Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald is amazed at the amazement of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali:
“The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who leads the Church of England’s dialogue with Islam, told The Times: “I’m amazed that the constitution that has been agreed in post-Taleban Afghanistan under the very eyes of the international community should allow this kind of thing to take place — for a person to be arrested for having been converted 14 years ago and to be threatened with execution simply for his beliefs." -- from this articleThis statement was not made by Karen Hughes or Karen Armstrong, that is, not by someone completely ignorant of Islam, in the former case innocently (but dangerously), and in the latter case un-innocently and dangerously.
No. This statement was made by the Bishop of Rochester, in charge of the Church of England's "dialogue with Islam." One would have every right to assume that someone who is deeply conversant with Islam, someone who has made a point of studying every detail relevant to his "dialogue" with his Muslim "brothers," would therefore understand its clear teachings on the correct punishment for apostasy.There are three reasons or justifications for one Muslim killing another (please, don't ask me to list here all the reasons for a Muslim to kill an Infidel -- there isn't space, there isn't time):
1. Adultery (usually, For Women Only)
2. Murder (only of a Muslim, of course)
3. Apostasy
Let's take #3, shall we? Let's approach the Bishop of Rochester, who is in charge of the Church of England's "dialogue" of the deaf and dumb, and ask him what he thinks has traditionally been the punishment for apostasy -- that is, attempting to leave Islam once you are in it, whether you were born into it or recruited into the Army of Islam by those smiling recruiters who do not tell you everything beforehand.What would be his answer? What, in all his years of dialoguing, has he been dialoguing about? What do they do, these people, at these god-damn dialogues? The Christian (or Jewish) sides smile and listen as they are told by the Muslim side what a wonderful religion Islam is, how peaceful and tolerant, and how it is incumbent on the others not to believe their lying eyes, but to listen to what true Muslims say, and listen carefully, buster, because the peace and tranquility of your own societies can be upset at a moment's notice if you don't listen up.
He is amazed. The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali is amazed. And we -- what should we be? We who read of his amazement?
We too should be amazed. We should be amazed because it should be amazing that someone in his position should be amazed at this. He should have a keen understanding of Islam, and should know what the word "Shari'a" means, and should know that if a country has a constitution that says all laws are subject to and cannot contradict the Shari'a, that such a statement has a clear meaning. That meaning may not always and everywhere be enforced -- probably, in this case, given that the Afghanis need the Americans very badly (for all those toys and good things to eat that are being brought from the other side of the Hindu Kush by those Infidels on their choo-choo trains and choo-choo planes), it has not been enforced much lately at all.
But here is the awful thing. Awful, and telling. You, and I, and everyone at this website -- we are not amazed, are we? Ask yourself if you are "amazed" at the "amazement" of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, when he heard that someone who had converted from Islam to Christianity 14 years ago and spent that time helping people, was now to be charged with apostasy and face a possible punishment of death?
No, you were not amazed. Not now. So apparently you know far more about Islam than does the Bishop of Rochester, the man "in charge" of the Church of England's "dialogue" with Islam.
Now, does that "amaze" you?
No. It doesn't.
What amazes you, and what amazes me, and what amazes everyone who has learned something about Islam and has kept his wits about him, is that we find ourselves not amazed at all at the "amazement" of the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.
Yes, we are amazed that we are no longer amazed at his amazement.
We are amazed.
But we do watch our language, and therefore must be Victorians. Which is no doubt why we can fittingly add:
We are amazed. But we are not amused.
What's even more amazing is that Michael Nazir Ali's family are converts from Islam of Pakistani background. Surely they knew the sharia punishment for apostacy?
“The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who leads the Church of England’s dialogue with Islam, told The Times: “I’m amazed that the constitution that has been agreed in post-Taleban Afghanistan under the very eyes of the international community should allow this kind of thing to take place — for a person to be arrested for having been converted 14 years ago and to be threatened with execution simply for his beliefs."
___
The answer is Islam............
Wake up world the war is underway by Islam and you are a target to be conquered, converted or executed.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
The Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. With a last name like that, what kind of dialogue is expected. Nazir-Ali doesn't sound very warm and comfy.
I'm currently reading Bruce Bawer's terrific book, "While Europe Slept" and it is amazing to what lengths the European elites will go to ignore Islam's clearly articulated philosophy. Mr. Bawer skewers the European Leftist elites and their policies in a clear and concise way, he doesn't mince or waste any words. It's clear that if Europeans don't wake up soon, they are going to be Islamic countries in the not to distant future.
Read Mr. Bawer's excellent book and you won't be amazed by the lengths the "good" Bishop and his fellow apologists for Islam are willing to go. You'll go from amazed to utterly disgusted in no time flat.
Yes we are amazed at not being amazed at the complete ignorance of the man in charge of the COE's dialogue with Islam. We are amazed that so many people are not able to see the truth that is before their very eyes and who refuse to accept that proof.
I am also amazed that Bush and Co have not sacked all those people who advised the American Government that Islam is not extreme and is a religion of peace that accepts democracy, it is these people who have the blood of over 2,000 Amercian troops on their hands and the wasting of billions of dollars, I am amzed thatthey can sleep at night unless they have converted to Islam or are Marxists.
