|
|
|
|
Maxflackreport.com John Esposito
JOHN ESPOSITO'S DILEMMA-REFORMATION OR CONQUEST!
Sohaib Abbasi, a former executive at the Oracle Corporation, contributed $2.5 million to the Abbasi Program; Lysbeth Warren, a member of the Humanities and Sciences Council at Stanford, kicked in another $2 million. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, apparently worried about their reputation as spendthrifts, added a $4.5 million grant to the fund. That's makes $9 million-a right tidy sum. But it's for a good cause-it's for education
Who knows? Maybe Johnny will finally learn how to read, and Jane will acquire the necessary skills to become a first-rate junior executive at-say, McDonalds or Wal-Mart.
But wait a minute-hold your horses-this is Berkeley we're talking about here, and there are strings attached. If Johnny and Jane expect to be on the receiving end of any of this educational largesse they will have to study the Koran, learn how to spell burqa, plan a pilgrimage to Mecca, and read the works of John Esposito-especially the latter.
The $9 million is more for indoctrination than it is for education. It will fund the new Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies at Berkeley. It will expand the current curriculum of Islamic Studies, and will, hopefully, promote a better understanding of Muslim culture.
Say what? Promote a better understanding of Muslim culture? Now if that doesn't smell fishy it's because somebody has let Charlie out of the can. Isn't Islam a religion? They're not trying to promote a religion are they? Hasn't anybody told them about the separations of Church and State? Aren't these the same folks who have repeatedly excoriated Jerry Falwell for attempting to breech the famous wall between Church and State? Is there anybody at Berkeley who remembers Jefferson and Madison? Do they think Old Jeff and Little Jemmy would have approved of this nonsense? What would that dirty little atheist Tom Paine have had to say? Would it be printable?
What are these Berkeley rascals up to? Do they have an ulterior motive-a hidden agenda-are they trying to undermine Christianity, capitalism, George W. Bush, and the US government? Naw-those scoundrels would never attempt anything like that! Maybe they're planning to sell prayer rugs between classes. There's a growing market in prayer rugs. Does Esposito have some kind of a contract with the Wahabbis? What are they paying for a convert these days?
John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and chair of Georgetown's Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, kicked off the Studies lecture series when he spoke on "The Future of Islam" at Berkeley's Oak Lounge. Esposito is Islam's foremost promoter in America. He beats the loudest drum in the Muslim parade. He's a super salesman. He could have sold shares in the French Panama Canal Company to Ferdinand de Lesseps; he could have sold the Brooklyn Bridge to W.C. Fields; if he stood on a street corner describing a Schwinn to a five-year-old and the Fonz happened by, the Fonz would buy one sight unseen, thinking he was getting the greatest Harley ever built. Esposito is a walking one-man South Sea's Bubble.
"We have to broaden our notions of plurality and tolerance," said Esposito. "Tolerance must be based on mutual understanding and respect...Unless we do that, it makes for a bleak future.
Mutual understanding and respect? Of course! That's it! Esposito is right! What an incredible insight! What an astounding breakthrough! Now if we can get the mullahs and the ayatollahs and the imams and the Wahabbis who run those Madrassas schools they call universities in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iran to adopt the Esposito program the future safety of the world is assured!
But, alas-wouldn't you know-Esposito is not talking about Mohammed and Habib and the Mad-Rats-Asses schools, he's talking about Potsy and Ralph Malph! Yes, sad to say, Potsy and Ralph Malph are culturally deprived as far as Esposito is concerned. Neither of them has ever been inside a mosque-and the Fonz has never been inside a church, but that's another story. It wouldn't hurt if the boys learned a few suras and hadiths-that would make Ibrahim Hoopercrit more comfortable when he comes around to collect the jizya. That's the tax non-Muslims-dhimmis-pay to practice their religion in the lands of the mullahs. Unlikely, you say? Not according to Hooper. He says America will eventually become a Muslim country-especially if Esposito and his friends have anything to say about it.
