Order, Chaos And God

Why does religion work? Why are religious values so hard to eliminate?

To be clear, religion, such as it is, cannot be easily defined. Many who do not attend religious services refer to themselves as religious or spiritual. Argue that they are not really religious or spiritually connected because they don't mind orthodox religious P's and Q's and your likely to end up in an even bigger argument.

To understand the why of religion, one needs to understand what religion accomplishes. (To be clear, we are not discussing faith. That is an entirely different topic). Simply stated, religion provides two necessary ingredients (though by no means exclusively) that feed and nourish the human condition. Religion provides order- and it provides chaos.

In a world where everything is questioned, day in and day out, religion provides a sense of order and purpose. Like the traffic lights and speed limits, religion- and for that matter, all moral behavior- provide 'rules of the road' keep the system from imploding on itself.

Religion also provides chaos. Like art and literature, religion today asks those things that challenge the status quo and demand we respond. It is in those responses that we often see new horizons- John Paul II, JB Soloveitchik, Kierkegaard and host of lesser known current religious thinkers have forced a kind of 'chaos' upon us- the status quo was not good enough. Like the School of Paris painters at the beginning of the 20^th century that forced us to look at the world in a way that wasn't necessarily representational, religious thinkers provide the chaos we need to grow. God may be Mozart and Rembrandt, but He is no less Picasso and Coltrane.

We have noted that when Nietzsche declared that 'God is dead,' he was to a large degree correct. The God that Nietzsche referred to was indeed passing. The Church, once repressive and oppressive, was undergoing a transformation. It was understood that God no longer demanded uniformity or wanted to obliterate self expression. In fact, God celebrated the very things that were foundational to the Age of Enlightenment. As it turned out, God was perfectly able to look out for his own interests, without agendized human interventions. That is a truth rarely referred to- and it is an important truth. The founders of this country were fleeing religious persecution and in fact, the principles and guarantors of freedom in this country were deemed to be religious rights and not just secular rights. God made room for all kinds of believers and non believers. Free will no longer had any fine print attached to it.

Still, secularism, and all it's derivatives, were understandable reactions to being held underfoot by a Church and faith that remained behind the curve in accepting change and challenge science was to provide. When a slave broke the chains of his bondage, he didn't stay long enough to have tea and say good bye to his master. He ran, as far and fast as he could, never to look back.

Secularism hasn't been able to eliminate God because secularism no longer offers a viable alternative to God. Ideas, art, philosophy and even God, can now be challenged by believers, too.

What is different is that many secularists are bound and determined to kill God. They are not satisfied coexisting with believers. The reasons are many and varied, but one thing is clear. Unlike many secularists, Christians, Jews and Buddhists do not lose sleep because they pray differently. God as described by secularists very rarely, if ever, resembles the God of the believers.

In fact, religion is like DNA. It gets passed on, generation to generation and while there are the inevitable losses, by and large, religious belief perseveres because religious people obviously benefit from their beliefs. If they didn't, religion would have disappeared long ago. What secularists do not realize is that their cause is not helped when in the attempt to demystify God, they dehumanize religion, those beliefs that provide both the chaos and order in their lives. Dehumanize and attempt to demystify religion and you dehumanize the believer.

Obviously, while religion is not for everyone, it is clearly a part of the DNA of many, no matter what secularists argue.

Religion and secularism address man's understanding of self. As we noted, secularism has been unable to get rid of religion because secularism does not offer an understanding of the self that is to superior to that offered by faith.

Why dadaism came about is as much as mystery as how the Sistine Chapel's ceiling ended up the way it did. Religious inspiration differs little than secularly inspired expression.

The horsehair bow that coaxes music out of a violin is as much mystery as it is science, and nothing can change that.

Notwithstanding premature announcements of the death of religion, it would appear that religion- or religious values- are alive and well.

Secularism- and to a lesser extent, moral Humanism, have gotten a bad rap because a hard core of secularists have had a harder time in making their case and as a result, they have resorted to less than honest arguments, reinforced with immoral behavior as being representative of secularism.

The strands of religious DNA have are in no danger of extinction.

This post was originally published on April 3, 2006.

Self Delusions Of Self Control

The recent remarks of Australian mufti Taj Din al Hilali concerning rape, women and self control, have brought to the fore some necessary conversations, about escalating values, modernity and what is the real sense of self worth in much of the Islamic world.

In attempting to reposition the blame of rape of women, the Egyptian born mufti refuses to discuss a by product of the radicalization of Islamic culture. By it's very definition, radicalization comes to mean lack of control and chaos. By insisting that women 'cover themselves' to 'Islamic' standards, radical Islamists have opened the door to the excesses of men enforcing those standards. As in all cases, when excesses become the norm, anarchy takes hold and boundaries are difficult, if not impossible to maintain.

Egyptian Sandmonkey recounts an Eid catastrophe in Cairo:

It was the first day of Eid, and a new film was opening downtown. Mobs of males gathered trying to get in, but when the show was sold out, they decided they will destroy the box office. After accomplishing that, they went on what can only be described as a sexual frenzy: They ran around grabbing any and every girl in sight, whether a niqabi, a Hijabi or uncovered. Whether Egyptian or foreigner. Even pregnant ones. They grabbed them, molested them, tried to rip their cloths off and rape them, all in front of the police, who didn't do shit. The good people of downtown tried their best to protect the girls. Shop owners would let the girls in and lock the doors, while the mobs tried to break in. Taxi drivers put the girls in the cars while the mobs were trying to break the glass and grab the girls out. It was a disgusting pandemonium of sexual assaults that lasted for 5 hours from 7:30 PM to 12:30 am, and it turns my stomach just to think about it.

Sandmonkey then makes a wry- and cutting observation:

I called my father when I heard of that happening, and he informed me that he didn't hear of it at all. They watched Al Jazeerah, CNN, flipped through opposition newspapers, and nothing. Nada. Nobody mentioned it. As if it didn't happen.

But it did.

The bloggers available downtown documented the whole thing, and provided pictures of it as well...

...The ones who approached the police asking them to do something were told : "what do you want us to do? It's Eid. Happy Eid to you too!" The same response was given to women who went to the police stations to report the incidents. The police refused to do their jobs and take a report, because it would probably reflect badly on their downtown peers. Some people were surprised at the Police's reaction, but the majoirty of us weren't. Those are the same police officers who facilitated the assaults on women last year during the referendum. This is business as usual for them.

What was unusual was the silence of the press. Nobody was mentioning it. Nobody was bringing it up. It seemed like there was some consensus of just not reporting it and maybe it will just go away. What at first seemed like a conspiracy got later on confirmed by my sources in the news media. Al Jazeera had taped the incidents but were forbidden to air it at the request of the egyptian authorities. The new editor at the Daily Star refused to touch it with a 6 foot pole. This was going to be one of those incidents that only the blog sphere would talk about, while the mainstream media ignored.

