timeimmortal

Howard Rotberg is the author of a novel about suicide bombing in Israel called The Second Catastrophe. He filed a lawsuit, recently, against Chapters, after Islamic hecklers broke up what I believe was a book signing or book launch at a Chapters store in Ontario. Subsequently, Rotberg was condemned as “racist” in a press release from Chapters proper, and his book was banned from the chain of stores…after a hijab-wearing part-time clerk falsely claimed that Rotberg asserted that “all Middle Easterners are terrorists.”

At any rate, Rotberg has started a blog to chronicle the ongoing legal matters pertaining to his suit against Chapters. Lend him your support if you are able, O Reader!

Renewable petroleum…kinda.

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to — especially the ones coming out of business school — this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs — very, very small ones — so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

It kinda reminds me of Red Planet, a movie that came out in 2000 (if memory serves) — except that in the movie, there were insects that ate the terraforming algae that humanity had sent to Mars and excreted oxygen after doing so.

These petroleum-producing bacteria are, admittedly, both a) somewhat different, and b) real. It’s a fascinating development, though, and certainly something that sounds like it was ripped out of a sci-fi novel.

Now…is it workable in the long term, and in the large scale? If so, the most interesting aspect of the technology might just be the shift of the balance of power. Oil-poor nations with large agricultural industries could potentially become major players in the world oil market, and the idea that any nation which is a net exporter of agricultural product could refine waste from those industries into oil for its people to use would, one can only hope, have the side effect of shattering the power of the Middle Eastern oil barons.

Although, to be fair, there’s still the issues of a) cost of implementing the program on a wide scale, and b) how much oil can actually be produced from a given quantity of raw material. If an entire farm’s worth of agricultural waste will only net the farmer a barrel or two of good crude, this development won’t exactly be the miracle cure that it kinda sounds like.

The ambiguously-named muslimperson writes in again with a rather lengthy…uhm…outpouring in response to this article, a prior response of mine to him(?).

Let me just preface this lengthy entry with a bit of a note: it’s long, and the grammar and spelling are questionable at best. It starts well, but gets predicitably anti-Jewish by the end. Obviously, muslimperson feels that Mitra Kermani has been wronged. Because of the defamatory nature of some of what muslimperson says, I have redacted parts of the letter — a first for me. I’ve tried to minimize the impact of what has been excised, however.

Full Story of Mitra Kermani: June 3, 2008 :

This information about court of criminal and civil court order is public information you can go to criminal court and asked if this detail we say is wrong or right

This is true statements:

Mitra Kermani never arrested or charged for any death treat against any person in Canada

How do you verify your information before you copy and past from National Post

I’m actually going to stop here for a minute and remark that the stories of Mitra Kermani harassing people — at least by phone — can be verified by the fact that she harassed other bloggers who reported on her story, and did so multiple times.

Also, I observe that Mitra Kermani herself admitted to “aggressively talking to [Loblaw's]” (which is a polite way of saying she lost her cool, methinks). She also admitted to threatening one executive of the company by saying she would “cut his tail off and shoot him in the head.” She later attempted to excuse this behaviour by dismissing the phrase as “an old Iranian expression, not an actual threat,” but at the end of the day she told a man she was going to shoot him in the head.

That’s a death threat, and it’s a crime, even if she wasn’t charged for it. And muslimperson is quick to point out that she was not, in fact, criminally charged…or rather, not convicted (not that this matters).

Mitra Kermani did not convicted of criminal harassment or criminal telephone harassment after two days trial got finished on Nov 21, 2007

…

All wrong accusation…against Mitra Kermani they did not proof that

• Mitra Kermani is international terrorist
• Mitra Kermani sharped the knife and cut something while she was talking in cell phone to [someone]
• Mitra Kermani said that she plan to attack [somewhere]
• Mitra Kermani said that
• Mitra Kermani said she is going to shoot head of [someone]…

There is no verification available to justify the claim that Ms. Kermani has been labeled a “terrorist” by…anyone in a position of authority (private opinion doesn’t count here). It is odd, then, that muslimperson would demand to know how I support/justify my citation of the National Post article, when he(?) himself(?) cites, without support or justification, a claim that Ms. Kermani may have herself invented.

As to the knife, the exact claim was that it sounded like a cleaver was being beaten against a cutting board during the phone conversation. Given that Ms. Kermani’s company supplied chicken as a main product, this allegation certainly has an air of possibility about it. As to whether it is true, there is no certainty, and Ms. Kermani denies the act. But is it possible she is the liar? Of course.

As to the threat of an attack on some location, there is no verification that Ms. Kermani made the threat in the first place — this is true. Unless, of course, someone has a recording of the threat. And at any rate, even if she didn’t threaten the building, she did admit to threatening an executive of the company. I don’t actually know the details of the matter well enough to know whether any actual threat was made, or whether this is just a fanciful invention of muslimperson’s mind.

Instead Mitra brought 60 facts against [some people]…who went with [someone] to made above wrong statement to police that [someone] is liar not lawyer said…to civil court and said in…in criminal court because [someone] sent too many wrong under oath affidavit to court…

Mitra Kermani brought 14 proof documents…against [some people]..who worked for [a company] finally [some people] disappeared for first time after 3 years bring Mitra Kermani to too many courts and send new lawyer. Mitra Kermani noticed all those lawyer are Jewish…with document proof they did lied to courts and none of those label was true. [someone] now recently planed to change constitution law in Canada.

In last letter caused [someone]…to escaped was [someone] lied to civil court that Mira Kermani is convicted to criminal harassment and Mitra warn [someone] this time if she come to court she will asked court to disqualify her from work in Canada in civil cases any more. Finally [someone] did not show up.

One question: hunh?

Also, I will observe one thing: It’s those damn JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS again. Seriously…why are Muslims always apt to blame Jews for, like, everything? The rampant anti-Semitism in the above is striking for how bald-faced it is, although I can’t say I’m surprised that muslimperson took the discourse in that direction.

