Having blogged about and expressing my support for the proposed Cordoba House near the former World Trade Center site in downtown Manhattan, I read with interest the developing story of a similar situation taking place in Indonesia. Only this time, the roles of majority and minority religions have changed.
From this BBC article:
For the last few weeks, a group of Christians have been holding their Sunday prayer services on an empty plot of land - resulting in violent clashes between them and the majority Muslims.
The Christians say the land belongs to them, and they were given permission by the local government to pray here.
Violence has already broken out over this matter.
Rev. Luspida Simandjuntak, and a church elder, Hasian Lumbantoruan Sihombing, were attacked as they, along with HKBP worshippers, were on their way to a Sunday service at the church’s construction site at Ciketing village. Building plans a were halted following protests from residents and hardline groups.
As with the Cordoba House project, also known as Park51, there have been calls for the Christians to move to another location in the hopes of putting a stop to further Muslim attacks.
In response, "[t]he church’s spokesman, Judianto Simandjuntak, said the congregation would continue holding their services at the current location in Ciketing."
“We will remain in Ciketing because we have the constitutional right to perform religious services.”
The already tense situation has the potential to get uglier. The BBC reporter who wrote the article linked to above interviewed "Khairul Fuad, a long-time resident,... a devout Muslim [but of course, right?], and a family man."
The article quotes him as saying, "The land belong to us, and the majority of the people who live around it are Muslims. There was a rumour that to get that land, those Christians didn't tell the people they wanted to build a place of worship." Switch Muslims and Christians and what does that remind you of?
More menacing are the words of Murhali Barda, described as the local leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders' Front.
"There is no problem with praying. But when they are there with a mission to build a place of worship, it is unacceptable," he told me as he showed me around Bekasi's oldest mosque.
"If we start calling for Holy War, it doesn't matter if we live or die," he said, smiling. "If there is violence that results from this, then the Christians only have themselves to blame."
It wouldn't surprise me if this story is starting to make the rounds of the wingnut echo chamber here in the United States. I can almost here them declaring "You see, we're supposed to bend over for a mosque at Ground Zero and the Muslims are attacking Christians for wanting to have a church in a Muslim country!"
If so, I would say they have it backwards. One of the points I raised in my post on the Cordoba House is that letting it be built near the World Trade Center can give us the moral standing to forcefully condemn the lack of reciprocity in Muslim majority countries. Allowing the intolerant to prevail in our own country emboldens the intolerant elsewhere. It also plays into something I have observed among religious believers, which is the zero-sum mentality they have with regard to other religions. Allow members of Religion B to openly worship, and somehow it is seen as a loss by members of Religion A.
Furthermore, for those here in the United States who might try to use the situation in Indonesia as justification for opposing the Cordoba House, they would do well to notice that there are Indonesians of all faiths, including Muslims, who condemn the behavior of the militant Muslims.
From the same BBC article:
The problems in Bekasi have caught the attention of the entire nation.
In Jakarta, Indonesians of different faiths joined forces, raising their voices in unison in support of a more secular Indonesia.
The constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to practise their religion freely.
The protesters say they want their government to take action and uphold the principles of this country.
Nevertheless, the Indonesian government could probably use a little more prodding to give it some backbone in cracking down on the militants. There is always the temptation to give in to the militants in the hope that it will appease them, but as the shopworn argument goes, appeasing them will only embolden them further. Here is the link to the Indonesian Embassy in the United States. Tell them, politely, of course, that the principle of religious freedom should be upheld.
Showing posts with label Muslim lunacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim lunacy. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Warning: The Practice of Islam Is Hazardous To Your Health
While perusing the English language daily The Jakarta Post, I came across this article about the large numbers of vehicular accidents in Indonesia during the Idul Fitri holiday.
National Police deputy chief for operations Insp. Gen. Soenarko said Thursday there had been 743 traffic accidents from Sept. 3 to Sept. 8 nationwide, killing 144 people and wounding 579 others. Most of the victims were holidaymakers riding motorcycles, Soenarko added.
During the Idul Fitri exodus last year there were 1,646 traffic accidents across the country, claiming 702 lives and injuring 2,556 others.
But that is not the only Muslim holiday that has proven consistently fatal to adherents of the Islamic faith. Another is the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the five pillars of the faith, which all able-bodied Muslims are expected to undertake at least once in their lives. Recent years have witnessed a number of mass casualty events at Islam's holiest site.
In 2004: The stampede, during a peak event of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, or hajj, lasted about a half-hour, Saudi officials said. There were 244 dead and hundreds of other worshippers injured, some critically, Hajj Minister Iyad Madani said.
In 2006: Thousands of Muslim pilgrims rushing to complete a symbolic stoning ritual during the hajj tripped over luggage Thursday, causing a crush in which up to 400 people were killed despite Saudi attempts to prevent stampedes that have plagued the annual event.
Saudi officials estimated that 400 people were killed. More than 1,000 people were injured, said Dr. Abbasi with the Saudi Red Crescent.
[That] year's hajj was also marred by the collapse of a Mecca hotel on January 5, where 76 pilgrims were killed. The reason for the hotel collapse remains unknown. The latest disaster is expected to prompt the Saudis to enforce stricter controls, in order to do a better job of ensuring the safety of the millions of the faithful who arrive for the Hajj each year.
Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing that a particular religion is true when the mere practice of that religion proves to be so deadly to its followers.
National Police deputy chief for operations Insp. Gen. Soenarko said Thursday there had been 743 traffic accidents from Sept. 3 to Sept. 8 nationwide, killing 144 people and wounding 579 others. Most of the victims were holidaymakers riding motorcycles, Soenarko added.
During the Idul Fitri exodus last year there were 1,646 traffic accidents across the country, claiming 702 lives and injuring 2,556 others.
But that is not the only Muslim holiday that has proven consistently fatal to adherents of the Islamic faith. Another is the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the five pillars of the faith, which all able-bodied Muslims are expected to undertake at least once in their lives. Recent years have witnessed a number of mass casualty events at Islam's holiest site.
In 2004: The stampede, during a peak event of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, or hajj, lasted about a half-hour, Saudi officials said. There were 244 dead and hundreds of other worshippers injured, some critically, Hajj Minister Iyad Madani said.
In 2006: Thousands of Muslim pilgrims rushing to complete a symbolic stoning ritual during the hajj tripped over luggage Thursday, causing a crush in which up to 400 people were killed despite Saudi attempts to prevent stampedes that have plagued the annual event.
Saudi officials estimated that 400 people were killed. More than 1,000 people were injured, said Dr. Abbasi with the Saudi Red Crescent.
[That] year's hajj was also marred by the collapse of a Mecca hotel on January 5, where 76 pilgrims were killed. The reason for the hotel collapse remains unknown. The latest disaster is expected to prompt the Saudis to enforce stricter controls, in order to do a better job of ensuring the safety of the millions of the faithful who arrive for the Hajj each year.
Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing that a particular religion is true when the mere practice of that religion proves to be so deadly to its followers.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
You Go, Afghan Ladies!
Poor Afghan Women Brainwashed by Western anti-Islamic propaganda
I'm on my lunchbreak now and checked the New York Times online a moment ago to catch up on current events, and wanted to immediately share this article with you. (Registration required). It is thrilling to read about these brave Afghan ladies demonstrating against the "marital rape" law, though it is equally disheartening to see the vitriolic fury their protest march generated among the fanatically conservative minions of Kabul.
The young women stepped off the bus and moved toward the protest march just beginning on the other side of the street when they were spotted by a mob of men.
“Get out of here, you whores!” the men shouted. “Get out!”
“We want our rights!” one of the women shouted, turning to face them. “We want equality!”
But the march carried on anyway. About 300 Afghan women, facing an angry throng three times larger than their own, walked the streets of the capital on Wednesday to demand that Parliament repeal a new law that introduces a range of Taliban-like restrictions on women, and permits, among other things, marital rape.
With the Afghan police keeping the mob at bay, the women walked two miles to Parliament, where they delivered a petition calling for the law’s repeal.