Imagine if you will such an incident in London or Paris or New York. Imagine the outrage and uproar if the event were not covered.

We are told, ad nauseum, that the western world doesn't respect Islam or the west is too pro Israel. What does that really mean? On the one hand, we have a mufti that clearly states that men cannot control themselves, that they will take what they want, when they want it, if certain conditions are not met. Does that mean that the west has to accommodate Arab and Muslims demands, because Arabs and Muslims cannot control themselves? Are we to believe that rabid anti Christian and anti Jewish sentiments must be found acceptable by the west because many Arabs and Muslims insist that is a part of their identity, culture and faith? Were the cartoon riots in Europe, the Paris riots of a year ago, and most recent bus burnings, examples of a culture that lacks self control? If, as the mufti implies, that women are the cause of men being driven to rape, why should we not believe that self control in other areas is also non existent?

In discussing the anti Benedict protests The Anchoress noted

But listen, the Muslims quoted above have said this “Day of Rage” is not “Jihad.” They’ve said they need the world to see that they are “aggrieved,” again. So good, say I; do it. Have your day of rage. Let the world see how very, very angry you are. But when you’re done raging on Friday and it comes to Saturday…then what? Then will you be ready to sit down and talk about your faith and your grievances, like adults? Finally? Will that be the point at which you can settle down and talk to the rest of humanity like human beings, in the same respectful tones you say you seek?

What do you think will happen after your “Day of Rage?” Do you think the world will offer you Benedict XVI, so you can slaughter him and dance in his blood? That’s not going to happen. So, you need to plan on how you’re going to deal with the world the next day. Because you can’t keep on raging. That simply won’t do. It’s getting more than a little tiresome.

The Anchoress clearly sees that the rage and lack of self control so prevalent in much of the Arab and Muslim world cannot and will not legitimize Muslim grievances, real or imagined. One cannot be outraged and violent to the point of abandon one day and then be expected to be considered a moral or political equal the next. It just doesn't work that way. And as the Anchoress notes, we are no longer shocked and immobilized. In fact, the west is now beginning to react to radical Muslim threats and intimidation.

We have noted often the dysfunction found in much of the Arab and Islamic world has found it's way into Europe. That translates into even more dysfunction. Much of the Arab and Islamic world see themselves as above and beyond reproach and questioning. They do not believe they ought to be subject to the same moral and ethical standards as everyone else.

Truth, honesty and decency are options, to be exercised only when needed. What applies to others does not apply to themselves. They also believe that if they rail against decency, their agendas might see the light of day- as in the case of 'covered women.' In what is spectacular absurdity, many radical Muslims equate what goes on the head, as opposed to what goes in the head, as the definitive measure of decency.

It is these kind of absurd notions that become dangerous to decency and decent people everywhere, because these kind of dysfunctional notions put real decency up on the altar for slaughter. They would sacrifice the forward movement of civilization and the future of millions, so as to promote the failed political and religious agendas of dysfunctional political ideologues. As we have noted before

When nations that are that are led by or are under the influence of tyrants or dictators attempt to justify their actions, we can rightly assume that justification is false. Tyrants and dictators do not make moral choices, because moral choices can only lead to the demise of the tyranny.

Those religious and community leaders in the west, that echo the same ideologies as tyrants have the same credibility and standing as those dysfunctional tyrants. Simply being in the west or having access to western media or technology, does not make for moral equivalents.

Ideologues with very different values than our our own, are not moral equivalents just because they wear thousand dollar suits. We cannot take what these ideologues say as having equal value or merit simply because they look like us. Wearing western clothesthey believe, will camouflage the reality that their ideologies of hate, bigotry and racism are antithetical to our own values.

Tragically, much of the Arab world has been deluded by the dysfunctional serenades that equate hate, terror and slaughter to dignity. Their dysfunctional advocates believe that if they wear clothes that make them sound ‘reasonable’ or identify them as victims, no one will notice the fantasy-land they inhabit or their deliberate disconnect from reality. If and when they are confronted, they define the hatred as noble and just. Sometimes, depending on who is asking the question, they even have the audacity to proclaim that the hatred is non existent, .

Those are the ‘clothes’ that ‘make the man’ in much of the Arab world. The Arab world desperately wants to be valued for something other than how in reality, they define themselves- hate filled, desperate and dismissive of the western world and western values of freedom. The tragedy lies in the truth that oftentimes, they know the truth. That is the real source of despair. The once proud Arab and Islamic nations have been ground down, mercilessly, by their very own, having replaced reality with fantasies that are ever increasing.

As time goes by, the fantasies becomes more grotesque. Those fantasies envisions a romantic return to Arab greatness. Imagine if the Greeks, or Italians too, wanted the restoration of former glory- and decided to do so by replicating the military conquests of the Greek and Roman Empires.

Of course, there are few, if any, voices that call for and demand great academies of learning that once symbolized Arab and Islamic culture. There are even fewer calls and demands for jobs or functioning economies, another feature of once great Arab and Islamic economic engines. Instead, there are vague calls for a 'Caliphate,' or empire, or 'past greatness and dignity.' There is nothing concrete that Arab world has to offer the rest iof us, save for dysfunction and hate. They are the two examples in what the Arab world has come to excel.

Too, there are even fewer calls for realistic negotiations with Israel. Instead, the fantasy is ratcheted up with the dream that Israel will be destroyed and her inhabitants slaughtered, and that Jews will bow before Arab and Muslim whims and demands.

Simply walking upright does not make the most of the Arab world moral equivalents to our own societies and cultures, because in the end, free and civilized people demand free and civilized societies- and civilized societies are all predicated on self control of both governments and citizens.

The west will stand in solidarity with similar free and civilized societies and those who propose those ideals.

It really is that simple.

Voter Fraud: Everybody, Take Your Mark And Deja Vu

As we have noted in Election Fraud Allegations Surface, the game to influence the elections has begun.

For a look at some of the more experienced players, see Powerline's Democratic Voter Fraud, Intimidation Confirmed.

...careful review of the facts shows that in 2004, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts. Examples include:

* Paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires of 25 Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee on the morning of Election Day.

* Misleading telephone calls made by Democrat operatives targeting Republican voters in Ohio with the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

* Intimidating and deceiving mailings and telephone calls paid for by the DNC threatening Republican volunteers in Florida with legal action.

* Union-coordinated intimidation and violence campaign targeting Republican campaign offices and volunteers resulting in a broken arm for a GOP volunteer in Florida.

