliminate it. … The conference calls on judicial institutions to issue laws that prohibit and criminalize this habit … which appeared in several societies and was adopted by some Muslims although it is not sanctioned by the Qur’an or the Sunna.”
According to The Age online news source:
“Egypt’s two top Islamic clerics, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, the foremost theological institute in the Sunni Muslim world, and Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, attended the conference, which drew scholars from as far afield as Russia. Tantawi’s and Gomaa’s edicts are considered binding.

Of course the responses from the blogger and some side-kick was "who cares". None of the responses from the blogger or the item in question was about supporting the effort to fight the practice, rather just condemn the entire faith of 1.6 billion people because they have the agenda to discredit and destroy Islam. The blogger went so far as to say that no Muslim* country convicts those that do it, even though it is not only illegal but a cirminal offense here in Morocco with Sub-Saharan's being imprisoned or expelled (including diplomats) for the practice. The practice is not popular here with only some nomadic Saharans doing so. I recently watched an item on Egypt that suffers a great deal from the FGM practice that a number of women were not only imprisoned but their photos are now on posters in the southern regions of the country to remind everyone the penalty.

(* The blogger cannot actually say the word Muslim as he thinks that Islam is a Mohammed worshipping personality even though Muslims pray to God rather than many Christians whom pray to Christ or His Mother and thus the name Christian comes out. Also Muslims make a thing about personality and image worship as being haram and Mohammed 'peace be upon Him' made it clear that he was only a human and a servant of God. As the Prophet is the Messenger, we state that "There is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is His Messenger, a sub-servient role and no confussion with God ).

Excellent Holidays & Expected Radical Fishing Results

2009-08-07T19:50:00.005+01:00

Hi all, back from my lovely holiday in Agadir, Tiznit and region. It was damn hot with the "Chirgui" or Sahara Desert Winds that when it strikes can make the temperature go up to over 50 degrees, but anyway, most of the time I was between the swimming pool and the hotels air-conditioned restaurant or secluded corners of the lobby.

It was during these cool quiet times that I spent my continued investigations into anti-Islamic websites to further understand the mind-set of these people.

The target for this time was the Gates of Vienna blog (GoV) and to give the blog credit, it is a well run blog with good conduct rules. The two blog-owners known as Baron Bodissey and Dymphna do a pretty good job of running the show.

I jumped in with my standard objective and rule - point out factual errors, direct bigoted statements and pointing out the obvious - Islam and its core principles defined the Holy Qur'an are fine but the behaviour of radicals and extremists (as with all religions) are evil and destructive and they should be the target.

The results were mostly as expected and because of the good control, the hard-core bigots within took their time to start the personal attacks. Mind you some of them were from other blogs whom I have had run-ins before.

Unlike other blogs such as Lambeth Walk, GoV places items on the examples of radical and militant Islamists and leave it to the commenters to do the dirty bigotry in trying to tarnish the entire faith.

Also unlike other blogs, a good portion of the GoV items are far-right political postings - something that frankly speaking is not of interest to me. If anything, the blog is just another confirmation that there is an obvious link between the far-right with bigotry and ultra-nationalism whom will by default be anti-Islamic.

Justice has to be done to a number of posters whom though obviously right leaning, I had good discussions with. One such discussion about Turkish politics and the issue of the Armenian Genocide was enjoyable with the person in question asking smart questions. My own experiences from being posted to that country for two years and managing the Turkish Desk helped clarify some points.

It was not long though before the personal attacks and baiting started from those hard-core bigots - whom objected being identified as such even though their references were text-book bigotry (thus as the saying goes - if the shoe fits!).

In the end, Dymphna was getting sick of the domination of the topic (that I did not create nor start) and rather than halt the bigotry - blamed me for dominating and proselytizing, obviously false accusations and she gave me an official warning. Ironically it was the same time that another poster took the initiative of posting my item on this blog about watching GoV - something that I have not hid.

So I am now banned and condemned with ludicrous assumptions which I find funny and using the typical language of those feeling a bit of guilt in what they do. Sort of to justify their hard-line stance that in the end is indefensible.

So somehow I was there seeking converts - something that I in fact hate - a faith should be able to stand on its own legs and attract those by its principles and the behaviour of its followers. Selling sort of cheapens things.... as they say.

I am now a "typical" Muslim whom is there to do ...... whatever that means.

The self-styled "Baron" thinks that somehow he was proving a point and I was attempting to deny it - the popular method of playing with words because they cannot or are unwilling to look further than what suits their goals. He argued that the examples of horrors committed by radicals and militants are by default a sign of Islamic principles and I showed him otherwise. That he cannot respond - he argues that I am ignoring the events and not condemning them, even though I had done so time and time again.

What I have also noticed by the most bigoted - the "Baron" and "Dymphna" by the way have not themselves shown bigotry - is that they will use the great "escape clause" of claiming Taqiyya. I find that the most funny of all, considering that I live in and have extensively travelled the Muslim world, that term is not used if not understood by almost all of the Muslim population on the planet. Only theological students, clerics and non-Muslim right-wing extremists ever utter such phrases. The same goes with the desire for a Caliphate. I have learnt very quickly over these months studying the anti-Islam community out there - if they mentioned Taqiyya, they will refuse whatever answer you give them and any questions are a trap.

The most interesting thing I learnt is how people can build themselves into a frenzy over the concept of Shari'a and this Caliphate threat.

Obviously the anti-Islam websites, rumours and other sources are carefully filling in the completely wrong statement that Shari'a exists throughout the Muslim World and will be demanded and attempt to take over the rest of the world.

So when I point out that the reality is completely different - that in fact most Muslim countries in the world do not have Shari'a Courts and some have mixed Secular and only Shari'a for family law - they simply thought I was making it up. I guess they know better than the rest of the world and those living it - because someone told them.

I will have to continue investigating the issue and problem of how this view of Shari'a and somehow the world will face the demand of a Caliphate - even though the Muslim World is not interested - comes about.

Much of it is clear though, it is that the radicals in the West are often more radical than those elsewhere and that is a serious problem.

Take care all, the investigations continue.....

(a footnote, I do not apologize to GoV for the study, it was clear if anyone had read my blog and I had a goal. I find GoV not that offensive like others but typical in some aspects - the "we support Israel" emblem and the photo and supportive banner for Geert Wilders, frankly puts down what would be a well presented and simply strong-right blog).

On holiday but still watching - as bigotry does not stop for holidays

2009-07-25T16:21:00.005+01:00

Hi all, I am on holidays in Agadir (South Morocco) and enjoying myself way to much. That does not mean I have been off the net but certainly limiting it.

Today I took a look at the bigoted, racist and down-right neo-Fascists out there that continue there garbage, it did not take long.
Lambeth Walk's low-life certainly has not changed, regardless of his claims of innocence.

He loves to put on the blog label the word Islam with those that have an Ali or Mohammed as a name even though the article he cites has no reference to religious activity. Of course an item about a probable Christian being posted as was done also on the same blog has no such label - showing his intentions. I told him his singling out makes for text-book bigotry - he did not justify it and of course his solution was to chop my post.

On another thread, a terrible and disgusting case of rape of two girls by an elderly man - yep a person of Bangladesh descent and a Muslim was labelled as an item on Islam and the neo-fascist poster Dr.D was allowed that openly referred to all Muslims as "sex obsesses", "animals" and much, much more (remember he is the one on the post preceding this one that says all Muslims must be deported and if they resist - killed).

Pointing that out - my post was cut, not his.

The blogger of Lambeth Walk continues to ensure his keeping the title - "low-life" with the confirmation of bigotry.

Two more weeks of holiday but I have some items that I will post on my exchanges with the Gates of Vienna blog - they will be interesting.

Lambeth Walk Low-Life - Supporting calling it Illegal to be a Muslim (and worse!)

2009-07-10T20:12:00.005+01:00

"It should be illegal to be a muzlim, and deportation should be the punishment (or death). "

Lambeth Walk posted an item remembering the victims of the 7 July 2005 terror bombings in London that killed 52 average ordinary people. A dark event in any world.

Doing so is fine, I have no problem with that as long as mindless ranting about race, immigration and blaming an entire religion does not come along with it. In this case, the item started off fine and with clear facts that are well known but of course in the end he had to start ranting about immigration and open borders along with bowing (kow-towing was his word) to the Islamic World. Thus the item was just another disgraceful low-life attempt to gain agenda scoring on the back of real victims - pathetic!

But that is not all - it gets even more disgusting - but from another angle - the comment section.

The Lambeth Walk low-life is very smart in allowing comments that only suit his needs, sometimes allowing criticism or alternative responses if he believes that he can either win the argument clearly or that he can abuse them and use that abuse as the closing argument (of course not allowing the response to the abuse). A clever attack on a so-called open discussion and democratic principles claimed by these sick bloggers. That is why I make it clear, no comments so that I cannot either fall into or be blamed for such hypocrisy.

Anyhow - this is when it gets sick. There is an obviously bigoted and probably immature poster going by the name Dr.D. who comes out with sometimes raving and idiotic comments, often verbatim to sicko websites and certainly - just off the top of his bigoted head.

He came out with this line "It should be illegal to be a muzlim, and deportation should be the punishment (or death). " Now from him I can expect this type of crazed comment.

So I asked the blog owner to cut the item out as it is both disgraceful, demanding the death of Muslims who resist mandatory deportation from Britain and that by not doing so or at least not posting a comment condemning Dr.D. then by proxy you are supporting it.

He first charged "what item"? I replied, he cut out his question (because it was stupid) and mine and the item still sticks. I have, just in case it was a glitch the request three times now, all ignored and the item remains. He continues to post items on his blog, so we know he has seen it.

Thus it is clear as can be, the low-life blogger of Lambeth Walk obviously considers it a valued solution to his bigoted hatred for Muslims and that the British Government should deport all Muslim in the UK and those that resist should be executed.

Way to go Lambeth Walk, supporting a new 'final solution'.

http://thelambethwalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/7th-july-2005.html

Right-wing genie out of the bottle

2009-07-08T15:42:00.005+01:00

Below is a disturbing item I found in the Sydney Morning Herald today about the level of far-right extremists in Australia attempting to form Political Parties. It has been four years since the last pathetic experiment with One Nation, now the Australia First Party and the Australian Protectionist Party are attempting to be registered and allowed to enter elections.

"Mr Saleam, who gained a doctorate in political science while serving a 3½-year-jail term for possessing a firearm and organising a shotgun attack on the home of the African National Congress's Australian representative."

....

