Previous month:
May 2007
Next month:
July 2007

The Meaning of Hatred

National Post via Small Dead Animals:

"It is, I suppose, deeply ironic that I was told that I was not allowed to live in Egypt when I was a girl and now as a grown woman I'm told, in part by people from Egypt, that I shouldn't come to Canada either. As for Israel, they'd like that to disappear," she says, more bemused than bitter. "Where ought I to go? No matter. The story has to be told, the true story of how Islam has treated and still does treat its minorities."

Life in Lahore

I wrote in 2005 about Lahore, Pakistan:

Another worry was rain. One day, the neighborhood would be alright. Then, it pours overnight. The next day, there would be a river in front of the house. There was once over two feet of foul water in front. We had to go through that to get groceries.

Now, you can see a few photos of the city in that condition.

Thank Towelie, I'm in Canada.

Random Stuff About Me

Oh noes! It's a meme!

1. All right, here are the rules.
2. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
3. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
4. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
5. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

The 8 facts follow:
1. My earliest, happiest and care-free memories are from the mid-80s in Lahore, Pakistan. Some day I'll write about them.
2. The first time I appreciated music was when I watched the movie Tezaab. I remember being in my aunt's house and rewinding the video cassette again and again to listen to the song "So Gaya Yeh Jahan". By the way, A. R. Rahman's Dil Se.. is the greatest Hindi soundtrack of the 1990s. Yes, that's a fact!
3. I don't like to drink out of flimsy containers--plastic or styrofoam. I prefer the feel of a strong material like glass. (Does that make me gay?)
4. In my first year in the United States, I defeated an English teacher in scrabble. On many occasions. By considerable margins. He wasn't happy.
5. I don't own a TV. The last time I watched something on a TV was last year. Though, in the You Tube era that doesn't mean much.
6. My favorite Hollywood actor and actress to watch? Cary Grant and Grace Kelly.
7. I bought the components for my PC separately and then put them together.
8. I don't pass on memes.

Diluting The Deen

Umar Lee:

The other day I listened to a radio program on the BBC World Service about a Muslim chaplain working with with the US navy and Marines including administering to Muslims at the prison camp in GTMO.

But you see that chaplain had to sell his soul first:

Even on the question of GTMO and Iraq he cannot speak to what even most Americans believe about the illogical and immoral nature of the very nature of those endeavors. So what is left of the deen? If you cannot call away from the evil or speak against it with your tongue then what are you? A Muslim mouthpiece for policies that harm Muslims like Jewish Capo in Auschwitz?

Of course. There ought to be one "correct" worldview in a Muslim mind. Otherwise, s/he must have been bought off.

Bridges Made of Sand

Junk Yard Blog:

Good for her for having the guts to ask this guy tough questions. The answers were very revealing, and Anwyn's conclusions are quite worthwhile.

The best way to know just what Muslims think is to ask them direct questions. More often than not, you'll get this result:

[...] I then asked about the murder of van Gogh. Our speaker’s response: “An aberration.” Surely the stated target for murder of even an “aberration,” as Ms. Ali was targeted by van Gogh’s killer and has been publicly marked for death in the last three months, must be in danger? No, it’s all contrived.

But how can it be contrived or an aberration when so many rioted over the Danish cartoons? His answer: “Touch Mohammed and there will be riots.” He went on to stipulate that it’s fine with him if I then turn around and say that Islam is not a religion of peace, but nevertheless, touch Mohammed and riots will happen.

Touch? He needs to be whipped, really.

The War On Reason

Discover Magazine via Instapundit:

What people call the scientific method, he explains, is really the Islamic method: “All the wealth of knowledge in the world has actually emanated from Muslim civilization. The Prophet Muhammad said to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. The very first verse came down: ‘Read.’ You are required to try to know something about your creator through meditation, through analysis, experimentation, and observation.”

So, that's why Muslims have won the largest share of Nobel prizes.


“We are not behind because of Islam,” he says. “We are behind because of what the Americans and the British have done to us.”

Of course. Islam is NEVER to blame.

El-Naggar even sees moral meaning in the earthquake that triggered the 2005 tsunami and washed away nearly a quarter of a million lives. Plate tectonics and global warming be damned: God had expressed his wrath over the sins of the West. Why, then, had God punished Southeast Asia rather than Los Angeles or the coast of Florida? His answer: Because the lands that were hit had tolerated the immoral behavior of tourists.

What a vile creature.

Later on:

Chaabouni recalls the early days of her career, in the mid-1970s, when she saw children afflicted with disfiguring diseases. “It was very sad,” she says. “I met families with two, three, four affected siblings. I wanted to do something about it, to know how to prevent it.”

Why might that be?

“It’s a custom here, and in the rest of the Arab world, to marry cousins, even first cousins,” she tells me, though the practice is becoming less common. “Of course, that means they share a lot of genes from common sets of grandparents.”