I'm less amazed than downright gobsmacked that dozy Prince Charlie knows about apostasy. He tried to get one of those dialogues going with some top British Muslims to get it changed. The late "moderate" Badawi put the kibosh on it by "cautioning the Prince and other non-Muslims against speaking publicly on the issue".
(Bawer)doesn't mince or waste any words
An Oxford comma would make mincemeat out of the meaning there. But yes, you're right - an excellent book.
Dialogue my eye. What ALL Christian churches need is mission to Muslims, not dialogue with them. As for the COE, it's been a leader in selling out for a long time now. The one hopeful thing about Anglicanism is how the Anglicans in the Global South--including many in the front-lines against jihad--are starting to take their northern brethren to task for easy-going apostasy.
Mr. Fitzgerald-
You are a rationalist, but I detect that you are also a man of faith. However, it is amazing to see people treat beliefs as if they are fact.
Skepticism and doubt seem essential to a real faith, though the Almighty seems to reward some saints (Saint Francis, e.g.) with certainty. They (saints like St. Francis) are probably signs to ordinary sinners (myself-LOL), but the ordinary man and woman must be content to live with faith.
Islamists have no faith, only a meta-stability-intolerance, susceptible to collapse, not unlike the Soviet Union.
(BTW, on the subject of the rationality: I read yesterday that the cell phone was invented by Jewish scientists at Israel-Motoroa. I am amazed by that-with an attitude of respect. The Islamist mind does not evoke respect.)
"There are three reasons or justifications for one Muslim killing another"
-- from a posting above
It seems Mr. Sistani would add a fourth bullet. Actually he'd use a whole lotta bricks, or a hole filled with dirt in lieu of an expensive bullet or commensurate bullet hole. Nevertheless, what about:
?
"The one hopeful thing about Anglicanism is how the Anglicans in the Global South--including many in the front-lines against jihad--are starting to take their northern brethren to task for easy-going apostasy."
-- from a posting above
Yes, and it is hard for those Anglicans who are thoroughly tiersmondisants to know what to do when genuine, non-white third-world black or brown members of the Church of England tell them they don't know their Islam -- or for that matter, their Christianity. People like Nigerian bishops, or Patrick Sookhdeo, a convert to Christianity from Pakistan?
What to do? Be loyal to the One True Faith, that is Islam (all good Christian clergymen who have lost their faith in God, and are lukeward about Christianity, instead of simply resigning from the Church, or time in sexual shenanigans, now find their calling in interfaith dialogue with, and steadfast support for, their "Muslim brothers" and Islam), as one might once have done? Or should one, instead, decide that perhaps it is time to listen, and not dismiss, what has been said and written about so passionately by those many clergymen in the C. of E., those Nigerian bishops in Nigeria and England, those black Caribeean preachers, those converts -- like Patrick Sookhdeo -- from Islam to Christianity, who just perhaps know whereof they speak, and should be heeded, or at the very least, listened to by the likes of the predictably limited current Archbishop of Canterbury. Yes, those black and brown Anglicans should receive a hearing from the Church of England. And while we are at it, from those Episcopalian clergy in this country, for that is the name under which the Church of England is known to us, the hard-riding members, strictly FFV (First Families of Virginia), of the Upperville Hunt, and the untouchable Brahmins of the sometimes-scandalous Myopia Hunt Club, and the hard-yachting old salts of Manchester-by-the-Sea.
Yes, you must choose, Anglican and Episcopalian clergymen. Once to Every Man and Nation.
So, how many of you, after giving it thought, still choose to go with Islam, and remain Defenders of That Faith?
I thought so.
The Qur'an says to "punish" homosexuals, but does not specify how (Quran 20-21) but if the men in question "amend" their ways, then they can be left alone.
As for adultery, the Qur'an mentions shutting the adulterer (really, the adulteresses) up in a dwelling -- you know, bricking it up, and leaving them in there to rot. The stoning-to-death variant is in the Hadith.
Why did I, in the article above, listing the three reasons that justify a Muslim killing another Muslim, "Adultery (Usually, for Women Only)"? Well, because when you read all the texts, and look at the commentaries, and look at long-established practice within Islam, it is clear that the woman taken in adultery is going to be punished, but the man is -- well, he's just doing what comes naturally. And besides, he's a man, and men are superior to women in Islam, in every way.
Apologists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, keep telling us that Islam has been wonderful for women, that the arrival of Islam actually improved the lot of women in Arabia (well, even if it did -- and there is much evidence that it didn't -- the continued insistence on observing the rules for the treatment of women that were set down, or believed to have been set down, in seventh-century Arabia is what is limiting, and in many cases crushing many Muslim women today, in Iran, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Pakistan, that is in all the countries where the Shari'a is most closely observed. And the position of women suffrs wherever, even within a country, the Shari'a is taken more seriously, as in twelve northern states of Nigeria today.
