Tariq Ramadan and the Charlie Hebdo problem

What is left to be said about the Charlie Hebdo crisis that unfolded in Paris earlier this month?  Perhaps not much, but it won't stop me.

So a gang of muslim cowards hiding behind their semi-automatic weapons kills twelve innocent people in an office and runs away.  This was somehow excused by the victims' 'crime' of depicting and ridiculing someone elses's non-existent prophet.  Few people recognise that nothing was written about Muhammed until about 200 years after he is supposed to have lived.  This makes his historical existence even less convincing than that for Jesus!

What's more, in what civilised part of the world does non-violent satire excuse a violent response?  

On the day after the shootings, BBC Radio 4 interviewed the 'islamic scholar' from Oxford, Tariq Ramadan.  I have heard him speak live and been amazed (and almost impressed) at how he twists sentences to convey a message that both Muslims and infidels are meant to think is wise and more-to-the-point 'harmless'.  This time takes the biscuit.  OK, he gently condemned the violence in Paris, but within a minute or two he was claiming that we should all feel responsible for what has happened.  Our government's involvement in Iraq - in his mind at least - has something to do with the cowards killing the journalists.

Call me naive if you like, but I thought the shootings were about the magazine being satirical and about the way the 'religion of permanent offence' chooses to try to dictate what free people in free countries are allowed to say about imaginary beings.  It was about islamic intolerance of the principles behind human rights and human dignity

Ramadan went on to claim that we're "all on the same side".

Let me assure you, Professor Ramadan, that I feel no responsibility for what has been done this month, and that I am on the same side as you on absolutely nothing of any consequence at all.  You can't excuse the violence in Paris.  They were islamic thugs behaving inexcusably by any objective standard.

Sharia gets put back in its rightful place!

Unlike the USA, the United Kingdom has no '1st Amendment' to its constitution.  When it comes down to it, it has no constitution either.  People argue with me that a constitution would not help us in any way and that might be a moot point, but the net result is that there is no requirement for the separation of church and state.  Indeed, with the Church of England still performing the function of 'the established church' in England (although not in other parts of the Union) the prospect of such separation is a long way away.

Few would argue that the established church is much of a threat to morality and decency in England.  Its priests have generally behaved much better than their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church and although it has an unfair and entirely undemocratic influence on the running of the government it is hard to find it as threatening to to justice and decency as Islam.

Last year, the supposed guardian of justice in the legal profession "The Law Society" decided unwisely to publish guidance for the preparation of wills which were compliant with 'sharia law'.  Now wasn't that a strange thing to do?  Sharia has no legal position in UK (thank God!) and those who agree to be bound by it are giving up the legal rights that they have under the real law.  The big problem is that the oppressive and self-elected 'leaders' of Islam have taken time and trouble to 'shelter' their followers from the truth of the legal rights that they do have.  Any guidance from the Law Society seemed to support this abusive relationship between Islamic leaders (all men of course) and the people.

Thanks to the National Secular Society (and others), The Law Society finally saw the error of its ways at the end of last November.  Apparently "the Society had 'reviewed the note in the light of criticism' and they had 'withdrawn the note' and were 'sorry' ."

That gives two causes for delight.  The main one is that it is 'one in the eye' for creeping sharia and a blow for secularism in England.  The other is the rare opportunity to see a hint of contrition from the blood-sucking lawyers.  It is not often that we see that happen!

Read more at this NSS link.

Do you reject jihad?

In posting this video I am not being anti-Islamic.  I might be pointing out that, however moderate and peaceful you are as an individual Muslim, Islam itself is not a religion of peace.

Pointing out that an 85 year-old woman was arrested merely for shouting outside a mosque (see here) whereas Anjem Chowdhry is allowed to preach hatred with impunity, wherever he goes, is a good start.   

Pat Condell asks an interesting question "Do you reject the Islamic doctrine of armed jihad?"

Good question.  Obviously I do reject it.

Small note:  Youtube tells me that only 301+ people have viewed that video.  That is an odd number, especially considering that 2300 people have 'liked' it so far.

Another Islamic attack?