If we can't be frank, let's at least be honest. Potsy and Ralph Malph have a more inclusive notion of what plurality entails than either Esposito or Hooper. There is nothing in the way of diversity the boys haven't tried. They will eat anything that's been dead for at least five seconds. And clothes? Why, they will wear a sarong in the morning, a swallowtail coat in the afternoon, and a caftan and a pith helmet at night, and their sister's underpants when nobody is looking. And, except for Roseanne Barr and Moms Mably, there isn't woman they haven't tried to date. They will listen to any kind of music-mariachi, polka. My Gosh! They know who Nelson Eddy is! And once a year they get together for a Chipmunks festival! And do they ever love sports! They would walk a mile-and they have-just to see how many people can stuff their carcasses into a phone booth-a sport that has been in a steady and sad decline. But one must keep an eye on Ralph Malph-he's very competitive. He has been caught cheating at miniature golf.
Plurality? Tolerance? Potsy and Ralph Malph are full of plurality and tolerance. They have a surfeit of it. Why would Esposito insist on more plurality and tolerance for Potsy and Ralph Malph and make little of no demands on Mohammed and Habib? Isn't it a two-way street?
One more bit of wisdom-or perhaps nonsense-from Esposito. He says people are always looking for a Martin Luther of Islam-someone to lead an Islamic version of the Protestant Reformation. This is very interesting. During the Protestant Reformation, Christians wasted an awful lot of their time killing other Christians. That was how they settled their differences. Who can forget The Thirty Years War and the Counter Reformation? Well-maybe Esposito can.
If Islam is undergoing a reformation as Esposito insists, why are the Muslims killing Christians instead of Muslims? Why are they killing Jews instead of Muslims? And Hindus? And animists? And Buddhists? And atheists? And agnostics? Have they got it backwards-or is someone confusing conquest with reformation?
Kevin Barrett
U.M.-Madison promotes conspiracy theories! Hires Kevin ‘Grin-an' Barrett to preach anti-Bush message!
Anybody who can spell existentialist must be smarter than Bill O'Reilly. A guy who can spend day after day in a shack in the woods and doesn't have pinecones sticking in his hair and a beard down to his knees has got to be civilized-erudite even. This rascal reads Kurt Vonnegut; he worked for Gary Hart; he would have been on Laugh In if Dick Martin had known a first-rate standup comedian when he saw one. He knows more about Christianity than Jerry Falwell, more about Judaism than the rascal who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; more about Buddhism than a Jihadist with a satchel charge eyeing a giant Buddha; more about Hinduism than a van loaded with Hari Krishnas on the way to the Bhagwan's ranch in Colorado. He could have told James Jones he was using the wrong flavor of Kool-Aid.
Gosh, and he writes poetry-not one-two, buckle my shoe poetry, but real honest-to-goodness poetry, the kind of stuff that Maynard G. Krebs would have read; that would have brought tears to the eyes of Jack Keroauc. He's been a mystic, a philosopher, a Renaissance man and a good caretaker. (That's a fancy word for janitor) He took care of a cabin in the woods for a Madison Wisconsin Muslim organization called Khidria and never once was he cited by a Ranger for starting a major forest fire! He was so smart he became a Muslim. That's what happens to an intellectual once he has learned everything worth learning. It's a curse!
In recognition of his incredible brilliance the University of Wisconsin at Madison gave him a teaching job. That's right. This fall he will be freely expressing his opinions as facts in an introductory class on Islam. His name is Kevin Barrett and some of his students may be forced to ‘Grin-an'-bear-it' in order to survive. He is a suspicious fellow. He sees conspiracies everywhere. The dar al-Harb is full of them. Joe McCarthy had a list of 57 Communists working in the State Department. Barrett's secret list of Nazis working for George W. Bush must top that by a least ten Obergrupenfuhrers. As any fool would know if one totals up the number of verses in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the hadiths and the various commentaries pertaining to 9/11 and divides by the estimated number of fleas in Osama bin Laden's beard, multiplied by the number of unrequited virgins in Allah's Great Whorehouse in the Sky one can only come to the conclusion that it was George W. Bush and company that brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11 and not that simpleminded dupe Mohammed Atta and his slack-jawed cretinous friends. One can't argue with that kind of logic-and that's the kind of logic the students in Barrett's class will be up against.
