Geert Wilders and Islamophobic Incitement March 24, 2008

Geert Wilders, the Islamophobic (not, he says, to be confused with anti-Muslim, which would be wrong) right-wing Dutch MP who everyone loves to hate has decided to go full-speed ahead with releasing his anti-Islam film, Fitna — which has already begun to spark outrage throughout the European Union and the Muslim world:

Already, 15,000 people have protested in Afghanistan against the film, burning Dutch flags.

Nato commanders say that the Taliban could use it to whip up more anger and the Dutch ambassador in Malaysia said protests could lead to “dozens of deaths”. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, said the film would threaten peace.

In a speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg this year, the Grand Mufti of Syria warned of global consequences. “If there is unrest, bloodshed and violence after the broadcast of the Koran film, Wilders will be responsible,” he said.

The website for the film - fitnathemovie.com - was taken offline by its Internet Service Provider, Network Solutions, for the flagrant violation of its acceptable use policy which bans such inciting speech.

Of course, like minds flock together — the Czech far-right National Party has offered to step up and broadcast the movie, offering Wilders asylum and protection in the Czech Republic in an “undisclosed location” should any attempts be made on his life.

And all this for what? To continue to give a voice to this man’s racist diatribe? This is someone who has called Islamic society “retarded” and inferior, and who has called the Qur’an a “fascist text”? Where is the heter, who gave this man permission, to just patently diss 1/6 of humanity like this?

Would he honestly be able to stomach an equivalent diss against his own faith, his own background, his own culture? And the National Party will be equally responsible if they take the disastrous step of broadcasting Fitna in lieu of Network Solutions.

Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard told the Dutch De Volksrant in an exclusive interview that:

Dutch politician Geert Wilders should definitely air his anti-Quranfilm, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says Monday in an exclusive interview in the Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’.

Westergaard says he does not understand Dutch politicians who say that Wilders should not air his film. ‘There is not a single politician in Denmark that would state a similar thing. That would mean political suicide for him. Every Danish politician knows you should never limit the freedom of speech.’

Westergaard does not regret his caricatures of the prophet Muhammad ‘at all’. ‘It started out as and still is a matter of freedom of speech.’ Westergaard considers starting this debate as a ‘duty’ of newspapers and cartoonists. ‘Muslims are to accept that.’

Muslims are to “accept that”? Freedom of speech, as the Egyptian ambassador to Indonesia already said, is circumscribed by a sense of responsibility which must likewise never be compromised — the International Human Rights Law makes provisions for hate speech and related things.

How is Westergaard living, by the way?

Death threats have forced Westergaard to live in safe houses. He will soon be moving to a new shelter for the sixth time.

He was first criticized after he had drawn a picture of the prophet Muhammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. His caricatures were recently republished by several newspapers in Denmark. Three men plotting an attack on his life were arrested mid February….More than 200 thousand people demonstrated against the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film of Wilders in the Afghan city of Jalalabad on Sunday. ‘Death to Denmark, death to the Nederlands’, the crowd shouted.

So Wilders is willing to go through this, put Dutch troops on the frontlines in danger, cause millions of euros in losses for Dutch businesses, potentially cause hundreds of murders, and cause a worldwide furor by insulting the faith of 1/6 of humanity — for what? What could possibly be worth it?

Meet Michael Weinstein February 14, 2008

Meet Michael L. Weinstein, Esq.

Former military attorney in the Air Force, legal counsel in the White House under the Reagan Administration and General Counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot, “Mikey” Weinstein has become a centerpiece figure in the fight for religious freedom in America’s military. As IsraelENews.com informs us, “the 1977 honors graduate of the Air Force Academy is suing the United States Air Force for allowing, even promoting, evangelical Christian proselytizing at his alma mater”:

“People say this is a Christian country founded on Christian principles,” he says. “The real essential aspect of this country, woven into the tapestry of the embroidery of how beautiful this country is, is one concept above all others, which is tolerance of diversity.

“The biggest crime I accuse the religious right of — and it’s a blood libel, a crime against humanity — is torturing that concept, by bludgeoning it and assaulting it, so that what it comes out as “tolerance for diversity’ equals “intolerance for us in the majority.’ My response is: Fuck you. Fuck you. How dare you?“

What is it that drives Mr. Weinstein to his goals, of making every religious stream represented equally in the military? Why is he so headstrong against what he perceives as an evangelical hegemony?

“Every single time radicalized Christianity has engaged the machinery of the state and the armed forces, we have ended up not with puddles and little streams, but with oceans and oceans of blood,” he says. “I’m not just talking about the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the four Crusades, I’m not just talking about the Black Plague; it’s the transition from Plan A to Plan B.