Perhaps British Pakistanis (what an oxymoron) could take a bit of advice from the doctor; 55% of whom are cousins.

Rage Against the Infidel

Rage Boy made an appearance here last September.

Now, Christopher Hitchens writes about the same lovely fellow:

[...] how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

That's the problem, isn't it? When one tries to appease irrational and immoral people, Enlightenment Values get butchered.

But, then, one has to first comprehend and admit that such personalities are irrational and immoral -- a big no-no in our multicultural society.

Unfree Speech

I was surprised by Mezba's comment in this post:

Rushdie’s writings were offensive to Muslims and I have no problem with countries banning his books and what not.

That almost-flippant remark says a lot.

No nation has absolute free speech. For example, in the US, selling information about undercover FBI agents is the kind of speech that is not free. There are other exceptions as well.

However, the situation with Rushdie is straightforward. He wrote a book that a lot of people really really don't like. Of course, most of them haven't read it but never mind that. What matters is that they really don't like it! Ergo, nobody in their society ought to read it.

November 24, 1988: The novel is banned in South Africa and Pakistan; bans follow within weeks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar.

Isn't that charming?

Is anyone forcing individual Muslims to buy or read Rushdie's book? No. There might be a few curious minds in Islamic nations who'd like to read the book, so they could figure out what all the hoopla is about.

But they can't because they need to be, somehow, protected from the written filth. What happens then if they smuggle The Satanic Verses and get caught? Muhammad's Beard! These wretched beings were trying to read, and later perhaps sell, a forbidden! book. What punishment would be adequate? A fine? A public lashing? A few decades behind bars?

I find it offensive that a Muslim who has the choice to read or not read Rushdie's book casually denies that same freedom to Muslims in other parts of the world. Even though this little kafir's fragile feelings are hurt, he won't call for the guilty comment to be banned.

Furthermore (channeling Treebeard): A blogger should know better!

Dhimmitude Starts With Appeasement

Metroblogging Lahore:

The knighthood of Salman Rushdie is wrong on two counts.

The second one is amusing:

British being a democracy is already well aware that the most number of people being born in Britain are Muslim. (The name Mohammad is set to overtake James as the most common name in Britain this year). A democratic nation is bound by the choice of its majority and this is really an easy concept to get, right? Maybe the concept of making room for the minorities, starting with the large ones, is hard to grasp -- I don't know.

The message sent is the opposite: we will not be cowered. Rushdie spent years railing against the British establishment and, oddly enough, the MI5 didn't put a bounty on his head. Muslims ought to look at their demented community and ask themselves, "Who in their right minds would make room for them?"

Islamic Punishment for Apostasy

Josh Scholar asks me to comment on this video.

Basically, the speakers say that the Quran does not lay down a punishment for apostasy. I think that is false. However, Islamic law and practices are not derived solely from the Quran. And when one takes into account the other sources, the punishment for apostasy becomes even more clear. (I wrote about this subject in 2005.)

Quran 4.89:

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

See Ali Sina for the context.

The other source: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

[...] There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. [...]

One can argue that the Quran doesn't punish apostasy. But then what about the horrible precedent set by the hadith?

Here's another one: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Quite clear, innit?

Hey, what about that Quranic verse about "no compulsion" in religion. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi has got something to say:

"There is no compulsion in religion" [Quran: 2.256] means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

Well, what about those who are born to Muslim parents?

[...] children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

What conclusion does one make about a religion that practically imprisons every one of its adherents?

Simple: Islam is a decrepit system built on putrid foundations. It has to murder its opponents for it cannot survive in the arena of open debate. Terror is built into its DNA.

This ugliness presents a massive problem for moderate or "diet" Muslims. So, they pick and choose what they like.

An analogy would be a restaurant that serves the most disgusting courses. Authentic or "pure" Muslims gobble every single item to showcase their street-cred to the rest. The moderates show a bit of discrimination and pick the less noxious meals.

It's one thing to do that but it's quite another to then turn around and deny the existence of the filthier items on the menu.

It makes the moderates look ludicrous and intellectually lame.

Can You Feel The Peace?

The Rushdie news today:

The most virulent protests against the award have been held in Pakistan, where the Government condemned the award and one minister was quoted encouraging the ultimate retribution. "If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British Government apologises and withdraws the ’Sir’ title," said Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, the religious affairs minister.

Street protests continued today in Pakistan as a prominent hardline cleric supported calls for Rushdie to be killed. Abdul Rashid Ghazi, one of two brothers who run the extremist Red Mosque in the capital Islamabad backed a call for suicide bombers to target the novelist.

"Salman Rushdie deserves to be killed and anyone who has the power must kill him," he said.

Muslims Enraged. The Sun Rises In The East.

Times Online:

The leading candidate for the Indian presidency has enraged Muslim leaders by urging her fellow women to stop wearing the veil.

Pratibha Patil claimed that veils were only introduced to India in the 16th century to protect women from Muslim invaders, and were no longer needed.

She will need lots of security.