Not unexpectedly, Barrett has come under attack by a number of state legislators-most but not all of them Republicans. They want Barrett fired. Democrats say it is a free speech issue and they will defend it to the death, blah, blah and blah. Now if it was David Duke...well, some speech is not as free as others.
Pat Farrell, U.W.-Madison Provost, defended Barrett. Barrett is a regular old Mr. Chips. "I still have every expectation this will be a very positive educational experience for our students,' said Farrell. "Some are upset about Mr. Barrett's viewpoints on 9/11 and don't want to pay much attention to what makes for a quality educational experience."
If Farrell really meant that he would have no objections to hiring a past-president of the John Birch Society to teach a class on McCarthyism-how Tail-Gunner Joe had been correct in his assessment of Communist infiltration into the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower administrations. McCarthy had actually underestimated the number of fellow travelers serving in the US government but it scarcely matters now-there are more Communists teaching at U.W.-Madison these days than there are in the Kremlin. There is a lot of hypocrisy in a quality educational experience.
The question is why would someone with Barrett's incredible intellectual gifts espouse such an obviously ridiculous conspiracy theory? The late Eric Hoffer said it was intellectual hubris that led great minds to radicalism and eventually to mass murder. Like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, Eric Hobsbawm and other intellectuals, but not Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, Barrett knows more about everything that counts than just about anybody else and he knows it. But nobody pays Barrett or Chomsky or Finklestein the mass deference their exceptional genius requires. They are not allowed to run anything; a good plumber and a reliable mailman receive more deference and get more invitations to parties where the hot babes are. And waitresses think they are cheap. This is humiliating!
In other times and other civilizations, intellectuals, like Hitler and Lenin and Mao, actually ran countries-big countries with marching Armies and fireworks every evening, not itty-bitty university departments with AWOL secretaries and bad plumbing. American intellectuals would like to try their hand at running a country. They would like to run America-Harry Truman ran America and if Harry Truman could, anyone could, but the vox populi are unaware of the unparalleled genius of its intellectual class, the good news being kept from then, and the political parties are run by crass opportunists who seem to think they know more about what is good for the people than the intellectual elite. Isn't that silly? It's easy for intellectuals to hate those kinds of countries. There aren't many of then. America is one. Intellectuals hate America. Chomsky hates America; Finklestein hates America.
Barrett has a second problem in addition to intellectual hubris-he knows too much for his own good. He has supposedly penetrated to the depths of every religion know to man and some unknown. Maybe he missed the Dukhobors. He knows Christianity inside out; he knows Zen; he is familiar with L. Ron Hubbard in a non-sexual way. He knows Freud and Jonge and he's lived in the woods. Quite frankly, taken altogether it is not a healthy lifestyle. If he had christened his shack in the pines Walden Pond instead of Zawiya (Islamic spiritual retreat) it might have helped. Barrett is a very confused fellow. Christianity, existentialism, the Kennedy assassination, a religion of peace and tolerance, and 9/11 would be enough to warp an ordinary mind, obliterate an exceptional one. It could explain why Barrett became a Muslim and why he believes in silly conspiracies but it doesn't explain why he was hired. To give students a quality educational experience is about as flimsy an excuse as ‘the dog ate my homework.' If anybody should be fired, it should be Pat Farrell. That would give everybody a quality educational experience-including Farrell.
