Sunday, February 22, 2009
Pakistan restores Islamic law to pacify Swat valley.
Here's an excerpt:
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Pakistan agreed to introduce Islamic law in Swat valley and neighbouring areas of the northwest on Monday in a bid to take the steam out of a Taliban uprising raging since late 2007.
Taliban militants in Swat, once a tourist paradise, called a 10-day ceasefire the night before the talks, and on Saturday released a Chinese engineer kidnapped five months earlier as a gesture of goodwill. (.....!!)
"After successful negotiations ... all un-Islamic laws related to the judicial system, those against the Koran and Sunnah, would be subject to cancellation and considered null and void," said NWFP's Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain, referring to the holy book of Islam and the saying and teachings of the Prophet Mohammad.
They have destroyed more than 200 girls schools in a campaign against female education, and tens of thousands of people have fled their homes to escape the violence."
Any so-called practical effort to assuade the Taliban to take the "steam-off" by reimposing Islamic law in parts of Pakistan involves mammoth context-dropping and is filled with pragmatism. The Pakistan governments effort to placate to the Taliban is much like Chamberlain's claim -- "Hitler demands Czechoslovakia, if we give in, his demand will be satisfied. The result will be peace in our time."
Such a claim treats each demand on the perceptual level never looking the range of the moment and totally disregards the fact that any knowledge is contextual.
As Peikoff writes in Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand, "Mr Chamberlain treated Hitler's demand as an isolated fact to be dealt with an isolated response; to do this, he had to drop an immense amount of knowledge. He did not relate Hitler's demands to the knowledge already gained about the nature of Nazism; he did not ask for causes. He did not relate the demand to his knowledge of similar demands vioced by aggressor nations and even local bullies throughout history; he did not ask for principles. He did not relate his own policy to mankind's knowledge of the results of appeasments; despite ample indications, he did not ask whether his capitualation, besides satisfying Hitler, would also embolden him, increase his resources, hearten his allies, undermine his opponents, and thus acheive the opposite of its stated purpose. Chamberlain was not concerned with any aspect of a complex situation beyond the single point he chose to consider in isolation: that he would be removing Hitler's immediate frustration."
If we substituted the words Hitler with the Taliban, and Islam with Nazism, the man nailed the problem almost 20 years ago.
What a shame nobody was listening.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Is The World Going Nuts!!?
I think its a very pertinent question to ask given the global warming -- animal rights agenda, government intervention and the refusal to look Islamic totalitarianism in eye.
The civilized world has blamed Israel time and again for the atrocities that Palestine should be held responsible for.
Here is a news report that caught my eyes a few days ago --
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas vowed Monday to rearm in defiance of any Israeli and international efforts to prevent the Islamist militant group from replenishing its arsenal of rockets and other weapons after the Gaza war.
"Do whatever you want. Manufacturing the holy weapons is our mission and we know how to acquire weapons," Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas's armed wing, told a news conference.
Calls to rearm to use ceasefires only to rearm are not new to the Hamas. It's not in vogue anymore -- blaming Israel. Really. Israel should attack Palestine and mop up the totalitarian culture with full moral certainty and rectitude. No doubt about it.
Oh, and coming back to the world going nuts -- its just another testament that ideas can change the world -- for the better or worse.
Father Zarkaria Botros on "The Perverse Sexual Habits Of The Prophet.
This being the continuation of Fr. Botros' examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, "No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”
Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.
Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s 'activities' with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”
With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”
Cohost: “More!”
“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”
At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”
Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”
Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”
Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”
“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds!”
It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad lying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
In India, We Stand Muted.
According to this news report
Patna, Jan 15 : The author of a book that reportedly questioned Islamic tenets has been arrested and charged with hurting the sentiments of the Muslim community, police said Thursday.
Ahmad's 154-page book stirred a controversy by questioning the 10 tenets of Islam and the functioning of the Khalifas.
On Monday, Maulana Kari Abdullah Bukhari, chief cleric of the Jama Masjid in Munger district, had complained about Ahmad and his wife Nilofer Yasin, who is the publisher of the book.
"The complainant told the police that there are objectionable references to Islam in the book," Patna Superintendent of Police Anwar Hussain said.
Islamists are attacking the most basic rights of man -- the right to speak and express their views on any any matter in general -- and Islam in particular. If we concede the right to free speech, the rest will be tragedy.