“In Plan A, evangelical Christians with a smile on their face will ask you to please, please, please accept their biblical worldview of Jesus. The problem with that is, inevitably, Plan A morphs into Plan B. They stop asking so nicely, and then you have the Holocaust…”

Provocative, but definitely worth reading. Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation was founded in 2006 to combat anti-non-Christian discrimination in the religious arena in the armed forces, and Weinstein was recently nominated for JFK’s Profile in Courage Award.

His interview with IsraelENews.com is here, is an introduction to Mr. Weinstein, as well as the efforts of his organization. The MRFF combats cases of discrimination — ranging from a soldiers’ being expelled from mess halls for refusal to pray to Jesus for being an atheist to encouraging Christiantiy via having blatantly pro-Evangelical speakers speak to soldiers to boost morale.

Weinstein has been called the “field general of the godless armies of Satan”, and laughs at his title — he wished it could get him free food:

WEINSTEIN: …On Sundays, they’ve been throwing my photo up on the jumbotrons in their sanctuaries mostly in the southeast, mostly in “red states.” Underneath my picture they put down “field general of the godless armies of Satan.” There are enough nuts out there that actually believe this.

I’ve tried to make this worthwhile. I go to McDonalds, and I order a couple of hamburgers, a Diet Coke, and some fries. They charge me $5.61, and I tell them I’m the “field general of the godless armies of Satan,” but they still make me pay. It doesn’t even seem to work.

As IsraelENews.com also notes, “the Christian right has been successful in spreading its fundamentalist agenda at US military installations around the world for decades.” It is only when a voice of dissent arises from an “outsider” group that the mandate for diversity in all spheres of American government (and military) becomes as germane and relevant as it is in our cities and streets.

One love to Reb Mike Weinstein. May he be successful in all his efforts, and my there never be another case of a soldier being subjected to:

A 2004 survey indicated that half the cadets at the academy reported hearing religious slurs on campus.

One documented “joke” went like this:
“Why do Jews make the best magicians?

“Because they can go into a building and vanish in a puff of smoke.”
Jewish cadets complained about being called “Christ-killers” and being told that the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus.

Ken y’hi ratzon.

CEO: Orthodox Jews Are “Cancer” To Be “Excised” December 12, 2007

Here’s one to warm your spirits — because I know stories like this always fill me with joy.

Just lovely. Yeah, this one from Globes Online is a real winner:

Zohar Zisapel: Yeshiva students arrangement is a cancer: “The current situation is the result of the political activism of the haredim.”

Diana Bahur-Nir 10 Dec 07 13:10

“When Ben Gurion made his arrangement with the haredim (ultra-orthodox), he saw only a few dozen yeshiva students. Today, this has developed into a cancerous growth that must be excised so that it does not become even more malignant,” said RAD Data Communications Ltd. founder and chairman Zohar Zisapel at the “Israel’s wasted human capital” panel at the “Globes” Israel Business Conference 2007 yesterday.

Zisapel added, “We must revert to the original arrangement, and set a quota of a few dozen outstanding yeshiva students, for whom the Torah is their vocation, which is what the religious world really needs as a reservoir of future rabbis. The current situation is the result of the political activism of the haredim.

Zisapel said, “When studying Aramaic and Gemara instead of mathematics and English, few 20-year olds will be able to join the academic world, not only in computers, but also in other professions.”

Wasted human capital? Has a magic wand been waved, making absolutely all aspects of the Israeli labor force hospitable for non-modern Orthodox Jews? While one can not disagree with the fact that the kollel system has become way too much of a legislated part of the haredi lifecycle — “cancerous growth”?

Unmitigated anti-haredi prejudice not even given the courtesy of a thin veil of rhetoric to use as a cover, the “Aramaic and Gemara” line was only a codeword for “get secularized”. Drop the whole Torah thing. Learn “mathematics and English” (as if one can not learn from English-speaking Torah giants, or find trigonometry in Tosafos). Get “enlightened” and Westernized.

How 1705.

‘Halal Pork’? Pranksters Under Investigation November 5, 2007

What in the hell is this?

NTUC FairPrice said it will make a police report over “a deliberate and wilful act of mischief” to tamper with its packaging of “Pasar Fresh Pork”. It said it takes such matters seriously. A photo by a MediaCorp viewer showed a pack of NTUC’s Pasar pork with a halal sticker from the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore. FairPrice clarified the original packaging has no halal sticker.