Kurt Vonnegut
SLAUGHTERHOUSE 9/11
If David Nason, New York correspondent for The Weekend Australian, had wanted to interview a philosopher he would have picked somebody like Jed Clampett or Barney Miller. Jed was Clarence Darrow, Judge Roy Bean and Abe Lincoln all rolled into one. Nothing ever fazed him-not double-naught spies, Ellie's critters, or Granny's tonic; he had an answer for everything. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) has patterned himself after Jed. Barney Miller was more like Erich Fromme with a little Aristotle thrown in. He once said a good suit should last ten years. Anyone who could handle Wojo and Inspector Luger on a daily basis would be more than a match for such pseudo-philosophers as Noam Chomsky or Robert Jensen. With their feet planted firmly on the ground, Jed and Barney would never have praised or made excuses for suicide bombers.
If Nason had been looking for an old curmudgeon he couldn't have gone wrong with Andy Rooney. If he had wanted a radical leftwing firebrand there was Michael Moore or Howard Dean. Unfortunately, what Nason got was Kurt Vonnegut, author of Slaughterhouse Five and Breakfast of Champions. Nason was on assignment and Vonnegut was promoting his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of anti-Bush essays.
Vonnegut is not a philosopher no matter what he might think. He doesn't use words like Well, doggies and Jimcracky and he's probably never seen the insides of a cracker barrel. He seems lost in a beatnik time-warp; coffeehouses, poetry, bongos, goatees, women in black leotards; Che and Fidel; Jack Kerouac On the Road; Maynard G. Krebs standing watch over the Endicott Building; Edsels and Moa; students flirting with Buddhism and Communism-not dirty or grungy enough to be a hippie, but older, nastier, no longer capable of understanding America, and with his own mortality staring him in the face, unable to keep his mouth shut for any appreciable length of time; the anger of a foolish old man, doddering on the brink of oblivion, unaware of the onset of senescence.
Could this be Kurt Vonnegut? Who else? It's not Jed Clampett; it's not Andy Rooney. Vonnegut never starts a sentence with Well, doggies or Did you ever notice- So as not to disappoint anyone, Vonnegut discussed his world view with Nason. "What George Bush and his gang did not realize was that people fight back," he said. Ah-hah! Bush has a gang! That is not good. Al Capone had a gang; Wild Bill Doolan had a gang. Bad people have gangs. Ipso facto, Bush must be bad. This is cracker barrel philosophy without the barrel.
Vonnegut had a lot to say about suicide bombers. "I regard them as very brave people," he said. To die for what you believe is "sweet and honorable." He rejected the idea that Islamo-fascists like Mohammed Atta and Hani Hanjour were motivated by twisted religious beliefs. "I regard them as very brave people, yes."
Brave? No, Kurt, you are mistaken. Brave people do not commit suicide. Suicide is the opposite of bravery. Brave people take chances; they risk their lives, sometimes against enormous odds, but it's to save people. They don't deliberately kill themselves hoping to take thousands of innocent people with them; bravery is Audie Murphy charging a pillbox to save his buddies; bravery is John Q. Public diving into a frozen river to save a drowning child. Brave people do not want to die; they want to live; they do what needs to be done to save lives; that is what makes them brave. Fools, maniacs and those twisted and perverted by religious fascism want to die. They don't save lives; they take lives. Truth and reason have no place in their warped world. They are not brave; they are cowardly. Mohammed Atta, the result of 1,400 years of systematic brainwashing, did not commit an act of bravery by crashing that plane into the World Trade Center-it was an insane and selfish act-he was on his way, one might say he was Hell bent, to Allah's Great Whorehouse in the Sky. Seventy-two virgins can last one of Allah's slaves a long time.
Vonnegut said, "They are dying for their own self-respect. It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect."