Vote fraud and voter registration fraud were significant problems in at least a dozen states around the county. Vote fraud is a reality in America that occurred not only in large battleground states like Wisconsin but in places like Alabama and Kentucky. The record indicates that in 2004, voter registration fraud was mainly the work of so-called “nonpartisan” groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and NAACP National Voter Fund. Examples include:

* Joint task force in Wisconsin found “clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee,” including more than 200 felon voters, more than 100 double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city.

* NAACP National Voter Fund worker in Ohio paid crack cocaine in exchange for a large number of fraudulent voter registration cards in names of Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins and other fictional characters.

* Former ACORN worker said there was “a lot of fraud committed” by group in Florida, as ACORN workers submitted thousands of fraudulent registrations in a dozen states across the country, resulting in a statewide investigation of the group in Florida and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN/Project Vote workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

See Dr Sanity's How To Make Sure You Win An Election, Even If You Lose,

Folks, what we are witnessing is a coordinated attempt on the part of people who not only are not content to let the process of democracy unfold, but who intend to make sure that it unfolds in the proper way...or else. I am sure that the lawyers and rioters are standing by, awaiting instructions to make their moves in case things need to helped along in the correct direction.

I don't know about you, but I can't stand to be manipulated this way. I am good at recognizing it because I have worked with Borderlines, Narcissists, and Sociopaths for the last 30 years of my life in my profession. But never have I seen such a crazed and coordinated effort to make sure a particular political side wins the election, even if they lose. Because, all that will matter is their allegations of fraud. Truth will be ablsolutely irrelevant. History will be absolutely irrelevant. The left's documented election fraud in elections gone by will be conveniently forgotten, never to be mentioned--either this week before the midterms; or after the Kos Kidz make up their list of Republican evils...

You see, both sides commit fraud and cheat. But what is so despicable and distasteful about the today's Democrats and the lunatic left that currently controls them is that they do it because they deeply and passionately believe they know what is best for this country. They do it because they are so much smarter, and know what's best for the all the rest of us. Whether we like it or not.

Dr Sanity has updated her post this morning with a list of MSM articles that shade their election coverage in a very specific way.

Remember the famous photograph of Harry Truman holding up that post election day newspaper with headline, 'DEWEY WINS!'? Sooner or later, it will be 'deja vu, all over again.'

Hard as it is to believe, that great Chicago's master of voter fraud and deceit, the late Richard Daley, looks pretty benign nowadays.

Election Fraud Allegation Videos Surface

The videos of Congressional testimony alleging election fraud are about to make the rounds. Apparently, they were released today, just in time for the upcoming election.

Part One, Part Two and Part Three.

There is no video of testimony documenting illegal alien voting, felon voting or actual voter fraud.

We can't imagine why that is.

"The Basics of Co-existence and Inter-faith Dialogue" Is This The Voice Of The Future Of Islam?:

Is this a voice of the future of Islam?

The Basics of Co-existence and Inter-faith Dialogue

To begin with, I would like to offer my personal apology to the millions of moderate Muslims who were offended by the recent remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. The controversial remarks came in the course of a theological lecture about the relationship between Faith and Reason that the Pope gave on 12 September 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany.

In an effort to look past the frantic response of the fuming extremists and their haste to kill and destroy, we ought to consider the rules and basics of coexistence and interfaith dialogue. We should see how it can be applied in today’s globalized world in order to leave behind the old resentments and past tragedies.

In my opinion, there are sound rules that should govern this dialogue. All parties should follow them with no exception. The Muslims, in particular, are invited to abide by those rules, as their extremists choose to impose a deviant law of violence and terror of their own making, instead of the rules of rational debate and honest, constructive dialogue. The basic rules can be summarized as follows:

Rejection of Violence

Throughout history, a myriad of crimes, wars, and horrible tragedies have been committed in the name of religion. Unsubstantial religious justifications have been frequently used to validate and even “sanctify” violence. Holy violence and religious hostilities were most prominent among the three Abrahamaic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. History also keeps a tragic record of wars that have raged among the followers of each religion for political or sectarian reasons.

However the Renaissance movement brought about enlightenment, progress and rationalism. Thus Western civilization was effectively purged of holy violence and of the perceived justifications found in Judaism and Christianity. Judaism, which had a strong connection to Western Civilization, completely severed its ties with the old texts that called for violence that were used in the early history of Judaism. Jews are no longer bound by those texts, and have not been for hundred of years now. These violent texts are considered a part of their early history that no longer dictates their behavior. Christianity made a clear distinction between political violence and religious (or holy) violence. Henceforth, the West engaged in political wars (i.e. wars that are launched by political states and not by religious entities, and for purely political reasons).

That leaves the Muslim extremists as the only ones who continue to sing the praises of holy violence today, hence the paradox of demanding an apology while they continue to practice that same violence profusely. We have yet to see a single Muslim organization renounce or counter the “sword verses”. To this day we are still waiting for a credible Muslim organization to issue even a single fatwa against vicious terrorists such as Al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden, Al-Zarqawi, and others.

I even dare say that in most cases when wars are fought in the Muslim world the national motives pale against the principal motives that are used to mobilize the masses: the speeches about victory, martyrdom and the lure of after-life rewards which mostly consist of sensual pleasures. These are among the driving factors behind the escalation of violence and the phenomena of international terrorism.

Holy violence features clearly in Islamic thinking, as a necessary undertaking, whether it is defensive or offensive. The reasons given to justify the use of violence are unsound; and not only used in a context of self-defense but also to validate acts of pure aggression. Muslim societies usually adopt that twisted and unacceptable logic in their dealings with the outside world. They have heaped insults upon insults on Pope Benedict XVI, as if he were the author of holy violence, while Muslim societies are actually witnessing acts of holy violence on a daily basis.

To set a foundation for a constructive dialogue, the prominent Muslim organizations would first of all have to reject violence publicly, counteract the violent texts in the Quran and Sunna as Judaism previously did, and make it perfectly clear that they condemn all acts of terror, terrorists, and champions of holy violence.

The on-going Muslim violence, expressed in words and deeds, makes the possibility of an open and genuine dialogue highly unlikely. I believe that this was the real message that the Pope of Rome wanted to send to the Muslim world, but he chose an inappropriate means and failed to communicate his real intent. The Vatican Foreign Affairs minister stated on 16 September 2006 that the Pope meant to confirm that violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion. German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed the same sentiment saying that the Pope placed a definite emphasis on the absolute rejection of any form of violence in the name of religion.

2. Mutual Apology

In the beginning of the third millennium, the late Pope John Paul II decided to make a trip to the Middle East that he referred to as a “last pilgrimage” to visit the Holy Lands. Before the trip, while he was celebrating mass on 12 March 2000, the Pope offered a public apology for the errors made by the Roman Catholic Church.

He asked for the Jews’ forgiveness because of the church’s failure to take action during the Nazi holocaust.