Right-wing genie out of the bottle
Erik JensenJuly 9, 2009
THE party faithful gathered in "the bunker". In a room decorated with Heidelberg School art posters and Ned Kelly figurines, Jim Saleam, the NSW director of the Australia First Party, recited the Eureka Oath.
The father of far right politics in Australia told the dozen people gathered around a plastic trestle table - a group too small to entertain registration as a federal political party - that they were on the cusp of return. "We are a genie in the bottle," he said. "When the system itself says it's in trouble we must welcome that.
"For, Australia, we are now moving into the most extraordinary of times."
Five months since that meeting in a former shop in Tempe, the genie is out of the bottle: today Australia First will announce itself as the first anti-immigration party since One Nation to gain enough members to contest a federal election. The party finished signing the 500 members on Monday and expects its application to be lodged in a fortnight - five years after it was last deregistered and four years since One Nation lost its final federal seat.
"The registration of Australia First Party … will be a decisive act in uniting all Australian nationalist and patriotic groups and people," Mr Saleam wrote in a newsletter. "At first in common labour and then into a single movement."
The party plans to contest lower house seats in western and southern Sydney, on the Darling Downs and possibly in the Hunter. It expects to attract between 6 and 7 per cent of the primary vote and will run a television campaign aimed at the trucking industry and an anti-immigration policy made more palatable by linking population to environmental issues.
The elevation of Australia First into a party capable of winning seats is in line with events overseas. Against the backdrop of the global economic crisis, far right organisations such as the British National Party made a strong showing at last month's European elections.
In the past few months skinheads from the Southern Cross Hammerskins have started organising to induct members and set up a record label and an internet radio station. The Ku Klux Klan has established a presence in Victoria with links to the expanding klan in the US. The Australian Protectionist Party - which split from Australia First in 2007 - is preparing to lodge its own federal registration.
"Australians tend to be fairly non-political in their outlook," said Darrin Hodges, the protectionist party's NSW chairman and Mr Saleam's key rival. "You have to work on educating people [that] there's a problem there, and we're making progress with that."
Australia First began its return to federal politics on Australia Day, when Mr Saleam managed to associate himself with a mob of teenagers chanting nationalist slogans at Manly - a gathering which was played down by politicians and the police media unit, but which is being investigated as possibly the first act of co-ordinated racism since the Cronulla riots in 2005.
Working in the background, police were attempting to link the mob to an unnamed nationalist group uncovered in western Sydney a week earlier. The mob of 80 people who raced up and down the Corso on January 26, smashing cars and chanting, appeared to be organised rather than a drunken pack, though there is nothing to suggest that Mr Saleam himself was directly involved in any vandalism.
The group split in half at a decisive moment, weakening police efforts to contain them.
"Police have played this down significantly. It's just going to be worse next year," a senior police source said. "There is the push on for nationalism and if we don't get a grip on this we will be looking at something we did not think could happen in Australia. You can't put the genie back in the bottle."
Two factors are working in favour of the ultra-right. Despite a 20 per cent cut to skilled migration numbers, Australia First and the Australian Protectionist Party expect the recession to create instability and resentment of non-white labour. At the same time, party members disenfranchised by the collapse of One Nation have begun to return to the movement.
"We'll start seeing a lot of protest voting," said Mr Saleam, who gained a doctorate in political science while serving a 3½-year-jail term for possessing a firearm and organising a shotgun attack on the home of the African National Congress's Australian representative. "We will see not only defence of identity but defence of jobs. If that spills over into reasonable-level confrontation, I would support that.
"We want to turn ordinary people - suburban housewives, unemployed youth - into political activists. We seek to mobilise a group of people who have not previously been mobilised. We want to cause disaffection from the regime who govern against their own people. We want to mobilise small-t troublemakers."
But despite the recent rise in membership, the new right is very much the old right and Jim Saleam remains at the centre of it. Australian nationalism is a fractal of hyperlinks and blog posts, tied to reality by the occasional post office box.
John Moffat, an aged-care worker with tattooed forearms and spiked hair, is a prime example of the movement. He arrived at a meeting of the Australian Protectionist Party in late February.
Mr Moffat has previously been an Australia First candidate and ran for the now-defunct Australians Against Further Immigration before it was absorbed into One Nation.
"I've just been waiting with my finger up to the wind," he said. "But with the crashing of the economy, let's say the tribes will start to consolidate. From this meeting, I've got a little bit of hope. I just picked up a membership form. More than likely, I will join them."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/rightwing-genie-out-of-the-bottle-20090708-ddfk.html?page=-1

....

MASh Scam Exposed – Bigots Stealing from other Bigots!!!

2009-07-07T12:46:00.004+01:00

Further investigations into the non-Muslim “Muslims Against Sharia” website has uncovered that this hate-fest is not only run by non-existent people claiming to be Muslims but that the site is also under US federal investigation for – not having business licenses, tax files and that any donations given of course are thus disappearing into the pockets of the criminals running it.

A Florida based private investigator (see details and references below) has spent a great deal of time and effort tracking and noting the non-existent activities of MASh and its owner that include false claims of anti-terrorist activities, speeches and meetings and more.

Ironically, the site is relying on post 9/11 anti-Islamic sentiment to raise its profile and thus also attacking the general Muslim community but also its own supporters whom both are cheated by its lies (from both angles) as well as the loss of any money donated.

I was preparing an example of the ridiculous manifesto and goals that is spouted by the website in regards to “reforming Islam” but instead have chosen to just point out the criminal scam side of the matter as that explains it all. Needless to say that any Muslim, be they the most liberal minded would find the manifesto impossible – as it ask for Islam to recognize that it was responsible for the Crusades and that the actions of the Christians was just a retaliation! Need I say more!

Below is a part of a posting on http://www.billwarnerpi.com/2009/03/muslims-against-sharia-and-khalim_28.html by the Private Investigator Bill Warner:

After thorough investigation into the activity of Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud corroborated with an agent for the US Secret Service in Omaha NE, there is no doubt that in fact Muslims Against Sharia is not a Muslim advocate group for moderate Muslims, it is in fact not a Muslim Group of any kind and the President of Muslims Against Sharia, the king of the false posters, Khalim Massoud, is using a phony name as there is no such person listed in the USA.Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud use PO Box 241732 Omaha NE 68124 to collect donations (since 9/11/01) see, "Help Moderate Muslims fight Islamofascists! Please find enclosed my check, made payable to Muslims Against Sharia". Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud have become the focus of a IRS and USPS criminal investigation into where the donations went.Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud do not have a business license in Omaha NE, there supposed HQ, Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud do not have a charity listed with the IRS to collect donations, nor did Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud ever incorporate their business in the State of Omaha as required to collect donations, fake, fake, and fake, they do not exist in the "real world".There are no listed interviews given by Muslims Against Sharia and the "President" Khalim Massoud with any reputable Main Street Media organization, no newspaper, no radio program, no TV station, nothing just "Fake Interviews On The Internet" with groups linked to or closely associated or even those behind the False Posters Muslims Against Sharia and Khalim Massoud.

Aparantly this Khalim Massoud was rather angry at being investigated and started a smear campaign against Mr Warner. I have seen some of the items, they certainly go through a lot of rhetoric and language but actually all references and quotes given are to his own items and blog-sites but of those accusing Warner – none! Warner is no man’s fool – a professional response and a good one is noted below:

http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/irs-us-secret-service-omaha-nebraska-khalim-massoud-and-muslims-agaisnt-sharia/
IRS & US Secret Service Omaha Nebraska, Khalim Massoud and Muslims Against Sharia

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CRIMIANL INVESTIGATIONS, FRESNO, CA 93888
US SECRET SERVICE, 2707 N. 108th St. OMAHA NE. 68164, PH 402-965-9670
Are the online attacks by the author of the “Muslims Against Sharia” aka Khalim Massoud with an email address of reformislam@gmail.com who has Defamed and Intends to cause an interruption of Bill Warner’s business, WBI Private Detective Agency, by posting libelous messages, linked to the al-Muhajiroun group, same tactics are being used, see Friday, March 20, 2009, PI BILL WARNER QUOTED IN “FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS” EXPOSE ON MUSLIM JIHAD GROUP “AL-MUHAJIROUN”

The Chasing Evil website and blog also caught onto the issue of MASh and came out with many interesting facts and opinions, I have put only a portion, the reference is there for anyone interested. Chasing Evil is run by the Reverend Sutter and has good mix of inter-faith contributions.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/03/non-muslims-against-sharia.html

Curiously, the site contains absolutely NO membership or governance information at all. No indication of who created this organization, who its members are, who manages it, who governs it, who sets its policies and direction…nothing. Sort of odd for a non-profit advocacy group - especially one that’s fundraising.There is, however, a page that allows you to donate by Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, or Amex to “help fight Islamofascists”. And that page lists the donors. The first “donor” on the list, if you google it, turns out to be the Executive Director of the organization. The second “donor”, turns out to be a member of the organization who seems to spend most of his time posting anti-Muslim taunts on various blogs. At that point I stopped Googling “donors”. Feel free to continue down the list - I’d be curious. There aren’t many of them.Back to the home page, where the organization’s “Manifesto” is set out. And here again, one is struck by the uncanny similarity between the agenda of this allegedly “Muslim” group, and that of American and European neo-nazi sites that claim to support “moderate” Muslims while actually trashing anything Islamic.Among the elements of this “Muslim” “Manifesto” are such popular right wing talking points as “the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims”, and “We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages.”

I have sent emails to all the above asking for updates and how I can support and help. Already I have contacted all those linked with MASh to warn them of the scam and the hate-mongering nature of the site, most have returned with shock and dismay (having just took the words of “moderate Islam” as enough and a number said that they will contact demanding their links be removed.

I certainly will keep you all up-to-date on the matter.

Christian Action Network - Are they Bigots and Fundamentalists? .

2009-07-06T19:44:00.004+01:00

I was very concerned about the organisation called Christian Action Network or CAN, apparently all the wordings are nice, a concerned moral group that seeks a better America.

Are they?

To confirm my suspicions, particularly with the close association that their founder Martin Mawyer had with Jerry Falwell (who casually condemned the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist), I wrote them a letter.

The replies came and I have sent a request for confirmation that the views given represent Mawyer and CAN as he did not reply himself. I have placed the correspondance here for all to see.

I am waiting for their response, if the prove me otherwise, great I will post that as well, but I am not confident at all.

.....

