Sticks and Stones

The death of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah’s most secret operative who for decades managed to elude attempts by US and Israeli spies and special forces to capture or kill him, has raised many questions as to those responsible. Hezbollah, naturally, blamed the “Israeli Zionists,” in conjunction with Satan and Satan’s step-brother, Ehud Olmert for the assassination of “a great jihadist leader of the Islamic resistance.”

“Syria, which condemns this cowardly terrorist act, expresses condolences to the martyr family and to the Lebanese people,” Interior Minister Bassam Abdul-Majeed said in a statement. Iran also condemned the killing, praising Mughniyeh as a martyr and describing the attack as “yet another brazen example of organised state terrorism by the Zionist regime”.

Mughniyeh was among several suspects indicted in the US for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a US Navy diver was killed. Israel believes he was involved in planning the 1992 bombing of Israel’s embassy in Argentina in which 29 people were killed, and the blast at a Buenos Aires Jewish centre two years later that killed 95. A former head of Israel’s Mossad secret service, Danny Yatom, summed it up quite succinctly when he called the killing “a big achievement for the free world against terrorist organisations.”

Today, at the funeral of Mughniyeh (peace hell be upon him) in Beirut, Lebanon, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah said the war against the Jewish State was not over: “Zionists, if you want this sort of open war, then let the whole world hear, so be it!” he declared, to a crowd of armed intellectuals and notable camel-herders.

On this glorious day of romanticism, I wait eagerly for the moment Hassan Nasrallah joins his fellow martyrs amongst 100 (other) virgins, and wish Imad Mughniyeh a Happy Valentine’s Day.

2 Comments

They aren’t just his views. They are views espoused by millions of people across Europe. Young and old, man and woman, - and every shade in between. There are people of every race, colour, and creed who believe in the all-accommodating views of Rowan Williams. These views plague not just the Archbishop of Canterbury, but people from all walks of life. Across this great old continent, the birthplace of Enlightenment liberalism, a wave of this philosophy is growing in popularity.

This philosophy purports to be a pluralistic, multicultural creation. One that allows all people to live as they wish, practice their religion as they choose, and adhere to their societal beliefs in any country. If you do not know what this actually means, it can sound appealing.

An example from Slate illustrating why we must not subscribe to this philosophy:

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe.

When your culture allows this to happen, when your customs, rites, and traditions infringe on the rights of any other human being (including those who claim to be of your religion, race, or country) they should not be permitted, in a free and just society. Which is exactly what we live in, and exactly what Rowan Williams threatens.

Rowan Williams’ all-embracing, non-judgemental philosophy is so dangerous not because we should place our civilisation on a pedestal as Fukuyama does. We must see the value in other civilisations, because many countries, including some in President Bush’s Axis of Evil, have glorious histories and inspiring traditions. It is so dangerous because all civilisations have deep flaws, and to indiscriminately embrace everyones’ flaws is calamitous, cruel to the subjugated, and an abandonment of real liberalism.

No Comments

Each of us has his or her particular chauvinism with which they like to define themselves, be it their nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc., even though in the majority of cases these are determined by the arbitrariness of birth. The most fiercely religious adherents to a given sect tend to have been born and raised in that sect, while the most ardent patriots tend to be those who were born in their country. Notwithstanding the sheer illogic of these self-categorisations, they, like all forms of bigotry, are actually dangerous.

Trotsky, everyone’s favourite internationalist, wrote eloquently and lucidly on the detrimental effects of dividing the human race into arbitrary groups within arbitrary borders. Earlier, Thomas Paine remarked, somewhat throat-lump-inducingly, that he was a “citizen of the world”. And yet today’s so-called ‘liberalism’ seems to pride itself in its so-called ‘multi-culturalism’, which comes down to tolerating all different ways of life.

In it’s furthest extrapolation, this philosophy has led to condoning the atrocities perpetrated, for example, by the fundamentalist Muslim community, both in the West and in Islamic countries. Because these would-be lefties differentiate between themselves and their fellow human beings, they dismiss the stoning, hanging, rape, oppression and murder with a simple “they do it their way, we do it ours”.

No! Whatever happened to that wonderful self-evident truth, that all men were created equal? Why is an Iraqi’s life worth less than an American’s? Why did we in Britain raise such a furore when that moronic (but British) woman Gillian Gibbons was about to get forty lashes, when that is a punishment to which dozens of women, if not more, are subjected to across the Islamic world every single day? Since when did universal human rights cease to be the foremost priority of the liberal left?

It may not be true to say that the USA declared war on the Confederacy, or Britain on Poland, or the Coalition on Iraq, out of a duty to ensure that the human rights of slaves, Jews and gays, or Kurds (to name but a few) were fulfilled, but in my view the ends in these cases justify the means. It may not have been his primary objective, but Lincoln’s actions led to the emancipation of four million human beings. Similarly, had not other countries interceded in the Second World War, who knows how many more would have been slaughtered?

We in the West are very lucky to live in a liberal, free society, for which thousands gave their lives over the generations at every gradation on the long path to freedom. Anyone who imputes that an Iraqi, or a Korean, or an Iranian, does not deserve to live in such a society is, quite simply, racist. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be guaranteed for all human beings, and to say that fellow human beings living under oppressive regimes on the other side of the world is not our problem is both reprehensible and hypocritical.

4 Comments

The Seven Deadly Sins is a 5 part series by Leo Davidson in which he analyses the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins, adding his blasphemous and probably heretical commentary along the way.

In conclusion, while I have spoken about the individual “sins”, there is one common factor that I would like to mention in closing that I find to be particularly telling. All of these are, to pseudo-coin a phrase, thoughtsins. In none of these cases does one need to supersede the mental stage to merit eternal damnation. Moreover, every single one is a natural human reaction. This list calls strongly to mind Greville’s pithy summary: “Created sick, commanded to be Sound?”

It is my hope that some day soon we will fulfill the promise of the last Enlightenment and fully cast of the stigma attached to these characteristics as cancerous remainders of a defunct Christian theology. We ought to embrace them as valuable, if not essential, components of our humanity, and stop apologising for them.

Click here for the whole series.

No Comments

Despite the best efforts of US Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and his team of spin doctors, the questions are often raised in America and abroad as to exactly ‘how Muslim’ Obama is, whether he practices Islam, and whether his Islamic upbringing has impacted upon his political convictions? It is necessary to review biographical information about Obama, to ascertain the extent to which any of this questions bear significance.

A quick summary of his life so far:

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas. Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, who is an Indonesian Muslim. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia and he attended a Muslim school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim and is quick to point out that, ‘he was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.’ Obama’s political advisers and spin doctors are attempting to make it appear that Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best.

In reality, Obama senior returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam and Barack Obama was enrolled in a religious islamic school in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Some say it is equally important to keep in mind that when he was sworn into office as the Senator of Illinois in 2004 - he did not use the Holy Bible, but instead the Qur’an, despite claiming to be a member of the United Church of Christ.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking a major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. The question must be asked as to how alert the American public must be, concerning Obama’s presidential candidacy and recent victory in the Iowa Democratic Caucus.

Whilst it is clear that Obama is in no way connected to or supportive of terrorism or terrorist activities, it is important to recognise the motives behind Obama’s desperate attempts to conceal his religious identity.

3 Comments