He apologized to the Eastern Orthodox Church that has suffered oppression at the hands of the Catholic Church which eventually led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

He apologized to the Russians. He asked forgiveness for the horror of the Spanish inquisition, the “indulgences”, and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals. However, he offered no apology for the crusades. The Muslim world was in fury, and demanded an apology, but the Pope did not respond to this demand because he believed that the crusades represented one episode in a series of mutual transgressions between Muslims and Christians, and as such, both parties are required to exchange apologies.

I addressed this issue in an article that was published in the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on 4 April 2000, under the title: “Can We Hope For An Apology From Sheikh Al-Azhar For The Faults Committed By Muslims?” I surmised that if we seek to close the files of past transgressions, and get rid of a heritage of resentment and bitterness, then both Muslims and Christians would have to exchange apologies and ask for mutual pardon. I asked Sheikh Al-Azhar to reciprocate by apologizing for the following:

1. To apologize for the fact that no religions – other then Islam – have been tolerated or practiced in the Arab Peninsula since Islam first emerged.
2. To apologize for the excessive violence that was used to spread the new religion in what is known as the Islamic conquests.
3. To apologize for forcing the non-Muslims – Jews and Christians – to submit to the Dhimmi system, and live in a status of semi-slavery for more then 12 centuries, until it was finally cancelled in 1855.
4. To apologize for the barbaric acts committed by the Turks during the reign of the Ottoman Caliphate.
5. To apologize for countless hostile fatwas against non-Muslims, for putting their lives and properties in danger, and for targeting their young daughters in an on-going cycle of oppression that takes place in most Muslim countries.

The link to the full article is: www.alquds.co.uk:8080/archives/pdf/2000/04Apr/04%20Apr%20Tue/Quds19.pdf.

I believed then, and still do now, that a mutual apology is in order. Christians are ready for that, so what about Muslims? While we can assert that the great majority of Christians condemn the crusades, the “indulgences”, and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals through the inquisition, the same cannot be said about the Muslims’ attitude towards the Islamic conquests, as only a small number of Muslims seem to express disapproval of the conquests.

Pope John Paul II was right when he refused to apologize for the crusades, and the Muslim world should not make demands for an apology as long as it lacks the courage to acknowledge its past and current faults.

3. Reciprocity

Ansarullah Mawlavezada,the Afghan trial judge in the case of Abdul Rahman – a 41 years old Afghan man who has converted from Islam to Christianity - has made the following comment to the BBC: “The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," adding that "Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”

Religious freedom, as a concept and a practice, is sorely missing from Islamic history, ever since the early days of the Prophet and to our present time, with no exception. Sadly, what intellectuals such as Said Al-Ashmawi, Gamal Al-Bana and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour say about a Muslim’s right to freely renounce his or her religion lacks a solid foundation and a historical ground. Quranic verses such as “there shall be no coercion in religion,” and “Let him who pleases believe, and let him who pleases disbelieve,” have never been applied throughout the history of Islam.

The world has reached a point where it can no longer tolerate the twisted logic and the double standards policy of the Muslim countries. They have full freedom to build worship places and mosques in the West while they deny or obstruct the building process of churches in their countries. They freely promote Islam in the West and forbid proselytizing in their countries and ruthlessly persecute those who convert from Islam. They rudely attack other religions and go berserk if any one in the West dares to touch on their religion. They enjoy full citizenship rights in the West, and deny the persecuted aboriginal Christians in the Middle East and other Muslim states those same rights. This has gotten to the point where many Muslim countries are imposing strict laws to prevent the Muslims from renouncing Islam, treating their citizens as if they were hostages locked in iron cages.

However, following the events of September 11, 2001, many in the West in general, and the Vatican in particular, started to speak out against those double standards. In 2003, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran made the following remark: “seeing that the Muslims have the ability to build worship places and mosques anywhere in the world, the same should be possible for the followers of other faiths in the Muslim Countries.”

In February 2006, Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the importance of having and showing “respect for the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all in all societies.” In May 2006, he once more confirmed that “Christians should have an open and loving attitude towards the Muslim emigrants and the Muslims should reciprocate by treating the Christians who live among them kindly and fairly.” The Vatican’s secretary of state commented on the killing and destruction spree that was triggered by the Danish cartoons by saying: “if we tell our people that they have no right to offend, then we should tell the others that they have no right to destroy us.” The Vatican foreign minister pointed out that “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries.”

Reciprocity, also known as "The Golden Rule", is a fundamental moral principle, and a basic requirement to develop fair relationships, whether personal or international – will Muslims accept the rules of logic, justice and equality or are they intent on following another type of logic?

4. Respecting Differences between Religions

Muslim extremists show no consideration for the differences between religions and that creates one of the major problems between non-Muslims and extremists. The Muslims are adamant that Christians and Jews should accept the Muslim beliefs – which goes a lot further then just respecting Islam – i.e. to recognize and give credit to Muslim convictions. Yet, the diversity of religions means that there are radical differences between the different beliefs. Human values and the individual’s right to follow a faith of his or her own choice is considered the common base shared by all of humanity, and a guideline for human interactions.

Muslims usually bring up that issue in the course of interfaith meetings, insisting that others should recognize Islam as a heavenly religion (or a monotheistic revealed religion), and acknowledge Muhammed as a seal of prophets and his message as a final divine revelation. I wonder if they realize that for others to make such acknowledgments they would be basically renouncing their own beliefs!

The Muslim Agenda for a Western-Muslim conference would typically include these two points: the acknowledgment of Islam as a heavenly religion, and the never-ending complaint about the life conditions of the Muslims in the West.

Christians do not ask Muslims to acknowledge the deity of Christ, the crucifixion or resurrection, and I fail to understand how Muslims could want them to recognize a faith that denies all of those beliefs. Is it reasonable to ask others to acknowledge the particulars of a certain faith that contradicts their own?

Al-Azhar brought up this issue once more in the last interfaith dialogue and the Vatican refused its demand to recognize Islam as a heavenly religion. Al-Qaradawi asked the same of Pope Shenouda in “Al-Duha” conference with the same result. Recently, during the crisis triggered by the Pope’s speech, the demands for an apology were expanded to include an acknowledgment of Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar asked the Pope to confirm that: “Islam is a religion that spread through persuasion and the Prophet brought only good to mankind and absolutely no evil.” In an interview with Al-Jazeera channel on 16 September 2006, Mohammed Habib, the deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide asked the Pope to issue a clear apology adding that he should also admit that “Islam is a heavenly religion, a religion of love, peace and mercy that did not spread by the sword.” The only thing left would be for Mr. Habib to ask the Pope to utter the Shahada!! (declaration of faith in Islam)

Once more the double-standard strategy rears its ugly head: Muslims do not acknowledge other faiths, and Christians do not expect them to acknowledge the fundamentals of Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection, so why should Muslims be adamant that others acknowledge their faith?