The women who protested Wednesday began their demonstration with what appeared to be a deliberately provocative act. They gathered in front of the School of the Last Prophet, a madrassa run by Ayatollah Asif Mohsini, the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric. He and the scholars around him played an important role in the drafting of the new law.
“We are here to campaign for our rights,” one woman said into a loudspeaker. Then the women held their banners aloft and began to chant.
The reaction was immediate. Hundreds of students from the madrassa, most but not all of them men, poured into the streets to confront the demonstrators.
“Death to the enemies of Islam!” the counterdemonstrators cried, encircling the women. “We want Islamic law!”
The women stared ahead and kept walking.
The end of the article features one of the clerics of the madrassa, a Mohammed Hussein Jafaari.
The article quotes him as saying, “We Afghans don’t want a bunch of NATO commanders and foreign ministers telling us what to do.”
Oh yeah? Well, you know what Mr. Jafaari? A lot of Afghan women don't want a bunch of perverted Islamic male scholars telling them what to do!
I really wish there was something substantial we could do to help these ladies achieve the gender equality that they deserve. For all of their bravery, sadly they appear to be vastly outnumbered. Off the top of my head, one thing we could do, even if it does not solve the problem, is to offer asylum to any Afghan woman who wants to flee the country to escape the law. One counterargument to that idea though is that if we make it easier for the more independent minded women to leave Afghanistan, that will just make it harder for the remainder who stay behind. But I fear that the number of women who will push back is not enough as it is, and therefore it would not make much of a difference if they stayed, except to get themselves killed. Besides, if we can get enough women to leave, maybe it will create a shortage of wives and these tribalistic misogynystic assholes won't be able to have children to pass on the madness to another generation.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Real Housewives of Afghanistan
An Afghan Man Will Never Need Her Permission to Cum Inside HerA number of atheist bloggers have already expressed their outrage about Afghanistan's "marital rape" law, along with even greater numbers of human rights and feminist activists and supporters.
Of course, supporters of the law claim that it is a whole lot of fuss being raised about nothing. Below are some excerpts from this article on Al Jazeera English online.
A top Afghan cleric [Mohammad Asif Mohseni] who backs a law that critics say would allow marital rape has dismissed the outcry the legislation has generated in the West.
The law states that "it is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire" and says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days, unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse.
Surrounded by supporters, Mohseni unfurled reams of paper with hundreds of women's signatures and thumbprints backing the law.
He also said much of the uproar had come from people misinterpreting the law and that a woman could refuse sex with her husband for many reasons beyond illness, including fasting for Ramadan, preparing for a pilgrimage, menstruating, or recovering from giving birth.
Wow, it looks like we really were overreacting! Hundreds of Afghani women support this legislation. And women can refuse sex if they are preparing for a pilgrimage, or for the entire month of Ramadan.
But seriously.
Yeah, sure you can claim that hundreds of Afghan women support a law that legislates that a woman must submit to her husband's sexual desires every four days. But no one, man or woman, has the right to dictate to another woman when and if she must have sex with her husband. Call me a radical, but I support the idea of full equality of the sexes and that women have the right to bodily autonomy, including whether to terminate a pregnancy and if, when and under what conditions a man's penis gets to penetrate her vagina. And how many of those women's fingerprints in support of the new law were supplied under coercion?
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of having sex with a woman against her will strikes me as barely a step above masturbation. If she is just going to lie there while she waits for Abdul to get it over with, Abdul might as well just stick his dick in a sex doll. From what I have read, they're getting more lifelike all the time, as demonstrated by the picture at the top of this post.
Or how about this? If you want to have sex with your wife, Mister Afghan stud, how about bringing home your wife a box of chocolates or some nice flowers? How about helping out with the household chores once in a while? Buy her some perfume and tell her how beautiful she looks. It might increase your chances of her actually wanting to do the nasty with you. On the other hand, If you need a piece of legislation passed by parliament to get laid, then you're a really pathetic guy.
There's always a chance that Afghan President Hamid Karzai will force further revisions to the law, but no matter what changes he might wring out of the religious conservatives, it is likely that the principle that a wife must submit sexually to her husband will still be enshrined into the law. Yes, it is completely unacceptable, but there does not seem to be a hell of a lot we can do about it.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
The Ultimate Absurdity of Islam
In case you don't know, the annual pilgrimate, or hajj, to Mecca is currently underway. And according to this article from Al Jazeera, it looks like Saudi Arabia is going to experience a record turnout.
"More than 100,000 security guards have been deployed to cope with the three million people expected in the city of Mecca, when the Islamic pilgrimage gets under way on Saturday."
The article notes that "It is a religious duty for every able-bodied Muslim with the necessary financial resources to make the pilgrimage at least once during their lifetime to cleanse their sins."
Reading this article reminded me of a thought I have had a number of times before. The annual hajj is a logistical nightmare as it is already. Millions attend annually, and it is not uncommon for people to die in stampedes, in some cases in the hundreds, and once well over a thousand.
As with any other proselytizing religion, it is no secret that the followers of Islam want the entire world to convert to their religion. As it currently stands, there are somewhere between one to one and a half billion Muslims in a world with an estimated global population of 6.7 billion people.
Even more sobering, world population in 2050 is expected to reach a peak of approximately 9.2 billion.
If by some bizarre miracle (or rather, nightmare) every person on the planet became a convert to Islam within the next 50 years, it would literally be impossible for every able-bodied Muslim to make the pilgrimage, which is one of the five pillars of the faith. To reiterate, expand the number of Muslims beyond a certain point and there will be no way of accommodating all of them in order to fulfill one of the most important requirements of their faith. It would be interesting to hear what the Muslim faithful have to say in response to this potential conundrum.
Then again, as I pointed out in this post two years ago, Mecca during the hajj could become a disease incubator that sets off a pandemic in the Muslim world. The Economist article I linked to noted that "one in three pilgrims suffers respiratory symptoms during the pilgrimage, and overcrowding (in tents accomodating up to 100 people) provides ideal conditions for illness to spread. The risk to families of pilgrims was highlighted by a study in Malaysia, published in 2002: among people sharing a house with a returning pilgrim, about 8% were carrying traces of the bacteria associated with meningitis."
And therein lies the ultimate absurdity of Islam: carrying out one of its most important requirements is quite literally dangerous to Muslims.
"More than 100,000 security guards have been deployed to cope with the three million people expected in the city of Mecca, when the Islamic pilgrimage gets under way on Saturday."
The article notes that "It is a religious duty for every able-bodied Muslim with the necessary financial resources to make the pilgrimage at least once during their lifetime to cleanse their sins."
Reading this article reminded me of a thought I have had a number of times before. The annual hajj is a logistical nightmare as it is already. Millions attend annually, and it is not uncommon for people to die in stampedes, in some cases in the hundreds, and once well over a thousand.
As with any other proselytizing religion, it is no secret that the followers of Islam want the entire world to convert to their religion. As it currently stands, there are somewhere between one to one and a half billion Muslims in a world with an estimated global population of 6.7 billion people.
Even more sobering, world population in 2050 is expected to reach a peak of approximately 9.2 billion.
If by some bizarre miracle (or rather, nightmare) every person on the planet became a convert to Islam within the next 50 years, it would literally be impossible for every able-bodied Muslim to make the pilgrimage, which is one of the five pillars of the faith. To reiterate, expand the number of Muslims beyond a certain point and there will be no way of accommodating all of them in order to fulfill one of the most important requirements of their faith. It would be interesting to hear what the Muslim faithful have to say in response to this potential conundrum.
Then again, as I pointed out in this post two years ago, Mecca during the hajj could become a disease incubator that sets off a pandemic in the Muslim world. The Economist article I linked to noted that "one in three pilgrims suffers respiratory symptoms during the pilgrimage, and overcrowding (in tents accomodating up to 100 people) provides ideal conditions for illness to spread. The risk to families of pilgrims was highlighted by a study in Malaysia, published in 2002: among people sharing a house with a returning pilgrim, about 8% were carrying traces of the bacteria associated with meningitis."
And therein lies the ultimate absurdity of Islam: carrying out one of its most important requirements is quite literally dangerous to Muslims.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Is Bill Clinton Out of His Mind?