Here again, a strange thing has emerged from the atrocious grammar. Whereas before, muslimperson chastised me for blindly citing a National Post article, now he(?) is making wild assertions and providing no justification (in the form of, say, a link to an article?) for them. All the above is speculation, and nothing more.

Open Jan 11, 2008 Mitra Kermani also not found any civil contempt order then why again on next civil again [someone] made new motion…

Criminal court under appeal was wonder in court of appeal now since criminal court told…the order then…could not changed it in civil court order now. This is like OJ Simpson trial that bring innocent in 8 times to win criminal in civil and unless…proof in that periods some thing happened that they asked for…while we went to two days trial and nobody come to testify civil court without trial can not made judgment only because…Misom is small. Plus [someone] said she is not agree with expansion…how come [someone] give all favour to [someone] even later [someone] send letter to [someone] said in your letter you said are not you made mistake please change it to are please.

Civil court has not jurisdiction to change criminal court order especially when that criminal court is under appeal…no ground to ban Mitra while they know there is not business with Mitra since 2005 therefore this is now civil court also went to court of appeal in Toronto but this time Mitra Kermani did asked judge in court of appeal to disqualify [some people] for misconduct and abuse and abuse of process and using Mitra not have CAPACITY to fighting with them by sending every two month more than 60 big files filed in civil court against Mitra Kermani it is unbelievable

Point of order: Loblaw’s has every right to cease business with (or “ban,” as muslimperson would have it), since they are the retailer and she is just a supplier. They have every right not to spend their money on the products she makes available, as do we all.

Moreover, since Ms. Kermani has admitted to some of the actions that Loblaw’s is accusing her of engaging in, including the utterance of a statement that she would shoot someone in the head, they have every right to seek restraining orders against her.

This is like one small companies verses big company fifth for her right took her 3 years and took her pain and she still fight for her right and freedom of talk and freedom to talk with who ever she likes to talk and in the same respect if some one like Mitra Kermani and ban…to not let that person talk to Mitra is also painful for Mitra and this corruption, fraud, conspiracy, misconduct, abuse discrimination and abuse of process against small person only like to do or made and had lots of customers

It’s pretty simple, really: if you don’t want to be told that you can’t speak to people, don’t threaten to shoot said people in the head. Why is this so difficult to understand?

This is up to customer who like to eat their food…to control saying I like to feed Muslim Jewish halal food called Alsafa halal food because they are German friend of us that is nonsense

It’s the Jews! The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

[Anyone] has freedom to deal with anybody they want but in the same respect customer has right to choose who they like to eat for specially meals not non Muslim control Muslim food and not let Muslim come up under conspiracy and illegal competition act and under human right act all is hate crime against Mitra Kermani

This is true, to be sure, but the customer doesn’t really get a say as to which products a store puts on the shelves or not. If, say, Safeway suddenly decided not to deal with Dole anymore, I’d have to suck it up and buy some other company’s pineapples (not that I buy that many pineapples, but it was an easy example). That’s really all there is to it. Too bad, so sad, pass the SunRipe.

Loblaw companies used Misom halal for 8years exclusivity like marriage can not get them hungry out and terminate them and not let them talk and negation any business called that on Aug 2005 “cool-off” period Misom stay 6 month out and not talk and we are not pay damages and they did breach contract on June 13, 2005 and say stay for 6 month cool not talk if we like you we will return your business back if you talk you go to jail.

Did the Reader catch that? Loblaw’s was partnered with Misom for 8 years exclusively…clearly, it’s like a marriage!

Only…it’s not. Business agreements are not permanent commitments of total fidelity — they are temporary agreements that periodically get renewed. Or they don’t get renewed, and one business elects to not do business with the other anymore, in favour of a different company.

Mitra Kermani is…she fight for her right

She was innovate of halal food…and she is hungry outside and others cash her business and she is faced all criminal court which wrong and civil court should force loblaw to pay defamation to Mitra as punitive damage as well.

Therefore media welcome to come and like to listen to claim of Mitra Kermani in civil court and you can go and see all files in civil court is open to media

But you can not simply copy and past wrong information from National post.

I’ve spent as much time as I can for today, O Reader, looking for information from the Ontario Superior Court — transcripts, case files, anything. As yet, I’ve found nothing.

If someone — muslimperson, perhaps? — can provide links to the relevant files, I’ll gladly entertain them. Until such time, I can do no more than observe that muslimperson’s own claims are as baseless as he(?) says the National Post’s are. And in defence of the National Post: why would the Post risk a lawsuit from a large, national grocery company with that sort of lie, and why did Mitra Kermani admit to doing some of the things that the Post article claimed she had done?

We agree nobody has right to harass anybody for breach contract but big company also should not smash small companies and get envy over them if small but smart…

Plus Woman are not right in any where not in Middle East not n Canada as long as small yes as soon as become famous men get them out with one label and slander in food male industry in Canada no respect for woman in highest end manager unless take time

I note that Canadian society has more respect for women that any Islamic society I can think of off the top of my head. That’s not to say that Canada is perfect in this regard — far from it. But compared to Mitra Kermani’s own home country of Iran, well…Canadian women do very well.

Mitra Kermani went in gifted school in Iran when she was 13 got number one in Mathematics among two million children of her age Mitra Kermani has Canadian chemical engineering degree and Mitra Kermani has so many pharmaceutical and petro gas and oil industry background and Mitra Kermani took 5 courses with A- in master degree in University of Toronto and Mitra Kermani has diploma in Muslim laws and Mitra Kermani has one year computer programmer and work for more than 18 years in industry still we must wait for get acceptance among Muslim Canadian went to so many ambassador house and lunch with their family in middle east…Mira still fight for her claim for freedom of talk and freedom of choice for Muslim customer…

Yes, yes, yes, O Reader…Ms. Kermani is all that and a bag of (halal) chips.

