Monthly Archives: October 2014

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

FirstOneThrough

The New York Times deliberately misrepresented opinion as law to disparage Israel, and omitted actual Palestinian laws to hide Arab racism. As such, the paper fully embraced anti-Semitism and the principle of segregation if it prohibits Jews from living in predominantly Arab neighborhoods.

In an article on October 16, 2014 called “A House-by-House Struggle for Control of a Jerusalem Neighborhood”, the NYT’s Isabel Kershner had an opening paragraph that could have been taken from Mein Kampf in describing secretive, cheating and stealing Jews:

“In the dark of night, under the protection of Israeli security forces, Jewish settlers took possession of some 25 housing units in six locations around the Silwan neighborhood of East JerusalemMany of the properties had been rented out, but they were strangely empty when the settlers arrived…Through a multimillion-dollar series of complex and shadowy transactions spanning several years,
Elad engineered the largest…

View original post 1,054 more words

Advertisements

Perspective on the Long War

Minimizing a religious explanation for Islamic terrorism while emphasizing political and socioeconomic causes of Muslim violence is a disingenuous ploy which serves only Muslim apologists and appeasers. The true nature of the outburst of Muslim violence and unrest the world over is, rather, to be found in the religious culture in which [Islamic terrorism] is rooted and nurtured, a culture in which there is no distinction between religion and politics.

Modern international Islamist terrorism is a natural offshoot of twentieth century Islamic fundamentalism. This fundamentalism was fed by perceived Muslim acceptance of western domination and culture. This was perceived as a natural injustice which could only be rectified by a return to the original mores of Islam.

In the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist, there is no separation between the political and the religious. Islam is, in essence, both religion and regime, and no area of human activity is outside its remit. Whatever the nature of the problem, “Islam is the solution.”

In other words, Islamic fundamentalists believe that Islam is the final dispensation for humanity as revealed to Muhammad and the task of restoring it to its true essence and pristine form is the job of jihad.

In the world view of the Islamist fundamentalist, there exist only two camps—Dar al-Islam (“The House of Islam”—i.e., the Muslim countries) and Dar al–Harb (“The House of War”—i.e., countries ruled by any regime but Islam)—that are pitted against each other until the final victory of Islam.

However, these radical concepts, which are the wellspring of so much hatred and grief today, have deep roots in mainstream Islam.

Rooted in mainstream Islam is the belief that there are two kinds of war in Islam: one is called Jihad (Holy War), which means the conquest of other countries in accordance with certain conditions. The second type is war to preserve the independence of all Muslim countries and the repulsion of foreigners. Jihad or Holy War, which is for the conquest of other countries and kingdoms, becomes incumbent after the formation of the Islamic state in the presence of the Imam or in accordance with his command.

In this mainstream interpretation of jihad as just, fundamental Islam believes entire civilizations need to be saved by all means available—the Islamic civilization of the Middle East and the civilisations of the un-believers alike. National borders are seen as Western imperialist creations that serve to divide the umma, the world community of Muslims.

Restoration of the caliphate in the Middle East is only a prelude to the reconquest of all lands that were once under Muslim rule in a bid to regain its lost glory.

Millions of fundamentalist Muslims the world over have never reconciled themselves to the loss of Islam’s colonies as embodied in the glory days of the Ottomans, nor are they reconciled to the loss of lands beyond the Middle East. Many such Muslims believe in the restoration of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice.

In France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Britain, a rapidly expanding Muslim population due to cheap immigration labour, higher rates of child birth, and conversion to Islam form the building blocks of a growing foreign minority which has located Europe, home to the world’s largest Muslim diaspora, at the heart of the battle over Muslim identity.

And it is this frighteningly large minority who are inspired and guided by the words of Muhammad’s farewell address: “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah.’’

On the other hand, those who naively champion moderate Muslims have to take seriously the words of moderate Muslim scholars like Dr. Zaki Badawi, long-time director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, when he says, albeit in far more tempered language, “Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.”

It is the stated intention of billions of non-Muslims the world over, that this will never happen. Religion will always remain a matter of choice. Forcing a particular world-view at the expense of all others, is fascist, bigoted, supremacist behaviour.

