The best of Sam Kinison on Jesus
The following quotes, concerning "good Witches" are all taken from Thomas Ady's 1656 work A Candle in the Dark: or, A Treatise Concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft: Being Advice to Judges, Sheriffes, Justices of the Peace, and Grand-Jury-men, what to do, before they passe Sentence on such as are Arraigned for their Lives as Witches. (here is a link to full, searchable text at The Witchcraft Collection at Cornell)
It being demonstrated what a Jugler is in the Scripture sense, let every one consider seriously who be the Juglers, of this and former Ages, that ought to be put to death by the Law of Moses, we might think that no man were so silly and foolish to think that it is meant common Juglers, who play their Tricks on Fayres and Markets, nor Gentlemen who sometimes in imitation of them, so in sport, play Tricks of slight of hand, or legerdemain, with confederates or without, for it si most certain and true, that if it bee rightly understood, that these do a great deal fo good, that recreation tending rightly to the illumination of people of all sorts, to whew them the vanity and ridiculousness of those delusions and lying Wonders, by which men were so easily deluded in old times by Pharaoh's Magicians, by Simon Magus, and Elimas the Sorcerer, and now adays by our professed Wizzards, or Witches, commonly called Cunning Men, or good Witches, who will undertake to shew the face of the Thief in the Glass, or of any other that hath done his Neighbors wrong privily, when as they do all by Jugling delusions, are themselves right Witches, that cause men to seek to the Devil for help, that will undertake and promise to unwitch people that are (as fools commonly say) bewitched ...
Yet in Queen Elizabeth's time, as appeareth in Mr. [Reginald] Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft, in the fifteenth Book, Chap. 42 there was a Master of Arts condemned only for using himself to the study and pracice of the Jugling craft, how justly I will not controvert; but this I say, That if a man may not study and practice the discovery of Cheats without being a Cheater, nor the discover of Witchcraft without being accounted a Witch, it is the way for Witches and Cheaters to play their pranks, and no man able to tax them or accuse them, or to say who they are that are Witches; and this foolish nice censuring, and ignorant condemning hath bred great and general ignorance of this subject of Witchcraft; with God himself describeth so often in the Scriptures, for people to know and avoyd the practice of seducing, or being seduced by it, but for that Master of Arts before named, the Lord of Leicester having more wisdom in some things than some had, did protect him for a time after he was condemned, but what became of his is not mentioned, but yet if he had been a Jugler, or a practicer of that Craft to this end, to withstand the Prophets when they wrought true Miracles, as Pharaoh's Juglers withstood Moses, of if he were one that practiced it to seduce the people after lying delusions, to magnifie himself as a false Prophet, like Simon Magus in the Acts, or to cause people to ascribe miraculous power to him, or to seek to the Devil as our common Deceivers, called good Witches, do, he was deservedly condemned; but to study Witchcraft, and actually to demonstrate it by practice, to shew how easily people were and may be deluded by ti (seeing God hath commanded Witches to be put to death, and what they are, is not now adays fully understood (no not by the Learned) is no more deserving death than for Master Scot to write a book in the discovery of it, or for a Minister to discover to the people the danger of an Idol; to which Witchcraft is necessarily joyned as an upholder and companion, or for a Minister to shew the secret and dangerous nature, and serveral windings of Sin and Satan; for the essence of a Witch is not in doing false Miracles, or any other Witchcraft by demonstration of discovery, but in secucing people from God, and his Truth ..."
