Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Getting Beyond Gingrich: Other Voices Questioning the Mosque

Knee-jerk "progressive" apologists for Islam would have us believe that only ignorant reactionary bigots would dare to question the worthiness of the plan to build a lavish "Cordoba House" at Ground Zero. But an ever growing list of people who do not fit that description are asking questions and raising doubts about the Ground Zero Mosque. The views expressed by those named below range from unambiguous opposition to nuanced positions that raise serious questions about the mosque and it's proponents without necessarily opposing the idea outright. (Also see this follow-up post which has yet another American Muslim opposed to the mosque and also Sam Harris' two cents.)

Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader (Democrat from Nevada)
"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else." Jim Manley, spokesperson for Senator Reid.

David Paterson
Governor of New York (Democrat)
“I’m very sensitive to the desire of those who are adamant against it to see something else worked out. Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need.”

Raheel Raza
Canadian Muslim interfaith advocate, diversity consultant, author of Their Jihad ... Not My Jihad
"When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?"
[From: Mischief in Manhattan]

Tarek Fatah
founder of Muslim Canadian Congress, author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State
"New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith."
[From: Mischief in Manhattan]

Aseem Shukla
Co-founder and board member, Hindu American Foundation
"Would the Imam repudiate an oft-quoted gaffe on Sixty Minutes where he argued that American policies were an accessory to the killing of thousands at Ground Zero? Does the Cordoba Initiative still advocate the selective introduction of Sharia laws within Muslim communities in the United States? Does Cordoba--with its strong ties and branches in Malaysia--reject that country's history of Muslim chauvinism as a Sharia practicing country that systematically discriminates against the Hindu and Christian populations marginalizing them to second class status?"
[From: Religion Was Defamed At Ground Zero]

Abraham Foxman
National Director, Anti-Defamation League
"The lessons of an earlier and different controversy echo in this one. In 1993, Pope John Paul II asked 14 Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just outside the Auschwitz death camp. The establishment of the convent near Auschwitz had stirred dismay among Jewish groups and survivors who felt that the location was an affront and a terrible disservice to the memory of millions of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis in the Holocaust.

"Just as we thought then that well-meaning efforts by Carmelite nuns to build a Catholic structure were insensitive and counterproductive to reconciliation, so too we believe it will be with building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

"The better way for Muslims seeking reconciliation and moderation would have been for them to reach out to the families of the victims, who we are sure could have recommended any number of actions to achieve those goals other than the present plan."
[From: The Mosque At Ground Zero]

Rabbi Meyer May
Executive Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center
"Religious freedom does not mean being insensitive...or an idiot .... Religion is supposed to be beautiful. Why create pain in the name of religion?"
[From: Museum of Tolerance Backer: No To WTC Mosque]

Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Associate Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
"The decision should be based on a consensus of the families of victims of what was obviously the site of the worst killing field in America. Their feelings should be paramount in everybody’s mind The families should be the ones who inform us, not the other way around."
[From: Fallout Continues Over Ground Zero Mosque]

David Harris
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
"Yes, America, above all, stands for freedom of worship -- for all, not for some. Religious bigotry has no place here. And, we desperately need greater dialogue and understanding, especially with Islam.

"But in this vast country, why, of all places, does the center need to be there? Will it really serve as a place for healing, repentance, and interfaith cooperation? Or will that prove a facade, designed to get the project approved and divert attention from the fact that the 9/11 plotters all prayed in mosques and believed they were acting in the divine name?

"To be sure, it is a difficult call, but that can't be an excuse for indecision. This is an important national issue. For the American Jewish Committee (AJC), with a long involvement in this country's social history, it is, above all, about the kind of society -- and world -- we aspire to build .... In this ecumenical spirit, AJC believes the Cordoba Center has a right to be built in the proposed location . . . .

"Once up and running, it won't be long before we know if the founders have delivered on their promise. If so, New York and America will be enriched. If not, the center should be shunned.

"Presently, there are two legitimate concerns about the proposed center.