Today there was an incident in Woolwich, London.  Some say that it was an islamic attack on a British soldier who was off-duty.  Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.  Some say that it is what is happening in Syria every day, and they probably have a point. 

After all, the media can't even decide whether it was a machete attack or a knife attack, or whether the murderers were wielding a knife or a gun, or both.

But they looked a bit foreign and a bit Islamic!

The one thing that seems odd to me is that the Muslim Council of Britain apparently said in a statement: "This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly.  Our thoughts are with the victim and his family."

Nice words, coming from a self appointed bunch of islamic clerics who have no right to claim to speak on behalf of anyone at all.  It must mean that they are feeling guilty about something.  One of the problems with Islam is that it has no hierarchy and no authorities who can speak for it.

Will we ever know the truth behind this incident or will BBC/government propaganda be the only thing we find out?

Incidentally . . . how many other murders happened in London today?  Why are they not newsworthy?

Distrust of sharia in Parliament

Why does my own MP (Member of Parliament) not speak out for justice like this?  If he does then I never hear about it.

Kris Hopkins MP has written a brilliant article in the Yorkshire Post, republished here via the National Secular Society.  As he says, referring to a recent BBC documentary . . .

"On seeing the programme's evidence, the chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service in the North West said that he was disappointed, but not surprised. If the CPS is not surprised about such findings, why are we, as a Government, allowing such things to happen?"

Why indeed?

Surely the answer is that religion gets special treatment, whether it deserves it or not.  For what it is worth, it doesn't deserve it!

Sharia still active in UK

Note that I didn't mention sharia 'law' because it is not law in UK.  And yet our barely-elected government is doing little to safeguard the rights of Muslims who find themselves subject to the rulings of these unelected 'councils'.

Leyton's pseudo-court - or 'sharia council'

Read more at the site of the National Secular Society.  If you are outside UK you will have to adopt some subterfuge to watch the BBC programme that is linked by the NSS.

Just deport him!

Abu Qatada has managed another feat of hypocrisy.

This is a radical Islamist who took refuge in liberal Britain and then started to preach his hate speech on our streets.  Then he used human-rights legislation to protect himself.  This means the same human rights that he denies to half the human race - namely women.  Is it a matter of lying for Islam - or lying to protect himself using Islam as an excuse?

And liberal Britain has tolerated him for much too long.  Whatever legal niceties the higher courts may have used to save this 'poor victim' from deportation, if the barely-elected government had any metal it would just go ahead and hand him over to Jordan where he would stand trial.

This barely-elected government would gain the respect of a huge majority of the UK population.

Of course he would appeal.

He might posthumously win his case, but still justice would have been done.

Contaminated by halal!

In the news this weekend, we hear that there is outrage that some of the supposedly 'halal' food provided to Muslim prisoners in the UK includes traces of pork.

Well . . . what might we all think about that?

First of all, since I'm paying for that food, to maintain a healthy and humane lifestyle for those who have been convicted of crimes serious enough to warrant imprisonment, I would like to know that it has not imposed additional costs in its production.  I would like to see this humanity extended to the animals who are involved in the process and as a matter of principle I object to being involved in deliberate cruelty to animals in order to satisfy the savage iron-age whims of a minority.

Secondly, call me insensitive, but I think the UK has bigger fish to fry than to worry about whether a trace quantity of pork is found in the food provided free to our prisoners.  It almost makes you wonder what real news is being hidden by this mock outrage.

After all, Muslims are specifically permitted to eat food that is not halal if their lives are at risk as a consequence of not eating it.  If they are in prison, their lives would certainly be affected if they were not being fed free of charge.  So it works one way when convenient, but not the other way whenever they have an opportunity to claim their status as victims.

I'm much more bothered about another outrage though.  I'm very concerned about my own ethically sourced food, produced in a way that is actually required by legislation to minimise the suffering of the animals that we eat.

There appears to be a good chance that my food is contaminated by meat that is classified as halal, because the barbaric Islamic practice of slaughter produces more meat than the halal market requires.  For some odd reason, Islamic slaughterhouses are not required to prove that all their produce goes into the Islamic market.   They can kill as many animals as their capacity allows and send it out to other markets willy-nilly.