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:41:03 +0000From: solkhar@yahoo.frSubject: A question for Martin Mawyer pleaseTo: martin@christianaction.orgCC: Amber@christianaction.org; TDCAnalyst@aol.com; JPCampbell70@msn.com

Dear Mr. Mawyer,

Though CAN was created in 1990, I noticed almost exclusively the objective of CAN is identifying and fighting Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist threats within the United States.

Though I would certainly join any group with a desire to eliminate fundamentalism and violent threats, my concern and question to you Mr Mawyer is that your material in CAN appears to be not only attacking militant Islamist threats and Muslim Fundamentalists, but Islam itself. This I would not support but in fact condemn. Are you apposed to Islam the religious faith?

Additionally, I noticed your biography links you to Jerry Falwell, based on you being the "editor of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority Report."". Jerry Falwells description of Islam's Prophet as a "Terrorist" is still amongst the great excuses why many in the world use the term 'Ugly American'. In many books, Falwell is considered an extremist and a fundamentalist.

I also understand that CAN and the Paul Revere Brigade are the one and same organisation, which again though under the banner of exposing Islamist fundamentalism, is in fact associated with anti-Islamic hate sites such as Jihad-Watch. Amongst the goals and efforts claimed by the Paul Revere Brigade is the following statement which in itself is a breach of US civil liberties:

"Keep an eye on your schools, government, local laws, newspaper articles and known Islamic activity in your city...."

From the above, it is the assumption that all activities of Muslims communities needs to be watched. It would be easy to counter such arguments that considering the FBI has identified that radical Evangelist Groups are linked to home-grown-terror and is of concern, and thus it should be fair that Paul Revere Brigade and CAN should concentrate on that as well.

I asked this question to gain your views and opinions on Islam and the many moderate Muslims who themselves are not just concerned and working towards combating militant Islamists and fundamentalism within the Muslim community - but suffer having to live amongst them, let alone those poor souls living in such theocratic societies run by these people. Why do I ask?

My motive for the question is simply to know if I should support or condemn you, to praise and make mention or condemn and expose. Though I have a small blogsite of my own, I am linked to many more and though mostly retired, in my domain, I have gained respect and my opinion about the views of those in the west is listened to.

Regards with anticipation...

Solkhar

......

De : Jason Campbell À : solkhar@yahoo.fr; martin@christianaction.orgCc : amber@christianaction.org; tdcanalyst@aol.comEnvoyé le : Lundi, 6 Juillet 2009, 18h41mn 00sObjet : RE: A question for Martin Mawyer please

Very interesting points – well said.

Understand, CAN is not an extremist organization and we hope to convince you to support our cause. We base all our information on facts in understanding that Islam is not a religion – but a social, political and ideological movement that promotes itself in a form of religion in order to force people into submission.

I ask this question to you – Should Islam have equal recognition as a religion in America ? I believe, fundamentalist Islam’s goal is to overthrow all secular governments including America . Islam will always be a potential ‘5th column’ in any non-Muslim society where it resides. And no matter how much moderate Muslims may regret it, fight against it or not wish to participate in it, Holy Jihad as warfare and conquest is basic Islam.

Is it not so that 8 of the 10 nations that lead in persecuting Christians in the world today are Islamic. Will America be next?

Thanks,
Jason Campbell
Christian Action Network

.........

Dear Mr Campbell,

If CAN bases its information on an understanding that Islam is not a religion then I certainly will not support your cause but condemn it. That you claim there are facts that lead you to believe so, suggests your information sources are not factual.

The history of Islam is clear and its religious basis along with that of Christianity and Judaism certainly give confirmation as to an Islamic "religion". A fifth of humanity prays to the same divine God that you do. I certainly do.

It appears that your concerns are about the existence of fundamentalism and radical militancy and that you have confused the two with mainstream and Islamic theology. Certainly fundamentalists in all faiths claim that "God is on our side" when certainly both the teachings and the bulk of the faithful know otherwise. There is no doubt that the bulk of that is now happening within the Muslim World and that is why it is even more important to concentrate on avoiding making the mistake of confusing the issues.

The best way ahead for peace in this world is to concentrate on that battle against radical fundamentalism in all its forms and from all faiths. Fundamentalism by its very nature stops the clock of progress and advancement and considers that it has a right to force others to follow. It assumes the arrogant posturing of being the only true believers and that any method is acceptable to achieve its goals.

To confuse and spread misinformation about Islam based on incorrect knowledge causes alienation, confusion on truths and misdirection on what is the real dangers. It causes moderate Muslims to also then presume that there is neither support for their on-going battle against radicals and to many it provides suspicion that there is another enemy in waiting. What it does most though, is provide ammunition to the fundamentalists that their own lies and propaganda is correct - that there are Christian zealots who are striving for some form of Crusade and thus justification for their own political version.

Frankly speaking, my fears that CAN are linked to Christian fundamentalism and anti-Islamic agendas appear to be correct. That if I understand your words correctly, CAN does not join in but in fact actively pursues an agenda that is designed to instill confusion and mistrust between faiths.

It also tells me that CAN does not and will not support an existence that has the United States of America as an active and respected participant in the world community. Such a policy also does not make American any safer - because you would prefer to not have America concentrate on the real dangers and issues.

Though I would have preferred a response directly from Mr Mawyer, I can assume you represent CAN's official line. Could you confirm that please.

A last point, I think it not very prudent or correct to tell a Muslim that his religion is not one at all but a dangerous political experiment. It is this attitude that certainly confirms my views of a very malign fundamentalist superiority.

I await your confirmation

Solkhar

ps. my letter, your reply and this response is published on my blog-site www.solkhar.blogspot.com Solkhar's World - Views from the Atlas

.......

I should point out that I did receive from my original email a rather different reply from one of their members which is also why I asked what is the official line. I had no problem with this reply at all.

Solkhar,

Thanks for the email. I'll let Martin speak for himself. I'll tell you that the opinions of some staff differ (no two humans agree on everything) and I've personally heard Martin speak very highly of moderate Muslims, although as a Christian he obviously disagrees with Islam (just like you, as a Muslim, disagree with Christianity). I'll let him elaborate on his beliefs.

But personally, I think if you do some research on my work, you'll find me to be a great ally of moderate Muslims, and as such, would much appreciate if you kept in contact with me. Check out my site, WorldThreats.com, as I often post reports about the activity of moderate Muslims.

Ryan MauroFounder, WorldThreats.com.National Security Researcher, Christian Action Network.Director of Intelligence, Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC)

Honor Killings

2009-06-30T22:52:00.005+01:00

Here are a series of photos of tragedy, women (and men) who were all killed under the name of honor. I have posted these photos obtained from the excellent and dedicated site "International Campaign Against Honor Killings (http://stophonourkillings.com/index.php) which I recommend to anyone with concern about this horrible pandemic.

I make no apologies for bringing the subject up and picking and choosing the following images for a particular reason.

The crime of cultural and tribal honor killings is particularly pandemic in certain cultures, not religions. A large portion of Arab and Turkish culture (both Christian and Arab), Eastern European and in the Sub-continent (Hindu, Christian and Muslim India for example as well as the tribal clans of Afghanistan and Pakistan who are mostly but not all Muslim) to name a few who all partake in this horrendous and inexcusable crime.

These images were chosen because of the bigotry shown against Muslims and Islam by many in the west and elsewere claiming that the crime rests at the feet of Islam. This is particularly rediculous coming from Hindu agenda groups in India.

Such a claim is not only false, an insult to Islam but most of all an insult to the thousands of victims of honor crimes that occur throughout the world by others then those heinous acts done by abusive Muslims breaking their own covenant with the Qur'an.

These victims shown above, are all non-Muslim and mostly from India, killed due to abusing caste conditions. This is not an attack on Indians or Hindus, but the point I made is clear, and if there were photos of Russian honor killings or from other areas, I certainly would show them and if anyone has, feel free to e-mail me the reference, my address is in the blog summary.

Images of Fanatics, Extremists and Fundamentalists

2009-06-29T15:29:00.005+01:00

No matter what religion, political views, cultural bias, the enemy is always those that consider their views, methods, faith and rights are above those of others.

Do as I say, not as I do or - How to be an "Ass"

2009-06-27T12:49:00.004+01:00

The self-proclaimed but certainly not Muslims Against Sharia did what I consider a pretty disrespectful gaff in one of the many items they are churning out about the situation in Iran. Here in Morocco, they would be referred to as a "Hammar" of donkey, refering to being stupid or an "ass".

MAS (I find it insulting even to spell it out) makes always a big scene to imply they are interested in the rights and liberties of the Iranian people, that the injustices and Islamic system's evil ways thrust upon them. Sounds noble, right? I guess, though it is viewed from a western perspective and automatically assumes that a future Iran will be like a future Iraq and another western-liberal democracy. But remember this site abhors Islam and thus condemns the basic tenants and beliefs of the majority of Iranians who may not love the fundamentalists, suffer from them but are faithful Muslims nevertheless.

The hypocrisy comes in the article today called "Sorry Neda, We Have a Pedophile to Worship". The article starts off with an interesting point that I have seen in some more respectable blogs, that while Iran burns and world history is being made, the American media dropped it like a lead balloon to concentrate on the death of the "King of Pop" Michael Jackson. I think the media does follow celebrities a bit too much, but if it sells ratings, so be it. I should also point out that his death is a sad event and historical, like his music or not, Thriller is still the highest selling album in history and probably that status will never be beaten.

The ugly point of the article is already implied in its name, it apologizes to the now famous victim Neda who died in the street fighting in Tehran that the media and the people are more interested in Michael Jackson - and proclaiming him a paedophile.

Jackson was accused and acquitted under the court system of the charge and he denied it to the end. Under the law, he is not and such a claim is libelous as well. This, itself makes the blogger from MAS a low-life, as it denegrates and disrespects those victims and their families of real paedophiles as well as those who have suffered being accussed of it, but are not.

My point is simple and I am sure many will understand it immediately. How can you pretend to stand-up for liberties and justice and condemn the actions of fundamentalists who by their very nature assume guilt and then unjustly punish people for "probably" being homosexual, a prostitute, immoral, marxist, communist, heretic, revolutionary, etc, and then do the same yourself.

I make no opinion about the lifestyle of MJ, I trust the court system and assume his innocence, because I believe in justice and liberties.

Iran and a symbol of how to make it all go terribly wrong

2009-06-26T22:20:00.005+01:00

There is a far-right website/blog that more than often goes for the radical trash-postings that verge on pure bigotry. It has the ironic name of Atlas Shrugs. Ironic considering that I sit next to the mighty Atlas Mountains and look upon them daily.