"First, with a $100 million price tag, what are the exact sources of funding? The public has a right to know that the donors all subscribe to an open, inclusive and pluralistic vision of the center.

'Second, do the center's leaders reject unconditionally terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology? They must say so unequivocally. This is critical for the institution's credibility. There is no room here for verbal acrobatics. Otherwise, the pall of suspicion around the leaders' true attitudes toward groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah will grow -- spelling the center's doom.

"If these concerns can be addressed, we will join in welcoming the Cordoba Center to New York. In doing so, we would wish to reaffirm the noble values for which our country stands -- the very values so detested by the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks."
[From: Build the Cordoba Center?]

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield
President, National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, author of You Don't Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right
"Personally, I think that ultimately it's a reasonable, if not wise project. Though I think the timing and the process stink. This should not be about the assertion of religious rights but about the building of consensus. While those who favor construction clearly have rights on their side, they seem to be completely tone deaf regarding the feelings of those who are opposed.

"It 's simply not true that all who oppose this building hate Muslims, any more than it is true that all those who oppose Israeli policy are anti-Semites. Sadly, those who support the building seem to appreciate the second claim, but not the first. But this is not about my response to the proposed mosque/cultural center, it's about Newt's. And it's about why he's wrong - not entirely, but largely . . . .

"As to the history of Cordoba, Mr. Gingrich is partially correct. Life under medieval Muslim rulers was no picnic for Jews and Christians, and would certainly not pass any test of American constitutionality - not even close. But it's also true that life under Medieval Islam was far better for Jews and Christians than life had been for Jews and Muslims living under Christian rule. So if Gingrich wants to remind us of the past sins of one religious community, he ought to remind us of them all. Failing that, his selective reading of history does sound suspicious, even to those of us who are tired of all questions about Islam being met with the cry of "Islamophobe".

"Newt Gingrich may be right that building any Islamic structure that close to Ground Zero is bad idea, at least for now. But his arguments for that position are at least as bad as the worst ones which favor its construction. We need to think this one out together, not compare the best of whatever tradition we hold dear to the worst of whichever one we oppose."
[From: Gingrich Wrong on "Ground Zero Mosque", Mostly]

Neda Bolourchi
An American Muslim
"I have no grave site to visit, no place to bring my mother her favorite yellow flowers, no spot where I can hold my weary heart close to her. All I have is Ground Zero.

"On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.

"From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me.

"I was born in pre-revolutionary Iran. My family led a largely secular existence -- I did not attend a religious school, I never wore a headscarf -- but for us, as for anyone there, Islam was part of our heritage, our culture, our entire lives. Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world . . . .

"But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering -- may genuinely seek to focus on "promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture," as its Web site declares -- but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not . . . .

"The Iranian revolution compelled my family to flee to America when I was 12 years old. Yet, just over two decades later, the militant version of our faith caught up with us on a September morning. I still identify as a Muslim. When you are born into a Muslim family, there is no way around it, no choices available: You are Muslim. I am not ashamed of my faith, but I am ashamed of what is done in its name.

"On the day I left Ground Zero shortly after the tragedy, I felt that I was abandoning my mother. It was like being forced to leave the bedside of a loved one who is dying, knowing you will never see her again. But I felt the love and respect of all those around me there, and it reassured me that she was being left in good hands. Since I cannot visit New York as often as I would like, I at least want to know that my mother can rest in peace.

"I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother -- my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love -- to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest.
[From: A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else']

Friday, August 13, 2010

Nergal: "Po moim trupie!" ("Over my dead body!")

Adam Darski, aka "Nergal" of the Polish blackened death metal band Behemoth, had already attained superstar celebrity status within Poland. Imagine a cross between Ozzy Osbourne, Johnny Depp, and Muhammad Ali, all brought together in a 33 year old mega rock star who also happens to be engaged to be married to Poland's answer to Lady Gaga.