OK - after seeing the debacles in Monsey, NY where nonkosher meat was mislabeled as kosher (intentionally) and Brooklyn where “glatt kosher” labels were placed on kosher meat of lesser standard, two words jump to my mind: inside job. Either someone who had access to these Islamic Religious Council labels did this, or the person who did this has some connection to Islamic Religious Council stationery, etc.

Not to mention, we are not talking about a minor infraction of sharia here. We’re talking about pork. No store employee would have inadvertently done something like this.

How does this benefit anyone? One is not “wrestling power” into the hands of a “secular majority” by attaching these labels — one advances no cause by attempting to screw with the heads of innocent shoppers simply looking for halal food to prepare for their families. NTUC FairPrice is completely justified in seeking criminal redress (and, in Singapore, that could equal a physically painful price), and I pray that no sincere All-h-fearing Muslim person got caught up in this oh-it’s-so-funny act of anti-religious prejudice.

Tajikistan: Hijab-Wearing Students Barred from Taking Exams August 6, 2007

Female applicants are no longer allowed to take university entrance exams in Tajikistan wearing hijab, Tajikistan’s State Teacher Training Institute stated Friday.

The statement came after three applicants wearing hijab were prevented from taking entrance exams at the National University on July 31. Tajikistan’s Ministry of Education has banned the hijab for school and university students.

This is hijab — no face covering, not a burqa, not an abaya. In other words, something that presents much less security risk (if any).

In absence of security risk, is this stam just a curtailing of religious expression?

Bring G-d To Work Day July 30, 2007

Henry G. Brinton, pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church, wrote this blog for USAToday saying, succinctly, that one need not feel compelled to “leave G-d out of the workplace.” On the contrary, employers are beginning to see the benefit of allowing employees to incorporate faith into their daily professional lives. One does not have to leave “beliefs at home”.

Most of us don’t make a strong connection between Sabbath spirituality and weekday work. But religious people need to practice their faith in the workplace if they are going to pursue their vocations with integrity. This means stopping work to pray at appropriate times, as faithful Muslims do. More broadly, it includes finding ways to integrate faith and work, create a more inclusive workplace and tap the resources of great religious traditions for ethical guidance.And such behavior doesn’t mean proselytizing on the job.

Since the 1980s, spirituality has begun to move into the workplace. The shift includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, as well as people who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. Though only about 50 workplace ministries existed in the early 1990s, more than 900 are in place today, says Os Hillman, a Georgia businessman who has written The 9 to 5 Window: How Faith Can Transform the Workplace. Such ministries encourage people to see work as a calling from God.

Dozens of companies — from Coca-Cola to Microsoft — are becoming more “faith-friendly” as they welcome the spirituality of their employees, allowing groups to meet for Bible study or to discuss business ethics with a religious twist. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has a Christian Fellowship Group, and the management at Bear Stearns, a Wall Street finance house, endorses and funds a weekly Torah class.

This faith at work movement is grounded in “desire for integration,” says David Miller, a Yale professor and author of the book God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. Business people now want to bring their whole selves to work — mind, body and spirit — instead of having to “leave their soul with the car in the parking lot,” says Miller, a former investment banker.

Ken yirbu, why should the workplace be devoid of faith and spiritual meaning?One commenter on the blog, hawki1, in his initially pro-diversity comment, lent his irrational voice to the discussion:

Would it be ok if a Wiccan or Satanist or other brand of religion leaves their book on the coffee table, or would that be offensive to many in the workplace? With Christian fundamentalists around, these books would not be around long!How would known atheists be treated in the workplace? Should an atheist be allowed to be offended by the Bible or any other religious article sitting around? Or should an atheist just SHUT up and accept it or look for another job?…NO religion in the work place is NOT a good idea. If one person wants to practice in their office, fine but not as discussed here.

This is just another example of trying to incorporate religion into the workplace. Just happens to be that CHRISTIANS make up 90% of society so of course CHRISTIANS are all for it…The example of the Jew is just a smokescreen because in a primarily CHRISTIAN workplace (with fundamentalists) the Jewish banner and other religious banners would be QUICKLY REMOVED, don’t kid yourself.

I sigh for the naivete this post is infused with.Yes, religion in the workplace IS a good idea. It makes for better employees — who now don’t have to leave the office to pray or find kosher food or learn Torah — and it makes for, ostensibly, a more ethical work environment. (Granted, as we know, “religious/secular” and “righteous/wicked” are two drastically different, independent dichotomies.) Incorporating religious coercion into the workplace is something else entirely, and as Michael Newdow showed the world, atheists’ concerns are valid in courts of law.

The atheist of hawki1’s case would be able to sue. The Jewish employees would also be able to sue. As would the Satanist whose books got forcibly thrown away. Those actions would be illegal.