Former President Bill Clinton visited Malaysia recently. According to The Star Online, "Clinton has expressed admiration for Malaysians, saying that their ability to respect other people’s faiths should be emulated by all."
Apparently, Exercise in Futility is not on Clinton's reading list. If he had, he would have learned about the "respect" shown by Malaysian Muslim authorities towards Lina Joy and Revathi Massosai.
Or how does Clinton feel about the recent fatwa against "tomboys"?
While the "Tomboy" fatwa is not legally binding, it should not be surprising if self annointed gangs of brainwashed Muslim Malay youth start assaulting Malay women who are deemed to be in violation of the fatwa. Because that is what public pronouncements like that do, they contribute to a climate of intolerance and oppression that encourages and empowers fanatics.
Bill Clinton had a chance to speak out against this kind of religiously sanctioned bigotry and passed.
Apparently, Exercise in Futility is not on Clinton's reading list. If he had, he would have learned about the "respect" shown by Malaysian Muslim authorities towards Lina Joy and Revathi Massosai.
Or how does Clinton feel about the recent fatwa against "tomboys"?
While the "Tomboy" fatwa is not legally binding, it should not be surprising if self annointed gangs of brainwashed Muslim Malay youth start assaulting Malay women who are deemed to be in violation of the fatwa. Because that is what public pronouncements like that do, they contribute to a climate of intolerance and oppression that encourages and empowers fanatics.
Bill Clinton had a chance to speak out against this kind of religiously sanctioned bigotry and passed.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Batshit Crazy in the Middle East
A balanced twofer from the BBC tonight.
First off, from the Gaza Strip:
The black flag of Islamic Jihad was pinned on the wall behind her and two Kalashnikovs were carefully placed in camera shot. Her husband, an Islamic Jihad fighter himself, tied on her "martyr's" headband.
Umm Anas - not her real name - had just graduated from a programme to train female suicide bombers in Gaza.
When she spoke of becoming a suicide bomber, Umm Anas's voice was strong and steady: "This is a gift from God.
"We were created to become martyrs for God," she continued, her eyes burning behind the full face veil.
The use of Palestinian women as suicide bombers was once thought of as immodest - and therefore un-Islamic - but that changed, the militant groups say, because of shortage of male candidates and because women were better able to get close to their targets.
It seems rather paradoxical that Palestinians like Umm Anas are increasingly embracing religious fervor as their plight worsens. These people worship a god that they believe to be all powerful, and yet they have to resort to brainwashing teenage girls to become suicide bombers. If Allah is so powerful, why doesn't he just cause all of the Israeli Jews to spontaneously combust? Face it Palestinian people, Allah is a loser! Want to end your suffering? Embrace Buddhism and non-violence and all of your problems will go away.
For the sake of balance though, I turn to Acre, Israel, where "Jewish youths attacked [an Arab man] after he drove into a conservative area in the east of the town" during Yom Kippur.
Religious Jews fast and refrain from driving on Yom Kippur, regarded the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
An Israeli-Arab mob subsequently rampaged through the streets after the rumour spread that Mr Jamal had been killed.
In the days that followed, crowds of Jews and Israeli Arabs tried to attack each other, and each other's property. At least three Israeli-Arab homes were torched, police said.
I have to confess that I am getting sick and tired of this shit and the negative reverberations that it has worldwide. Sometimes I feel that Israel and the Palestinian territories should just be walled in for ten years. Let the Israelis and Palestinians have one long cage match until either one side or the other is wiped out, with the understanding that the rest of the world has to accept the winner.
Either that, or come to accept the obvious. The Palestinians will never get 100% of all of the land and the Israelis will never get 100% of the land. The only solution where everybody wins is to share 100% of it. And that's all I have to say about that.
First off, from the Gaza Strip:
The black flag of Islamic Jihad was pinned on the wall behind her and two Kalashnikovs were carefully placed in camera shot. Her husband, an Islamic Jihad fighter himself, tied on her "martyr's" headband.
Umm Anas - not her real name - had just graduated from a programme to train female suicide bombers in Gaza.
When she spoke of becoming a suicide bomber, Umm Anas's voice was strong and steady: "This is a gift from God.
"We were created to become martyrs for God," she continued, her eyes burning behind the full face veil.
The use of Palestinian women as suicide bombers was once thought of as immodest - and therefore un-Islamic - but that changed, the militant groups say, because of shortage of male candidates and because women were better able to get close to their targets.
It seems rather paradoxical that Palestinians like Umm Anas are increasingly embracing religious fervor as their plight worsens. These people worship a god that they believe to be all powerful, and yet they have to resort to brainwashing teenage girls to become suicide bombers. If Allah is so powerful, why doesn't he just cause all of the Israeli Jews to spontaneously combust? Face it Palestinian people, Allah is a loser! Want to end your suffering? Embrace Buddhism and non-violence and all of your problems will go away.
For the sake of balance though, I turn to Acre, Israel, where "Jewish youths attacked [an Arab man] after he drove into a conservative area in the east of the town" during Yom Kippur.
Religious Jews fast and refrain from driving on Yom Kippur, regarded the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
An Israeli-Arab mob subsequently rampaged through the streets after the rumour spread that Mr Jamal had been killed.
In the days that followed, crowds of Jews and Israeli Arabs tried to attack each other, and each other's property. At least three Israeli-Arab homes were torched, police said.
I have to confess that I am getting sick and tired of this shit and the negative reverberations that it has worldwide. Sometimes I feel that Israel and the Palestinian territories should just be walled in for ten years. Let the Israelis and Palestinians have one long cage match until either one side or the other is wiped out, with the understanding that the rest of the world has to accept the winner.
Either that, or come to accept the obvious. The Palestinians will never get 100% of all of the land and the Israelis will never get 100% of the land. The only solution where everybody wins is to share 100% of it. And that's all I have to say about that.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Center of Islamic Stupidity Part 2
Several months after I did this post mocking claims by some Muslims that Mecca was the center of the Earth, I finally got a response from an actual Muslim. His comments were incredibly long and long winded, amounting to a huge steaming turd. I won't reproduce it in its entirety here, you can click on the link above, but the gist of his argument is that plate tectonics proves that Mecca is the center of the Earth. The relevant comments are as follows in green text, as green of course is the color of Islam:
During her long time journey , the Arabian plate didn't cover along (sic) distance as it is the center of the circulation movement, it has moved within the shorter diameter. So it is clear that the Arabian plate is center of the earth plates ,and everywhere it goes , it is followed by the other plates going round it regularly , each plate keeps its constant direction towards the Arabian plate . It is well-established that Mecca where the Moslem Kabba lies is in the Arabian plate (figure -7)
Now , if we use the same approach applied on the Arabian plate , we can say that every thing on and in the earth directs its face to Mecca where the Moslem Kabba lies , this system will go on , according to God's will , to a certain time assigned by God , this accurate unwavering system can't be out of a chance ; it is a supernatural power that made it and is still keeping it going on – that is God , who rose the heavens with unseen pillars.
Also God says in the Holy Quran what means " So , now , since everything directs its face towards the Holy Mecca , and that the Holy Kabba is the center of Mecca , we can assuredly and scientifically say that Kabba is the center of the earth and that everything on or under it directs its face towards it in complete submissiveness and piety"
During her long time journey , the Arabian plate didn't cover along (sic) distance as it is the center of the circulation movement, it has moved within the shorter diameter. So it is clear that the Arabian plate is center of the earth plates ,and everywhere it goes , it is followed by the other plates going round it regularly , each plate keeps its constant direction towards the Arabian plate . It is well-established that Mecca where the Moslem Kabba lies is in the Arabian plate (figure -7)
Now , if we use the same approach applied on the Arabian plate , we can say that every thing on and in the earth directs its face to Mecca where the Moslem Kabba lies , this system will go on , according to God's will , to a certain time assigned by God , this accurate unwavering system can't be out of a chance ; it is a supernatural power that made it and is still keeping it going on – that is God , who rose the heavens with unseen pillars.