This is the real outrage!  Halal slaughter should simply be banned in all civilised countries - NOW!

Could Nick Cohen be the new Hitch?

At the National Secular Society's conference last September, Nick Cohen gave a rousing speech entitled "How modern blasphemy works in practice".

In his introduction he included a quote from the late Christopher Hitchens:

“Its not enough to have free speech.  People must learn to speak freely.”

The contents of his speech and accounts of his work lead me to wonder whether he might pick up the mantle that was so tragically dropped a year ago, and the following notes might help you to understand why I suggest this.

A lady had said to him that morning on his journey, “What's the point of the NSS?  You've won haven't you? We're a secular society.”

She was missing the point.  We have a de facto blasphemy law.  It has not been passed by parliament and is not enforced by courts.  It brings with it no right to be innocent until proven guilty and there is no right of appeal. Instead, it is based on the threat of violence.  There is a huge system of self-censorship which overwhelmingly hurts the country. 

Cohen often sees the fear in editors and broadcasters eyes.  If we provoke the intolerant then we put people at risk.  People have now worked hard to develop this whole theory that to insult Mohamed is to perpetrate Islamophobia when in fact it is nothing of the sort.  Those who threaten retaliation are little better than truculent children and we can't expect them to behave as Westerners.

He suggested going back through the great writers in favour of free speech.

Milton's Areopagitica, 1644, pointed out the absurdity of censorship.  What kind of person would want to be a censor?  It certainly couldn't be anyone of talent or they would want to do their own work.  On that basis, anyone who wants to be a censor is unfit to be one.

More recently, The Jewel of Medina by Sheri Jones strove mightily not to cause offence, and in her version of the story of the life of Mohamed, Jones made him tell his wife to remain with her parents until she had grown up (which probably never happened even if a real Mohamed actually did exist, for which there is absolutely no historical evidence).  The book got a $100K advance.   Then in spite of bending over backwards to avoid telling the truth she was accused of causing offence!  Publication of the book was pulled.  A professor in Texas had said “This book is an insult to Islam” so the publisher believed him.  Eventually it was released by a new publisher, whose home was subsequently fire-bombed.  The very fact that someone said the above led to fire-bombing. 

Also everyone is afraid to admit that self censorship exists.  Journalists all like to pose as dissidents in a dictatorship, challenging establishments, transgressing boundaries – normally this is nonsense.  They simply seem unable to acknowledge that certain topics are just off-limits.

One reason why the banking crash came out of the blue was that journalists knew that challenging a city institution costs a lot of money to defend.  But no journalists want to say that they and their editors are afraid of litigation.  Because we can't admit our fear we make excuses. 

Cohen wants to emphasise the importance of at least being honest about being a coward.  The language of the liberal left has been corrupted and turned on its head to accuse people of racism etc.  Many people who use this language are genuinely afraid.

(John Stuart )Mill realised that there were other ways of confronting extremism than the law.  Online public opinion is one way now.  It is not hard to beat a holocaust denier in open argument and if you can't do it you shouldn't be in the business of trying.  It is important to have your answers ready and to make people feel absurd for using silly arguments.

A few hundred years ago you would know that the finest minds in the world, such as Isaac Newton, also had supernatural beliefs as a broad explanation of the world around them.  Now that is no longer possible.  As soon as you reach some level of knowledge you will know that the greatest minds of today do not hold those unscientific views now.  Religion is no longer able to be involved in high culture.  This makes religious people defensive and wary of learning.  Religion now knows itself to be intellectually on-the-back-foot.  Instead it can become ultra-fundamentalist and aggressive.

People don't understand the point of political extremism is that there always HAS to be something to keep their supporters inflamed. 

I think it is time for me to read more of Cohen's work, but first I need to complete reading Hitchens long book of essays, "Arguably"

Is islamophobia real?

I'm a little nervous of my admiration for some of the work of Pat Condell.  I don't agree with everything he says, particularly on the topic of Israel (which is one are where Islam has a reasonable excuse for feeling aggrieved at its land being given to another nation).  However, nor do I agree with his critics who say that he is a 'foaming-at -the-mouth bigot'.