Sadiq Al-Mahdi wrote an article that was published in Asharq-Alawsat on 9 April 2005, where he summed the situation up by saying that there is “a fierce competition between Islam and Christianity”, and in that context “the major failing of Christianity is that it does not acknowledge Islam as a heavenly religion.”

In response, I wrote an article on 19 April 2005 that was published in the same newspaper, urging him to respect the differences between religions, and to acknowledge what I termed as the “human charter” which reflects the universal values, the particularity of different cultures and faiths, and the unity of human conscience, an acknowledgment of this charter is a sort of prerequisite for anyone who wishes to join the wide open human club. The link to the full article: www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=294433&issue=9639.

To sum up, one of the main bases for co-existence is to acknowledge the particularity of each religion, an area that should not be open for debate. The debate, or the dialogue, should only revolve around shared human values as a means to reduce conflicts, foster fraternity and goodwill towards men.

5. Accepting International Charters Without Reservations

Compliance with the international charters of human rights is a vital issue that has to be addressed in the course of interfaith dialogue. The charters reflect the best of what humanity managed to attain in terms of human development and humane standards. They are in tune with the message conveyed by all religions. As human wisdom, no matter how noble it is, can not possibly surpass the graciousness of God’s message and His goodwill towards mankind, we can say that the charters are, in fact, a human expression of the true religious values that have been eroded throughout history.

To acknowledge these charters is to acknowledge that there is one purpose at the heart of all religions, which is the ultimate Divine purpose, namely the good and happiness of mankind. The Muslim countries hold an unyielding position in regards to those charters, maintaining that they are acceptable only as long as they do not contradict the Shari’a, thus subverting their content and significance. This restricting term is featured in the UN records and the signed documents, casting doubts about the signature’s worth as a symbol of a binding commitment. This is a fact that creates a major problem.

It is no wonder then that there are constant disagreements between the international community and the Muslim countries, particularly in regards to four major areas addressed by the human rights charters: religious freedoms, women status, the rights of non-Muslim minorities and the punishments prohibited for human reasons or what is known as the Islamic penalties Hudud.

The dialogue between Christians and Muslims should break out of the bounds of ceremonial protocol and tackle the major issues and basics mentioned in this article. In the past we had a semblance of dialogue that was devoid of a meaningful substance, and that failed to make a real difference. The current Pope of Rome refuses to settle for this empty shell of a dialogue and is determined to address the real issues.

It is mind boggling that individuals such as Al-Qaradawi, Mohammed Selim Al-Awa, Fahmi Hawidi, Mohammed Omara, and Zaghloul El-Naggar are permanent guests in the seminars of interfaith dialogue. Can any of these gentlemen be fit for this task when their lectures, forums and publications resonate with the sounds of hatred and violence?

How can we possibly think that Mr. Selim Al-Awa makes a good candidate for a dialogue with the Pope when in the latest article he published in Al-Osbou’ newspaper on 18 Sept. 2006, he described him as “an idiot and a liar … what the Pope said is as obscene and as rude as the cartoons… extreme rudeness as regards to the Prophet…a lie that is unbecoming of a reasonable man, not to mention a religious man.”

Well, reasonable men should be able to grasp the basics that govern an honest and serious dialogue. The ball is now in the Muslims’ court, and it is up to them if they wish to appeal to reason, logic and international rules.

___

Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and Executive Editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International. He is also a syndicated columnist for several Arabic language newspapers, and a frequent contributor to Middle East broadcast news TV. Mr. Khalil has also published three books and written numerous research papers on citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East.

Robert Fisk Rides Again

On July 26, 2006, we wrote:

“I travel the roads of southern Lebanon every two weeks and there are no such [Hizbullah] missiles, as the UN force there will confirm… Hizbollah resistance… missiles are a myth.”

– Robert Fisk, Chief Middle East correspondent of The (London) Independent newspaper, writing in The Independent on April 15, 2003.

(Fisk was writing after Shimon Peres, who was then Israel’s foreign minister, said Iran had already supplied Hizbullah with at least 8,000 missiles capable of hitting Israeli cities. Since then, Iran has delivered some 6,000 more missiles, as barely reported in the western media for the last four years.)

Over 2,000 Hizbullah rockets have been fired at northern Israel from south Lebanon since last Wednesday. Last night Hizbullah fired more than 50 rockets, including one which hit the hospital in Safed, injuring patients. Another missile hit a synagogue, injuring worshippers.

Robert Fisk is the most beloved Middle East reporter among the international left. His articles are reproduced on left-wing websites throughout the world, as well as on a number of neo-Nazi websites. With his cult following, despite having a record of bias and “mistakes” second to none, he is the Noam Chomsky of reporting, the Edward Said of journalism.

On April 29, 2004, when The Independent asked Hitler-admiring historian David Irving for a quote about his plans for a lecture tour of Britain, Irving replied: “I will be happy to assist any journalist on the newspaper that publishes Robert Fisk.”

In April 2003, Fisk was described by the New York Times as “probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain.”

Mr Fisk is at it again, this time accusing Israel with the use of uranium weapons (of course, 'secret weapons' are the tried and true mantra's of Israel hating left (this is our favorite example). Inasmuch as he either lied or was totally misinformed about Hezbollah's rockets (either scenario is sufficient grounds to ignore and/or distrust Fisk's reporting), it is clear that Robert Fisk's 'analysis' skills are woefully lacking, at best.

David Pryce Jones, addresses a reality that Fisk fans, virtually all of whom celebrate Fisk's skewed 'virtue,' in The Spectator that

The preconceptions and prejudices that are immortalising Fisk in the English language express an unqualified contempt for America. For him, most Americans are ignorant and arrogant, and their leaders mendacious and cynical power maniacs leading everyone to perdition. Everything wrong with the Middle East is particularly their fault. About a dozen times over the past year Fisk has written that in 1983 Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and this is enough to make the United States responsible for Saddam's crimes. The corpses in the mass graves of Iraq are the result of 'American encouragement of Saddam and treachery'. Supporting the military regime in Algeria, in another instance of their perfidy, the Americans must also be responsible for the 100,000 or more murdered there in the civil war.

Most unforgivably, they are also friends of Israel. Fisk has fits at the very idea of that. All administrations in Washington are bad, but, in the first place, President Bush and his men belong to the 'failed lunatic Right' and in the second place they have fallen into the hands of the Jews. Advisers such as Kenneth Adelman 'have not vouchsafed their own religion', but together with 'the Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens' they are 'very sinister people hovering around Bush'. The whole lot of them drive what Fisk calls 'the American-Israeli war'. For fear that their own soldiers will be arrested for what they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States shuns the International Criminal Court. By my count, in the course of the past year Fisk has called Ariel Sharon a war criminal in no fewer than seven articles. In about 15 articles over the past year, he further assures us that the Iraq war is really all about oil. How that squares with American-Israeli conspiracy is not clear.