What is not illegal is allowing employees to freely fulfill their religious responsibilities and exercise their religious freedom. Why is a “G-d-free” (ch”v) environment instantly the preferable one, the one which must be fought for and preserved at all costs?

Coercion and expression are two different things. No one in the above article is forcing, or even attempting to convince, anyone to do anything. Equating religious expression with religious coercion gets people like hawki1 up in arms and eventually people become unable to pray in public. Eventually people get thrown off of entire airlines for saying G-d’s Name in public.

Bring G-d to work. Today and everyday.

Cremation? In Israel? January 3, 2007

Cremation is a post-life alternative chosen by an increasing number of Americans. Over 30% of Americans chose to be cremated in 2004, and according to the Cremation Association of North America, a majority of people will choose cremation over burial by the year 2040.

Cremation, however, is strongly denounced by both Judaism and Islam, which view the body as “on loan from G-d”, the property of a Divine Creator, not under an individual’s will to be disposed of as one pleases. The Talmud says flatly, “any one who orders another before his death that his remains be disposed of other than by burial should have his wishes disregarded” (Sanhedrin 46b). Islam is likewise unequivocal in its prohibition of cremation, with a hadith saying “Breaking a dead’s bones is like breaking it as if he is alive”, equating anything done to a dead body with that action done to the living person.

In fact, it’s not just Muslims and Torah-observant Jews, but Eastern Orthodox Christians, Zoroastrians, and Southern Baptists all forbid cremation. (As do Neo-Confucianists.)

How ironic it is, then, that in the one nation called the “Holy Land”, cremation is cheaper than it is in America.
(more…)

Opinion: Banning Praying Muslims Or Jews From Flights “Unthinkable” January 1, 2007

So says one commentator, Wayne Madsen from the Kansas City Star Online:

Muslims are required by their faith to pray to Mecca five times a day. There is nothing sinister or criminal about people peacefully carrying out the obligations of their faith. Airlines that single out praying Muslims and deny them flight privileges permanently are no different than the five-and-dime stores that once prevented black people from eating at luncheonette counters.

It is as unthinkable to ban praying Muslims from a flight, as it would be to deny boarding to a group of praying Hasidic Jews. Both sects engage in public group prayers. Both are exercising their constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Persecution of religious minorities by the majority is nothing new in the United States. Nor is an attempt by the majority to link religious minorities to some grandiose and evil global plot against America.

Precisely. Keep saying it from the rooftops — until all people all treated equally.

Mumbai, India Merchants’ Assoc.: Ban Veiled Muslim Women From Entering Stores December 28, 2006

A move already being billed by clerics as “anti-religious prejudice”.

From The Times of India:

MUMBAI/PUNE: As a controversy appeared to be brewing over the Jewellers’ Association of Maharashtra’s demand that veiled women be barred from entering shops, Islamic clerics condemned the move and said Muslims would boycott outlets that implemented such a restriction.

Asked about complaints by jewellers about the “menace” of burqa-clad customers and their plea to be allowed to screen such customers following an increase in robberies, deputy chief minister R R Patil told reporters here that he had not received any such complaint.

“I have no information on this,” Patil said. Muslim clerics and the leading seminary Darul Uloom Waqf Deoband opposed the move, saying it could create tension. Terming the proposal “anti-religious”, Darul Uloom Waqf Deoband requested the Maharashtra government to take action against its implementation.

“It is an act that would create tension. The Maharashtra government should take steps to prevent such an act,” said Maulana Anjar Shah Kashmiri of the seminary in Uttar Pradesh. Maulana Mehmood Daryabadi of the All-India Ulema Council said Muslims would be “compelled” to boycott shops that imposed restrictions on the entry of veiled women.

“If they try to implement this decision, Muslims will be compelled to boycott purchasing jewellery from shops where women in burqas are not allowed to enter,” he said.

No one’s ever heard of a metal detector, a wand, Gamma rays, an X-ray, a female Muslimah security guard, NOTHING?

Secular Fanaticism: The New Threat? November 27, 2006

From the Canadian Jewish News:

In the fight against militant Islam, one of the new theories is this: if you force Muslims to look like everyone else, they’ll start acting like everyone else. That thought was the driving force behind the French government’s 2004 decision to ban religious symbols in schools.

It’s also the driving force behind a new bill proposed by the Dutch government that, if passed, would forbid Muslim women from donning facial veils in public, and it’s the reason former British foreign secretary Jack Straw admitted in a recent editorial that he asks Muslim women to remove their veils during conversations with him.