Today there is another item on the horrible happenings in Iran and about how the former Bush Administration's controversial Ambassador to the United Nations - John Bolton said in a newspaper item that the US missed an opportunity for regime change in Iran and should basically take-out the Iranian government.

His statements are ridiculous and is the very attitude that helped bring the radical regime in the first place. The man is a war-monger and we can all thank God (Allah) or your lucky stars depending on what you believe, that he is not a man of influence anymore. I think even Bush found him a bit overboard even for his liking.

I responded with the following comment:

. . .

The situation is terrible, the hunger and demand for change is leading to the certain conflict with the government and their fundamentalist ideals will be hard to crack. As someone who knows much about the country and its people, it is going to be rough.

Mistakes have been made within and without (apart from the mistake of 1979) and many in the commentaries here as well.

John Bolton is the first and greatest. Calling for intervention to eliminate the revolution of '79 is doomed to failure and his arrogance in saying so is part of that old-world attitude that to a certain degree created it. It was the combination of abuse and out of touch Shah and the influences of the United States (including the now confirmed forced ousting of a government by the CIA) that was the catalyst for revolution that the fundamentalists jumped on. Perhaps the youth have forgotten much of this but middle-aged and the older Iranians (who are and will be any future government) do not. Bolton's attitude is from the 1970s and his out-of-touch method of dealing with things will only be a backwards step and turn Iran into Iraq or an Afghanistan.

My concerns is only the violence and how to tell the students and public to stop. Why? Because what was needed (to tell the regime that things have got to change) was done. There is no doubt that government wants to stay in power and are willing to fight for it, so either a full blown revolution will take place (with a probable loss and an even more hard-line government) OR they go home now with some pride and note that the more moderate (but "within the system") politicians (Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Co.) will certainly make capital and destabilize from the top down. At worst, let the population suffer another four years and the likelihood is that change will happen.

Though I know most on a site like this will disagree, President Obama did the correct and very smart thing. He wished the people of Iran all good will and sent a message to the Muslim World saying that things will change, that United States will lead the West into admitting that there is a world outside their own and that to get respect, the same must be given.

That, I believe, was one of the catalysts for the actions that happened after the election. The Iranian youth and middle-class just wanted it more quickly than they should have.

. . .

A lie well worded does not a truth make

2009-06-26T12:57:00.011+01:00

Unfortunately I suffer the human habit of getting caught up in petty arguments when provoked with deliberate garbage. There is no denying that when I was reading the agenda-trash websites I started some arguments - or I should be more accurate - I pointed out errors and raised questions.

I guess it was simply a shock to them that their world of agenda-based bashing and self-encouraging mis-truths, misinterpretations and myths was challenged.

In this case, a rather self-indulgent poster by the name of Nick in his Frozen North blog enjoys playing the word-game, rather than concentrating on the subject but rather my language skills. He considers it a clever ploy to discredit the critic rather than confront with facts.

The recent spat was on one subject but Nick attempted to confuse it by making it two. A accused (and still do) the blog Lambeth Walk of racism. The point I made was that the collective sum of the posts are either anti-Islamic or racist with the bloggist's obvious hatred for immigration spilling over into racial hatred. The constant us & them, them vs the white people, they are the cause and so on to ad-nauseum was collectively racist. An article about a group of African immigrant Brits who raped a girl and her boyfriend made the case, in particular implying it was racially motivated. Nick, not the blogger, claimed defence basically arguing that there was no racist remarks in the article, ignoring the point of collective articles, and started attacking my linguistic abilities and paragraph structure to ensure confusion.

The fact that I fell for arguing with Nick I regret, it was an obvious waste of time and he has done so before hand. He obviously enjoys this process knowing full well that his mastery of English and word-twisting as a weapon is better than my own. But of course it has no bearing on the subject or its validity, that was in fact carefully avoided altogether. When the point was reinforced, the criticism became more insipid and desperate, with the argument now being that the article in question did not follow the definition of "racist". Which was not my point, this is not a court case, but it is the reality and we know Lambeth Walk's low-life blogger's intention. The final curtain on this petty argument was Nick posting another condescending line, a quote and he has ensured that I cannot reply to attempt to provide an image of petty victory. I will now post my reply that he will not post.

“Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Arthur Conan Doyle

Being more realistic

What I should be concentrating on is the articles that I wish to publish here on the blog, thoughts and ideas, examples and possibilities and avoid getting caught in the web of arguing with low-lifes and game-players whom in the reality of all things are just individuals with problems and chips on their shoulders because the vast majority of the world does not think or support them.

The most ironic point about these bloggers is that they to a degree represent the element of fundamentalism that they hate so much. I also hate them, but for completely different reasons. Such bloggers will claim truths and condemn others for not sharing that same bigoted view. Add to that, they will sacrifice principles, norms and participation in the reality, to pronounce their goals even further.

There is a risk here that needs to be pointed out that I fear many do not realize. Being right-wing or left-wing is for me a matter of politics. But there is a progression of extremism/fundamentalism that does occur. Once you go to far to an extreme you are required to sacrifice, as mentioned above and going back is difficult. Geert Wilders did so to the point were he will not back down from his bigotry and slander and I am sure it will become worse before he is booted out of the Dutch parliament. The bloggers that I have come across can just as easily follow down the same path, increased racial vilification, ignoring the accepted norms of society, next it will be inciting violence. The same existed with religious fundamentalism and how it joined militancy and now up to terrorism. The parallels are there, albeit without guns but via the Internet - either way it is unacceptable.

Musings on the price of power & divine indemnity

2009-06-24T18:18:00.003+01:00

Something significant changed in the world between 1978 and 1979 that has made us all suffer in some form or another. This event opened a Pandora's Box that flows directly up to the horror attacks of September 11 and the subsequent disasters unfolding in front of our eyes in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The events that lead to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran may for Iranians be a well debated subject of internal politics, faith and freedom – but it has affected us all, particularly those of us living in the Muslim World. How is this possible, what does the revolution in Iran have to do with the attacks on the WTC, bombings in London or the battles in the high mountain valleys such as the Swat?

Before the revolution of ’79, most radical clerics and ideologues were unwanted outcasts, considered dangerous and had their movements or freedoms controlled by the states they lived in. Many in fact had fled their countries and in an eventually ironic twist, were given easily asylum and migration to the west as political capital on their country of origin (and not knowing what that would cost them later).

The Cold-War, forcing nations to side with one or the other block, left over post-colonial turmoil from often forced unhealthy and inappropriate systems and/or corrupt upper-classes installed by the past colonizer all contributed to many countries in dire need for a change – be it revolution or not.

Iran had all the symptoms, enforced trade, a totally out-of-touch monarchy that played the cold-war game as much as the super-powers did themselves, a large number of radical clerics and a very, very angry and suffering population ready for change. They also had something else – militant revolutionaries ready to struggle by using violence.

The event that occurred in parallel with the revolution was the joining of forces of the radical clerical community with the extreme militant groups and both sacrificing what normally would not be possible – clerics supporting the power-needs of militants regardless of its contradiction to religious principles and the militancy allowing itself to immerse itself completely in the ideology of the cleric and thus completing the combining like a newly mutated virus. The result in the case of Iran was the unified religeo-militant force and the Islamic Republic was born. This new regime with a mixture of force and faith with the all the power in the hands of an automatically ultra-conservative clerical establishment who now believe that they have that right to enforce their way on everyone.

The factor that makes this an issue outside of Iran that has affected us all is that the revolution showed the way for every other radical cleric or would be religious leader to increase their power, if not gain it. They all started seeking out militants who wanted to sell their souls to their ideology for the price of power and divine indemnity to the violence that certainly was coming.

The Muslim world trembled in 1979, not for the loss of the Shah, but for what this mad-unholy cocktail is capable. The more ultra-conservative the country, the greater the threat and it forced some countries to make great mistakes. Saudi Arabia gave in to the long-standing demands for more severe ultra-conservative and radical interpretations of Sharia Law by the Wahhabists. Later on, when attempting to turn back these decisions, some fanatics responded with violence and life-long grudges – such as Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was born out of the fear of another Islamic Revolution and its animosity towards Saudi’s willingness to deal with and support politically the United States, the great capitalist Satan.

Certainly some levels of militant Islamist fundamentalism existed before-hand, but they were in most cases national causes, with clerics taking a senior role in the politics, not the other way around. The Brotherhood was a nationalist organization, certainly involved in ensuring their region’s internal politics was not interfered. Their anti-Zionist colors were clear and obviously politically. Religious overtones were there, everyone in those days would link religion into the argument if it increased popularity or votes. The Brotherhood changed completely after 1979, and the clerics within simply took over.

Even the struggle between Palestinians and Israelis changed, the enemy at the time for the Arabs was no longer the Israeli invaders backed by Uncle Sam – it was the Jews and their Satanic American supporters. Hamas and Hezbollah are all creations after the ideals set by the ’79 revolution.

The tribal groupings of Afghanistan and the mountains of western Pakistan were similarly torn-apart from the results of the cold-war, with the price of generations destroyed (and still to be destroyed) by the drug trade enforced upon them. Much of their tribal values were extreme to outsiders from the beginning, probably a result of the harsh lives and constant wars that passed through the region, Islam had given them a new set of rules that were obeyed and attempted to ensure fairness on this harsh world. The revolution in neighboring Iran changed all that, the radical clerics were quickly willing to allow for increased (and mostly anti-Islamic) tribal cultural influences under the banner of Islam along with the increases and justification of the trafficking of drugs - all if they supported the radical teachings of that cleric.

The aftermath of September 11, the residence of Al Qaeda in the mountains in Afghanistan, the sharing of a common enemy with Taliban is now common knowledge. What is not so commonly known is that so-called wahhabist purists like Bin Laden are of a different radical variation of Islamism than the mockery followed by the Taliban and the two groups split (even violently) at times because the Wahhabist Bin Laden certainly was unable to tolerate the ancient pagan-tribal values of the Taliban. But desperation situations makes for desperate measures.

I believe that the Iranian Revolution affected us all. The horrendous and murderous attacks in the United States, later in Indonesia, Spain, here in Morocco, England and others have affected us all. There are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, piracy in Somalia, well infiltrated and long-established terrorist-linked groups in Europe (due to that ironic error mentioned above) and obviously more to come before the world is forced to get its act together and change it.