Fellow leftists by the million paddle about in this swamp of unreason. What makes Fisk conspicuous is his self-righteousness. The content and style of his writing proclaim that in his own eyes he is not really a reporter but the repository of truth. Other journalists are not up to their task; they are 'nasty little puffed-up fantasy colonels', warmongering collaborators of the wicked American-Israelis. He alone has the calling and the courage to reveal the evil rampant everywhere. Woe, woe, saith the preacher. Fisking is evangelical missionary work.

And so it goes. The starting point is rabid anti Americanism, followed up with inferences about the 'Jews' and their 'undo influence.'

Of course, there is no doubt that some of Fisk's 'best friends' are Americans and Jews- and of course, Osama bin Laden.

Jones goes to note

In this fresh mood of despair, Fisk warned that the United States was going the way of Hitlerism, no less. The department of homeland security, in another example of fisking running away with grammar and meaning, has 'Teutonic roots' because Homeland translated as Heimat in the Third Reich. As for 'Shock and awe', that was 'a classic slogan from the old Nazi magazine Signal'. On at least five occasions - by my count again - he has inveighed against the likely use of depleted uranium shells, which allegedly cause cancer on a genocidal scale. There would naturally be censorship of journalists, puffed-up fantasy colonels though they were. The press centre set up in Qatar had the purpose of keeping them away from the facts. CNN had issued a document entitled 'Reminder of Script Approval Policy', and the keywords in it were 'approve' and 'authorise'. In four separate articles, Fisk emphasised how in the course of his missionary vocation he had closely inspected burnt or disfigured corpses. Bush had avoided military service, and neither he nor Blair could have any idea of the horrors he bore witness to. In three articles he was to bring up the fate of British soldiers who surrendered to the Turks in the first world war, and in two further articles he waxed sorrowful over local British war cemeteries. Ignominy and burial now awaited another expeditionary force...

At present, a decent future for Iraq hangs in the balance. The Americans hope to create some suitable form of democracy or at least self-rule for Iraq. Failure to do so will expose that country to the risk of civil war and anarchy, and compromise the standing of the United States in the world as well. Public opinion in the West has its part to play in determining the outcome of these dramatic events. Perverting American purposes and practices in Iraq, fisking helps to bring about the doom that it anticipates with such glee and relish. Fisk seems to have left Baghdad for the present, but no doubt he will return, or from a distance continue to corrupt the Independent with his hysteria and disinformation. The Iraqis are his real victims. One of the oldest of imperial lessons is that the missionary does the natives no favours.

As a rule of thumb, when conspiracy theories and stories of 'secret weapons' come out, so does the stupidity.

Cathedral Of Mental Health

Time to cure that sophophobia.

It doesn't matter- you can kick, scream or even play dead. None of that will help. You have the opportunity to reach for the cure and you don't even have to wear a colored ribbon or donate $2.00 to convince the world that you are a wonderful, caring and magnanimous person. We know better. To paraphrase Crofton Slade Gandhi, are you convinced that your piddly, feel good, $2.00 donation will be the donation that makes the difference? You spend more on candy bars and potato chips at work when no one is looking! 'Do you really believe you can change a truth upon which the universe stands? Do you really believe you can change who you are, or that anyone of substance cares? Are you so infatuated with that ignorant fool in the mirror?'

The Carnival Of The Insanities may be the last and final opportunity you have to actually rid yourself of the illness that has kept you behind in your life, career and relationships. You might even find meaning and purpose beyond your incessant chase and obsession with your own precious, sorry ass, 'self esteem.'

Your sophophobia can be cured. Race over to Carnival Of The Insanities, at the Cathedral Of Mental Health, honoring the patron saint of counterclockwise rotation, Pat Santy.

This Sunday, let the miracle of healing begin!

Ace Of Spades Plan To Ensure Domestic Tranquility And Multicultural Harmony

Ace of Spades has a bold proposal that will prevent a feared backlash against Muslims. The remarks of the Australian mufti who suggested, in a most enlightened, sensitive, caring, compassionate and understanding way, that pig kaffir women who dare walk on Australian streets unveiled, are subject to rape. Why? Because highly advanced, moral, enlightened, sensitive, caring, compassionate Muslim men will be unable to contain themselves. They might be distracted from their Holy, sacred and peaceful thoughts, and thus be forced to rape white woman.

Says Ace:

I have a three point plan.... to avoid all this "backlash."

1) Stop killing us

2) Stop raping us

3) Stop rioting and destroying vehicles, businesses, and homes

I realize that's asking an awful lot, but I want to do anything possible to avoid anti-Muslim backlash-- even if that includes the unprecented call for an end to jihadi-brigandism.

Screw The Dixie Chicks

Gaius usually is right- and as usual, he's got the goods.

UPDATE:

Gaius has updated the Dixie Chicks story. As he says, Played Like A Cheap Violin.

The Mufti Might Be On To Something And Accountability

Now that Australian mufti Taj Din al Hilali has made it clear he will not retract his remarks, referring to non veiled kuffir women as 'uncovered meat,' (he now claims he is a 'victim' and 'misunderstood'), it occurred to us that perhaps we could learn much from the esteemed and learned mufti.

Inasmuch as the 'enlightened' leader of Sydney's Lakemba mosque has the loyalty and support of his flock (according to the report, he's being treated like a 'rock star'), perhaps it is we that really do not understand that the language used by the mufti really is appropriate.

In fact, perhaps the mufti and those who support him and his kind of ideology (by no means all of Australia's Muslims) ought to come to understand the effects of the his language and ideologies, and be held accountable.

It is with that in mind that we ought to ponder and consider the issues of terrorism and the Palestinians, using language the mufti finds so appropriate:

"The Islamic savagery in Palestine and elsewhere, is nothing more than the actions and behavior of animals. The so called resistance is the work of dysfunctional wild beasts that see themselves leading herds of cattle into battle, only to rejoice and take pride in the killing of innocents. While there are international conventions to protect civilians, they are disregarded by these beasts and animals, because they believe they are exempt from civilized behavior. Only animals and beasts would hide behind children as they fired weapons. Only animals and beats would place anti aircraft weapons on hospitals and school roofs. Only animals and sub human beasts would educate their children in the ways of hate and murder and only animals and beasts would have so called 'religious leaders' call for the rape and subjugation of women and children, and refer to that as a religious and 'obligatory.' These so called 'monotheists' are really nothing more than a so called 'people' that for last one thousand years have ruined and destroyed everything they have touched. They have contributed nothing but death, destruction and failure. That shouldn't be surprising- after all, what can you expect from wild beasts and animals?