What did Vonnegut mean by that? Did he mean anything at all? Was his mind wandering? This is confusing. Self-respect? Was that why Henry Clay fought a duel with John Randolph of Roanoke? Was that why Lt. Col. Jochen Peiper of the Waffen SS ordered the execution of 72 American prisoners of war at Malmedy? Were Clay and Peiper trying to regain their self-respect? Had they been dis-respected like, say-Rodney King? Was that what Lieutenant William Calley had in mind at My Lai? If Rodney Dangerfield had come into the world without a religion would he have chosen Islam? So Mohammed Atta and Hani Hanjour killed thousands of innocent people because they were deprived of their self-respect? Is that why Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR has never apologized or even made an excuse for their horrendous crime? Even the Wizard of Oz could not have helped those disgusting thugs. One gains self-respect by doing the Lord's work, not the Devil's bidding-though in Islam the demarcation line is slim indeed.
Qur'an: 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out (think Herr Adolph's lebensraum); for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter."
Henry Clay missed; John Randolph was as slim as a blade of grass. Peiper murdered enemy soldiers not civilians-nonetheless a horrible crime. Islamic suicide bombers make no distinction between soldiers and civilians; they are far beyond Peiper. More Americans might have died at Malmedy had not a German Sergeant ignored his lack of rank and prevented a German officer from killing yet more prisoners. Is there anyone in Islam that would stop a suicide bomber? That's where self-respect begins. Jed Clampett knew that; Barney Miller knew that; Kurt Vonnegut doesn't. Vonnegut compared the destruction of the World Trade Center to Truman's dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. Nine-eleven was more like Pearl Harbor, Kurt-a declaration of war on the West. Get it?
Then Vonnegut got philosophical. Could anything match a suicide bomber's last seconds on earth? The rush must be awesome! Fantastic! "You would know death was going to be painless," he said. "So the anticipation-it must be an amazing high." Kerouac? Timothy Leary? Jed Clampett had that same feeling every time he sampled Granny's tonic, but Jed always woke up alive the next morning.
Vonnegut is 83-years-old-and that might be part of the problem; but just to be safe, when he's around, lock up the hemlock. He's not going to pull a Charles Bronson, but he might think he's Socrates.
Dr. Naim Ateek The suicide bomber's best friend-The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek-Anglican dhimmi in charge of mass surrender
He's not Gandhi; he's not Martin Luther King. He would look silly in a diaper or on a bed of nails or in Mission in the Bowery. No one would mistake him for the late Pope John Paul. As far as anyone knows he is not an associate of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton-good points. He has never fasted ‘unto death;' he has never made an ‘I have a dream' speech though he does dream-or maybe hallucinate is a better word to describe what he does. He is not a Parson Brownlow (a Unionist from East Tennessee during the American Civil War); he is not a Father Mulcahy (M.A.S.H.) He is an anti-Zionist-that's what anti-Semites call themselves these days-and he will do anything he can to help achieve peace in the Middle East, including, if necessary, the destruction of Israel. He in Naim Ateek, director of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center; Ph. D. San Francisco Theological Seminary; former canon of St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem. He's a great example of why religion should be left to laymen and not to theologians.
The Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA), apparently not having embarrassed itself enough over the last fifty years with one senseless surrender to modernity after another, will present its prestigious Peace and Justice award to Ateek in the near future. It will look good in the old trophy case along side the cross and the crescent. Ateek is not an amateur in the peace-mongering business. He was honored a while back by the Episcopal Peace Fellowship for his reconciliation work in the Middle East. Blessed are the peacemakers. (Grant and Sherman were peacemakers and so were Patton and Eisenhower but ECUSA does not recognize such efforts)
"So long as we are blessed by Christ, we fear nothing,' says Ateek. A fine source of comfort when getting on an Israeli bus five seconds before a suicide bomber or when stepping into a pizza parlor for a cheese and anchovies and getting broken glass and ball bearings instead. Maybe one has to be an Anglican.
Ateek is an Arab, a Christian, a Palestinian and a citizen of Israel. That's an awful lot for one man. It could be confusing and it there is anything Ateek is, it's confused. He could also be called a turncoat and an ingrate. But mostly, he is a liberation theologian; he has never met a terrorist he hasn't liked.