My Muslim World is now suffering the double-whammy of being riddled with radicals whom believe they have the right to change us all to their version of Islam and in some of these countries add to that they have guns willing to do it. Some of the countries, such as Iran which started it all, have imbedded these very principles that strangely the radicals over here in North Africa would find insulting. There is no single radical strain of this fundamentalist virus. The second whammy and for me as serious plus a reason for my blogging, it has created an image problem with the rest of the world that Islam is dangerous and ammunition to every Christian radical and bigoted low-life to spout what I can only find one word appropriate – crap. The image problem is real and to an extent justified, the taking advantage of it by right-wing crap-artists is another.

Whilst observing the current surge of demand for political change in Iran, I continue to muss over what the world would have been like if the Iranian Revolution did not happen. A question that justifiably only God (Allah) knows.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali does well but always misses the critical point

2009-06-24T01:47:00.004+01:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has released an items that I found in the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25635164-7583,00.html) entitled Obama should speak truth to Islam because others can't. Well worded as usual and many, many interesting points but still she misses some critical points that in the end really matter.

The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise ("... it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed ... our mastery of pens and printing."), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it.

This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn't lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the President should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it's here that Kindles could be of use.

I imagined him offering the king, the sheik and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln's case against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding."

Nowhere in the world is bigotry so rampant as in Muslim countries. No difference is greater between American and Islamic principles than the founding ideals of both. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of Islam that al-Qa'ida and other Muslim puritans insist on the implementation of sharia law, jihad and the eternal subjection of women. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of America that blacks and women fought for -- and gained -- equal rights and gays and new immigrants continue to do so.

What she misses is that the rhetoric is an important sign that the United States has at last realised that there is a world out their other than their own and more importantly, recognition and acknowledging that there is no "my world is better than yours".

Her comments that so easily place her experiences in Somalia as an example of the entire Muslim World comes up over and over again in all her writings and this article is no difference. Yes there is a lot of bigotry, personally I think Arab culture especially in the peninsula and gulf states is very sexist and bigoted - but that is cultural and not Islamics.

I would also say she has it again wrong that it is the principles of Islam that the founding of Al Qaida is based on. Al Qaida say they are Muslims, but the KKK say they are Christians, but can you say that the KKK based their prejudices and violence on Christianity? I guess technically yes you can but the total picture will say no, the same goes with the Al Qaida comment.

The problem is her emotional attachment and personal hatred with everything to do with Islam that has made her bad company and not a chance of contributing to a peaceful world - her animosity alienates 1.6 billion of humanity. We all know that fundamentalism and extremism has engulfed much of the Muslim world and so the answer is not to kill-off Islam but to support the Muslim World's liberals and moderates in eliminating that radical element. She is unable to support that.

Sarkozy's statement on the Burqa

2009-06-22T23:01:00.005+01:00

President Sarkozy has made it clear, the burqa is not welcome in France. He is correct and spot on!

The burqa (the full body covering from head to foot and not the head-scarf or hijab) is a cultural and tribal method of controlling women and it stand against everything that France, Europe and Western values stand for. In fact I would argue that it stands against Islamic principles as well but let us just say that time is a long, long way to even contemplate now.

Muslims in France and Europe must get this fact that they are not in system controlled often by fundamentalists that are dominated not by the faith of Islam but every bigoted aspect that suites the status-quo that puts women as slaves and that their way of thinking is the only one.

A number of these low-life bigoted websites such as Muslims against Sharia (created by non-Muslims of course) and others like Pajamas Media have come across a ridiculous argument that shows 1) they know nothing about Islam and 2) they are still after scoring against anything liberal and in this case President Obama.

There argument is that Sarkozy is saying something against what Obama said in Cairo with the statement against the burqa, when he has not. Sarkozy of course is talking about banning the burqa as what I noted above I think is correct, if not spot on! Obama was talking about protecting Muslim women's rights to wearing the hijab which I also think is spot on! The hijab is a Muslim modesty subject that around 70 per cent of all Muslim women follow and if anything demand. Not all, but most do. I should point out that I have no opinion either way, my wife does not wear (though she retains the right to perhaps do later on in life) and my only thought is that if you chose to wear it, do it for the right reasons, not for fashion or to just be with the crowd.

I think it is rather pathetic and low to make political gain out of ignorance and confusion.

A letter to the "Amir" of Revolution Muslim in New York

2009-06-22T12:46:00.002+01:00

Below is the letter I sent to Yousef Al-Khattab, the self-proclaimed Amir (or Prince) of the Radical Fundamentalist "Revolution Muslim" group, based in New York. Let us hope for a response, though I am doubting it.

Asalam alaikum,

Yousef Al-Khattab, I appose you and your belief structure. The greatest enemy to humanity is radical fundamentalism, particularly in religion. Be it Christian Evangelism, Hindu-Chauvinism or radical militant Islamism, all is in my understanding, haram.

I have over 28 years since embracing Islam (humdulillah!), travelled the world as a western diplomat and a specialist in international security, I now work in the field of identifying and thwarting the financing of known terrorist organizations. I now live in Marrakech, Morocco a country that supports those whom wish to live a halal life - be it with liberal modernist views or as a strong conservative, as long as it does not impose or force on others. That point which is what is important here.

Your beliefs and those of your outlawed would-be-Caliph are a minority and for good reason. Embracing conflict, radical response, forcing of your views upon others and worse - claiming them to be the only truth, that of the spirit of Islam whilst ignoring that basic fact which is your not supported by the overwhelming vast majority, be they simple people or educated experts. A sign of this is the simple reality, that you and your beliefs are not welcome amongst most Muslim nations and you are border-line legal in the country you chose to live in. This point of choice of country is another important point.

Choosing to live in a country that you do not support, in fact attack, is a hypocrisy of the largest order, and I remember one Ramadan watching a speech by the Grand Mufti in Cairo telling us how above all, Islam hates the hypocrite. I am not an American and much of what has spread from that country's previous government was for me a great damage to the relationship between that nation and the Muslim World. But at the same time, my eyes are not shut to the realities of that nation, a country proud of its heritage based on freedom from oppression, which its people from varying backgrounds created through democracy a great and powerful nation. That from this, regardless of the efforts of the far-right and its own radical Evangelical menace can produce a president that is himself from a minority background and appreciates that there is more than one world out there. It is therefore the simple human and dignified responsibility, which the Holy Qur'an tells us, to participate in life - not fight it. Certainly not in this fight to then usurp your faith to support that.

When President Obama showed us that perhaps the his country has grasped that there is more than one world and one view on this small planet of us, most of us Muslims cheered and sighed 'at last', and that the image of the Ugly American may be soon ready to depart, insha’allah.

But he was right, the pendulum swings both ways, and the Muslim World must also eliminate the Ugly Muslim. That Ugly Muslim is the epitome of that image the West in general gathers up each time when the world Muslim is raised. Violent, Jihadi and Oppressive.

We Muslims are quick to say that we are the Religion of Peace and it is true, but regardless we must prove it. We Muslims know that the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) told it clearly that Jihad al Kabir is the great struggle. We also should all know that the last sanctioned and acceptable Jihad al Sghrir was in the 11th century AD. We know from the Message from Allah as given to us in the Holy Qur'an tells us that "Allah loveth not the oppressors". It goes without saying that the Muslim World has an image problem.

Yousef Al-Khattab - the Revolution Muslim organization that you represent is a shining example of why the Muslim World has an image problem.

In my prayers, I ask that you and your members seek forgiveness from Allah.

Ma'asalama

Solkhar
(Solkhar is the pen-name for a retired western diplomat, a liberal-Sunni Muslim since the age of 17 and an expert on terrorism-financing. He has settled in the Moroccan city of Marrakech).

"Solkhar's World - A view from the Atlas" (www.solkhar.blogspot.com)

Extremist Islamist Organisations in the West - Revolution Muslim

2009-06-22T00:34:00.007+01:00

If one looks up http://revolutionmuslim.com/mission and reads the mission statement of this organisation (if you are not interrupted by the active videos on the side columns showing the planting of signs in NY declaring the destruction of Zionism, condemnation of any supporters of Israel, etc, etc) you will see a not-so-clever document that insights hatred falsely under the pretext of the divine words of the Holy Qur'an.

"Our mission is to one day see the Muslims united under one Khalifah and under the commands of Allah (SWT). "

These are the words of the so-called purists such as Salafism and Wahhabism that strive to have the world go backwards to the time of the original Caliphate. The theory to have that spirit and unity of that period is commendable but realistically impossible and of course, being the extremists they are, they will confuse everything from that time as being pure - including 7th century Arab tribal cultural practices.

The other question, like that of bringing Sharia to the world also falls flat due to the basic reality check. A Caliphate under who's leadership? Which Sharia do you wish, Hanafi, Maliki, Wahhabist?

Islam is my faith and I am very proud of it, I do not see where it says that reality must be ignored?

"2) To support the dawa of our beloved Sheikh Abdullah Al-Faisal, recently released from prison and secure in Jamaica preaching the religion and serving as our spiritual guide"

What I cannot stand is personality cults, the Qur'an is our Guide and The Message.

Worse, this is not a religious movement, this is a political movement based on particular views and of course they are implying that it is representative of all of Islam and with a subtle implication that those who do not agree are some how unclean or "haram".

I live in Morocco, this group is unheard of here, I have shown a few people including a university professor of Islamics this website who muttered a verse of the Qur'an that is used when something unholy is witnessed.

Though carefully avoided in most elements, this website is pushing for violence, abusing the laws of the United States and indirectly calling them "the enemy" even though they all want to live in that country. They support the destruction of the State of Israel and are not interested in peace and a two-state solution even though the majority of Palestinians want that. They simply think, like all religious extremists (fundamentalists) that their view is the right one and the rest are not only wrong but must change.

No wonder their "dear leader" is exiled in Jamaica.

Hypocritally named "Muslims Against Sharia" Blogger Shows True Color

2009-06-21T23:52:00.006+01:00

As it is my policy to attempt to inform websites & blogger when I post about them, I did so with the hypocritically named "Muslims Against Sharia" blogger.

True to form, he has replied by e-mail and I repeat in full ;

"Fuck off, you Islamonazi camelfucker"

Obviously I do not endorse the pathetic and juvenile language, but rather show it verbatim to confirm the real intentions of the website and blog, or should I say the true color and value that they cannot defend.

What's in a Name?: The Meaning of 'Muslim Fundamentalist'

2009-06-21T21:08:00.003+01:00

Below is an excerpt from an article by Professor David Watt, teaches in the History Department at Temple University. He is a specialist in the history of religion and is the author of two books on American religious history. The item was found in the Origins & eHistory website (reference at end of article).