So, of course, last week's announcement that Nergal's band, Behemoth, was canceling its tour, and that Nergal himself had been rushed in an ambulance to the Gdansk University Hospital for "serious medical treatment", unleashed a shit-storm of celebrity gossip madness.

Could anything be be more craven and depraved than swarms of mercenary photographers slithering around on the scaffolding that surrounds the hospital (which is currently undergoing major renovations) craning to get a shot of Nergal in his hospital bed with Doda, his beloved mega pop star fiance, at his side?

Yes -- it turns out there is something more craven and depraved than that.

When they heard the news, good Christians around Poland immediately began making public pronouncements (including, naturally, on the internet) that they were praying for Nergal in the hopes that his illness (the exact nature of which is still not officially disclosed) would convince him to turn away from his Satanic Death-Metal ways and embrace the teachings of Jeebus.

Nergal responded to these "prayers" for his conversion yesterday in an interview he gave to the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. Here is what Nergal had to say (using google translator to render the English, so parts of it are more fluid and fluent than others):
I never thought that my illness may become a pretext for some people to pursue their own crusade.

Voices of the fact that my current situation I can supposedly closer to God, make it cast its ideals and neck ugnę only right before the country's outlook, not only surprised me, but scared.

This is a typical example of cynical exploitation of someone else's misery for compacting additional capital for their own views.

Ill, certainly will be converted, discovers that the Christian religion, which so fiercely fought, it will be close ... Stop!

Why would a disease in any way alter my perspective? Yes, it is a difficult time for me and I can hardly avoid thinking about what the final, but the idea that under the influence of suffering change my views, priorities and values is as if someone decided that my body and my head was attacked by disease.

Suggestions were that I was able to convert or are just so funny ... because I like for what? Finally, I know quite well - and not just in the literary edition - Christian mythology, and I do not find there anything good, creative and beautiful.

I read a better book than the Bible, I read also wiser. War, blood, blackmail, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, collaboration, betrayal ... evil protrudes from each side.

Someone will come and say that they do not understand the message of the Bible, and I answer him that he did not understand that Christianity is nothing but rusty and archaic building, which at any moment simply will collapse, and still lasts only because there are naive who, like sheep, blindly follow the dictates of their pastors.

Without questions, without thinking, from my perspective in no promised land, and the intellectual slaughter. Therefore, all those who ill wind in my chances for breaking my values, and hence myself, I answer the first and last and very short: po moim trupie! (Over my dead body!)

The original Polish text of the above can be found at the band's website here.

An end to the pretense,
and lying hypocrisy of Christianity.
An end to the servile virtues,
and superstitious restrictions.
An end to the slave morality.
An end to prudery and shame,
to guilt and sin,
for these are of the only evil under the sun,
that is fear.
[Liber 49, The Book of Babalon]
.
.
.
If you admire the indomitable spirit of Nergal, you might also be interested in this other post on the subject of Blasphemy, and links found therein.

[The beautiful image accompanying the quote from Liber 49 (you will also find this quote on the Behemoth website) is a painting by Mary MacGregor-Reid. Here is a direct link to the image at her website. The painting itself is available for sale!]

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Sakineh's forced confession on Iranian TV

The following is from the Iran Human Rights website, it was posted just an hour ago:

Sakineh Ashtiani in danger of execution

Iran Human Rights condemns Sakineh Ashtiani’s forced confessions against herself on the Iranian TV

Thursday 12 August 2010

Iran Human Rights, August 11: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman whose sentence to death by stoning sparked an international outcry, was put on a state-run TV programme last night where she confessed to adultery and involvement in a murder.

The British newspaper the Guardian wrote: “Speaking shakily in her native Azeri language, which could be heard through a voiceover, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani told an interviewer that she was an accomplice to the murder of her husband and that she had an extramarital relationship with her husband’s cousin. Her lawyer told the Guardian last night that his client, a 43-year-old mother of two, was tortured for two days before the interview was recorded in Tabriz prison, where she has been held for the past four years".