Typically he puts his message across in a calm and reasonable manner.  The latest of his videos is about islamophobia (or its non-existence).

It is worth a few minutes of your time to hear what he says.

Then leave some comments to tell me whether you agree.

Health benefits of Alhamdulillah!

On a Wikipedia page about 'Alhamdulillah', there was an intriguing link:

Health benefits of saying Alhamdulillah

As you can imagine I followed it to see what surprising claims might be found.

Health benefits of alhamdulillah not available to me!

Apparently (and apart from the funny spelling error), none are available to me.

Ironic!

The real centre of the earth

One religion teaches us that Jerusalem is the centre of the earth, while another teaches that Mecca is the centre.

What about the notion that the earth is an oblate spheroid and its real centre is in the middle, not on the surface somewhere in the middle-east?  The fact that they don't know this tells us quite a lot about their all-knowing little bronze-age gods.

Both Judeo-Christian texts and Islamic texts mention that the earth has four corners, so it is futile to claim that its writers knew that the earth was not flat.

Of course Christians claim that, for example, the Isaiah (40:23) includes a phrase 'in the circle of the earth'.  Every school child who has had a 'proper' education (which presumably excludes most Christian and indeed Islamic scholars) is fully aware that a circle and a sphere are different in the fundamentals of their geometry - 2D vs 3D. 

Some supposed scholars of Islam claim that the Koran tells us that the earth is the shape of an ostrich egg - which of course is wrong, even if it was translated correctly.  Others claim the passage to describe the action of an ostrich to flatten the sand after it has hidden its egg, confirming the metaphor of the flat earth.  This is the only apparent 'evidence' that it was known that the earth is broadly spherical.  Little do they know that they are also showing their own ignorance (and probably using deliberate taqiyya) by making this claim.

But their ignorance is confirmed beyond doubt by the claim that Mecca is the centre.  This makes it completely and unambiguously obvious that they, like Judeo-Christians are indulging in two-dimensional thinking, shooting themselves in the foot with their claim about the three-dimensional revelation that Allah/YHWH/God is supposed to have imparted.

Black and white miracles

There is a legend that the black rock at the centre of the Kaaba in Mecca was white when it descended to earth.

Apparently the sins of the sons of Adam made it turn black!

It is also said that it floats on water.  At least this bit is plausible!

The Satanic Verses

Do you know where the title of Salman Rushdie's most notorious book comes from?

Surah 53:19-20 tells muslims to worship the daughters of Allah, and names them as al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.

How odd.  It seems hardly surprising that these verses are now abrogated, and that they are called 'The Satanic Verses'.

Malala for Nobel Prize again!

Following the successful Canadian campaign which had a positive influence on politicians, here is a message from a UK version. 

I just signed the petition "UK Party Leaders and Foreign Secretary: Nominate #Malala for the Nobel Peace Prize #Nobel4Malala" on Change.org.

It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/uk-party-leaders-and-foreign-secretary-nominate-malala-for-the-nobel-peace-prize-nobel4malala-2

Thanks!

Follow this link for my previous post on the subject.

Wherever you are, please sign it if you have a minute or two to spare.  It might make our risible Prime Minister realise that there are important things to do in the world!  It might even make the compliant quisling take an interest too. 

That might mean that he has disagreed with his boss twice!

What else is in an Arabic name?

Following on from Saturday's post, Abu and Hamza - What's in a name, here is another interesting translation problem.

In Arabic names, both ibn and bin can be translated as "son of".

Osama bin Laden means "Osama, son of Laden." It's not uncommon for names to include references to three or four generations of ancestors, each offset with bin or ibn.

So, why do some names use bin while others use ibn?  The spelling of the word in Arabic changes depending on where it is in the sentence.  If it is at the beginning, it is written as alef-ba-nun, which we transliterate as 'ibn'. If the word appears in the middle of a name, the alef gets left off.  We write that as 'bin'.