What's in a Name?: The Meaning of 'Muslim Fundamentalist'

Language and Politics

Is it a death tax or an estate tax? Are they dead civilians or collateral damage? Was he a member of the resistance or a terrorist? Is it a cult or an innovative branch of the Christian Church? These sorts of questions remind us of a point made long ago by George Orwell: modern political life is concerned, in very large part, with language. The words we use do not just reflect reality: they shape the way we perceive that reality. In so doing the words we use also become a part of the world we are trying to understand. One cannot understand contemporary American politics without understanding the keywords that define it and that shape the way the American public perceives reality.

Among the most potent of those keywords in our politics right now are “Muslim fundamentalism/ist” and “Islamo-fascism/ist.” Take these examples:

In February 2008, the Ottawa Herald—a newspaper in eastern Kansas—published an opinion piece by one of its employees, Gary Sillett, about Barack Obama’s rhetoric. Sillett’s piece, titled “Don’t Betray Your Heritage for Obama’s ‘Change’” made use of a keyword that is on many people’s lips these days: fundamentalism. In his essay, Sillett argued that the junior senator from Illinois was not to be trusted: “Barack Hussein Obama hit the campaign from nowhere” and had gained an amazing amount of momentum by exploiting “generic catchphrases” given to him by his handlers.

Sillett said that there was nothing wrong per se with words like “hope” or “change,” and implied that he could sympathize with a desire to install a new person in the White House who was very different from George W. Bush. However, turning over the reins of government to a “Muslim fundamentalist” like Obama would be a tragic mistake. Electing him president would be like “spitting on the graves of the victims of 9/11.” The Democratic Party, Sillett said, “intends to put a Muslim fundamentalist in the White House.” Right-thinking Americans have a duty to thwart that plan. To allow the Democrats to hand over the government to a man like Obama would be to betray America’s heritage. Of course, Senator Obama is neither a Muslim fundamentalist, nor even a Muslim. Sillett clearly does not like Obama and calling him a “Muslim fundamentalist” was simply the easiest way to convey that.

During his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for President, Fred Thompson spoke with great passion concerning the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. “We have yet to come to terms fully with the threat that Islamic fundamentalism presents to this country,” Thompson said. “The whole world is watching and waiting now, friends and foe alike, to see how we are going to react to the pressure they are going to put on us.”

John McCain’s pronouncements on this issue have been no less emphatic: “The struggle against Islamic fundamentalism is the most transcendent foreign policy challenge of our time.” McCain has made it clear that he is fully committed “to winning this battle, enhancing the stature of the United States as a beacon of global hope, and to preserving the personal, economic, and political freedoms that are the proud legacy of the great sacrifices of our fathers.”

These terms are so commonly used now we might assume that we all know what they mean. In fact, we do not; these phrases mean different things to different people and in different contexts. If we are going to understand and evaluate our current political debates, we ought to take some time to examine this language.

The History of the Term

For starters, there is no universally agreed upon definition for the term "Islamic fundamentalism." In general, the phrase is applied to Muslims who are thought to adhere strictly to ancient doctrines, to literal readings of the Koran, and are determined to resist modernity and modernization. It is also used for Muslims who want to use the traditions of Islam as a blueprint to build a more just society through the application of Koranic law.

More generally, the words “fundamentalist,” “fundamentalists,” and “fundamentalism” were all created in the 1920s. In the years between 1920 and 1978, the category fundamentalist was almost never used except in reference to people who were Protestant Christians. It is very hard—though possible—to discover any examples of commentators using the concept to analyze Muslims in those years. Thus, as late as the mid-1970s, a writer who referred to a Muslim as a fundamentalist ran the risk of confusing his readers. Muslim fundamentalists were as rare and as oxymoronic as Muslim Presbyterians.

Already in the 1920s, fundamentalism and fundamentalists began to accumulate a set of extremely negative connotations. Under the tutelage of men such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, H. Richard Niebuhr, Talcott Parsons, Richard Hofstadter, and Martin Marty, Americans learned to think of fundamentalism as a dangerous byproduct of a “sociopsychological” fact: many people have trouble adjusting properly to “modernity and modernization.” (Those phrases come from Martin Marty's article “Fundamentalism Reborn.”) Americans thus came to associate fundamentalism with anti-intellectualism, backwardness, and obscurantism. Fundamentalism was a label that was affixed almost exclusively to Protestant Christians who were thought to stand in the way of progress.

This began to change in 1979 when the Iranian revolution deposed the US-backed Shah. Starting with that event, Muslims have been and continue to be characterized as fundamentalists with great frequency. Indeed, it is quite possible that in contemporary English the term is now used more frequently to refer to Muslims than to Christians. When we hear the word today we are, I suspect, more likely to conjure up an image of a stern-faced Muslim cleric than one of William Jennings Bryan or Carl McIntire.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/article.cfm?articleid=15&articlepage=1&altcontent=no

Does Hate Live in Your Backyard?

2009-06-21T20:00:00.007+01:00

The above named item was found on a very interesting website called American Renaissance.Com or amr.com. Below is not all of the amr.com item but nevertheless is very well presented and I think pertinent for what I am striving here - to understand that the debate on racism is so hot that it divides nations and can creates extremism on both sides.

I have a no-opinion on the owner/founder of AMR, as I am only starting to read into this, but the well presented item published shows the debate, thought processes and emotions involved and that is what I am interested in understanding.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/06/does_hate_live.php

Does Hate Live in Your Backyard?

Gregg MacDonald, Fairfax County Times, June 18, 2009
{snip}
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which makes an annual national list of active hate groups, defines them as having “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”
{snip}

According to the SPLC, there are at least four separate organizations in Fairfax County that hold similar opinions and are officially considered hate groups.

One is the American Renaissance/New Century Foundation in Oakton. According to the SPLC, it is classified as a white nationalist organization.

Its leader, Jared Taylor, is a dapper, erudite intellectual who is fluent in Japanese. He was educated at Yale, but has since adopted a philosophy that he calls “race realism.”

Taylor, who accordingly identifies himself as a “race realist,” said there are three primary components to that definition.

“First, we believe that race is a legitimate, biological phenomenon. Second, there are racial differences that go beyond mere appearance, and thirdly, we have a sense of racial solidarity,” he said. “Racial diversity is a source of conflict and tension rather than being a strength.”

Taylor called the Holocaust Museum shooting “a horrible act of wanton violence,” but added that “if the country really cared about what crime really means, we would try to understand why, year-in-year-out, blacks are 30 to 40 times more likely to commit violence against whites than the other way around.”

Taylor said his organization “deplores violence and any form of racial or ethnic hatred.”

{snip}
But a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that was declassified in April says that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment” that could potentially become a catalyst for violence.

It says that right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors and home foreclosures.
{snip}

The April DHS report says that if the economy continues to decline, right-wing extremism could fuel a resurgence toward that type of domestic terrorist activity. “White Supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts,” the report theorizes.

But Taylor finds fault with that analysis. “If we are interested in examining the motives of violence, we should examine frequent, chronic crimes rather than aberrant cases,” he said.
He pointed out that earlier this month, “a black convert to Islam” opened fire on an Army recruiting center in Oklahoma City, killing one soldier and wounding another.

“Although Muslims have killed thousands more Americans than anti-Semitic nuts have, no one is wondering what the recruiting center incident means for America or for Islam or for blacks. Why the double standard?”

Some thoughts on Racism - and a good example of one.

2009-06-21T18:56:00.005+01:00

Today while taking a quick peak at that low-life in Lambeth Walk I noticed how the "R" word - racist. OK, this should be interesting. Very quickly it turned out that it talked about a tragic incident when a group of black British nationals invaded a home of a white girl, made her call her boyfriend and then subjected them to unmentionable horrors. A tragic event, but there was no reference to racism or racially motivated reasons for the crime. So why say it was a racist attack.

The blog says it .... because it was "carried out by black criminals against white people".

So to make it clear - the low-life in Lambeth Walk considers any attack by someone of color against a white individual as being racist and thus by definition - more serious a crime than if the opposite was made. I have heard nothing like that since the earlier days of apartheid.

So, here you have it - self declared white supremacist in Lambeth Walk - not just a basic low-life - a racist one at that.

How far anti-Islamic websites will go.....

2009-06-20T23:37:00.007+01:00

The website Muslims Against Sharia has one interesting fact which I find both disturbing and ridiculous - it was created and run by non-Muslims.

Trying to hide its xenophobia and blatant anti-Islamic hatred, it tries to start by implying it is there to help moderate Islam from the forces of fundamentalism, extremism and militancy - which is a bold and I think noble claim. The thing though is all the real and not-so-hidden agenda of anti-Islamic hate comes out time and time again - and just in this preamble attempting to justify itself. We are there to support Muslims but we are against elements of the Qur'an and that it should be changed. Something of course like - we are not against Muslims but against Islam itself. Muslims of course know that Muslim, Qur'an and Islam are all the same.

So what about the rest of it then?

If you enter the blog sphere of this website, it instantly shows its true bigoted colors. The website has countless pro-Israeli banners, articles defending illegal settlements in the occupied territories and of course the countless items denouncing Islam as a whole. In addition, to hide under, patriotic American items and banners about supporting soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq to somehow link patriotism to this blogger's bigotry. I certainly know quite a few proud and decicated US servicemen and women who would find it insulting to have the armed services even mentioned by such a low-life.

With the increased liberalness in the non-Muslim world that has started to grasp the fact that there are other worlds outside the West and that they must be engaged and respected to get the same back - these far-right hate-groups are just simply having to work so much harder to justify their postings - posing as Muslims for example - pretty much desperate to go so low.

Islam's very big image problem in the West

2009-06-20T14:58:00.003+01:00

When you ask the average westerner (be it American, Dutch, Swede, Australian etc) what is Islam to you? What would be the response? Certainly some would say "another religion", "something Arabs worship", "the Taliban", "terrorism" or the like. Why?

Image management, be it from those within and without. Agendas have a great deal with it, by its very nature, agenda groups seek to control image.

I was today reading a very good article called "Taliban, Image-War, and Iconoclasm" by Michael Sells (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/msells.htm) which I was impressed on how it explains this issue. I will give some excerpts here that are most relevant:

The current effort to differentiate "terrorists" from Muslims in the U.S. has been undermined by a naivete in the West about the power of images, while the Taliban and Bin Laden employ a sophisticated understanding of image and media to present themselves as representatives of Islam and to haunt--and taunt--the Western producers of such media.