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of Iran Human Rights, condemned Mrs. Ashtiani’s forced confessions on the Iranian TV and said: "Having confessed to murder and adultery on the TV puts her in imminent danger of execution". Amiry-Moghaddam added: “One can clearly see the footprints of the Iranian intelligence service in this program, and it is not the first time that Iranian authorities televise this kind of confessions on the Iranian TV". He added:" Putting a woman who has been struggling with the nightmare of being stoned to death, under such a tremendous pressure and making her confess against herself, shows yet another inhumane side of the Iranian authorities".

Amiry-Moghaddam added: "We ask the international community to keep up the pressure on the Iranian authorities and make them understand that their continuous violations of the human rights will have practical consequences."


Also see the related stories at BBC.com and also The Guardian.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Adventures in WTFage

When I first saw it at Pajamas Media (or some similar wingnut website), I thought, "no, that can't be right." But now there it is at the Christian Science Monitor:
The State Department plans to send Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the controversial ground zero mosque, to the Middle East as part of a public diplomacy mission to explain how Islam is perceived in America.
wtf?
The State Department plans to send Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the controversial ground zero mosque, to the Middle East as part of a public diplomacy mission to explain how Islam is perceived in America.
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?

Do the math: If Imam Rauf's Ground Zero Mosque were a presidential candidate it would be Jimmy Carter in 1980. If it were a movie it would be Waterworld. If it were a TV Reality Show it would be I'm Hotter Than My Daughter. If it were an airplane it would be the Spruce Goose. If it were a live performance it would be Ashley Simpson lip syncing on SNL. And if it were a diplomatic mission it would be Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

The best part is that the Imam is going to be explaining to people "how Islam is viewed in America." Wait a minute. Now that I think about it, he might be just the man for that particular job.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Anne Rice: Still Clinging to Christ

At first I was (naively and mistakenly, as it turns out) impressed with Anne Rice's decision to "leave Christianity."

But from the moment she announced her faux apostasy, Rice has continued to loudly and monotonously defend both the founder of the Christian religion and the "sacred" writings of that religion, while condemning the religion itself, in its modern form, as a "deservedly infamous group."

Those who claim that Christianity was originally a wonderful religion of brotherly love and simple morality have never seriously studied the New Testament itself, at least not with anything approaching a critical eye. The Gospels tell us that Jesus preached intolerance for all other points of view, and encouraged his own followers to treat others contemptuously unless they meekly submitted to Jesus' teachings. Jesus explicitly pronounces that all those who refuse to follow him are condemned to Hell.

And it was Jesus himself who taught, "By their fruits shall ye know them." Therefore there is no justification for judging Jesus separately from the "fruits" of his teachings, namely, "this thing called Christianity", as Thomas Paine put it so eloquently.

If anyone wishes to get up to speed on the reality of Christianity, including the truth about it's founder, here are some suggestions for further study:

Intolerance and the Gospel: Selected Texts from the New Testament
by Gerd Luedemann
Contemporary Christians usually suppose that Christianity is quite congenial to the democratic ideals that are the basis of free, open Western societies. Among these ideals is freedom of religion, which encourages a broad tolerance for different belief systems. Nonetheless, a careful examination of core Christian beliefs and the history of Christianity reveal little tolerance for thinking or acting outside the orthodox Christian tradition.
[Amazon blurb]

The Price of Monotheism
by Jan Assmann
There are two kinds of religion. First there are those "primary" religions that spontaneously arise as a natural expression of the intrinsic spiritual urges of homo religiosus. These religions are polytheistic, tolerant, and ubiquitous throughout human history.

Then there are secondary religions. These arise first and foremost as a rejection of primary religion. "For these religions, and for these religions alone, the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought." That is how Jan Assmann describes these "counterreligions".