Also God says in the Holy Quran what means " So , now , since everything directs its face towards the Holy Mecca , and that the Holy Kabba is the center of Mecca , we can assuredly and scientifically say that Kabba is the center of the earth and that everything on or under it directs its face towards it in complete submissiveness and piety"
Well golly gee, let me go get my prayer mat right now and submit myself to Allah and beg for his mercy! How could I possible refute an argument like that?
Quite easily, actually.
You see, everything this Muslim commenter says about the Arabian Plate can also be said about the African Plate. Let's look at the visual evidence, shall we?
As you can see, this is a map showing the positions of the landmasses approximately 195 million years ago. Only a small portion of the Arabian Plate even sits above water, and that portion is attached to the north east part of the African Plate. As a matter of fact, for hundreds of millions of years, the Arabian Plate was part of the African Plate.
But here is what is really interesting. Three continents were also attached to Africa 195 million years ago, North America, South America, and Antarctica. And if you're really feeling generous, Australia was attached to Antartica, so it was part of a contiguous landmass that was attached to Africa. From a geological perspective, it looks to me that Africa was the "center" of the Earth.
But to be fair, let's look at a map of the world from a more recent period in our Earth's history.
Quite easily, actually.
You see, everything this Muslim commenter says about the Arabian Plate can also be said about the African Plate. Let's look at the visual evidence, shall we?
As you can see, this is a map showing the positions of the landmasses approximately 195 million years ago. Only a small portion of the Arabian Plate even sits above water, and that portion is attached to the north east part of the African Plate. As a matter of fact, for hundreds of millions of years, the Arabian Plate was part of the African Plate.
But here is what is really interesting. Three continents were also attached to Africa 195 million years ago, North America, South America, and Antarctica. And if you're really feeling generous, Australia was attached to Antartica, so it was part of a contiguous landmass that was attached to Africa. From a geological perspective, it looks to me that Africa was the "center" of the Earth.
But to be fair, let's look at a map of the world from a more recent period in our Earth's history.
14 million years ago, the Americas, Australia and Antarctica have broken off and have reached close to their present destinations. The Arabian Plate, which is just a minor plate, is only just breaking off from the African Plate after having been a free rider for most of its geologic existence. Notice how all of the other continents have taken up positions around Africa? Africa, unlike Arabia, also sits astride the equator. Africa is also the place from where the first humans emerged. So, as it seems clear to me that the Arabian Plate can't hold a candle to the African Plate.
So nice try there buddy, but I give you an epic fail.
Friday, September 12, 2008
My Fatwa
A number of news outlets have picked up on the story of "Saudi Arabia's top judiciary official [who] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content." I think that is a bit harsh, though maybe the geniuses who inflicted all of those Pauly Shore movies on us deserve some form of retributive violence.
According to the 79-year-old sheikh cited in the story, "satellite channels cause the 'deviance of thousands of people.'"
"Al-Lihedan is chief of the kingdom's highest tribunal, the Supreme Judiciary Council. Saudi Arabia's judiciary is made up of Islamic clerics whose decrees, or fatwas, on everyday issues are widely respected. Their fatwas do not have the weight of law. In the courts, cleric-judges rule according to Islamic law, but interpretations can vary."
The article also notes that Al-Lihedan had previously issued a decree declaring that it was permissible for Saudis to fight against American military forces in Iraq. While I was against the decision to invade Iraq, I hope that any Saudis who took up the sheikh's advice found themselves on the fast track to Allah.
Personally, I am getting sick of these sheikhs and imams saying it is permissible to kill this person or that person because they don't like what that person said or wrote. If Allah is pissed off about it, then let Allah strike the person dead with a bolt of lightning or something. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen because there is no Allah.
Anyway, I think it is time to teach these people a lesson. I mean, I'm a tolerant, peace loving guy, but that does not obligate me to extend tolerance to the intolerant. Therefore, I hereby announce my first fatwa and declare that it is permissible to kill Sheikh Saleh al-Lihedan and any other cleric who issues a fatwa declaring that it is permissible to kill someone simply because they don't like what that person is saying or doing.
Of course, I don't expect anyone to carry out my fatwa. It's just a matter of reciprocity. Besides, given the sheikh's age, one can hope that he will kick off before long.
According to the 79-year-old sheikh cited in the story, "satellite channels cause the 'deviance of thousands of people.'"
"Al-Lihedan is chief of the kingdom's highest tribunal, the Supreme Judiciary Council. Saudi Arabia's judiciary is made up of Islamic clerics whose decrees, or fatwas, on everyday issues are widely respected. Their fatwas do not have the weight of law. In the courts, cleric-judges rule according to Islamic law, but interpretations can vary."
The article also notes that Al-Lihedan had previously issued a decree declaring that it was permissible for Saudis to fight against American military forces in Iraq. While I was against the decision to invade Iraq, I hope that any Saudis who took up the sheikh's advice found themselves on the fast track to Allah.
Personally, I am getting sick of these sheikhs and imams saying it is permissible to kill this person or that person because they don't like what that person said or wrote. If Allah is pissed off about it, then let Allah strike the person dead with a bolt of lightning or something. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen because there is no Allah.
Anyway, I think it is time to teach these people a lesson. I mean, I'm a tolerant, peace loving guy, but that does not obligate me to extend tolerance to the intolerant. Therefore, I hereby announce my first fatwa and declare that it is permissible to kill Sheikh Saleh al-Lihedan and any other cleric who issues a fatwa declaring that it is permissible to kill someone simply because they don't like what that person is saying or doing.
Of course, I don't expect anyone to carry out my fatwa. It's just a matter of reciprocity. Besides, given the sheikh's age, one can hope that he will kick off before long.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
UPDATED: Scratch (Maybe) This Country Off My Travel List
One of my favorite English language publications in my International Media list in my sidebar is the United Arab Emirates daily The National.
The United Arab Emirates is the financial hub of the Persian Gulf region and has a large expatriate population. As noted by Expat Focus, "[t]he United Arab Emirates are generally recognised as the most cosmopolitan and "Westernised" of the Middle East countries and the expat population is growing rapidly. In fact, less than 50% of the population of the UAE are Arabs."
On the other hand, however, "95% of the population are Muslims and Islam is the official religion." Thus, while "alcohol is available to non-Muslims (with the exception of the Emirate of Sharjah where it is forbidden for all) it must never be consumed on the streets or offered to local citizens."
It is probably inevitable then that some tensions would arise between Western expatriates and tourists in the Emirates and the mores and customs of the local population.
One apparent problem is a growing number of complaints about topless women at UAE beaches. From the article in The National:
Public beaches in Dubai will soon have large signs warning women against topless bathing and indecent exposure contrary to the cultural values of the UAE.
Dubai Municipality said yesterday the decision followed repeated complaints from residents about nudity, mostly among tourists. Residents had complained that a growing number of women were sunbathing and swimming topless, municipality officials said.
An extreme example of this disregard for local mores is reported in this article, wherein:
A British sales manager caught having intercourse with a man on a public beach faces a jail term of up to six years.
Michelle Palmer, who is in her 30s, and the British tourist face charges of public indecency after a police officer who had previously warned the pair about their behaviour found them having intercourse on Jumeirah beach.
While a jail term of up to six years is unduly harsh for fucking on the beach, it is perfectly reasonable for the UAE to enforce standards of decency on their public beaches. After all, we don't permit such things on our beaches here in the United States.
But because we are talking about an Islamic country here, you know they can't help themselves from taking their prohibitions to the level of absurdity. To repeat, no one can fault the UAE for cracking down on indecent exposure on their public beaches, particularly those where children are present. But it is quite another thing to make it a crime for even married couples to kiss and hug in public. Again, from The National:
Couples arrested for kissing in public, a crime punishable by deportation, cannot plead ignorance of the law, a senior Dubai judge has warned.
Earlier this year, an expatriate couple arrested for kissing in a parked car narrowly avoided being deported after being found not guilty of a scandalous public act.
A passer-by noticed the couple, photographed them in the act and then reported them to the police.
“The man was planning to take his wife out to dinner for her birthday after a heated argument and he was apologising to her and kissed her. A man who happened to be walking by saw them and took their picture,” said their lawyer, Nabih Bader. The couple escaped with a stern warning from a judge.