Equally…so what? All her various achievements entitle her to precisely nothing in terms of the business she now operates.

finally:

…

Canada said in their constituation law that Canada believe God and Muslim belive God and Muslim also belive Jesis while Jewish are not then for god sake why for Morality of this let company wake up and interfer in fate of Muslim for hate crime!!! this must get stop that is why Mitra keramni fight…for 3 years. God is the greatest and know it all. if some is bad god will punish them. stop hate for no reason. support human right and direct them to right path.

It’s the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

Okay, that’s actually starting to get a little old. But then, so are the allegationsof a conspiracy to mix Jewish kosher food with halal food from an alternative supplier. Is this poop for real?

At any rate, I did warn the Reader that the letter from muslimperson went all squirrely at the end, and that the grammar and spelling were poor. And now, at the end of it, I see that I may have understated the case. Still, perhaps we should all count ourselves enlightened, now that we know that the senseless persecution and harassment of Mitra Kermani is just the visible element in a Jewish plot to contaminate halal food with kosher products.

And if you will buy that, O Reader, you’re a fool…hold out for the offer on the bridge!

Update: Welcome, Sleepy Old Bear readers and Steynians!

The Color of Update: It’s been an interesting day on the freespeecher email list. Someone postulated that the rambling incoherence of muslimperson might, in fact, be the rambling incoherence of Mitra Kermani herself. It’s a theory with some merit, if not exactly testable.

Joel writes in again (twice!) to follow up on my previous response to him. I observe that the host for the communication was at atc.army.mil — the Aberdeen Test Center. Very interesting; the last atheist-in-uniform I tangled with was a fellow who went by the handle of Cartese. His arguments were that theists should, at best, be declared mentally unfit to vote/drive/own property…in his worst moments, he advocated for the open slaughter of the religious.

Joel seems substantially more moderate, which is good. Still, it has been my observation that debates with atheists can very quickly become ugly affairs; time will tell if this discussion goes down that all-too-familiar road.

At any rate, here is the first of two responses Joel sent in:

I appreciate your response to my email.

Apparently, given your reply, I didn’t make something clear.

I can only intelligently speak about atheism in the U.S.. Were I to speak about atheism in China or the Middle East, I would surely be a fool since I have never lived in eithr region, nor spoken with any atheists from those areas. Hence my points 1 & 2.

I suspect that atheists in various areas focus their efforts on the dominant Religion. But, again, I can only speak about atheism in the U.S.

Next, I consider Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses to be christian sects. They believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christian. I’m not sure there’s any meaningful distinctions here. God, Jesus, Bible.

Hence point #3.

I don’t know actual statistics, however if you know that Muslims proseletyze more than Christians, I’ll concede the point.

If I am myopic, I am at least honest about it. I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that my email made it clear I was only speaking about the U.S.. If that wasn’t clear, then I apologize.

Joel is quite welcome, of course, O Reader. And in turn, both for remaining reasonable into the second round and for the chance to discuss topics that I haven’t directly engaged in a while, I’d like to offer my thanks in turn to Joel. This is good…this is really good.

When religion is at issue, I think it is — or should be — necessary for any would-be commentator to keep firmly in mind the global picture, because religion transcends regional boundaries; Catholicism is represented on every continent and in almost every country on Earth, for example. So, for the most part, is Islam. So, for the most part, is atheism, and one would hope that it would be apparent that philosophical conjectures of every flavour are far larger things than the raw limits of a national boundary.

To put it another way, consider: if one based one’s opinions about American Christians solely on one’s observations of Christians in the state of…say…Utah, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christianity in America. Similarly, if one based one’s opinions about global Christianity solely on one’s experience of American Christians, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christ’s followers world-wide. For example, one would probably have a very inaccurate picture of the expanse and teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority Christian religion world-wide and yet a minority in the U.S.

I submit that the same is true of atheism. Therefore, limiting one’s consideration and disucssion to the peculiarities of a philosophical conjecture such as atheism to those found only in one small region of the globe is indeed rather myopic, and perhaps even borders on willful ignorance. The atheism of Sam Harris (an American) is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Richard Dawkins (a Briton). And to be perfectly fair, the atheism of Richard Dawkins is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Michael Onfray (a Frenchman).

However, what is most interesting about what Joel has said, O Reader, is his demonstrated ignorance where even American Christianity is concerned, for there is a great deal more to being Christian than simply “God, Jesus, Bible.” While the various Christian demoninations disagree sharply on different points of doctrine and the source of justification in Christ (i.e. faith vs. Grace), anyone who professes to be a Christian must, at minimum, acknowledge the following:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That is the Nicene Creed, promulgated in 381 as a definitive articulation of what Christian faith is, at its very minimum. It is all well and good that Joel personally considers Jehovahs and Mormons to be “Christian sects,” but the truth is that they are not particularly Christian, despite the invocation of Christ. Specifically, Jehovahs deny the trinitarian unity of God and Jesus; they believe Jesus is a wholly separate entity from God. They further believe that Jesus also appeared, in the recorded text of the Bible, as the archangel Michael and as Abaddon (c.f Revelation 9:11).

Some might dismiss this as a minor difference, but since Jesus — in his own words — claimed “oneness” with God the Father, the fact that Jehovahs do not acknowledge the Trinity renders them effectively non-Christian, despite the fact that they recognize Christ*.

Mormons likewise dispute the Nicene Creed’s concept of the Trinity, and so render themselves non-Christian in the most honest and basic sense of the term. Obviously, there are a lot of disputes around this, and obviously most mainstream Christians recognize at least some kinship of faith between themselves and both Jehovahs and Mormons. At the end of the day, though, Jesus and his apostles both spoke plainly enough (c.f. John 10:30, 20:28) about the unity that existed between God the Father and God the Son.