The long war will continue, and in between the battles, we will continue to live, love, give birth, celebrate, make careers and die. It cannot be any other way.

When teachers can’t add 2+2

The recent vote taken by the student union body of Goldsmiths College in London to refrain from commemorating Holocaust Observance Day because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” is as brazen in its audacity as it is anti-semitic in its intent.

The Egyptian-Muslim student leader, Sarah al-alfy, who implored the student body to reject the motion no doubt feels she has put in one for the brothers and sisters.

It would appear that, as a British Muslim, while Sarah al-alfy is keen that (mainly) Christian Britons accept her as Muslim and British, she sees no moral or intellectual dissonance in denying the right of others to grieve man’s inhumanity to man simply because they are not Muslim; or simply because they are European.

Moreover, Sarah al-alfy would also be hard pressed to explain why the Goldsmiths decision precludes the commemoration of other genocides in Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Japan (in Manchuria), Cambodia or Rwanda. Is it merely because they are not European or because it does not involve 6 million Jews???

Even if we disregard Sarah al-alfy’s enthusiasm as a lack of maturity or ‘romantic’ over-exuberance fueled by European media spin, the fact that the vote was taken and passed at a teachers training college is of more significance. Goldsmiths College, University of London, is a premier teacher education facility in England.

That this college was targeted by Muslim activists and sympathisers to influence young non-muslim teachers in training who will soon go out and teach all over Britain and Europe, is significant because of the influence teachers have over their charges. Mutliply that by around 45 to 47 years  in a teaching career in various metropolitan or country teaching authorities in and around the United Kingdom per Goldsmiths student, and the true significance of the vote and the efforts to reach the result becomes much clearer.

Intending teachers do not start of their college life as particularly intelligent or well-read members of society. Student teachers are students first and teachers only later. That most develop sooner rather than later as custodians of culturally situated valued knowledge in a cultural tradition which still mainly values the written word is, in most instances, true.

However, deliberately targeting impressionable young teachers who are unfamiliar with the minutae and nuances of the Israeli-Arab conflict to take a decision which deliberately ignores one of the greatest crimes (numbers wise..) ever committed because they are Jews or Armenians is brazen, deliberate, well-thought out and one more stepping stone in the eyes of a vocal, violent few to the inevitable establishment of a Caliphate in Europe.

It is brazen because London is in Europe and is led by a monarch who is sworn to be an upholder of the values and mores of a Protestant Church of England.

The Sarah al-alfy led decision for the students’ union to disassociate itself from the observance of Holocaust Memorial Day, European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, Holodomor [Ukrainian] Memorial Day Act and Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day is as short-sighted, cynical and puerile in its inception as it is insulting in its intent. It is racist.

It is a cocky declaration of non-acceptance of other if you are Jewish or Armenian or Ukranian and a disturbing display of the inability to empathise with human suffering so typical of the non-thinking “me-too” group think which typified the rise and rule of European fascism in Germany, Spain, France and Italy a generation ago.

Sarah al-alfy’s exhortations to the student union to reject observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Goldsmiths College because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” can now be contextualised for what it is: one more attempt to delegitimize targeted ethno-religious groups with yet another rejection of other.

The Goldsmiths decision, yet again, turns the original aims of political correctness on its head. The Goldsmiths decision mainstreams bigotry, so long as it is directed at Europeans and not against Muslims. The Goldsmiths decision makes it fashionable/attractive for uni students to turn against the cultures, learning and personal freedoms it offers people like Sarah al-alfy who is happy to take the best it can offer while at the same time exhorting others to delegitimize it. More worryingly, the Goldsmiths decision frames a lack of empathy as OK as long as it is directed at Armenians and Jews.

Sarah al-alfy herself will soon fade into obscurity. She is not the issue. She was merely a willing pawn in a wider, well thought out gambit aimed at delegitimizing others on ethno-religious grounds. What she on the other hand stands for, as an Egyptian Muslim in Britain, certainly IS the issue.

This disturbs and angers me particularly because I am a long, long lapsed alumnus of the College.

Is Londonistan (cf. Melanie Philips) finally a reality in the British Isles???