As the excerpt from the article above shows, such a law is practically an invitation for busy bodies armed with cell phone cameras to go around snooping on couples and reporting them to the police. It is petty and vindictive.
It is not clear to me from the article how far the law in the UAE goes. I have e-mailed the author of the article and asked if it applies to circumstances such as if I were to greet my wife in a public place and give her a quick embrace and a kiss on the lips for at most a second or two. I also asked the author if it applies to married couples who hold hands together while walking on the beach. If that is indeed the case, then I definitely have no desire to visit the United Arab Emirates with my family as long as such a law is on the books and enforced. Hopefully the writer of the article will provide me with a reply, and if so, I will update this post with his or her response.
UPDATE: The writer of the article on public kissing being a crime in the UAE, Hani Bathish, was kind enough to favor me with a reply to me e-mail. Hani wrote:
"Well Tom, of-course there is considerable leeway afforded, especially to foreign nationals, I doubt anyone would raise a fuss over a couple holding hands in public, or even a peck on the cheek. The UAE, however, is still a deeply conservative culture so it always helps to keep that in mind when you are here.
Thanks for reading The National and taking the trouble to write, we greatly value any and all feedback from our readers on our stories."
Okay, so maybe I might be willing to visit the United Arab Emirates, though to be honest, I am not much of a desert person. I am not keen on visiting Las Vegas either. In conclusion, Western tourists and expatriates in the UAE should not act like obnoxious assholes, and the UAE should maybe lighten up a little on mild displays of public affection.
The United Arab Emirates is the financial hub of the Persian Gulf region and has a large expatriate population. As noted by Expat Focus, "[t]he United Arab Emirates are generally recognised as the most cosmopolitan and "Westernised" of the Middle East countries and the expat population is growing rapidly. In fact, less than 50% of the population of the UAE are Arabs."
On the other hand, however, "95% of the population are Muslims and Islam is the official religion." Thus, while "alcohol is available to non-Muslims (with the exception of the Emirate of Sharjah where it is forbidden for all) it must never be consumed on the streets or offered to local citizens."
It is probably inevitable then that some tensions would arise between Western expatriates and tourists in the Emirates and the mores and customs of the local population.
One apparent problem is a growing number of complaints about topless women at UAE beaches. From the article in The National:
Public beaches in Dubai will soon have large signs warning women against topless bathing and indecent exposure contrary to the cultural values of the UAE.
Dubai Municipality said yesterday the decision followed repeated complaints from residents about nudity, mostly among tourists. Residents had complained that a growing number of women were sunbathing and swimming topless, municipality officials said.
An extreme example of this disregard for local mores is reported in this article, wherein:
A British sales manager caught having intercourse with a man on a public beach faces a jail term of up to six years.
Michelle Palmer, who is in her 30s, and the British tourist face charges of public indecency after a police officer who had previously warned the pair about their behaviour found them having intercourse on Jumeirah beach.
While a jail term of up to six years is unduly harsh for fucking on the beach, it is perfectly reasonable for the UAE to enforce standards of decency on their public beaches. After all, we don't permit such things on our beaches here in the United States.
But because we are talking about an Islamic country here, you know they can't help themselves from taking their prohibitions to the level of absurdity. To repeat, no one can fault the UAE for cracking down on indecent exposure on their public beaches, particularly those where children are present. But it is quite another thing to make it a crime for even married couples to kiss and hug in public. Again, from The National:
Couples arrested for kissing in public, a crime punishable by deportation, cannot plead ignorance of the law, a senior Dubai judge has warned.
Earlier this year, an expatriate couple arrested for kissing in a parked car narrowly avoided being deported after being found not guilty of a scandalous public act.
A passer-by noticed the couple, photographed them in the act and then reported them to the police.
“The man was planning to take his wife out to dinner for her birthday after a heated argument and he was apologising to her and kissed her. A man who happened to be walking by saw them and took their picture,” said their lawyer, Nabih Bader. The couple escaped with a stern warning from a judge.
As the excerpt from the article above shows, such a law is practically an invitation for busy bodies armed with cell phone cameras to go around snooping on couples and reporting them to the police. It is petty and vindictive.
It is not clear to me from the article how far the law in the UAE goes. I have e-mailed the author of the article and asked if it applies to circumstances such as if I were to greet my wife in a public place and give her a quick embrace and a kiss on the lips for at most a second or two. I also asked the author if it applies to married couples who hold hands together while walking on the beach. If that is indeed the case, then I definitely have no desire to visit the United Arab Emirates with my family as long as such a law is on the books and enforced. Hopefully the writer of the article will provide me with a reply, and if so, I will update this post with his or her response.
UPDATE: The writer of the article on public kissing being a crime in the UAE, Hani Bathish, was kind enough to favor me with a reply to me e-mail. Hani wrote:
"Well Tom, of-course there is considerable leeway afforded, especially to foreign nationals, I doubt anyone would raise a fuss over a couple holding hands in public, or even a peck on the cheek. The UAE, however, is still a deeply conservative culture so it always helps to keep that in mind when you are here.
Thanks for reading The National and taking the trouble to write, we greatly value any and all feedback from our readers on our stories."
Okay, so maybe I might be willing to visit the United Arab Emirates, though to be honest, I am not much of a desert person. I am not keen on visiting Las Vegas either. In conclusion, Western tourists and expatriates in the UAE should not act like obnoxious assholes, and the UAE should maybe lighten up a little on mild displays of public affection.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Save Pervez Kambaksh
One of the things I have noticed about the blogosphere, as well as the media in general, is the outrage du jour. We read about something or see something on the television that outrages us at that particular moment, and then after the brief passage of time, it gets forgotten, to be replaced by a new outrage du jour.
One case that received a lot of attention in the atheist blogosphere at the beginning of the year was Pervez Kambaksh, a journalism student in Afghanistan who was charged with the crime of blasphemy for disseminating articles that were deemed insulting to Islam. (As an aside, I think I insult Islam just by waking up and getting out of bed every morning!)
I did a couple of posts about Pervez Kambaksh (by the way, his name has different spellings, but I will stick with the one I have been using) here and here. Since then, his name seems to have faded from the public consciousness. Wondering what had happened to him, I did some searching on Google.
From a May 18, 2008 article from the UK publication The Independent Online:
Pervez Kambaksh, the Afghan student sentenced to death after being accused of downloading internet reports on women's rights, yesterday pleaded innocent to charges of blasphemy. He told an appeal court in Kabul that he had been tortured into confessing.
Mr Kambaksh, 24, vehemently denied that he had been responsible for producing anti-Islamic literature. He insisted the prosecution had been motivated by personal malice of two members of staff and their student supporters at the university in Balkh, where he was studying journalism.
The head of the panel of three judges at Kabul, Abdul Salaam Qazizada, adjourned the trial until next Sunday to allow Mr Kambaksh further attempts to find a lawyer. As of last night they had not succeeded. The original trial took place in January. Mr Kambaksh's appeal was moved to Kabul at his own request, amid fears for his safety in Mazar after international outrage at the sentence. A petition by The Independent to secure justice for him has attracted more than 100,000 signatures.
In an open letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai dated June 11, 2008 by the organization Reporters Without Borders, the case of Pervez Kambaksh was raised:
"You must of course be aware, Mr. President, of the case of the young journalist Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, which has shocked the entire world. The death sentence passed on him by a court in Mazar-i-Sharif triggered a wave of legitimate outrage. More than a million people have already signed a petition launched by the British newspaper The Independent calling for his release. The recent revelation that he was tortured by members of the security services casts doubt on your government’s ability to respect the relevant international standards.
How, Mr. President, can you ask for greater support from western countries when, at the same time, judges, prosecutors, political leaders and some clerics are targeting Afghan journalists with such virulence in your country?
Kambakhsh’s release and the quashing of his death sentence would be a positive signal in an otherwise sombre panorama."
I urge everyone who reads this post to contact the Embassy of Afghanistan in their respective countries and demand that the charges against Pervez Kambaksh be dropped and his life spared. Of course, be forceful but also respectful. The idea here is to persuade, not to condemn.
The website for the Embassy of Afghanistan in the United States is here. A man's life hangs in the balance here, and if the Afghan government catches enough heat from this, they might find some face saving way of letting Pervez Kambaksh go free.