The effort to end fanaticism – religious or otherwise – is always a worthy cause. But inherent in this endeavor is the danger of becoming precisely the fanatic you had hoped to eradicate. In the effort to create uniformity and civic equality, it’s quite possible that what we reward is actually a form of secular fanaticism.

In 1959, Philip Roth posed the question that we should all be asking ourselves right now: who are the real fanatics?

I couldn’t agree more.

Religious Prejudice Alive and Well in Israel, Unfortunately October 4, 2006

Well, well, well.

As if anyone was surprised. A new study, commissioned by the religious-secular coexistence organization Tzav Piyus which seeks to increase religious-secular dialogue in Israel, just released the results of a new study today to Israeli daily Ma’ariv’s NRG.co.il (link is in Hebrew). The study found, among other things:

• 90% of Charedi people would buy a car from a secular or traditional person, 42% of secular people responded that they would not buy a car from a Charedi person;
• 62.3% of Charedi people would live in a place which was majority secular; 57.7% of secular people said they “would not” do the converse;
• 50.2% of secular respondents said that the statement “Charedim are oppressing the country” was true; when asked a similar extreme question, “Are secular Jews only half-Jews?” only 6.8% of Charedim said it was true (granted, this is a biased question)

The article implies it is time for forgiveness. I think it is time for dialogue. And, above all things, ahavat Yisra’el.

United Arab Emirates: Have a Little Respect for Ramadan October 3, 2006

This was the scene at a Dubai shopping mall this past week. Last week — synchronous with the second day of the Jewish New Year — began the Muslim holy month of Ramadhan, marked by fasting and penitence, culminating in Laylat al-Qadr, the night Muslims believe the Qur’an was revealed.

The UAE, as Brigadier Abdul-Jaleel Mahdi, head of protective safety of the Dubai police department, noted, has no specific law requiring modest dress during Ramadan. However, as one reader of the Emiri 7 DAYS blog noted, dressing in short skirts and revealing tops is just plain disrespectful to religious residents:

One Muslim reader, Anas Zurkiyeh wrote to 7DAYS yesterday of “inconsiderate ladies who wear skirts, shorts and all those revealing items in malls and on the streets during our fast.”

And a non-Muslim reader, Carla, told us yesterday: “I am shocked at how some people completely ignore the modest dress code during Ramadan. Women were doing their shopping in shorts, miniskirts and skimpy tops. It’s not intentional, but just plain ignorance.”

One commenter to this story, Darryl, writes:

Dubai is now a major player among the cities of the world and tourism is highly promoted here. Tourist don’t want to come to Dubai to find themselves restricted from doing simple things like wearing the clothes they like just because it is Ramadan….you must understand that for the U.A.E. to thrive or rather survive in a multi ethnic setting freedom is a very important initiative for people who reside here & tourist alike. I’m not saying that all laws should be abolished, just that the laws should be reasonable.

If Michael Jackson can find an abaya in Bahrain, I’m sure it’s not “unreasonable” to ask for a little class during Ramadhan in the UAE.

This, however, begs a bigger question: Why is it an inalienable right of every single bi-pedaled human to expose 80% of their flesh? A request like “don’t show your breasts” is abhorred like FGM throughout the secular media. Dubai’s shari’a based dress code is actually, in the opinion of this author, not so restrictive as to cause a drop in UAE tourism:

A: MEN’S DRESS CODE

Indecent Dress or Behavior:
Very short pants in public or commercial places like malls and public offices.
Chest nudity.
Ezar in public places (Ezar is the local Emirate male underwear).

B: WOMEN’S DRESS CODE

Indecent Dress:
Clothing that exposes the stomach and back.
Short clothing above the knee.
Tight and transparent clothing that describes the body.

Guys, don’t wear your 9th grade gym shorts or your underwear in public. Ladies, the halter and tank tops will have to stay at home. (Note, this does not forbid sleeveless T-shirts, and this is a far cry from requiring hijab, abaya, niqab or any of the other things “oppressed sisters” wear.)

No one wants a scene like they used to have in Zanzibar, Tanzania:

In the past, women who have dressed in short skirts or swimsuits inside Zanzibar’s main city have been attacked. Two other Islamic groups have also called on tourists to respect Islamic practices, though none has threatened any direct action.

For some reason, the secularist academe seems patently unable to fathom the fact that immodest dress can often be an infringement on the ability of another person to practice their religion. Perhaps one could say “this is a diverse place” to trump this infringement — in a place like New York or LA.

But the UAE is a Muslim country (come ON, what does the A stand for?). Western secular societies have no such framework — absolute personal freedom is an ideal, if not an actuality.

While I find the music to be completely cheesy (4), perhaps Dubai malls would be well served by playing this little video for their shoppers:
(more…)