Given this system, it's not entirely accurate to use "Bin Laden" when we refer to the man in shorthand. The Guardian's sentence "Bin Laden effusively praised the Jordanian-born militant." would more accurately be "Ibn Laden effusively praised the Jordanian-born militant" since in this case the "son of" is at the beginning of the name.

Bin and ibn are more likely to show up in places with strong connections to tribal culture, like Saudi Arabia. People who live in big cities tend to drop the connecting terms from their names—someone named Osama Bin Laden might end up just "Osama Laden." In North Africa, the bin tends to be spelt with an "e", as in the name of former Algerian president Ahmed Ben Bella.

Abu and Hamza - What's in a name?

After the recent glorious extradition of 'Abu Hamza' to USA, I dared to ask a couple of Muslim colleagues for their views.

One of them surprised me and then even armed with the learning from that experience the other surprised me again.

The first didn't answer the question.  He thought I had not noticed that he had essentially changed the subject by telling me that Abu really means 'father'.  This is classic taqiyyah at work.

Now . . . having heard that, I thought I was ready for the second encounter.  But I was surprised to find a Muslim who would (albeit gently) criticise Abu Hamza.  Further than that, I found that Abu really means "father of" rather than "father".  Usually the name of the eldest son follows this title, and by that system I would be called Abu Chris.  (Before he was born I would have been called something else.)

But then we find that the name can be metaphorical.

The Arabic word "Hamza" is a masculine name properly pronounced as "Humzah",  which means "the one who is strong and steadfast".  The name clearly originates from the Prophet Mohammad's Uncle who was killed on a battlefield.

So the name Abu Hamza suggests that its bearer has great character.

Does he?  As Wikipedia tells us,

On 16 May 1980, Masri [aka Abu Hamaz] married Valerie Traverso, a Roman Catholic convert to Islam, and had a son, Mohammed Mustafa Kamel.  Masri later separated the boy from his mother when he was four years old. His son did not see his mother again for another twelve years.  Masri acquired British citizenship following three years of marriage [how convenient] and, according to the Sun newspaper, acquired a job as a bouncer for a peep show in Soho [high morals in action - not that I'm judging!].  In 1984, he divorced his wife and married Nadjet, with whom he has seven children [several of whom have been convicted of serious crimes related to terrorism]. 


Strong . . . and steadfast!  Or just a cheat who used his first wife to gain a privilege that he abused for nearly 20 years, and a father of a band of criminals?

You have to decide for yourself (just as I did).

Backing Maryam's One Law

Maryam Namazie represents the organisation One Law for All and she founded the Council for ex-Muslims of Britain which reaches its 5th anniversary this year.

Her talk 'Sharia Law Sex Apartheid and Secularism' was the best of the day, last month at the National Secular Society's 2012 conference in London on 22nd September.  The following is not intended as an accurate transcript of her speech which is available as an MP3 download from the Pod Delusion Extra site, but I tried to capture the essence of her words as she was speaking.  Hopefully I can say enough to get you interested in listening to her speech.

She began by stating that 'sharia is the code of death and despair'.  People will use any excuse to defend it.  In Iran, 130 separate offences are punishable by death.  A court based on the bible or Torah would be just as bad, but at least in the UK we don't have either of those.  [Sadly the same can't be said of sharia courts.]

In sharia, a woman's word is worth half a man's.  It has been explained that this is because 'if one forgets, the other can remind her'!  This comment is apparently 'not derogatory', but 'the secret of woman's nature'.

You will often be faced with comments like “I have a Muslim friend who says that sharia is not as bad as you say”

She urged everyone in the audience to question these statements and if you are accused of islamophobia continue to question other aspects.

• How can you tolerate the news that a sharia judge recently said that "calling it rape IS the act of aggression".
• How can you defend that child marriages are positively sanctioned by sharia.  It is estimated that there were 30 of them in Islington alone in 2010, with girls as young as 9 married to older men.
• While you may be happy to promote it for another, would you like it for yourself?
• By what right can parasitic immans to deem what is acceptable and what is not for other free people?

Question those who use the language of human rights to excuse and promote barbarity.

Even if there is a right to religion, remember that rights are rarely absolute.  Muslims are hiding behind claims to rights and choice in order to excuse blatant misogyny.