As to who proselytizes the most, I don’t have concrete numbers. But then, I’m not sure that the raw numbers are the important factor for consideration; most Western (and some Eastern) religions, faiths, and philosophical conjectures have an evangelical aspect to them…even atheism. The question, then, is not simply about who proselytizes, but about what religion the one who proselytizes follows — i.e. what religion is being “sold” (to use a crude term for it).

When an atheist attempts to evangelize, he or she is obviously not “selling” the same “stuff” as a Christian would be during an evangelical enterprise. And neither of them are “selling” the same “stuff” as a Muslim would be during an act of evangelism. The act of evangelism is not the important consideration; the “stuff” being “sold” is. What is each person “selling” by their efforts? What are the tenets of their faith? These are the more important questions to ask, because not all faiths are the same. Atheism is not the same as Christianity, which in turn is not the same as Islam, which in turn is very different from Judaism or Hinduism.

It is not enough to simply consider that something is being preached, then; what must be considered is what is being preached. What is being preached by Christian evangelists? What is being preached by atheist evangelists? What is being preached by Muslim evangelists? Which denominations of each faith or philosophy are the most active in terms of their evangelical efforts?

Setting aside pseudo-Christian sects like Jehovahs and Mormons, I can’t put my finger on exactly which strain of American Christianity is most active in its evangelical efforts (my mind tends to drift toward thinking it’s either the Baptists or the non-denominational “free” Evangelicals, who are rooted primarily in Pentecostal teachings).

As a Catholic, I obviously have my disagreements with both Baptist and Pentecostal theology, and certainly I disagree with members of those churches who…say…oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. On the other hand, I agree strongly with them when they stand up in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, or when they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

And I have to say: though I disagree with them over the evolution issue, their proselytism is, on the whole, generally not a bad thing. Most of them are earnestly convinced, as I am, that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, who died and rose again for the salvation of all mankind from their sins. Take a look again at the Nicene Creed (above), O Reader: that’s what a Christian evangelist is attempting to bring into the lives of others. It’s not a bad thing to bring at all; it is not antithetical to reason, it is not dark or sinister — indeed, it is joyous news. A genuine Christian evangelist brings first and foremost this message to the unbeliever: “You are loved.”

Atheists the world over are, of course, welcome to dispute specific tenets of the various Christian faiths, and are encouraged to dispute the silly opposition some Christians have to the teaching of the theory of evolution in science classes. Indeed, atheists are even welcome to dispute the central thrust of the Christian evangelical message — they are welcome to deny that some transcendental divinity loves them, personally, as an individual.

But there is no inherent threat or danger in the Christian evangelical message; there is no subversion of reason, no need to abandon all other things that one knows, and no need to sacrifice one’s freedom (except perhaps in the sense that, if one’s conversion is true and motivates a change of heart, one might give up certain aspects of one’s lifestyle that one comes to realize are immoral — but even this is not a negative thing). And even when Christian evangelists focus on negatives — for example, the impending danger of eternal damnation — one cannot say that their hearts are not still in a good place; I wish Hell upon no man, nor on any woman, and no earnest Christian ever should. One can hardly fault Christians, then, for wanting to try and convince as many people as they can to turn away from something so horrible, even if it means that their evangelical rhetoric is not the most…palatable.

Now, I’ll grant that some Christian evangelists (a minority, thankfully) go astray from the above — Jack Chick fans are an easy example here. That is a pity, and such men and women do Christianity no credit. But it has to be observed, on the other hand, that most mainstream Christians look at such men and women and shake their heads; many also vocally denounce the errors such men and women make (I certainly do, as the long-time Reader will doubtless know).

What of Muslim evangelism? What is being “sold” therein? While moderate strains of Islam do exist, it has to be noted that the majority of Islamic schools, lobby groups, and evangelical ministries seem to be funded by either the Iranians (on the Shia side) or the Saudi Arabians (on the Sunni side). That in turn means that a goodly number of Muslim evangelical efforts are “selling” a more radicalized form of Islam that, while it may not be as vocal in opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, harbours substantially darker things beneath its surface — misogyny, violent rhetoric, the infidel/non-infidel hostile dichotomy, and the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb conflict model view of the world. In many parts of the world, and America is not exempt, Muslim imams call for a new global caliphate and the subversion of all world governments under one Islamic order.

There is, then, something of an inherent threat in the main form of Muslim evangelism in the world today. And the peculiar myopia of atheism, as I have noted previously, is that atheists prefer to heap their opposition and condemnations upon benign Christianity while simultaneously ignoring (to the point of actively denying, as Joel did in his first letter, that other religions even engage in proseltyism to any meaningful extent) more malignant religions in their midst. I cannot be certain why this is; fear of seeming racist, perhaps? The only atheistic author I can think of who has devoted any meaningful amount of attention to the threat of Islam is Christopher Hitchens, and even then he goes somewhat astray by attempting to framework his objections to Christianity based on the transgressions and violence of Islam.

I got that Joel was speaking primarily about America in his first e-mail, and perhaps I was not clear enough in turn: that he limited himself thusly was one of problems. The other, of course, is that he seems to be sorely misinformed about both religious trends in America and in the world, and that he is woefully ignorant about what Christian faith constitutes.

I termed this “myopia,” and have pointed out why limiting one’s considerations to the extent that Joel has done is folly.

Speaking of myopia, I should post Joel’s second response:

OK, so here is actual myopia.

I simply assumed this blog was U.S. based. Which caused me to write my original email with that context in mind. ugh.

(note to self: try reading the FAQ before assuming facts not in evidence)

O Reader, this would hardly be the first time I’ve been mistaken for an American. I don’t know why American readers instinctively assume that this blog has a U.S. origin, but it does happen fairly often; curious indeed. At any rate, no harm done (and a good laugh was had).