Let's just listen to what the beasts and animals have to say. The more radical among them want to establish a Council of Wild Beasts. They refer to that as a Caliphate, but we know what that means. As in George Orwell's 1984, they are the sons of pigs that want to dominate civilized man, and the world into a barnyard.

The Muslims struggle with humanity is as old as history itself; the present continuing struggle with the Christian nation is a natural continuation of the Muslims enmity towards the human race as a whole.”

Islam controls the world by…secret movements as the destructive doctrines and groups, such as OPEC and Baathism and by influencing civilized society with tainted leftist ideologies, Muslim racist and nationalistic doctrines.

The Muslims try to control the world through sex, letting loose sexual perversion and rape on non Muslim women. These animals promote espionage and treason, and they use the threat of economic boycotts on civilized nations. The civilized world will support Israel against the cancer that are the dysfunctional Palestinians and their wild beast leaders We will ask God “who has gathered the Jews in Israel …to liberate the land from the Palestinians under a pure, clean, pious Jewish and Christian banner”

"To be clear, we want to ask our readers not to take these remarks out of context. They are in no way meant to be offensive to Muslims. We want to reiterate that We hold Muslims and Palestinians in the highest regard."

SC&A want to remind our readers that this post was directly inspired by the very words and ideas publicly espoused, endorsed and preached by Australian mufti Taj Din al Hilali.

We also believe that if those who preached these ideas using the above language, were to be held directly accountable for their filth, the world would be a lot cleaner place.

"The mufti loves women in the same measure he loves Jews."

Yesterday, Fausta wrote Uncovered Meat, a post in which she discussed the remarks make by an Australian mufti that blamed unveiled non Muslim women for their own rapes and assaults.

We discussed Fausta's post and added our won remarks in Walking In Traffic. We noted the connection between the pretend religion of radical Islam and the left:

Radical Islam and the Left also stifle what real religion encourages.

Real religion encourage and demands that we upset the status quo and challenge the current state of affairs. In our response, we see new horizons. As we once noted, ‘Like the School of Paris painters at the beginning of the 20^th century that forced us to look at the world in a way that wasn’t necessarily representational, religious thinkers provide the chaos we need to grow. God may be Mozart and Rembrandt, but He is no less Picasso and Coltrane.’

Radical Muslims and the Left cannot abide that kind of growth and that kind of challenge. They cannot accept that God made room for all kinds of believers and non believers. They cannot accept that free will no longer had any fine print attached to it.

The Australian mufti has apologized'- and is being defended by his daughter and many in his flock. The Islamic Friendship Council of Australia says that "...all his good work has been forgotten in the rush to defend him."

As is always the case, it he who is the victim- and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves and as his daughter notes, 'leave him alone.' His remarks were 'misinterpreted and misunderstood.'

Of course they were.

Just like his remarks on the Holocaust. The Australian reported:

THE nation's Islamic leader, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, has dismissed the Holocaust as a "Zionist lie" in a series of fiery sermons in which he also lashed out at the West and the US-led occupation of Iraq...

...the mufti stood by his sermons: "We are always saddened and always remember with great sorrow what Nazism did to the Jewish people," he said in a statement.

Despite his civilized 'clarification' he also had the following to say:

In a February sermon, Sheik Hilali attacked the Western press for being afraid to admit that the Holocaust was "a ploy made by the Zionists".

He also trivialised the number of Jews killed by the Nazis.

"What's that six million all about? Is there six million?", said the Egyptian-born cleric, before calling on Muslims worldwide to boycott Danish goods over the publication of cartoons that offended Muslims for their depiction of the prophet Mohammed.

"The West say we have freedom and freedom of speech," he told thousands of his followers on February 3. "But journalism stops and shuts up when it discusses the burning of the Jews - the Holocaust -- the Zionist lie and the industry that the West deals in."

In another Friday sermon, delivered two weeks ago at Lakemba Mosque - titled The Zionists Murder Palestinians and the World Watches and the Muslims Are Silent - he called the US the breeders of oppression and labelled Israel a "cancer that is planted in the heart of the Ummah (Muslim community)".

It isn't hard to understand why the mufti is so often 'misunderstood.' Another report by The Australian noted that

A senior Liberal MP today urged the Federal Government to consider action against the leader of Australia's Muslims for praising Islamic suicide bombers and calling for a holy war against Israel.

The Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, made the comments in recent sermons and interviews in Lebanon, according to an internet dispatch by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)...

But a spokesman for the Sydney-based Mufti said he had been taken out of context...

"We are proud of the Islamic resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir...," Sheik Alhilali is reported to have said.

"We support the resistance and support, with all our might, the martyrdom operations carried out by the Palestinian liberation movements, operations that are a legitimate act against the cruel occupation, according to all international norms and conventions."

The Mufti is also reported to have called in a sermon in Sidon for a jihad, or holy war, against Israel, adding: "The war waged by the US and Israel against the Muslims is a cruel war aimed at annihilating the (Islamic) nation."

The Mufti's spokesman in Sydney, Keysar Trad, said MEMRI had taken the Muslim leader out of context.

"The Mufti is a proponent of peace and peaceful solutions to any conflict," he told ABC radio.

"I spoke to him today and he assured me that the context in which he made his message was not in the way that it was reported by these people."

Yes, 'those people' deliberately misinterpreted his desire for peace,'with that 'cancer in heart of the ummah,' to be brought about with 'all our might' and 'martrdom operations.'

The mufti also referred to the events of 9/11 as 'God's work.' From the Sydney Morning Herald:

The powerful leader of Australia's 300,000 Muslims, Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilaly, has praised the September 11 terrorist attacks as "God's work"...

Sheik Al Hilaly, who is based at the Lakemba mosque, last week vehemently denied that he called for a jihad against Israel in one of his sermons. But a translation of a sermon, delivered at the Sidon mosque in Lebanon and obtained by The Sun-Herald, is littered with references to Arab martyrs and Americans being punished by God.

Sheik Al Hilaly spoke of an "Islamic revolution", and told his audience not to be surprised if one day a muezzin called out "Allah is Great!" from the "top of the White House"...

"September 11 is God's work against oppressors," he said. "Some of the things that happen in the world cannot be explained; a civilian airplane whose secrets cannot be explained, if we ask its pilot who reached his objective without error: 'Who led your steps?'

"Or if we ask the giant that fell: 'Who humiliated you?' Or if we ask the president: 'Who made you cry?' God is the answer."

Declaring there was a "war on infidels" around the world, the Mufti praised the boy who, "despite his mother's objections", went to war to become a martyr...

Of course, his remarks were 'misunderstood.'