One case that received a lot of attention in the atheist blogosphere at the beginning of the year was Pervez Kambaksh, a journalism student in Afghanistan who was charged with the crime of blasphemy for disseminating articles that were deemed insulting to Islam. (As an aside, I think I insult Islam just by waking up and getting out of bed every morning!)
I did a couple of posts about Pervez Kambaksh (by the way, his name has different spellings, but I will stick with the one I have been using) here and here. Since then, his name seems to have faded from the public consciousness. Wondering what had happened to him, I did some searching on Google.
From a May 18, 2008 article from the UK publication The Independent Online:
Pervez Kambaksh, the Afghan student sentenced to death after being accused of downloading internet reports on women's rights, yesterday pleaded innocent to charges of blasphemy. He told an appeal court in Kabul that he had been tortured into confessing.
Mr Kambaksh, 24, vehemently denied that he had been responsible for producing anti-Islamic literature. He insisted the prosecution had been motivated by personal malice of two members of staff and their student supporters at the university in Balkh, where he was studying journalism.
The head of the panel of three judges at Kabul, Abdul Salaam Qazizada, adjourned the trial until next Sunday to allow Mr Kambaksh further attempts to find a lawyer. As of last night they had not succeeded. The original trial took place in January. Mr Kambaksh's appeal was moved to Kabul at his own request, amid fears for his safety in Mazar after international outrage at the sentence. A petition by The Independent to secure justice for him has attracted more than 100,000 signatures.
In an open letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai dated June 11, 2008 by the organization Reporters Without Borders, the case of Pervez Kambaksh was raised:
"You must of course be aware, Mr. President, of the case of the young journalist Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, which has shocked the entire world. The death sentence passed on him by a court in Mazar-i-Sharif triggered a wave of legitimate outrage. More than a million people have already signed a petition launched by the British newspaper The Independent calling for his release. The recent revelation that he was tortured by members of the security services casts doubt on your government’s ability to respect the relevant international standards.
How, Mr. President, can you ask for greater support from western countries when, at the same time, judges, prosecutors, political leaders and some clerics are targeting Afghan journalists with such virulence in your country?
Kambakhsh’s release and the quashing of his death sentence would be a positive signal in an otherwise sombre panorama."
I urge everyone who reads this post to contact the Embassy of Afghanistan in their respective countries and demand that the charges against Pervez Kambaksh be dropped and his life spared. Of course, be forceful but also respectful. The idea here is to persuade, not to condemn.
The website for the Embassy of Afghanistan in the United States is here. A man's life hangs in the balance here, and if the Afghan government catches enough heat from this, they might find some face saving way of letting Pervez Kambaksh go free.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Reason Number 143 Why Islamic Fundamentalism Sucks
Banned under Islam. From the English language Daily News Egypt:
One hundred years after it was founded, Cairo's School of Fine Arts seeks to train Egypt's artists but has to make do without nude "life" drawing classes so as not to offend Islam.
Full article available here.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Malika El Aroud - The Belgian Embassy Replies
Last week I did a post on Malika El Aroud titled "The Veiled Face of Evil". Regular readers may recall one passage I quoted from The New York Times article on her mentioned that El Aroud was collecting some $1,100 per month in unemployment benefits. As I wrote in my post, I e-mailed the Belgian Embassy asking how and why this princess of Jihad was permitted to live at the expense of Belgian taxpayers.
To my surprise, I received a reply from the person I e-mailed at the Belgian Embassy. His reply is as follows:
Thank you for your e-mail of 28 May regarding the article in the New York Times about Malika El Aroud.
We understand that this article may contain disturbing elements. However, like the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, the Belgian Constitution provides wide ranging freedom of speech rights. While the Government may monitor these activities, only the Courts can decide whether citizens operate outside the borders of the law.
As for the social benefits you referred to: the Belgian Government does provide to its citizens a number of social benefits (such as unemployment benefits, health insurance, etc), depending on specific criteria, laid down in the laws concerned. All citizens who meet the criteria are entitled to these allowances. The Government does not have discretionary powers to take away these rights.
It was pretty much what I expected. Sounds like someone is going to have to find a way to get her to act outside of the law so that she can get her benefits terminated. Or, barring that, talk her into abandoning her misguided radicalism.
To my surprise, I received a reply from the person I e-mailed at the Belgian Embassy. His reply is as follows:
Thank you for your e-mail of 28 May regarding the article in the New York Times about Malika El Aroud.
We understand that this article may contain disturbing elements. However, like the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, the Belgian Constitution provides wide ranging freedom of speech rights. While the Government may monitor these activities, only the Courts can decide whether citizens operate outside the borders of the law.
As for the social benefits you referred to: the Belgian Government does provide to its citizens a number of social benefits (such as unemployment benefits, health insurance, etc), depending on specific criteria, laid down in the laws concerned. All citizens who meet the criteria are entitled to these allowances. The Government does not have discretionary powers to take away these rights.
It was pretty much what I expected. Sounds like someone is going to have to find a way to get her to act outside of the law so that she can get her benefits terminated. Or, barring that, talk her into abandoning her misguided radicalism.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
What An Absolute Disgrace
Before I start, I have to confess that right now I am practically at the point of bursting into tears.
Readers of my blog will recall that just a couple of weeks ago I did a post titled "Honor Killings - The Ultimate Oxymoron" about a 17 year old girl named Rand Abdel-Qader in the southern Iraqi city of Basra who was brutally murdered by her father because she had a crush on a British soldier. After the girl's murder, her mother Leila Hussein left her monster of a husband, but not before being brutally beaten by him.
Just a moment ago, I was reading the online edition of the UK news publication The Guardian, when the headline for this article caught my eye. I was absolutely stunned and heartbroken. Leila Hussein is dead.
"Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.
Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her."
Meanwhile, the worthless piece of shit ex-husband of hers who set this whole tragedy in motion is still a free man. This is the wonderful world of liberated Iraq.
Readers of my blog will recall that just a couple of weeks ago I did a post titled "Honor Killings - The Ultimate Oxymoron" about a 17 year old girl named Rand Abdel-Qader in the southern Iraqi city of Basra who was brutally murdered by her father because she had a crush on a British soldier. After the girl's murder, her mother Leila Hussein left her monster of a husband, but not before being brutally beaten by him.
Just a moment ago, I was reading the online edition of the UK news publication The Guardian, when the headline for this article caught my eye. I was absolutely stunned and heartbroken. Leila Hussein is dead.
"Leila Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.
Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her."
Meanwhile, the worthless piece of shit ex-husband of hers who set this whole tragedy in motion is still a free man. This is the wonderful world of liberated Iraq.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Veiled Face of Evil
Jihadist Playmate of the Month
Hello readers of Exercise in Futility. This dark robed lady is Malika El Aroud. Today I read a profile of her in The New York Times (registration required) that was quite disturbing.
In her living room, Ms. El Aroud, a 48-year-old Belgian, wears the ordinary look of middle age: a plain black T-shirt and pants and curly brown hair. The only adornment is a pair of powder-blue slippers monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY.
But it is on the Internet where Ms. El Aroud has distinguished herself. Writing in French under the name “Oum Obeyda,” she has transformed herself into one of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe."
At one point, she lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban with her first husband, who would participate in the attack on Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud just days before the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
After her husband’s mission, Ms. El Aroud was briefly detained by Mr. Massoud’s followers. Frightened, she was put in contact with Belgian authorities, who arranged for her safe passage home.
“We got her out and thought she’d cooperate with us,” said one senior Belgian intelligence official. “We were deceived.”
But here is the really outrageous part: "Now, even as Ms. El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her main Internet forum and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits."
I was so stunned by this revelation that I e-mailed someone at the Belgian Embassy to the United States asking how such a thing can be possible. Why is this woman collecting unemployment benefits?
It also bothered me that the reporter for the Times referred to Malika El Aroud as a "Belgian". She is not a Belgian, she is a Moroccan immigrant who happens to live in Belgium and who is having her pro-terrorist activities essentially subsidized by the very Belgian taxpayers that she so despises. I e-mailed the Times reporter asking her to explain why she designated Malika as a Belgian when she so clearly is a parasite who just happens to live in Belgium.