I might suggest that the same principle — reading before assuming — would be a good habit for Joel to get in to regarding any further objections to religion he makes in which he attempts to argue from the principles of the religion being opposed. His dismissal of Christianity as being about “God, Jesus, Bible” demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance on his part. Fortunately, though, the remedy is easy enough.

* simply recognizing Christ’s divinity does not automatically make one Christian; just ask the Druze

I’m dead tired this morning, so this will kind of just be a list of things that I noticed on my morning browse through a few parts of the internet. Regular posting will resume tomorrow, ideally.

Apparently, the Milky Way is twice as thick as was previously thought — 12,000 light years, instead of 6,000. That’s kind of interesting, admittedly, although also rather “ho hum” — given the massive distances we’re talking about here, what’s a factor of two? Apparently, the researchers at the University of Sydney were just doing some basic fact-checking on internet-available data and realized the error after a few hours of computation. Guess it just goes to show: science is never 100%.

Moving on to more terrestrial matters, it appears that Danish “youths” — “mainly with immigrant backgrounds” — are burning things again, mainly cars, but also schools and trash bins. Officially, it’s not clear what caused the riots to trigger. Personally, I’m thinking that this is another case where we can strike out the words “immigrant youths” and replace them with “Muslims.” Probable cause? Here’s one guess:

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: RightGirl)

Speaking of Terrorism (since really, what else can we call it when Muslims are rioting and burning things?), the possibility is emerging that those undersea cables that got cut, thereby denying Internet access to millions of users across the Middle East and Africa, may have been destroyed in an act of sabotage, not in an accident as previously thought.

I hope nobody is too surprised by that.

In a follow-up to yesterday’s post about demographic winter, I see that Vox Day has added his own thoughts on the phenomenon to the virtual din.

You can’t completely grasp the extent of Europe’s post-Christian decline until you walk through the ghost towns of Italy, populated by no more a dozen elderly women and one old man sleeping in the sun. It’s not something that any tourist is going to see in Florence, Venice or Rome, much less Milano, but go outside the tourist tombs and the desolation of demographic winter is impossible to miss. And the imported African hookers scattered along the truck routes in the countryside are hardly adequate compensation for what were once famously vibrant family units.

There’s a large and spectacular church on the outskirts of a town near which we like to wander. Its doors are only unlocked for an hour or so every month, because despite its gorgeous interior architecture and painted ceilings, there’s not only no one around to attend it, there’s not even anyone left to visit it.

There is no cause of the demographic decline that is now afflicting much of the West that has done more to exacerbate the problem than secular progressivism and related ideologies. Put plainly, the societies we have built for ourselves (and, indeed, most human societies in general) are predicated on the expectation of a populace that maintains an almost “Catholic” birthrate — an average of 2 to 3 kids per woman. Our present fad of 0 to 1 kids per woman, and then usually one “designer” baby at age 35 (I shamelessly crib Mark Steyn’s phrasing here) is, quite frankly, insufficient to sustain Western society. To keep up our end, we need immigration.

That will, I think, be our untimely end.

Should Canada require its immigrants to “earn” their citizenship?

In the past, simply having lived in Britain for a sufficient length of time was enough to qualify a person for citizenship there. Now, a move is afoot to have immigrants “move on” through a system that encourages citizenship by encouraging the adoption of national traditions and values (possibly at the expense of the traditions and values those immigrants have brought with them from the “old country”), at the end of which they may achieve citizenship…or may be asked to leave, if in fact they do not integrate satisfactorily.

Methinks we need something like that in Canada.

According to the Associated Press, pro-lifers and other ‘domestic’ extremists account for “most of the damage” from terror-type attacks committed on American soil, to a larger degree than even Islamic terror.

As a pro-lifer, I’m pretty accustomed to having all manner of lies told about me and my beliefs — it comes with the territory. But the above assertion is pretty egregious, if somewhat easily refuted. Just for context, Muslim terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people in one day back in 2001, and destroyed two of the tallest skyscrapers in America in the process. Since 1973 (the year of Roe vs. Wade), misguided pro-lifers have killed just seven people in the U.S.

But clearly, those pro-lifers account for “most of the damage” done in acts of terror on American soil. The newsman says so!

Ezra Levant remarks that since it’s clear that Stephen Harper is gunning for an election, the Conservative government might as well try passing a few different pieces of increasingly more ambitious legislation, all via confidence motions, until Stephane Dion finally slips up and stops trying to avoid bringing the government down.

Gun control, the Wheat Board, tax cuts — and how about a gentle amendment to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

The irony is that last bill wouldn’t be controversial at all. Other than a lone Liberal lobbyist who hasn’t been in the party’s good graces for four years, and a fringe ethno-political special interest group, I don’t think anyone in the country would even consider such an amendment controversial.

As they say in the funnies…”it’s just crazy enough to work!”

And speaking of pro-life issues, the ladies of ProWomanProLife are suggesting contacting the Governor General directly to let her know that Henry Morgentaler does not deserve the Order of Canada. Fully 85% of online respondents to the Globe & Mail’s poll on the issue said “no,” and while that can hardly be called a truly “representative” number, I think it does indicate rather clearly that a majority of Canadians think that giving Morgentaler this sort of official recognition is a very bad thing.

The PWPL ladies also provide the names of the various people who sit on the “independent” advisory council that considers nominations for the Order of Canada.

Update: Suzanne Fortin sends in the following additional information by email. Here’s the process one can follow to contact the Governor General’s office:

It’s easy.

First call the Governor-General’s Office. Phone numbers:

Ottawa: 613-993-8200

Rest of Canada: 1-800-465-6890

You will get a receptionist.Ask to speak to Madeleine Proulx (pronounced “Prew”). She deals with the Order of Canada. When I phoned today, I got a voicemail and I have been told by another pro-life caller that calls about Henry Morgentaler are being re-directed to her voicemail. State your name. Tell her that you want to register your objection to Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada. State the reason why. Please try to be neutral in your tone– calling him a bloodthirsty murderer probably won’t gain us a lot of credibility. I stated that he’s a symbol of inequality as he is the reason that unborn children have no legal status today and that I believe in the equality of all human beings, and that he fought this struggle in my name as a woman, and I resent that.