The Australian Herald Sun reported as follows:

We should be grateful Australia's most senior Islamic cleric has trekked to Baghdad to save the life of Australian hostage Douglas Wood.

But the Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj El-Din El-Hilaly, has at the same time shown -- again -- that not all the Muslim extremists who threaten us are in Iraq.

Surely now even his closest supporters see that this man of hate should no longer represent our Muslims.

Hilaly on the weekend filmed an appeal in Arabic for Wood's kidnappers to spare the life of the 63-year-old engineer, who had been bashed, shaved bald, and threatened with execution if coalition forces were not pulled out of Iraq.

Hilaly is a Sunni extremist, like the men believed to hold Wood, and in his appeal, broadcast in Iraq, he told them: "We value your jihad and your efforts."

But, he added: "We call upon you to do something for the sake of our community and all Australian society, which does not support (Prime Minister John) Howard's pro-American policies. You know the Australian forces in Iraq are protected by American forces and don't do anything -- it's all politics."

I can think of only one plausible way to read this -- our senior Islamic cleric values the terrorists who kill and kidnap countless victims, most of them Iraqis. And he wants Wood freed because killing him won't help Muslims here, most Australians already think Howard is a toady, and the real enemy is America.

Of course, excuses were immediately made for the Mufti, as they always are when he is discovered vilifying Jews or Americans, or praising suicide bombers and terrorists...

The Herald Sun also noted

Another member of Howard's group, Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali, the Mufti of Australia, met Hezbollah's leader in Lebanon two years again, and enthused: "I praised it and its sacrifice. Hezbollah has become a model for all the mujahideen in the world."

But, how Howard ever came to select Hilali as a "moderate" adviser in the first place is a mystery, given he has vilified Jews, praised suicide bombers as "heroes" and called the September 11 attacks "God's work against oppressors".

'In 1988 he gave a speech at Sydney University in which he extended the hand of brotherly love to the Jewish people. Not. Some snippets of the speech:

‘Heroic children of the intifada…’

‘The Jews struggle with humanity is as old as history itself; the present continuing struggle with the Islam nation is a natural continuation of the Jews enmity towards the human race as a whole.”

” Judaism controls the world by…secret movements as the destructive doctrines and groups, such as communism, libertinism, Free Masons, Baha’ism, the Rotary clubs, the nationalistic and racist doctrines.”

“The Jews try to control the world through sex, then sexual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, traitory, and economic hording.”

“The most significant results has been the intifada of the stone children in the occupied land which intifada has thrown the Israeli and international plans into disarray…”

“I ask Allah Almighty who has gathered here us here…to liberate Palestine under a pure, clean, pious Islamic banner”

No word from his daughter or defenders on how he was 'misunderstood.'

The mufti loves women in the same measure he loves Jews.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.

“It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).”

Nice man, don't you think?

UPDATED: Walking In Traffic

Fausta asks in her post, Uncovered Meat,

It's not shameful to mutilate a baby, but it's shameful to have a woman with all her parts intact? It's not shameful to believe that a woman has to be promiscuous simply from the fact of being a woman?

...It's not shameful to mutilate a baby, but it's shameful to have a woman with all her parts intact? It's not shameful to believe that a woman has to be promiscuous simply from the fact of being a woman?

Fausta is discussing the Australian Mufti's remarks that unveiled non Muslim were responsible for their own rapes.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

That might be construed as no more than a tacit admission that Muslim men are weaker than their Christian and Jewish counterparts, according to the Mufti.

Fausta also notes that 'we're being dragged back into the dark ages', a by product of leftist ideologies that by design, ignore the dangers their own self serving beliefs present. As we noted yesterday in Generation Jihad, Respect Trust And A Crystal Ball,

Leftists are not unaware of the rabid excesses of Muslim radicals...The rapist-murderer is protected by those who 'understand' his rage- and sins. The victims have no standing and worse, the victims are are deserving of the offenses committed against them, because the rapist said so.

Fausta goes on to discuss the lack of outrage in the west at these and other excesses.

In what is a strange turn of events, it is the radical Muslims and leftists that have become the Crusaders, using religion and culture as a justification for all kinds of evil perpetrated in the name of their beliefs. They have their own Office of the Inquisition, where all who do not agree are subject to all kinds of punishment. Disagree, hold to your own beliefs and you are subject to death.

The deposed god of Neitschze has become the false god of radical Islam and the left.

It is now radical Islam and the Left that have become repressive and oppressive. It is now radical Islam and the Left that demand uniformity and demand that self expression be expunged- unless it is approved self expression.

The god of radical Islam and the left refused to allow God to look out after his own interests. They, and they alone, would speak for God- as if He needed their help- and agenda, in defining what was moral and just.

What Radical Islam and the Leftists have in common is the shared disregard for God.

Real religion provides a sense of order and an environment to grow. Radical Islam and the Left provide chaos and an environment of fear and repression.

Radical Islam and the Left also stifle what real religion encourages.

Real religion encourage and demands that we upset the status quo and challenge the current state of affairs. In our response, we see new horizons. As we once noted, 'Like the School of Paris painters at the beginning of the 20^th century that forced us to look at the world in a way that wasn't necessarily representational, religious thinkers provide the chaos we need to grow. God may be Mozart and Rembrandt, but He is no less Picasso and Coltrane.'

Radical Muslims and the Left cannot abide that kind of growth and that kind of challenge. They cannot accept that God made room for all kinds of believers and non believers. They cannot accept that free will no longer had any fine print attached to it.

In fact, radical Islam and the Left are bound and determined to kill God. They cannot be satisfied coexisting with believers, because believers will always challenge their moral emptiness. Unlike radical Muslims and Leftists, Christians, Jew and Buddhists do not lose any sleep because they worship differently.

The real God of believers is very different and does not resemble the false gods of radical Muslims and Leftists. Real religion and religious expression exists in no small measure so that we may come to understand ourselves and how we, as individuals, might come to best exercise our unique potential. In the end, radical Islam and Leftist ideologies do not offer anything other than approved 'groupthink,' approved and defined by those that have butchered their way to the top.

See Fausta's post- and see the dangers- and expression- of radical Islam groupthink, ever supported by the Left.

UPDATED

See also The Mufti Loves Women In The Same Measure He Loves Jews

Vote Early, Vote Often

Ali Eteraz has been nominated for a Best of Blogs Award in a global contest sponsored by Deutsche Welle.

Notwithstanding the fact that Eteraz is at times annoying, outrageous, provocative or confrontational, he is always well written, well reasoned and he is always a necessary read. He is a radical reformist Muslim in the very best sense of the word. You may not always like what he has to say, but his is a necessary voice.

That the powers that be at Deutsche Welle took notice is no accident.

Cast your ballot for Eteraz here, in the Best Weblog- English, category. Or, you could do something really stupid and vote for Huffington.