[blurb de moi]

There is no crime for those who have Christ
by Michael Gaddis
"There is no crime for those who have Christ," claimed a fifth-century zealot, neatly expressing the belief of religious extremists that righteous zeal for God trumps worldly law. This book provides an in-depth and penetrating look at religious violence and the attitudes that drove it in the Christian Roman Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries, a unique period shaped by the marriage of Christian ideology and Roman imperial power. Drawing together materials spanning a wide chronological and geographical range, Gaddis asks what religious conflict meant to those involved, both perpetrators and victims, and how violence was experienced, represented, justified, or contested. His innovative analysis reveals how various groups employed the language of religious violence to construct their own identities, to undermine the legitimacy of their rivals, and to advance themselves in the competitive and high-stakes process of Christianizing the Roman Empire.
[Amazon blurb]

Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries
by Ramsay MacMullen
Persecution: describing the determination of the Christian leadership to extirpate all religious alternatives, expressed in the silencing of pagan sources and, beyond that, in the suppression of pagan acts and practices, with increasing harshness and machinery of enforcement.
[chapter description from the book]

Sunday, August 8, 2010

I am beginning to believe that Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf really are moderates. This would explain a lot.

Why has "moderate" Islam failed so miserably in the face of the ever growing popularity of extremism throughout the Muslim world?

Maybe it's because so-called moderate Muslims are as breathtakingly inept, cravenly dishonest, ethically compromised, and intellectually bankrupt as so-called "progressive" Christians.

For now I only have time to address the issue of ineptitude. Seriously. If I were a "moderate" Muslim, I would not secretly plan for years to build a Mosque at Ground Zero, refuse to denounce extremist groups such as Hamas, raise $100M in foreign money mostly from parts of the world where Jihadism is increasingly popular and powerful, name my organization after a city that symbolizes Islamic theocratic expansionism, and launch an international organization of Muslim clerics with the word "Shariah" in its title.

I used to think that there was no evidence that the Cordoba Initiative is sincere in their claims to be "moderates" who are genuinely committed to opposing terrorism and aggression in the name of Islam. But now I am beginning to think that they are in fact shining examples of the best that "moderate" Islam can do.

If we consider the track record of Islamic "moderates", then perhaps the combination of incompetence, arrogance, and base stupidity displayed by the Cordoba Initiative is all the proof we need that these folks are genuine "moderates". Anyone who thought that the response to the Ground Zero Mosque would be any different from the firestorm of anti-Islam sentiment that has been unleashed is a fool. And so perhaps the Cordoba Initiative, and "moderate" Islam generally, is just a ship of fools.

It would explain a lot.

Melanie Phillips on Lars Hedegaard

Melanie Phillips is the author of Londonistan. The following is from her August 8, 2010 piece in the Spectator under the title "The jihad of the word erupts yet again in Denmark".

A chilling development in Denmark illustrates just how ‘hate speech’ laws, which were introduced by deluded western liberals, are being used to stifle and criminalise the expression of legitimate opinion and essential debate -- the prerequisite of a liberal society. Lars Hedegaard is president of Denmark’s International Free Press Society, which is devoted to fighting to preserve freedom of expression -- particularly against the threat from radical Islam to shut it down on the spurious grounds of ‘Islamophobia’. The inevitable has now happened: as Nathaniel Sugarman writes at The Legal Project, Hedegaard finds himself facing prosecution for ‘racism’ over remarks he has made about Islam.

The basis for Hedegaard's prosecution was an interview from December 2009 in which he made controversial statements about Islam. These assertions included critiques of what Hedegaard saw as Islam's permissiveness regarding child abuse and bearing false witness, as well as Islam's general intolerance concerning apostacism and critical speech. Snaphanen, a Danish blog, published the original interview, and Hedegaard has since clarified some of his remarks.

Hedegaard's statements earned him a hate speech charge under Danish law. While Denmark's constitution ostensibly protects freedom of expression and forbids censorship (see Section 77), the Criminal code provides that "expressing and spreading racial hatred" is a criminal offense punishable with up to two years imprisonment. (Article 266b).