Shew me in all the Scriptures where Witchcraft went without Idolatry (Isa.19.3), and had not a necessary dependence on Idolatry (Nahum 3.4). Look again (Deut. 18.10, 11) where all sorts of Witches are spoken of, why were they to be cut off and destroyed? The reason is immediately given, verse 14, because they defiled the Nations, in seducing them unto Spiritual Whoredom, and the Nations were destroyed for seeking, and making inquiry after their Divinations, or South-sayings, or Oracles, whereas inquiries ought to be to God's Prophets, verse 15. Was not this Saul's Idolatry, when he sought the Witch of Endor? (I Chro. 10.13,14). Was not this the sin of Manasses, where he is blamed for using Witchcrafts, when he made Juda and Jerusalem go astray to Idols? (2 Chron. 33.9) Were not the Witchcrafts and Whoredoms of Jesabel set down as two inseparable companions, her Witchcraft being the upholding of the Idol Priests of Baal, that by Witchcraft seduced the people to Idolatry? Were not Pharaoh's Magicians seducers of Pharaoh, and the people, from God? Was not Simon Magus the like? But alas, how, and where have those poor souls that are commonly hanged for Witches seduced the people to Idolatry? Who hath been led after them for Divinations, and Southsayings; many indeed have been led after Southsayers, but they are termed good Witches, and whereas they as Witches ought to dye, many have been put to death by their devillish false accusations, and if the Witch of Endor were now living amongst us, we should call her a good Witch, so blinde are the times.
In the United States there appears to be broad agreement among liberal- and progressive-minded people to turn a blind eye to Sharia. They have convinced themselves that Shaira is not a real issue, and that anyone who expresses concern about Sharia is automatically a bigoted xenophobe.
The situation is similar in Europe, but fortunately somewhat better. Which is ironic because no European nation has anything approaching the historical relationship with liberal democracy that the United States has. Indeed, aside from Switzerland and the U.K., every nation of Europe spent some significant portion of the 20th century under totalitarian rule, and quite often this fate was at least partially self-imposed by fascist or communist movements that were supported by a substantial portion of the population.
But however ironic it is, and whatever the reasons are, it is nevertheless a good thing that we can look to Europe and find genuine examples of humanists, feminists, and leftists who realize that stopping Sharia, and rolling it back wherever it has gained a foothold, is an urgent necessity.To mark and celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day, a one day conference was held on 12 March 2011 to discuss the impact of religion on the lives of women. The conference was organised by One Law for All and the International Committee against Stoning, Iran Solidarity, and Equal Rights Now.
The day started with an opening address by renowned philosopher A C Grayling which was followed by a hugely successful conference with speakers from across the world creating a vibrant and very important debate.
Issues explored included the impact of religion on women’s rights – and whether religion is compatible with women’s rights – and whether it should be curtailed in the interests of the rights and equality of women. A discussionon religion and secularism looked at the relationship between religion and secularism and whether these are interdependent, complimentary or contradictory. It followed with a discussion on religion and the law –looking at religion’s influence on law and law makers, and on the importance of secularism and a closing address by Maryam Namazie.
Speakers included: Ahlam Akram, Executive Committee member of the Arab Jewish Forum and Joint Action for Israeli Palestinian Peace (UK), Helle Merete Brix, Writer and Commentator on free speech and the rise of political Islam (Denmark), Philipp Bekaert, Member of Réseau d’Actions pour la Promotion d’un Etat Laïque (Belgium), Julie Bindel, Journalist and Campaigner to end violence against women and children (UK), Patty Debonitas, Spokesperson of Iran Solidarity (UK), Nadia Geerts, Co-founder of Réseau d’Action pour la Promotion d’un Etat laïque (Belgium), Maria Hagberg, Chairperson of the Network Against Honour-Related Violence (Sweden), Anne-marie Lizin, Honorary Speaker of the Belgian Senate and Coordinator of theAssociation against Honour Crimes and Forced Marriages (Belgium), Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson of One Law for All, Equal Rights Now and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (UK), Elizabeth O’Casey, Vice-President of the National Secular Society (UK), David Pollock, President of the European Humanist Federation (UK), Fariborz Pooya, Director of Iranian Secular Society (UK), Yasmin Rehman Campaigner against violence against women and for community cohesion (UK), Gita Sahgal, Writer, Journalist and Women’s Rights Activist (UK), Nina Sankari, President of the European Feminist Initiative (Poland), Sohaila Sharifi, Women’s Rights Activist (UK), Annie Sugier, Cofounder of the League of Women’s International Rights (France), Michèle Vianès, President of Regards de Femmes (France), and Anne Marie Waters, Spokesperson of One Law for All (UK).