Maulana Khalid Rashid, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said that it was God who had asked women to wear a veil and that this was enshrined in the Koran, the Muslim holy book. The board is the highest authority for Muslims in India on laws governing personal matters.

“Any statement against the veil means an opinion against Allah and the Koran which no Muslim will tolerate,” Rashid told the Associated Press news agency.

'Everyone can file a refugee claim'

The Toronto Star link via Mezba.

See the Undercover video links on the right there.

This one is cute:

STORY: Li (unlike three others) thoroughly explores and explains the options. The Star reporter, posing as someone calling on behalf of a relative, is told the "only" route is to file a refugee claim.

"It depends on how smart he is in responding to the questions," says Li. "It all depends on how he performs. But we'll help him through the system."

"But if he's not a real refugee, is that okay?" the Star asks.

"Of course," says Li. "There are no real refugees."

Lovely. Come to the West and start your life here with a vicious lie -- the authorities will become cynical and then few will trust a real refugee who'll be sent "home" to wolves.

For the record: My lawyer was an angel compared to these conniving bastards.

Oil and Water

Hakim Abdullah: Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?

This phrase, Islamist Democracy, raises far too many many alarms and red flags with both sides of this argument which deserves a complete explanation however, a complete explanation of what may be included in a democratic Islamic state is beyond the scope of this article and perhaps my knowledge as well. Yet it is not beyond Dr. Feldman’s knowledge, a U.S. constitutional lawyer, who is also proficient in Islamic as well as Jewish Law, the Sharia and Halakha respectively. He believes that the implementation of Sharia and Fiqh of Islamic Law, is in fact a viable solution for the Middle East. Feldman also suggests that Islam is not only compatible with democracy but, in certain terms, able to express the democratic process in a more efficient way than we have yet seen implemented since its formal acclimation into modern society.

What is Feldman smoking?

On the top left of the post, there is a small image that shows the flags of the US and Saudi Arabia. Just think about the basic gross incompatibility. There is separation of religion and state in America whereas the wretched shahada is on the Saudi flag (with a most peaceful scimitar underlining the text).

Also, sharia is, by definition, the law of Allah. How, in the name of sanity, is that compatible with man-made legislation or democracy?

Sharia Depravity

Stop Stoning Forever via Gateway Pundit:

The news about the scheduled stoning of a man and a woman in Takistan, Ghazvin, was spread through mobile phone messages and the Internet. The office of Showraye Tameen of Ghazvin province has issued the order to stone and man and a woman in public.

The judge of Branch 1 of the Criminal Court of Takistan will be present in person to throw the first stone. This was scheduled to be done on Sunday, June 17, but the Office of Showraye Tameen of Ghazvin province postponed it to Thursday, June 21.

No Loyalty

Read this entire post (via SDA):

Following the keynote speech by Mark Steyn, Avi presented a panel featuring Greg Davis, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and Philippe Karsenty, moderated by Mark Steyn.

A portion of what Ibn Warraq said:

Last night Avi Davis was telling us that we should anchor our accounts in some personal experience. I had to go to Canada, Toronto, to renew my work visa, about 8 months ago. And I went through Minnesota and I stayed with a niece of mine. She came to Canada about 9 years ago from Zimbabwe. She's married, and she has 4 children. All four children were born in Zimbabwe in southern Africa. She was telling me - she told me this story herself. One day in the kitchen, her children were all very excited, because there was a big ice-hockey match, between a Canadian team, and the Sabres, I think, in Buffalo. And they were all very much, of course, for the Canadian team. They were saying, "Mama, we are really going, we are really Canadian, we really want the Canadians to win!" And she said she brought all the kids into the kitchen, and said, "Listen. Don't you ever forget. You are not Canadians. You are Muslims." This was their primary identity. And you can imagine the conflicts this must have engendered in the children. What they will be going through in the next few years, I don't know.

Islamic Tolerance

May 26, 2007:

Justice Sharif observed that the same-sex marriage case was the first of its kind to come before the judiciary in the history of the subcontinent, adding that the court would see the matter through to its logical conclusion.

May 29, 2007:

Shumail, a transsexual who married a woman, expressed dissatisfaction over the three-year sentence and said that she and Shahzina would take any measures necessary to make things okay.

According to this blog article (in Urdu), they each get three years in jail and a 10,000 rupee fine. The comments there are precious.

I'll translate a few later.

The following are a few selected translations from just the first page.

Sana, Karachi, Pakistan. It is shameful that such events are occurring in Pakistan -- an Islamic country. We are walking in the steps of non-Muslims.

Riaz, Emirates. This is not correct in any way.

Farhat Iqbal, Lahore, Pakistan. I support the court because if we allow practices that go counter to Islamic teachings, then that would obliterate our society.

Nasir, Dubai, Emirates. This is a shameful matter; these two should be shot.

Muhammmad Kamran, Karachi, Pakistan. These girls got too little punishment. There should have been, at least, life in jail.