This is Ateek on Suicide Bombing from a Palestinian perspective:
"These young people were not born 'terrorists.' No one is born a terrorist. They were born in the image and likeness of God. They were born human beings with love of life and freedom. All of them, with no exception, were born under the Israeli military occupation. The only Jews they knew were Israeli soldiers carrying guns and dehumanizing them. It was in the crucible of the occupation that they were shaped and formed. And if Israel labels them as terrorists, they are, after all the products of its own making."
Ateek errs. These young people were not born in the image and likeness of Allah-for a Muslim to say so would be heresy. Allah is unknowable; Allah is unapproachable. Ateek has cross-pollinated his religions-a mega-mistake for a theologian.
There is no love of life and freedom in Islam. Life is a grinding misery; freedom does not exist in the Muslim world. Islam means submission; the reward comes later-the 200 acres of swampland in Florida.
The Palestinians were not driven out of Israel; they fled at the urgings of the Arab countries. They have received hundreds of millions of dollars-if not billions-from the Saudis and the spineless Western European democracies. If they were dehumanized by anybody, it was by Yasser Arafat, Fatah, Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. They are not the product of Israel; they are a product of Islam.
Ateek recommends divestment as the way to bring Israel to its knees. He has accused the Jews of murdering Christ. He has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Crucifixion of Christ. It's a nice image for a creative writing class but as religion it is closer to blasphemy than to the Sermon on the Mount. And this guy is a what-an Episcopalian? It there was one church George Costanza would never have joined-not for Marisa Tome, not for Britney Spears, not to keep his mother out of Hell-it would have been the Anglican.
ECUSA is on its way to a theological disaster. If they think they can survive in the 21st Century by surrendering to the primal Islamic world of the 6th Century; by making grand concessions to the Imams and Mad Mullahs, they are mistaken. They will be the first to be ‘et by the theological dinosaur and Mohammed will pick his teeth with their bones. They should stick to ordaining women and gays as priest and leave men's work to men.
Rowan Williams "A Common Word for the Common Good" ignores the not so Uncommon Bad in Islam
How did this guy get to be an Archbishop? Sure, he's got a beard and he looks religious but so does Muqtada al-Sadr. He knows how to spell ecumenical and a lot of other words people just as religious as he is and a lot less political don't give a damn about-people who believe in God and let it go at that. He is Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and therein the tale lies.
Williams writes poetry, nothing on the order of The Wreck of the Hesperus or Casey at the Bat or There was once a lady from Worcester, but he gets published. What he needs to make it big is a letter to the Thessalonians. A Common Word for the Common Good just won't do.
Williams has an opinion on everything. He calls teaching creationism in school a ‘category mistake.' Allowing God to compete with Darwin does not enhance the Doctrine of Creation; it reduces it he says. He prefers the church to be ‘welcoming' rather than ‘inclusive.' Is that too subtle? Freemasonry may be incompatible with Christianity. That is interesting but boring. He opposes almost everything the United States has ever done and many things he imagines it may have done and may do in the future. And he is not afraid of Sharia. He is either a very brave man or an inconsequential fool. "Certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law," he has said.
With Anglican Bishops from all over the world gathering in the UK to determine the fate of Anglicanism for the next hundred years, Williams sent a conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for the common good. The common good-was that a ‘category mistake?' It's best not to be too inclusive right off the bat. An angel would have wanted to know what the jizya would be before meeting with these folks. But with the bit in his mouth, Williams could not be restrained. "Christian Doctrine is offensive to Muslims," he said.
It's too bad he wasn't on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Ed McMahon could have asked, "What Christian Doctrine it that, Rowan?"
And Rowan would have said it was the Christian belief in the Trinity-the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that "is difficult, sometimes offensive to Muslims."
"How offensive is that, Rowan?" McMahon would have chuckled.
Yes, how offensive is that? But Carson is dead and Williams is pursuing the common good to the exclusion of all else. One must go to the Muslim Holy Book for the answer. How about it, Ed? Sure, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the commercial.