And that was it.

If you’re a pro-lifer, O Reader, or even if you aren’t but nevertheless think that Henry Morgentaler doesn’t deserve the Order of Canada, I encourage you to follow the steps above. Be civil and be articulate, and choose your words carefully. Calling him a murderer with blood on his hands might seem like a reasonable objection to raise, but it’s also a very good way to ensure that your phone message gets ignored. Present your case fairly and without appeal to emotion or horror, and it will be listened to.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get what Ghazale, a Canadian Middle Eastern restaurant, is trying to tell us with their latest marketing campaign.

If it’s supposed to be funny, I’m not getting the joke. If it’s supposed to be progressive and edgy, I think it misses the mark. If it’s supposed to dispel any illusions I might have about Middle Eastern culture in general, and the attitudes of Arabs toward women in particular, it’s having the opposite effect.

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Kathy Shaidle

One tends to find so many examples on a daily basis that it is becoming prudent to just lump them all together in one glorious catch-all posting. Or, at least, it saves me some time, which I like.

First, from Britain: “Asian youths” throw rocks at Holocaust Memorial participants. This is the British press, so we need to translate: “Asian youths” overwhelmingly means teenaged-to-twentysomething young men of Arabic or Indian sub-continental extract. Oh, I’ll grant that it could mean, you know, what we usually tend to think the term “Asian” means. But the anti-Jewish angle is significant: how many incidences of violence against Jews have been recorded where persons of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean extract are the perpetrators?

Here’s the money quote from the article, though:

The tour was organised by leading local historian Clive Bettington, who was later asked by police if he wanted officers to accompany him in future, but declined.

“That would be admitting there are ‘no go’ areas,” he said.

(…)

“I looked over the fence and saw four Asian youths throwing stones. They were laughing, then ran away.”

Just some aspiring young jihadists out having a laugh and throwing some rocks at the Jooooooos. Another typical day in London(istan). Interestingly, the issue of “no-go areas” (i.e. areas where Muslims have effectively taken over and rendered it unsafe for non-Muslims to travel through or past) rears its head again, although in typical Brit PC fashion, the man who organized the tour to the Holocaust memorial is too afraid of being labeled a racist* to acknowledge the existence of a very real problem.

Which brings us to item #2.

Apparently, it is also becoming increasingly common in Britain for teachers, police, and others in positions of authority to refuse to report honour killings as crimes, for fear of being branded as racist by Muslim spokesmen or hauled in front of a human rights tribunal (yes, England has them too).

The authors said families withdraw teenage daughters from school because they fear men will be unwilling to marry them if they are educated.

Many men brought up here want “freshies” - women “uncontaminated” by ideas of independence.

Rahni Binjie of the Roshni Asian Women’s Aid, a refuge in Nottingham, said: “We’ve had women who have disappeared from the education system. We don’t know if they’ve been taken abroad or killed or anything.”

Activists say there are particular problems with taxi firms who return women fleeing from abuse.

It’s those damnable cab drivers again!

I wonder if there wouldn’t be a noticeable drop in the number of honour killings in Western nations if a comprehensive ban prohibiting persons of Middle Eastern, African, or Indian sub-continental extract from driving cabs?

More seriously, though, the above is illustrative of just why more and more people are making noise about the human rights commissions (HRCs). We are fighting for true freedom of expression in Canada, a right that we, as Canadian citizens, are supposedly ensured by the anyhow, but which increasingly seems to be under threat from our self-styled “betters”, Richard Warman in particular.

And a part of that freedom of expression is the freedom to call a spade a spade. If we let the HRCs’ powers take us to the point where police can be hauled before them for the “crime” of being “anti-Muslim” simply because they made the attempt to investigate a possible honour killing, and if we let the HRCs’ powers take us to the point where teachers can be hauled before them for the “crime” of being “anti-Muslim” simply because they made the attempt to intervene in a case of obvious abuse of a female Muslim child by her male relatives in accordance with Sharia law, then we — all of us: every Canadian citizen who values his or her rights and freedoms, and who kind of likes what Canada is — have lost. We will, at that point, have turned over the keys to the country to the barbarians and the savages.

Item #3 is yet another suicide bombing, this time in the Israeli town of Dimona. One person was killed, and another ten injured. One suicide bomber managed to self-detonate, while the other was shot dead by an Israeli policeman.

The terrorist organization Islamic Jihad is claiming responsibility, but Kateland wonders how this smaller group came up with the resources to carry out the attack. She wonders if perhaps Hamas is employing the use of fronts.

Item #4 is another page from our “if you can’t obey the rules, don’t work there” file: Muslim women workers in Britain’s health system are committing hygeine violations in order to conform with Sharia law’s unreasonable standards of modesty.

female workers are ignoring Britain’s Department of Health rules requiring medics to be “bare below the elbow” because they consider showing any skin — outside the hands and face — immodest.

The guidelines were put into place to stave off the spread of infectious killer bugs like MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients, according to the paper.

Hygiene experts said the standard should hold for all workers — even if it goes against their Religion.

“I don’t think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally,” Dr. Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at Imperial College London told the Telegraph.

Some fear the enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.

The Islamic Medical Association, for one, has issued a statement that “no practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,” according to paper.

I’ve worked in kitchens before, and the hygeine standards at those restaurants were pretty strict. I wasn’t married at the time, but had I been, not even the fact that it was my wedding ring would have prevented my managed from objecting to the gold band on my left ring finger. Rings are actually very unsafe things to wear in a kitchen, because they trap all sorts of bacteria. And the danger isn’t just to the customers, but to the cook himself even after he goes home; nothing says “bad Tuesday” like accidentally contaminating one’s breakfast with bacteria from the five chicken pizzas one made during the course of Monday evening.