When the Iranian militant hostage-takers, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban invited the media in for staged photo-ops, they were taking control of the image of Islam in the Western world. They set us up. Images of Taliban students sitting above the written text of the Qur'an allegedly "studying the Qur'an" (when actually they are studying intense political indoctrination), or of Bin Laden surrounded by Arabic script and Islamic symbols, are shown repeatedly by the media, interspliced with pictures of the planes flying into the Towers or other horrors, along with the human suffering of the victims and their relatives and survivors.

Once that image-association is made, explanations that not all Muslims are terrorists are as effective lectures on dangers of cigarette smoking after someone has ingested thousands of images of smokers as Marlboro man, Sexy man, Sophisticated Woman, Liberated Woman, Thoughtful Man, Social Man, Powerful Woman. Advertisers spend billions of dollars finding the exact association that will work in an instant fly-by billboard flash that most people are hardly conscious of as they are driving, but which are clearly effective.

Once someone has seen the image association of mass-killer (Saddam, Bin Laden), Islamic symbol (written Qur'an, Muslims praying, sounds of the call to prayer) and atrocity (towers burning and collapsing, relatives of victims in anguish), it becomes extraordinarily difficult, however much that person tries, to hear and listen to the voices of the vast world of Islam beyond such associations.

I find these four paragraphs perfect in explaining a serious image issue.

It is certain that the average non-Muslim would be unable to differentiate between the beliefs of the average Muslim compared to the very well publicised image of extremist Wahabists, those running Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

To add to this image problem of course is the very real, deadly, violent and intimidating activities that the extremists/fundamentalists do, not only within the Muslim World. From the horrors of 9/11 to the political machine infiltrating the Muslims in the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere - this certainly provides what some would imagine is the "proof" that Islam is exactly what they have learnt from Bin Laden & Co.

Add to this the power of communication through the Internet and the media plus the efforts of groups apposed to Islam for their own agendas (be it religious, political extremism or simple bigotry) and the battle that we have of image and factual accuracy goes on.

The question is how can we battle this. I know this little blog of mine is just a drop in the bucket, but one small drop may eventually become a cup full, a bucket and even a flood.

Ignorance-fed chauvinism

2009-06-20T13:22:00.007+01:00

Do not get me wrong, I like America and have many, many American friends and even relatives who are citizens and live there. I grew up with American television, comedy which I enjoy, I admire what principles that the country was built and developed on and much, much more.

But unfortunately, like in most parts of the world, there are elements that make it ugly. Though not violent, repressive and destructive say like the militant fundamentalists that have infected much of my Muslim World, there is an evangelical arrogant Christian power-base that espouses a view that only can be viewed as ignorance-fed chauvinism.

I came across a while back an item on the Washington Post's "About Faith" section. It was written by "Charles "Chuck" Colson" whom is "an attorney, syndicated columnist and author of 25 books, Colson served as special counsel to President Nixon. His daily radio commentary, BreakPoint, is broadcast nationwide." So we can assume that he represents a significant view and considering he worked for President Nixon, he is a good gauge for the establishment of that era.

The item he posted is an example of what must be changed, it was a simple phrase that exemplifies the automatic and I stress "ignorance-fed chauvinism" that the establishment in the United States holds and so evident in the last eight years of the W Bush Administration. Colson's item "Women Vital in Christianity " started with a paragraph that I will quote the first sentence:

"Contrary to popular stereotypes -- and the way in which some religions, like Islam, oppress women -- the Christian faith has been the single greatest source for the advancement of women's rights".

There was this immediate jibethat was so innocently thrown in that I can picture in my mind the shrug and wave of a hand by Mr Colson when he added it, but it says a great, great deal about the mind-set that says it. I of course replied to the item;

"Dear Mr Colsen, I refer to your opening remark "and the way in which some religions, like Islam, oppress women -- ".

I find your blatant verbatim comment incorrect and to be frank rather offensive, especially in this current climate, as it only increases the hysteria and misconceptions that exist against Islam.

Islam's core beliefs certainly does not repress the female gender. As another commenter made, equality does not mean identical. In Islam it is made clear that for biological and thus social roles there is a difference and from that the roles and obligations for both women and men are clear, such as motherhood and keeping the fabric of family life for women and for men protecting and feeding the family, participating in community life. Islamic principles does not preclude women from community activity and even politics but based on the fact that the obligations are also fulfilled.

Please, do not generalise and certainly do not confuse the actions of fundamentalists and those from tribal areas that confuse (by ignorance or on purpose) there own sexist tribal behaviour with the core principles of Islam."

Considering the background of Mr Colson, we have to assume that he is not unique and that many will automatically think like him. That the facts are wrong does not matter when the reality is that this ignorant view exists and the establishment around it makes no effort to change it. The new Obama Administration does recognise it and though not an expert on US politics, I think Colson is from the other side and thus not following the enlightened view.

Let us hope that Republican America is also going to shrug-off this ignorance-fed chauvinism.

Christopher Logan - the face of Islam in Action Exposes his Bigotry

2009-06-20T12:44:00.002+01:00

I received this very amusing email from a Christopher Logan, whom is the blog owner of the Islam in Action bigot-site. I put the message here in total:

I stand against Islam, I stand against Muslim immigration which is not harassment because they are not in the country. Is that clear enough for you? Post away....
BTW....Wilders is against Islam because it is disgrace to Western civilization.
Post that to...maybe you will actually have some readers.

Well, so if it is not harassment to seclude one community or in this case an entire religion of 1.6 billion people, then what is harassment? Considering that he wishes to do so because he "stands against Islam" just identifies it. Add to that his xenophobic, anti-Islamic hysteria that is mostly meaningless and baseless "crap", it does more than identify his bigotry as pure harassment (that he claims his site avoids) but it is an obvious hate-site.

There is no doubt that he supports dangerous political extremists such as Wilders - as I am sure Mr Logan needs him as a resource to fill his desire to express his own ignorance.

Here is a pretty obvious hate-blog called Islam in Action

2009-06-20T00:15:00.002+01:00

The blog site called Islam in Action is a very good example of a hate-blog, dedicated to hypocrisy.

It condemns itself in its opening summary below its name: "Islam in Action is a site dedicated to exposing the worldwide issue of Islamofascism. The owner of this site is not calling for any violence or harassment of Muslims. He is looking for political solutions. One being putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration"

Thus its owner thinks that he has covered his tracks by saying that the "owner is not calling for violence and harassment" but then calls on stopping Muslim immigration......... as if that is not harassment. Bigotry is selective targeting of a community.

Sadly but showing, the blog has put patriotic banners (and a help donate to protect me from Muslims button) to somehow give itself credibility and fails miserably.

The low-life defends the indefensible

2009-06-19T23:33:00.003+01:00

Further to the item about the low-life from Lambeth Walk trying to abuse the detestable situation of a child abused and killed in England and not identified by a doctor who treated him - to score a poin against Muslims,. He quickly tried to deny the charge and change the point .... and failed miserably at both.

"This doctor was incompetent, and that is a perfectly worthy reason to post this story" he said on his blog in response to my pointing out his shameless attempt. Mind you, I think I have only seen one item on his postings that is not about "Muslims", even the current item which is trying to attack French President Sarkozy quickly changes to items about Muslims destroying that country, and so on and so forth.....ad nauseum.

The low-life then tried to change the subject "The fact she was trained in the Third World is relevant, I feel; we have a lot of cases of incompetence from such doctors - Third World staff, Third World service." Again, just looking at the item in question on his own post, the doctor in question was trained both in Pakistan AND Ireland. I guess the low-life has a poor opinion about Ireland. I replied to him with this point and also that the UK does have a screening and qualifications test before a practicing license is given, as do most countries, but I am sure it will fall on deaf ears.

It would be worth pointing out that I have no intention on commenting and making any capital on a tragic event that happened, but rather pointing out that there are low-lifes out there who will do it without hesitation. I find it both disgusting and indefensible.

A first great step, now ensuring the rest will follow….

2009-06-19T17:09:00.005+01:00

President Obama has started the repairing of the confidence and respect gap that exists between the Muslim World and the United States. Let us hope that this process does not stop nor pause, to fail would be a set-back of the first magnitude.

Looking back at the past and particularly the eight years of the George W Bush Administration, the difference is remarkable. The culture of “us and them”, “we are better” and worse, “we are the world’s policeman” was simply making America’s image stink in the eyes of many in the world, particularly those in the Muslim one.

In the recent past, the far right-wing political movement in the United States obviously had the number to sway things in their closet-evangelist persona, hiding under more diplomatic phraseology such as “exporting democracy”. Of course it was worse than that by far – be like us, follow us or our giant economy will ensure you comply later one but without benefit.

“Be like us” is probably the key phrase, a xenophobic assumption that “my way” is better than “your way” and what is scary is that this was the way a giant like the US was run. It made no friends and certainly encouraged the diminishing of any good relations with those that did not follow it.

The fact that is undeniable is that much of the world is not in-line with some of the way things are done, perceived and supported in the United States of America or the West in general. The Muslim World in particular has by its very nature priorities of a different family value system, the level of influence religion has in general life, morality and even banking and finance. Though most of the Muslim World does have secular legal systems, most are Qur’anic (Sharia) inspired when it comes to morals and punishments. Fundamentalist run countries are of course another matter.

We Muslims simply will not and cannot accept that any nation, be it the United States or other, telling us that our faith is wrong and our beliefs must change, to target those key differences is by its very nature doing that. Of course the answer is something akin to “go to hell”.
As President Obama has grasped this problem and understood that there are differences AND that there are also many more similarities that all is needed is to respect the other’s differences and cooperate and concentrate on those we can share. This last piece is more critical than one can express and to fail is the potential disaster I mentioned before.

Like it or lump it, the battle against radical and militant Islamist fundamentalism is global. Though it is primarily a battle that we Muslims must lead, history and politics has ensured it is global and everywhere and all nations must involve itself in it to varying degrees. The United States is in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and there lives are as much as stake as others. Fundamentalism must be rooted out and that can only be done by supporting the liberal-moderate Muslims whom more than often are the educated middle-class and civil servants of many of the nations suffering directly from fundamentalists.

Supporting them is easy, mostly by dealing with them as equals, simply acknowledging what Barrack Obama has just done, that we share this world, we respect you and you have your rights. This very act will ensure that Muslims are not concentrating on how the West views them, which unfortunately does often dominate their lives, instead of concentrating on more imortant matters. Also, this simple level of respect takes away the ammunition that the fundamentalists are constantly claiming, that the Ugly Americans will never accept the Muslim World as equals and thus you must fight them. With that ammunition gone, the moderates and liberals will show that partnership, progress is possible and with that the benefits that come with it. The target audience for this is the bulk of the Muslim World; poor, uneducated, conservative and wanting hope in their lives.