There was also a reading of Ghazi Rabihavi’s play ‘Stoning’ – ‘A very strong and powerful piece of work, beautifully constructed’ as described by Harold Pinter.
The following article by Taslima Nasreen was first published on January 22, 2007 by OutlookIndia.Com. You can download it from her website here (clicking that link will go directly to the pdf).
Let's Think Again About The Burqa
The Quran does prescribe purdah. That doesn't mean women should obey it.
TASLIMA NASREENMy mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meatsafes in my grandmother's house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah.
Women too have sexual urges. So why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, He treated them on unequal terms.
And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn't wear the burqa. She was also afraid of the men in the neighbourhood, who could have shamed her. Even her husband was a source of fear, for he could do anything to her if she disobeyed him.As a young girl, I used to nag her: Ma, don't you suffocate in this veil? Don't you feel all dark inside? Don't you feel breathless? Don't you feel angry? Don't you ever feel like throwing it off? My mother kept mum. She couldn't do anything about it. But I did. When I was sixteen, I was presented a burqa by one of my relatives. I threw it away.
The custom of purdah is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah. In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion.A couple of months ago, at the height of the purdah controversy, Shabana Azmi asserted that the Quran doesn't say anything about wearing the burqa. She's mistaken. This is what the Quran says:
"Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below/on the ground and cover their sexual organs. They must not put their beauty and their jewellery on display. They must hide their breasts behind a purdah. They must not exhibit their beauty to anybody except their husbands, brothers, nephews, womenfolk, servants, eunuch employees and children. They must not move their legs briskly while walking because then much of their bodies can get exposed." (Sura Al Noor 24:31)
"Oh nabi, please tell your wives and daughters and faithful women to wear a covering dress on their bodies. That would be good. Then nobody can recognise them and harrass them. Allah is merciful and kind." (Sura Al Hijaab 33: 59)Even the Hadis --a collection of the words of Prophet Mohammed, his opinion on various subjects and also about his work, written by those close to him-- talks extensively of the purdah for women. Women must cover their whole body before going out, they should not go before unknown men, they should not go to the mosque to read the namaaz, they should not go for any funeral.
There are many views on why and how the Islamic purdah started. One view has it that Prophet Mohammed became very poor after spending all the wealth of his first wife. At that time, in Arabia, the poor had to go to the open desert and plains for relieving themselves and even their sexual needs. The Prophet's wives too had to do the same. He had told his wives that "I give you permission to go out and carry outyour natural work". (Bukhari Hadis first volume book 4 No. 149). And this is what his wives started doing accordingly. One day, Prophet Mohammed's disciple Uman complained to him that these women were very uncomfortable because they were instantly recognisable while relieving themselves. Umar proposed a cover but Prophet Mohammed ignored it. Then the Prophet asked Allah for advice and he laid down the Ayat (33:59) (Bukhari Hadis Book 026 No. 5397).
This is the history of the purdah, according to the Hadis. But the question is: since Arab men too relieved themselves in the open, why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, Allah doesn't treat men and women as equals, else there would be purdah for both! Men are higher than women. So women have to be made walking prisons and men can remain free birds.Another view is that the purdah was introduced to separate women from servants. This originates from stories in the Hadis. One story in the Bukhari Hadis goes thus: After winning the Khyber War, Prophet Mohammed took over all the properties of the enemy, including their women. One of these women was called Safia. One of the Prophet's disciples sought to know her status. He replied: "If tomorrow you see that Safia is going around covered, under purdah, then she is going to be a wife. If you see her uncovered, that means I've decided to make her my servant."