I love what my ring stands for, and wear it to signify the highest devotion possible to my wife. If I felt that it would be improper of me to take the ring off in order to work in a kitchen, I would turn in my apron and find a different job. Either that, or I would put the ring on a chain and keep it safely tucked inside my shirt while I worked.

The point is, I’d either meet the requirements of my employer, or I’d leave the job behind.

This is not me being hard on modesty; I’m a huge fan of modesty. But this is me being hard on unreasonable standards of modesty that know no flexibility even when the lives of others are potentially at stake. Showing the forearms is not unreasonable by any measure — they’re just forearms, after all — and if the choice has to be made between rolling up one’s sleeves and potentially giving a patient a septic infection, then the choice should be obvious: roll up your damn sleeves. If for some reason you feel you are unable to do this, you are welcome to seek employment in a career that does not require your sleeves to be rolled up.

Just don’t expect that the entire British medical system should roll over for you, and don’t expect that you’ll be given the “right” to potentially endanger the health and lives of patients by becoming a transmission vector for superbugs simply because it is more important, in your mind, that Britain adapt to your barbaric code of law.

Item #5: Husbands in the U.K. with multiple wives will be allowed to claim additional welfare benefits for said additional brides. Even though bigamy is illegal in Britain, as long as the wedding took place in a nation that treats polygamy as legal the additional benefits can and will be granted.

Item #6: speaking of suicide bombers, did you hear the one about the Islamic terrorists who strapped bombs to women with and then remote-detonated them when people stopped to render aid?

Yes, O Reader, that is the sort of vermin that the West is up against. Just in case there wasn’t enough evidence already pointing out what flavour of evil these people are.

And proving that both stupidity and slavish devotion to Darwinism are alive and well among the progressive left:

For the record, assuming it’s true, I think it’s just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down’s women to perpetrate the bombings but I don’t see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that.

The above sort of thinking is another example of why I continue to hammer on atheism as being the gravest threat to human liberty that humanity has ever concocted for itself. Not only is it just disgustingly wrong, but it actually serves to justify, in a weird sort of way, the actions of the jihadists. Oh, I know that he “think[s] it’s just horrible” that these women were used in this way, but all that pretending at disgust fades by the last sentence, which openly praises the ingenuity and adaptation that the terrorists displayed in employing this latest murder tactic. How brilliant of them!

Item #7: that British bishop who warned about “no-go areas” (see link, above) is now under police protection, in fear of his life. How did Britain’s Muslims respond to the claim that Muslim immigrants had created several communities into which it was unsafe for non-Muslims to wander?

Death threats.

Gee, thanks, guys…don’t try and do anything now to dispel the public’s already negative image of you!

As I’ve said before, and will say again now, I really want to have a higher opinion of Islam and of the people who practice that religion. The problem, for me at any rate, is that there are too many examples — from too many different places around the world! — that make it so very difficult to look at Islam, and at the Islamic world, with anything but disgust.

* are we still caught up in this idiocy? It is not, by definition, racist to criticize Islam, because Islam is not a race!

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Kathy Shaidle)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

In the wake of that undersea cable failing (it now appears that two cables were accidentally severed!), Egypt has called on its internet-using citizens to curb the amount of time they spend online, and what content they access when browsing.

Egypt’s Internet situation is in dire straits after two undersea cables in the Mediterranean were accidentally severed yesterday, cutting off much of the country’s access to the outside world. 70 percent of the nation’s Internet has been disconnected, according to Egypt’s Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, with phone calls to Europe and the US also being disrupted. As a result, the ministry has launched an emergency task force to deal with the situation and has asked the general public to avoid downloading more bandwidth-intensive items for now in order to allow businesses priority.

It’s not just Egypt, either; other countries throughout the Middle East also suffered outages, with some being completely disconnected. And both India and Egypt, which run high-volume call centers, have taken a major hit in communications because of the disruption.

“Two of our cables are affected; everyone will go onto a third cable,” ministry spokesperson Mohammed Taymur told the AFP. “But that will not be enough bandwidth. [...] People should know how to use the Internet because people who download music and films are going to affect businesses who have more important things to do.“

You know, in 2006, Egypt was the #3 hotspot in the world from which Google-searches for the keyword “sex” originated. One wonders if this sort of failure would be sufficient to create a noticeable dip in the revenues of the porn industry?

Probably not, unfortunately, but one can always hope.

Tens of millions of internet users across the Middle East and Asia have been left without access to the web after a technical fault cut millions of connections.

The outage, which is being blamed on a fault in a single undersea cable, has severely restricted internet access in countries including India, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and left huge numbers of people struggling to get online.

Observers say that the digital blackout first struck yesterday morning, with the Egypt’s communications ministry suggesting it was caused by a cut in a major internet pipeline linking it to Europe.

The line in question runs under the Mediterranean, from Palermo in Italy to Alexandria in Egypt. It is not clear what caused the break. The cable is one of only a handful of connections, and part of the world’s longest undersea cable, 24,500 miles long, running from Germany, through the Middle East and India before terminating in Australia and Japan.

Oops.

On the plus side, though, I’m willing to bet that incidences of DDOS attacks launched against anti-jihad websites went down a point or two.

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rene Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements�and there will be three more this session — Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world — millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries — continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights — [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad], Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard — they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh�s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this Council couldn�t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: To distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of Rene Casssin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang, Charles Malik, who assembled here in Geneva sixty years ago? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The preceding statement was declared inadmissable by the president of the UN Human Rights Council, Luis Alfonso de Alba. Its author, Hillel Neuer, was warned that any further statements of this nature would not be tolerated.