Islamism and sharia have killed a generation.  Under an inquisition there is no personal religion.  When religion is sponsored by the state it is no longer a matter of belief but of political power.  Islamist scholars choose to resort to abuse and violence and as if they have a right to speak for others.  But . . .

“You have got to read more than one book if you want to call yourself a scholar.” -- Richard Dawkins

Islamists claim that secular family law is biased against Muslim people, but by saying that they really mean that it is biased against Muslim men! 

There is a surprising difference between the way that sharia is seen in different countries.  In Iran the debate is not framed as part of islamophobia, but apostasy instead. 

In a climate where society is forcing people into submission she says 'bravo Charlie Hebdo'.  Is it true that cartoons are unhelpful?  No!  Criticising Islam and islamism is not prejudice.  The countless humans who are living under sharia are the victims of prejudice.

Echoing the comments of other speakers of the day, she said that the controversial movie 'Innocence of Muslims' produced by members of the US Christian far right is “just a very very bad film”.   These Christians are just as bad as those who promote sharia.

But the issue is not  about religion but about political power.

“We must be brave” -- Salman Rushdie.

In Islam the individual has no rights and no dignity.  Most religions have been restrained by freethinking activity over hundreds of years but this one has not. 

This statement was greeted with a standing ovation.  The questions and answers were interesting too.  Listen to the mp3 file for yourself.

And if you ever get the chance to witness Maryam at work, don't miss it!

Malala for Nobel Prize

A petition has been started to attempt to nominate the brave Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the cowardly Taliban recently.  Her crime was to protest against the closure of girls schools in Pakistan!

Malala Yasufzai- should be nominated for a Nobel Prize

As an ex-muslim friend said to be at lunch time today, if the Taliban are so scared of a little girl it shows a lot about them.  What cowards!  What bullies!  Surely we all have to stand up to them in our own small ways.

I've signed this petition at Change.org.

Have you?

Why not?  It will only take you 2 minutes.  Read more about it here.

Calling for a Halal ban!

Today, just a topic taken from the newsletter of the National Secular Society.  This on one of two posts this evening.  If you like these you should consider subscribing to the newsletter (here) and even joining the NSS.

NSS calls on Government to end religious exemption from animal welfare laws

The National Secular Society has called on the Government to end the religious exemption to animal welfare legislation that permits animals to be slaughtered without stunning.

Non-stun slaughter is permitted in the UK despite a recommendation by the Government's own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), that the practice should be banned.

The scientific consensus is clear that it is more humane to stun an animal prior to slaughter than not to do so. An end to the exemption that permits non-stun slaughter is supported by the EU's Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, The British Veterinary Association, The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, amongst others.

In its response to a DEFRA consultation on Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing, the NSS has urged the Government to adopt new stricter national rules to prohibit non-stun slaughter. Until such time as the exemption is removed, the NSS has called for the mandatory labelling of meat and meat products derived from animals killed by non-stun slaughter methods.

The exemption for religious slaughter restricts meat slaughtered by the Shechita method to Jews and by some Halal methods to Muslims. However, the Scottish Government has recently admitted that this targeting of supply has not been enforced. As a result, meat from non-stun slaughter routinely enters the general food chain.

Stephen Evans, Campaigns Manager at the National Secular Society said: "Permitting meat from religious slaughter methods to enter the general food chain is not only ethically unacceptable, it is also unlawful. "  

As long as the Government insists on granting privilege to religious groups, permitting slaughter methods that cause unnecessary pain, suffering and distress, it has a duty to ensure that no more animals are slaughtered under the exemption than is absolutely necessary to meet religious demand. Labelling would at least ensure people who wish to avoid meat from religious slaughter are able to do so. At present, unwitting consumers are subsidising the religious slaughter industry and that is simply unacceptable."

New domestic regulations will be laid before Parliament at the end of 2012 to implement and enforce European Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. While this regulation allows religious slaughter to continue, individual member states can impose stricter rules in relation to religious slaughter and can refuse to exempt religious slaughter from pre-stunning regulations.

To take part in the consultation or find out more click here.