Qur'an 5:73 "They are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: God is one of three in the Trinity for there is no Ilah (God), except One, Allah. If they desist not from saying this (blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall them-the disbelievers will suffer a painful doom."
Blasphemy! Grievous penalty! It would seem Islam was greatly offended.
It is not nice to offend people. Hitler was offended by International Jewry...Stalin was offended by the kulaks...Mao was offended by 30 million Chinese...Mohammed was offended by the Banu Quraza. They became as angry as bears. They threatened everybody with a painful doom. But we are just as bad insists Williams. "Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions," he says.
So Richard the Lion-Heart got carried away back in the 10th Century! Won't they ever forgive him? But he's been dead for ages and in the years since his heirs have saved billions of people from disease and starvation. Doesn't that count for anything? Not if you are Rowan Williams. The sins of the father are visited upon his children. But what of Islam-the other partner in the common good?
Dateline Islamabad: District Judge Mian Muhammad Naeem recently ruled that two Christian sisters, Saba, 13, and Anila, 10, kidnapped last June while visiting friends in Chowk Munda in the province of Punjab, had converted to Islam in a legitimate manner and could not be returned to their family of origin. The judge also ruled their marriages to their kidnappers were legal. It is difficult to see any ‘common good' in this. Nor is this an isolated incident. Christian children are frequently kidnapped by Muslims and forcibly converted to Islam.
In Arhus, Denmark, Arab and Somali immigrants have finally driven the Greenlanders-people of Inuit extraction-out of their homes in Gjellerup after years of harassment, intimidation, violence and threats of violence. This has been replicated in Kosovo where Muslims have been systematically driving Christians from their homes and destroying their churches.
In Brussels, Belgium, police took seventeen women from a luxury hotel on allegations an Arab Royal Family was using them as slaves. The women were ‘servants' of the widow of a senior royal figure from the Untied Arab Emirates who was renting an entire floor. Their passports had been taken away from them upon arrival in Belgium and they had not been allowed to leave the hotel. The woman that did Jeff Davis's laundry had more options.
Slavery has always been a part of Islam. Thousands of Christian and animist children have been sold into servitude by the Muslim government of Sudan, a country that continues to thumb its nose at the United Nations while engaged in a genocidal campaign against its own black Muslim population.
Honor killing and female genital circumcision have become part of Islam. It is not a woman's world. In European countries with even modest increases in Muslim immigration, rape statistics have been doubled and tripled because of assaults by Muslim youths on Christian girls. Jack the Ripper would not feel alone. Darth Vader would shake his head in wonder and decide to bypass this dark and scary planet.
In the News column at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ appeared the following snippets: Hindu Child Beaten by Muslim Mob over Qur'an incident; Iran to Hang Woman for Alleged crime at Age 13; Qaddafi's Son Jailed in Switzerland for Beating Maids. Qaddafi's Son! It is nurture or Islam?
Muslims have committed 11.468 terrorist acts since 9/11.
In Henrietta, New York, Waheed Allah Mohammad took it upon himself to kill his younger sister, Fauzia, because she had become a "bad Muslim girl." She was going to clubs, dressing immodestly and was planning to move to New York. So he stabbed her, Fortunately, she survived and Waheed has been charged with attempted murder. The Saints be preserved! Why is it so few Muslim men reach adulthood in their relations with women and non-Muslims?
Williams titled his Opus A Common Word for the Common Good. No doubt, Williams is a well-meaning man-so was Neville Chamberlain. By a faint stretch of the imagination one could have supposed there was a common good between Hitler and International Jewry. Then comes the Holocaust. What is important is not the Common Good in Islam but the Uncommon Bad and as long as the vast majority of 1.3 billion Muslims do little or nothing to eradicate it no Common Good will be attained between them and the dhimmis except surrender on the part of the latter.
So how much jizya do you think will be equitable, Mr. Archbishop?
|
||||||||
|