The third view comes from this story. Prophet Mohammed's wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, "Oh friends of the prophet or holy men, never go to your friend's house without an invitation. And if you do go, don't go and ask anything of their wives". It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being. First it was applicable to only the wives of the holy men, and later it was extended to all Muslim women. Purdah means covering the entire body except for the eyes, wrist and feet. Nowadays, some women practise the purdah by only covering their hair. That is not what is written in the Hadis Quran. Frankly, covering just the hair is not Islamic purdah in the strict sense.In the early Islamic period, Prophet Mohammed started the practice of covering the feet of women. Within 100 years of his death, purdah spread across the entire Middle East. Women were covered by an extra layer of clothing. They were forbidden to go out of the house, or in front of unknown men. Their lives were hemmed into a tight regime: stay at home, cook, clean the house, bear children and bring them up. In this way, one section of the people was separated by purdah, quarantined and covered.
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered forthat. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact. So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual's personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.
What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.
We are told that: "Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent." Therefore, it is unfair to characterize Islam as a whole as violent, intolerant and oppressive, for this is only true of certain strains of Islam variously referred to as "fundamentalist" or "extremist".
If we are to believe that Islam as a whole is not oppressive, then why is it that Muslims as a group band together and rally to defend the most repugnant "interpretations" of their religion, such as the burqa, in the name of "freedom of religion" (a concept utterly foreign to Islam anyway)?
Although I am a big fan of Ayan Hirsi Ali, I think I'm going to have to disagree with her on this one. The burqa ban is a blunt instrument, and sometimes that is exactly what is needed. It's like that old anarchist saying: "Any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right."
In the United States, anyone who has a mind to is perfectly free to buy and read and express open admiration for Mein Kampf; the Communist Manifesto; the writings of Ayn Rand; the Turner Diaries; David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; Naked Lunch; Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging; the Captain Underpants novels; A Clockwork Orange; the Left Behind novels; Lolita; Che Guevara on Guerrilla Warfare; Mao's Little Red Book; the writings of Subcomandante Marcos; Sex, Orgasm and the Mind of Clear Light: The Sixty Four Arts of Gay Male Love, etc, etc, etc ....
And in the United States, anyone who feels so moved is free to buy any or all of the above named books and then set them on fire and film the whole thing and upload it to youtube and no one can say anything other than, oh my do you really think you should do that? But if you burn the Koran all bets are off. Why? Because Islam is different, evidently. But if Islam is different then it deserves to be treated differently. But lets not even go that far. Lets just say that certain aspects of Islam are clearly deserving of being treated differently, like those aspects of Islam that are blatantly violent, intolerant, and oppressive. Like the burqa. And Sharia. And the whole killing apostates thing. And the demand that the Koran be treated (by non-Muslims) with special respect not accorded to any other book or writing . . . .
British art historian Roger Cardinal coined the phrase "outsider art" in 1972, as an English language equivalent of the French term art brut, first used by Jean Dubuffet in 1945, who was especially influenced by collections of artwork from patients being treated in mental hospitals.
naked bodies painted with polka dots, gather on the Brooklyn Bridge, and burn the American flag. That particular piece of performance art was performed in 1968 by Yayoi Kusama and friends, and it was called "Naked Happening Orgy and Flag Burning." (Back in the day, works of performance art were called "happenings".)
Now, when I think of outsider art, I think of things like the strangely beautiful work of Henry Darger. And when I think of performance art, I think of the masked hoop dancer and art student, Mona Qaddoumi aka ShpongledHoops, or John Cage seated, unmoving, on a piano bench for four minutes and thirty three seconds.
But what if you were to combine outsider art with performance art? What might that look like? Well, this would be a good time to recall that much of the original inspiration for the idea of outsider art came from mental hospital patients.
But was it art?
more and more aggressive. It was six hours of real horror. They would cut my clothes, they would cut me with a knife close to my neck and drink my blood, and then put a plaster over the wound. They would carry me around half naked, put me on the table, and stuck the knife between my legs into the wood. And even somebody put a bullet in the pistol [a gun and one bullet were among the objects she had put out on the table] ...." (source)
Pity the poor Afghan Muslims. They are unable to control their murderous impulses. They are unable to reason. They have to be protected from what people around the world honestly think about their religion. They cannot be expected to do what everyone else is expected to do: to understand that sticks and stones may break my bones, but a mustachioed nutjob in Florida burning the Koran on youtube will never hurt me.