The Lambeth Walk strolls a crooked line

2009-06-19T16:03:00.002+01:00

There is a blog called the Lambeth Walk which is a not-so-clever home for bigotry and xenophobia.

Examples today are two postings, the first about the sad case of the dreadful abuse and death of "Baby P ". I would never go so low as to post an item on this case for anything other than to show my dismay, outrage and respect to the family. But of course the only reason it was placed on the Lambeth Walk blog was because the doctor that should have identified the danger and abuse that child was a Muslim and her photo was shown because she wears a hijab.

There is nothing more disgusting and low-life than to make capital out of someone else’s misery.

The second item is an example of this low-life blog’s outputs. Non-stop individual examples of errors, criminal acts or anything else negative by Muslims, regardless if any of it was done under the name of Islam or not. The constant use in items adding the word “Muslim” to somehow turn the reader into thinking things are a conspiracy of some sort.

I had a go at the low-life blogger from Lambeth Walk a while ago because of this abusive practice. Showing a list of individuals who did bad things and ensuring that it was “this Muslim” or “the Muslim ….” But avoiding making any reference to the even to the thousands or hundreds of thousands of crimes, violent acts etc that occur each day in the west by the average westerners themselves. Crime is crime, a criminal is one regardless if he is Muslim or not, why single out one group unless you have a motive?

There is certainly a difference when the crime is done in the name of religion; there is no doubt in that. Then the topic comes up and it must be looked at from the perspective of the religion, which then in all cases comes out as being the act of a minority but violent fundamentalist group. Also, by definition, the fundamentalist is (or should be) a minority group not accepted by the bulk of the population and so their actions are also not that of the majority. Thus we can put it back to criminals, be it religious ones.

Lambeth Walk’s low-life blogger has another problem, he know he is towing the bigot line and his arguments are unsustainable in a debate, thus he will let anyone post a comment or rebuttal as long as he thinks he can win it, when he cannot – your comment mysteriously disappears.

On the road to oblivion, Wilders needs to suffer – being ignored

2009-06-19T15:29:00.002+01:00

Easily said than done, the would-be-megalomaniac has a team devoted to keeping his name in the spotlight. Sadly, he exists for the singular purpose of sensationalism based on scare-mongering.

I guess every half a century comes out someone who appeals to the basic desire of the average person to seek a personality and when there are none existing in the local political sphere, the extremists come out with one. In a desire to capture on complacency, the economic or social woes in a country, this filth (because that is what they are) start pointing the finger on outsiders, minorities because it is human nature to not endorse change or perceived change.

The part of Wilders is pretty much singular in its political agenda, thus they have no strong points on economics, solutions to local social needs and would not even have the remotest understanding of international relations or obligations. No to Islam, Muslim Immigration and throw in "No to Europe" because there maybe some votes in that.

But to simplify Wilders like this is to make the mistake that many have done in the past to great disaster. Wilders is not stupid, he is ugly, a disease on society (thus the filth label) but he has structured himself in a way that certainly takes coordination. The basis for his funding is also an issue, certainly not a example of support or acceptability but that he is connected to other agenda based groups – and that is a concern.

Wilders has admitted to and public records show his frequent travel to the State of Israel and he has notoriously stated that the country is his second-best preferred home after The Netherlands. He even spent time in a Kibbutz. Though not getting into the Israeli/Palestinian debate (at least not right now), it does not make for much deliberating to consider that much of his rhetoric and probably funding comes from those elements within that country. Anti-Islamic sentiment in that country is certainly as strong as the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic elements in the Arab and Muslim World. That is just a reality.

Wilders has certainly stepped over that invisible line that makes it impossible for extremists to back-track. He simply can not turn back the clock, give up his perverted ideal and thus he is even the more dangerous as he has painted himself into the proverbial corner.
Using the easily shouted but incorrect phrase of “freedom of speech no matter what” is the major defense he uses now to justify all his hate. Yet that phrase is probably the one that will condemn him in the end, regardless of the success or not of the legal cases against him on inciting hate. His publication of the abusive Fitna fiction is no longer claimed by him as “fact” but he simply says it is his right to publish it, as freedom of speech. But at the same time, he is not interested in such freedoms within his own world.

His party is a personality cult, there is no democracy or dissent - it is not tolerated. Those that represent the party must toe the line or be booted out and show absolute loyalty to the leader Wilders.

Wilders avoids public debate, claiming that it is for personal safety because the Muslims want to kill him. Strangely as video debate or within the parliament building is offered, it is turned down. Most interesting though, and this links back to his “freedom of speech no matter what” defense, he carefully has avoided the topic that recently was thronging the airways of Holland – holocaust denial. Those that deny the holocaust argue that it is their right under freedom of speech and you would imagine that the one standing in the front of that group would be Wilders. “No matter what” he said. Wilders will certainly not go that direction at all, why? To do so would alienate him from that particularly important lobby and support group – the Jews and Israel – who would condemn him instantly. Wilders has painted himself in that corner and his only response is to shut-up and let the paint dry.

Though not for certain, it is a good chance that in the end he will be silenced by the court system as finding him guilty will take him out of the government/parliamentary domain that he has tarnished for so long. He will fall slowly but surely into public oblivion – ironically the best punishment for someone who almost certainly started down this track because he wanted to be in the spotlight.

Edmund Backwards James

2009-06-19T15:18:00.001+01:00

There is a blogger in Canada that I love to on occasions take time to drop by and see what he is up to. Edmund Onward James as he calls himself has a blog site that is certainly a rant and from the proverbial old-fart genre – a political/social dinosaur with a view that would instill panic in its readers if it was not so hysterically obviously just one old codger’s ranting.

Poor Edmund is leaning so far to the right that must have constant neck-aches when trying to sit up straight to type his dribble. His myopic view of politics means that he must hiss even at the name Obama and though he is Canadian, avoids most of the time even discussing issues there.
His obsession with the “evil religion of Islam” is rather comical, and takes his postings and comments direct from all the most typically agenda based net-rags available. What he certainly has not shown, is any personal knowledge or understanding of the issues he so desperately wants to be seen raising – it begs to wonder if he has actually an opinion on the religion itself, he just cuts & pastes and presumes there is a “jihadist” under his bed, somewhere between his potty and his videos on crop-circles.

Poor old sod, he hates me with a vengeance, I discovered him on the CCD forum which was pulled down because of its hijacking by right-wing extremists and the almost outlawed Jewish Defense League. I complained about the unfair culling of postings by those that do not spout those views and it was closed down, and they even had to change the closed for technical revisions notice which now says “spam, cyber-attacks, defamatory postings, and other assaults” when before it included “jihad-bots” which is rather exaggerating but certainly showing the views of their late administrator/bigot.

Anyhow, it is a good laugh every once in a while to see how the old fellow is doing.

John Feehery has a problem

2009-06-19T14:44:00.003+01:00

The American political pundit and blogger John Feehery annoyed me recently, showing some incredibly bigoted language in his postings on the The Hill's Pundits Blog (http://pundits.thehill.com/). I expressed it in a comments section and of course out came a number of ludicrous defenders with similar western-chauvinism and ignorance of the world outside the US.

I have a "no opinion" about his comments on most internal politics, health-care and other national political debate, mostly because I am neither American nor resident in that country. But when he opens up about the world outside his own, he falls into that line which to be brutal is "the ugly American" that was so evident in the eight Bush years. Though carefully written, much of his writings in one particular post basically assumed that the "his world" was better, that the Muslim world was dangerous and destructive and shoved the latter into one single basket.

His contribution "June 5, 2009 The Trouble with the Obama Speech" bagged Obama (he does all the time because he is from the right and so no matter what he will complain) and started the ranting. Though I have no side in the politics of the US, President Obama is correct and his intentions are the right direction in accepting that there is a world outside the United States and that there is no "better" or "worse" just different. It is not a down-play when here in the Muslim World there was a collective sigh of relief and "at last" when the President identified that there needs to be a change and it starts with that perception.

Welcome to Solkhar's World

2009-06-19T14:18:00.002+01:00

As a starter it is worth clarifying some points to allow you to understand my drift....

For the last 28 years, I have had a passion in trying to understand what allows a person to go "extreme" or "fundamentalist" in the life. Certainly there are psychological reasons, and that I can understand, but I am referring to how an average person in the society they are in, close the door to rational thought, chose a "side" and do what they can do paralyze, embarrass or destroy what is opposed to that view they have. Politics, religion, culture, race and business all suffer to various degrees from agenda based bigotry. I find it fascinating and as I have suffered from it, I am to a degree angry enough to have studied it for the purpose of doing my bit to fight it.

Being a liberal-Sunni Muslim by choice since the age of 17, I have watched in particular the purposeful misinformation, bigotry and exploited hatred from both extremists and fundamentalists in the Muslim World and outside it. What I have noticed most of all, is how the first thing that suffers from extremism is truth and facts as the agenda is more important that that or simply it gets in their way.

In trying to gauge how bad it is, I played a game. Joining many forums and blog-sites under differing names and personas I role-played the conservative, someone from outside the west, as a westerner-liberal, European, Australian, American and so on, all with a little bit of truth or half-truths of my own real persona; to test the reactions. I was simply amazed at either the lengths agenda based groups and individuals will get as well as the narrow-mindedness that exists out there. Certainly I was mostly debating (or arguing) with a minority and my goal is to the more articulate blog-owners and websites, but still it was rather a shock. I can understand emotions, filled with bad experiences and lack of access to real quality information makes for many rather extreme in their views, but that is normal. But the collective manipulation of those feelings and the direct propagating of them to the masses is another thing.

So my goal is clear, I will place items that for me are interesting and related to extremism and fundamentalism, both my own Muslim world and from those who attack it for their own agenda based and bigoted reasons. There may be a few other items or subjects that I feel interesting, after all this is my blog-site. I should point out one more thing - I am a centrist in the political spectrum, neither leaning to the right or the left nor I can swing a little either way as it attracts me. It will become evident though that I have probably more annoyance and less patience with the far or extreme right, and I participate in forums and blogs and battle their views which quickly turn bigoted and dangerous. So though I will pick more often on them, I am not from the left and it is worth noting that the extreme-far left by its nature is as destructive and oppressive as the worst that religious fundamentalism can dish out.

Solkhar
Marrakech