The UN has become the playgound of third-world dictators and international bullies, interested only in preserving their own grip on power and the condemnation of the one state in the whole of the Middle East that is a functional, stable, Western democracy where the people enjoy rights and freedoms unheard of anywhere else in the Middle East (or in most of Africa).

Dr. Sanity has more details, with video.

From our bulging ‘Oh God how I wish we were making this stuff up‘ file:

Syria’s top Sunni Muslim cleric urged the media Tuesday to use caution when reporting on religion, saying that the choice and timing of a report can cause a war.

“A simple piece of information can spark a war. If a man dies because of information that you have made public, his death will be on your conscience,” Shiekh Ahmed Badreddin Hassun told reporters at the European Parliament.

His remarks came in response to questions about the 2005 crisis when satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad first published in Denmark caused an uproar in the Muslim world, resulting in protests and several deaths.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don’t think the media are the ones who would be causing the war in the Shiekh’s example here; this is not a Wag the Dog situation. Rather, as Kathy Shaidle notes, in the example that the Mufti gives, it is Muslims themselves who are causing conflict and wars, by their seeming willingness in many regions of the world to riot and engage in murder at the slightest provocation. If a man dies because a group of exciteable ‘youths’ decided to riot over a perceived slight published in a foreign newspaper that only has readership in most Middle Eastern nations due to the pervasiveness of the Internet, it’s not the fault of the publishing newspaper that the man is dead — it’s the fault of the mob that kills him.

I’m thinking that Philip Carl Salzman’s article may see its author charged with a hate crime before too long.

Today’s religious map of the Middle East traces to the unification of the Arabian tribes under the banner of Islam in the 7th century, and their subsequent conquest of much of the known world. Muhammad’s genius was in finding a way to unite the myriad of fissiparous, feuding Bedouin tribes of northern Arabia into a cohesive polity. Just as he had provided a constitution of rules under which the people of Medina could live together, so he provided a constitution for all Arabs, but this one had the imprimatur not just of Muhammad, but of God. Submission — Islam — to God and His rules, spelled out in the Koran, bound Arabian tribesmen into the community of believers, the umma.

Building on the tribal system of “balanced opposition” — the subject of yesterday’s essay — Muhammad was able to frame an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. But unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause. This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Arabs, in lightning thrusts, challenged and beat the Byzantines to the north and the Persians to the east, both weakened by their continuous wars with one another, thus imposing their control over the Christian majority in the Levant and the Zoroastrian majority in Persia, and therefore over the entire Middle East. These stunning successes were rapidly followed by conquests of Christian and Jewish populations in Egypt, Libya and North Africa’s Maghreb (Arabic for “the West”), and, in the east, central Asia and the Hindu population of northern India. Not content with these triumphs, Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.

Most accounts of Islamic history, even that of the Lindholm’s esteemed The Islamic Middle East, glide over these conquests, as if they were friendly takeovers. But the truth was very different.

The evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude. While men who willingly converted were spared, their wives and children were taken as slaves. In conquered regions, children were regularly taken from parents, while on the borders — especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa south of the Sahara — raiding for slaves was normal practice. Of the male slaves, a substantial number were made eunuchs by the removal of sex organs, in order to serve in harems. This account of the Arab campaign in northern India illustrates the usual procedures:

“During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 CE), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4,000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3,000 Brahmans. All males of the age of 17 and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. “[Seven hundred] beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.” Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj, which included 75 damsels, the other four-fifths were distributed among soldiers.”

The multitude of reports from Muslim, indigenous and other sources of the Islamic conquests are equally detailed and equally daunting to a modern reader. It is true that throughout history intergroup relations in most of the world were exploitative and repressive, and not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.

The theological foundation of the Arab Empire was the supremacy of Islam and the obligation of each Muslim to advance its domination. The notion of Jihad, in particular, served to establish the Muslim community’s permanent state of war against the dar al-harb until the infidels’ conclusive submission and the absolute world supremacy of Islam.

Yet even as Islamic armies were coming to dominate the known world, fissures emerged within Islam, which would give rise to the bloody internecine battles that continue to this day in Iraq and elsewhere.

Most notably, the relentless oppositions within tribal life have been reflected on a large scale in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad’s death. Their divergent philosophical orientations are based on two tribal principles: Sunnism recognizes leaders based on consent; Shiism recognizes leaders based on descent. The continued anatagonism between the two groups constitutes one of the many ways in which the tribal spirit continues its dominance in the Middle East.

The history of the Middle East, and of Islam, is fascinating, but it is also blood-soaked beyond even the wildest excesses of the Crusades (although it admittedly pales in comparison to the body-counts of the Soviets and the Chinese). But we may yet see a day come in Canada where it is a punishable offence to even mention that fact. Until then, though, I’ve re-posted the length of Salzman’s article here, because it contains in it too much detail to pass up losing once the National Post website cycles it out of the archive.

Blog as newspaper clipping folder.

Police have not used the phrase “honor killing” in talking about the murder of the two Muslim teenage girls in Lewisville, allegedly by their father, [Muslim] Egyptian immigrant Yaser Abdel Said, but there are signs emerging that it might be something like that. Today’s DMN story says:

Police did say they are looking into the possibility that the father was upset with his daughters’ dating activities.

Like, what? Were they dating non-Muslims? Were they behaving in any way that fits the well-established “honor killing” pattern we’ve seen among some Muslim communities in the West?

Channel 11 has a bit more detail in its report:

Sisters, [Amina Said], 18, and [Sarah Said], 17, were each shot to death. Friends of the girls say their father was Egyptian and critical of popular American lifestyles. “”He was really strict about guy relationships and talking to guys, as well as the things she wears,” Kathleen Wong, a friend of the dead teenagers. “I’m definitely 100% sure that it was her dad that killed her.”

Honor killings are present in Middle Eastern Muslim societies, but it seems that the religion is not to blame — that it’s a relic of harshly patri