It seems this is not the first such prosecution in Denmark:

On June 16, 2010, the Danish parliament voted to strip a lawmaker of immunity so that he could face charges over anti-Muslim comments. The politician, Jesper Langballe, is a veteran member of the Danish People's Party (PPD) and a crucial ally of the center-right government. In January 2010, he penned a newspaper column discussing the status of women in Islam and the "Islamisation of Europe." Included was the statement that "Muslims kill their daughters over crimes of honour and turn a blind eye while they are raped by their uncles." He is currently awaiting trial for violating Article 266b—the same hate speech statute that will likely be applied to Hedegaard.

There is however a ray of light for Denmark: it seems that the Justice Minister is now considering amending the hate speech laws on the grounds that they could be misused to restrict free speech. If so, this would underscore Denmark's general reputation for robustness in defence of its core civilisational values. It's a reputation which has nevertheless taken a knock from its adoption of these illiberal hate crime laws in the first place -- but remember the heroic Jyllands-Posten, whose staff found themselves under a death sentence for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

However, the possible amendment of Denmark's hate laws is scant consolation for other western countries, with the UN having decided to criminalise all criticism of sharia law, as reported here. Until and unless western liberals finally understand that radical Islamists are not a minority whose human rights need to be defended but are instead a mortal threat to human rights which must be defeated -- and crucially, that the UN is the vehicle of Islamist oppression and must in turn be fought by all who care about human rights -- the light of freedom will continue to be extinguished in the west.



Here are some other relevant posts from this blog on the subject of freedom of expression in this modern world:

Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Lars Hedegaard & Lifting the Veil on Sexual Assault
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Sharia World: A Brief News Round-Up
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Doda: "Forbidden Fruit Tastes Better"
Monday, June 21, 2010
Two More "Hate Speech" Cases Rearing Their Ugly Heads In Europe
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Sex, Religion, Art, Music & Freedom of Expression in Poland
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Holocaust Denial is OK, but criticizing Islam is not. Apparently.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Kids Are Alright (In Which I Praise Extreme Pagan Metal)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Early March, 2010 Blasphemy World Roundup!!
Friday, March 5, 2010
"Should the right to oppose Islam not exist?"
Friday, January 29, 2010
Fascism, Islam, and Freedom of Expression
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Case of Geert Wilders: Islam, Free Speech, Tolerance, and Politics



Saturday, August 7, 2010

Today's Arabic Vocabulary Lesson: "Mosque" & "Taqiyya"

"Mosque"
The word mosque is derived from the Arabic word masjid, which literally means the place of prostration (sujud). This is the position in Islamic ritual prayers (Salaat), in which the forehead of the worshipper touches the ground in the supreme act of submission and surrender before God .... Unlike the Middle East where mosques are strictly sites for worship, mosques in the US play the multi-faceted roles of religious institutions, welfare organizations, community centers, locations for voter registration drives, and sites frequented visited by local political candidates.
[What is the role of Mosque? By Muhammed Khako]

"Taqiyya":
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."

A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."

.... The true spirit of "al-Taqiyya" is better embodied in the single word "diplomacy" because it encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of behaviors that serve to further the vested interests of all parties involved.
[Al-Islam.Org website]

Hmmm. "Diplomacy", eh?

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock."
Will Rogers

"Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness."
Otto von Bismark

"Diplomacy is a disguised war, in which states seek to gain by barter and intrigue, by the cleverness of arts, the objectives which they would have to gain more clumsily by means of war."
Randolph Bourne

"DIPLOMACY, n. Lying in state, or the patriotic art of lying for one's country."
Ambrose Bierce

Accentuate the Positive

I give thanks:

Universal Health Care

Gay Marriage

Stem-cell research decriminalized

Non-Fascists now being appointed to the Supreme Court

Racists no longer running the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department

Apple now bigger than Microsoft

It's not a Depression (fingers crossed)

H1N1 influenza didn't kill us all

John Woo now safely back in the private sector

Sharon Angle