Another thing that annoyed me is a quote from a Claude Moniquet, president of the Brussels-based European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center. The article quotes him saying that "Malika is a role model, an icon who is bold enough to identify herself. She plays a very important strategic role as a source of inspiration. She’s very clever — and extremely dangerous." I underlined the passage above, because when you look at the picture of her above, she obviously is not bold enough to identify herself, at least when she is out walking in public or having herself photographed.
That got me to thinking about the efficacy of Belgium enacting a mask law which would essentially outlaw the wearing of a veil in public. Mask laws are on the books on a number of states in the United States, including my home state of New York. In some states the laws were enacted in response to violence by masked members of the Ku Klux Klan. As it currently stands, Malika El Aroud is allowed to advocate jihad against non-Muslims, including presumably the people of Belgium, while being subsidized by the Belgian taxpayers in her nefarious activities, all the while her identity in public being kept anonymous. It would be nice if the public could identify her by face when she ventures outside of her apartment, though if such a law were enacted she would likely avoid going outside as much as possible and not allow pictures of her face to be taken.
Still, the Times article does provide some clues as to where she might be found: "Ms. El Aroud operates from her three-room apartment that sits above a clothing shop in a working-class Brussels neighborhood where she spends her time communicating with supporters, mainly on her own forum, Minbar-SOS." And the Times article also shows a picture of her husband. It might just be enough to go on for some determined individuals to provide a little pay back for Theo Van Gogh. Not murder of course. Maybe breaking the bones in her hands so she can't type hate messages on her Internet forums anymore.
Incidentally, I logged on to the Minbar-SOS site. Unfortunately, it was all in French, but I did get a login ID and left a message on one of the threads: "Votre dieu Allah n'est pas existe. Abandonnez Islam et embrasse secular humanisme!" If you need a translation, I wrote "Your god Allah does not exist. Abandon Islam and embrace secular humanism!"
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Honor Killings - The Ultimate Oxymoron
Several people in the atheist blogosphere have already posted about the "honor killing" of a 17 year old Iraqi girl named Rand Abdel-Qader by her father Abdel-Qader Ali, including this post at Pharyngula.
I imagine that a lot of people who read stories like this have the same reaction as me. There is an almost incandescent rage as one imagines the last moments of a terrified and defenseless girl having the life choked out of her by her father over something that most of us write off as just an episode of harmless puppy love.
The idea that the value of a woman's life is worthless in and of itself apart from upholding a family's sense of honor is an affront to civilization. It belongs on the ash heap of history along with slavery and communism.
True to his misogynist core, the murderous father blames the mother of his dead daughter:
He said his daughter's 'bad genes were passed on from her mother'. Rand's mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she told him she was going. 'They cannot accept me leaving him. When I first left I went to a cousin's home, but every day they were delivering notes to my door saying I was a prostitute and deserved the same death as Rand,' she said.
It heartens me at least somewhat knowing that the mother did not stand for the killing and has left the bastard. I can only hope that she will remain safe.
As if being a murderer wasn't bad enough, the Guardian article to which I linked also reveals Abdel-Qader to be a vicious homophobe:
Homosexuality is punishable by death, a sentence Abdel-Qader approves of with a passion. 'I have alerted my two sons. They will have the same end [as Rand] if they become contaminated with any gay relationship. These crimes deserve death - death in the name of God,' he said.
It never ceases to amaze me how these religious fanatics worship a god that is supposed to be all powerful, and yet they feel the need to kill in this god's name rather than letting Mr. Big mete out justice Himself.
As for what to do in response to this and other honor killings, part of the problem is that we feel that expressions of impotent rage are all that we can do. I have to admit to wishing that there existed some paramilitary force to combat honor killings by murdering the family members who perpetrate them and then leaving their mutilated bodies in the town square to serve as a warning to others. If any ex-military guys want to organize such a group, I will be happy to send them a fat donation. After all, how can such a deeply ingrained cancer in a culture be combatted unless its members know that there will be deadly consequences for engaging in such conduct?
Of course, my revenge brigade idea will never be more than a fantasy. But there are things that you and I can do in response to this, however futile it may seem.
First, lodge a complaint with the United States Embassy in Iraq. At the very least, if they hear from enough of us, they can try to lean on the Iraqi government to address the issue.
Secondly, we can also complain to the Iraqi Embassy itself. Unfortunately, I perused the site and there does not seem to be an e-mail address. The contact page lists an address and a telephone number. I plan to write a letter, hopefully this evening, and will post it here. Rand Abdel-Qader and all of the other victims of "honor killings," which I call the ultimate oxymoron, deserve justice.
I imagine that a lot of people who read stories like this have the same reaction as me. There is an almost incandescent rage as one imagines the last moments of a terrified and defenseless girl having the life choked out of her by her father over something that most of us write off as just an episode of harmless puppy love.
The idea that the value of a woman's life is worthless in and of itself apart from upholding a family's sense of honor is an affront to civilization. It belongs on the ash heap of history along with slavery and communism.
True to his misogynist core, the murderous father blames the mother of his dead daughter:
He said his daughter's 'bad genes were passed on from her mother'. Rand's mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she told him she was going. 'They cannot accept me leaving him. When I first left I went to a cousin's home, but every day they were delivering notes to my door saying I was a prostitute and deserved the same death as Rand,' she said.
It heartens me at least somewhat knowing that the mother did not stand for the killing and has left the bastard. I can only hope that she will remain safe.
As if being a murderer wasn't bad enough, the Guardian article to which I linked also reveals Abdel-Qader to be a vicious homophobe:
Homosexuality is punishable by death, a sentence Abdel-Qader approves of with a passion. 'I have alerted my two sons. They will have the same end [as Rand] if they become contaminated with any gay relationship. These crimes deserve death - death in the name of God,' he said.
It never ceases to amaze me how these religious fanatics worship a god that is supposed to be all powerful, and yet they feel the need to kill in this god's name rather than letting Mr. Big mete out justice Himself.
As for what to do in response to this and other honor killings, part of the problem is that we feel that expressions of impotent rage are all that we can do. I have to admit to wishing that there existed some paramilitary force to combat honor killings by murdering the family members who perpetrate them and then leaving their mutilated bodies in the town square to serve as a warning to others. If any ex-military guys want to organize such a group, I will be happy to send them a fat donation. After all, how can such a deeply ingrained cancer in a culture be combatted unless its members know that there will be deadly consequences for engaging in such conduct?
Of course, my revenge brigade idea will never be more than a fantasy. But there are things that you and I can do in response to this, however futile it may seem.
First, lodge a complaint with the United States Embassy in Iraq. At the very least, if they hear from enough of us, they can try to lean on the Iraqi government to address the issue.
Secondly, we can also complain to the Iraqi Embassy itself. Unfortunately, I perused the site and there does not seem to be an e-mail address. The contact page lists an address and a telephone number. I plan to write a letter, hopefully this evening, and will post it here. Rand Abdel-Qader and all of the other victims of "honor killings," which I call the ultimate oxymoron, deserve justice.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Center of Islamic Stupidity
By way of the BBC Online, here is the latest bit of lunacy from the learned minions of the Islamic world.
Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.
A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.
The claim by Sheikh al-Qaradawy that Mecca is the "true centre of the Earth" is ignorant and stupid on so many levels.
For starters, the Earth, as everyone but a Flat Earther knows, is a sphere. That means that no place on the surface of the sphere can be its center. In the case of planet Earth, its true center is the core deep beneath the surface. Below is a cutout of the interior of the planet for illustrative purposes.
Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.
A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.
The claim by Sheikh al-Qaradawy that Mecca is the "true centre of the Earth" is ignorant and stupid on so many levels.
For starters, the Earth, as everyone but a Flat Earther knows, is a sphere. That means that no place on the surface of the sphere can be its center. In the case of planet Earth, its true center is the core deep beneath the surface. Below is a cutout of the interior of the planet for illustrative purposes.
Note that the city of Mecca appears nowhere in the Earth's inner core in the illustration above, though some of us might wish that it could be relocated there!
Now, perhaps the Sheikh meant that Mecca occupies a place on the surface that could be considered centrally located. Well, if Mecca was smack dab on the equator, making the city equally distant from both the North and South Poles, it might help his case. But alas, as the map below reveals, Mecca does not lie on the equator. In fact, the Muslim holy city is about as far from the equator as Miami is from New York, and lies on approximately the same line of latitude as the Florida Keys.
But wait, the Muslim clerics and scientists have one more trick up their sleeves.
The BBC article reports that "One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca's was in perfect alignment to magnetic north."
Gee, maybe he has a point there. Not!
You see, as reported in this BBC article, magnetic north tends to have a habit of shifting its position, and that "it could end up in Siberia within 50 years." So, even if Mecca did align perfectly with magnetic north, it would not stay that way for very long.
So, unless I am missing some crucial piece of information, I fail to see how Mecca, let alone any place on the surface of the Earth, can be considered to be the Earth's center.
If this is the best that contemporary Muslim scientific thought has to offer, I for one am not impressed.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Who Said Muslims Don't Have A Sense of Humor?
Last year I joined a Yahoo group called American Muslims and get daily e-mails from them that I never bothered to read.
Well, today I actually read one of the e-mails instead of hastily deleting it and came across this little gem:
Question: I would like to know if we are able to take part in April Fool's Day jokes and if not, why not. Jazakallah.
Answer: You know better whether or not you are able to take part in any activity. We do not know your physical or social conditions.
Whether you should is another matter. There the question is why do you want to take part in it? Think about it, research it, ask those who do urge or encourage you to do so. Why? When you do, you will discover that real fools are the persons who foolishly follow this practice while they have no idea why they are doing it.
A Muslim does not follow the mob. He, or she, never does things simply because other people are doing it. He is thinking, reflecting, person who does not waste any of his time in doing things that will not bring him any benefit in the hereafter or in this world.
In contrast, in Jahiliyya society people do things simply because others are doing it. They blindly follow whatever the media or the mob tell them is the latest in thing or cool idea. That is why Qur'an says that they are deaf, dumb, and blind. They are like animals. Rather they are worse than animals.
Islam liberates you from the Jahiliyya society. Indeed it would be tragic if someone, instead of cherishing it, were to question this liberation.
Not knowing what "Jahiliyya society" was, I admit I had to look it up. The definition, which I got from Austin Cline's About: Atheism site, described "jahiliyya" as:
This can mean "ignorance" or even "barbarism" and refers to the state people lived in before Muhammad received his revelation from God and brought Islam to the world. This was a time of lawlessness and idolatry, as contrasted with the period of time under Islamic rule, characterized by morality, enlightenment and divine law.
I have therefore updated my masthead to proudly proclaim my membership in Jahiliyya Society!
Well, today I actually read one of the e-mails instead of hastily deleting it and came across this little gem:
Question: I would like to know if we are able to take part in April Fool's Day jokes and if not, why not. Jazakallah.
Answer: You know better whether or not you are able to take part in any activity. We do not know your physical or social conditions.
Whether you should is another matter. There the question is why do you want to take part in it? Think about it, research it, ask those who do urge or encourage you to do so. Why? When you do, you will discover that real fools are the persons who foolishly follow this practice while they have no idea why they are doing it.
A Muslim does not follow the mob. He, or she, never does things simply because other people are doing it. He is thinking, reflecting, person who does not waste any of his time in doing things that will not bring him any benefit in the hereafter or in this world.
In contrast, in Jahiliyya society people do things simply because others are doing it. They blindly follow whatever the media or the mob tell them is the latest in thing or cool idea. That is why Qur'an says that they are deaf, dumb, and blind. They are like animals. Rather they are worse than animals.
Islam liberates you from the Jahiliyya society. Indeed it would be tragic if someone, instead of cherishing it, were to question this liberation.
Not knowing what "Jahiliyya society" was, I admit I had to look it up. The definition, which I got from Austin Cline's About: Atheism site, described "jahiliyya" as:
This can mean "ignorance" or even "barbarism" and refers to the state people lived in before Muhammad received his revelation from God and brought Islam to the world. This was a time of lawlessness and idolatry, as contrasted with the period of time under Islamic rule, characterized by morality, enlightenment and divine law.
I have therefore updated my masthead to proudly proclaim my membership in Jahiliyya Society!
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Reason Number 812 Why Malaysia Sucks
As per this article on the BBC:
"When customers come to pay at the new Tesco supermarket in Kota Bharu they have to queue separately - one till for men, another for women.
It is one of the regulations to ensure the sexes are kept apart in Kelantan - the only state in Malaysia run by the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)."
What century are we living in again?
"When customers come to pay at the new Tesco supermarket in Kota Bharu they have to queue separately - one till for men, another for women.
It is one of the regulations to ensure the sexes are kept apart in Kelantan - the only state in Malaysia run by the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)."
What century are we living in again?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Struggling With The Veil
Last week I put up a post linking to an article about Walmart's apology to a Muslim woman customer who was the target of a jest by a Walmart employee. It was not a post I had set out to do. But when I came across the article while reading the news online, I did a quick post about it in a rather hasty fashion.
I am sorry to say that my comments on the matter were rather visceral in nature, and, in retrospect, perhaps a bit harsh. I gave the impression that I believed that any Muslim woman in this country wearing a veil in public deserved whatever happened to her, which I really did not mean. I certainly did not mean to convey the impression that wearing a veil was a license to taunt or harass a Muslim woman. I have since taken the post down, as it was below my personal standards that I set for myself here.
This is a rather delicate issue for me. I consider myself to be a male feminist. I support reproductive rights for women, believe in equal pay for equal work, and reject patriarchal ways of thinking. So, on one level, I find the idea of Muslim women being forced or brainwashed into wearing veils as a public badge of inferiority. Even worse, as an atheist, I see the veil as an act of submission to an entity, Allah, that I know does not even exist. Like Hasidic males with their locks of hair dangling on each side of their head, or Catholics on Ash Wednesday walking around in public with dabs of soot on their foreheads, the veil represents to me a bold affirmation to society of one's belief in something that I find to be totally insane.
On another, seemingly contradictory level, I find the idea of Muslim women wearing veils in our society to be a provocative act. The veil serves not only as a physical barrier, but a psychological barrier as well. It is as if the Muslim woman views the rest of us as some kind of contamination to be kept at bay. The message I get from seeing a veiled Muslim woman is "I abhor the prospect of having to associate with you."
I understand that there is some validity to the argument that for a Muslim woman, wearing a veil from her perspective is in its own way a feminist act. It is an expression of her individuality and her right to deal with our society on her own terms. But given the fact that we find ourselves in a struggle with an ideology that mandates the wearing of the veil wherever it takes hold, I find it hard to be sympathetic to this point of view. Instead, I can't help but see a Muslim woman wearing a veil as being a public expression of solidarity with the very ideology with which we find ourselves at war.
In the last couple of years, I have noticed Muslim women here on Long Island in our shopping malls and even driving on our streets, garbed in the veil. So, for me, this is not just some academic exercise. It is something I encounter on an increasingly frequent basis, and I feel an extreme discomfort everytime I see it. I want to see an America that is increasingly more rational and secular, and seeing Muslim women openly wearing veils in this country is a sign to me that reason is in retreat.
I don't want Muslim women who wear the veil to be harmed in any way. But at the same time, I can't deny that I desire a climate that serves to discourage them from wearing it. I pride myself on not being a man who succumbs to prejudice and bigotry. I find myself struggling with this issue because it represents a clash of my own values, in this case my respect for religious freedom colliding with what I fear to be the very threat to freedom that the veil represents to me.
This post is a departure from much of my past writing here at Exercise in Futility. I am baring my inner most thoughts about a rather heated topic. I am revealing my fears and prejudices for all to see and to comment on. I would appreciate reading what others have to write about this subject and the publicization of my own thoughts on it. If by chance any Muslims come across this post and wish to add their own two cents, I certainly welcome them to do so. While the veil is not as big an issue as it is in places like the United Kingdom, which have larger and more traditional Muslim populations, I think it will become an increasingly important issue here in the United States in future years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)