Apologists also tell us that Muslim women are deeply appreciative of having the "portable seclusion" of the burqa, the chador, whatever the grim drapery is called (see Leila Abu-Lughod, assistant professoressa at Columbia, for a particularly telling example of such apologetics from a supposed "fighter for women's rights").
A third variety of apologist for the hideous treatment of women in Islam, is the whole "yes-women-are-mistreated-but-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam-it's-just-local-cultural-practices" school, slyly or embarrasedly proferred by all sorts of people, from Shirin Ebadi (lite vrsion) to Leila Ahmed (full-bodied), with smiling Fatima Mernissi coming somewhere in between.
The different attitudes toward adultery, when committed by men as opposed to women, merely reflects a much more basic view of solidarity owed fellow men, and viewing of women as sexual objects who are so dangerous in their come-hitherness that, while they may be exploited sexually without any emotion -- "plow that field any way you wish" -- they are also dangerous to poor innocent men who can so easily be led astray, which is why those women must be so carefully covered up, and if they are not, as Western women are not, then they deserve -- in Sydney and in Manchester, in Malmo and in Marseille -- obviously are asking for, obviously have coming to them.
The other day I delivered a sermon on Verbal Decorum, so I hope you will now forgive me my trespasses as I seldom forgive those who trespass against me, and allow me to summarize the attitude toward men and women, which the texts of Islam inculcate, and which are not by every Muslim, and certainly not by those secular, westernized, thoroughly amusing and delightful people who were born into Islam, and who may still call themselves "cultural Muslims" (meaning: I'm not a Believer at all, but I just have to keep that word in there to please my granny, or my parents, or just to call myself something so I don't get in trouble) but are not really Muslims at all.
And that summarizing line, borrowed indelicately from hip-hop, is this:
"Bros before hos."
Or words to that effect.
When Galileo was brought before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, his tormentors were not unlearned parish priests. No. They were truly Renaissance men, whose erudition would put to shame most modern academicians. They were also fully vested in a political system whose survival required the maintenance of an empirically untenable orthodoxy. In short, Galileo’s antagonists knew with certainty that his heliocentric model was correct, but were nonetheless obliged to attack it and him as the matter of survival.
If Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, and, in this instance, The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali are “amazed” by the unambiguous orthodoxy of Islam, then, we of the West are being lead by unlearned parish priests. Can a peasants’ or children’s crusade, therefore, be far from the West’s current reality?
If on the other hand these gentlemen are cognizant of the cognitive disconnect of their public comments concerning the true intentions of Islam and their private understanding of its antipathy to the West, then, they are protecting their vested interests in the orthodox, pro-Islamic status quo. Should the latter circumstance be the case, then, the owners of this website et al are in the same situation of the unfortunate Galileo.
Therefore, what arcane, untenable orthodoxy are the gentlemen above and their minions attempting to preserve, even at the risk of ridicule, and, why are they so constrained?
"Bros before hos"
A perfect summation of what Islam is all about regarding women. One of the many things that boggles my mind is how rape victims are seen as guilty of the crime commited against them.
Hugh, what a lot of Capital Letters you seem to be using these Days. Were you German in a previous Life? or e e cummings making up for it?
Apparently you can take the Muslim out of taqqiyah, but you can't take the taqqiyah out of the Muslim. Even after conversion to Christianity, the Right Rev. Ali still can't bring himself to inform Dar al Harb about what is in the Qur'an.
Maybe he's got a reason to feign surprise, but I'm amazed at the number of JW posters who are amazed that, heavens to betsy, a Christian is going to be executed for apostasy under shari'a. Who would have thought? Even after all the references in the Qur'an and Sunnah posted here and in Robert's books, I guess the reality hasn't sunk in. As long as we're shocked, it means that we still believe Islam isn't all that bad, sure there are a few extremists here and there, but...
When we are no longer shocked, when we finally absorb the reality of Islam, then the world can begin to respond.
Yes, the Afghans kill each other for leaving Islam, that is what they do, that is what their religion says. We should be focused on making sure that our countries and our people are safe from the scourge of shari'a. We are not. Then we can venture out and start saving the Islamic nations from themselves, if we deem that necessary. But trying to save this poor man's life in Afghanistan WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY increasing the number of, and political power of, followers of Islam in our own country in a display of benevolent interfaith goodwill is psychotic!
... all good Christian clergymen who have lost their faith in God, and are lukeward about Christianity
Not Rowan Williams. He's quite sincere. Read interviews with him in the press and you get used to muddled syntax, and gobbledegook that probably has no paraphrasable sense, and sheer evasion, and you think that is the man. But he can be surprisingly plain-spoken and direct in his devotional writings, and there's genuine belief there aplenty. I've heard of someone coming across him lying spreadeagled on a chapel floor, and I doubt many modern unbelieving clergyman do such things.
He is, however, also something of a product of the left-wing political scene. And although he is undoubtedly sincere in his religious beliefs, I think if he came across a Christian value that clashed with current left-liberal orthodoxy he'd probably convince himself that the former would have to give way to the latter.
He does have many balls to juggle with. The African Christians are a worry to him, because they tend to have a sincere but very literal belief. They also, of course, take a dim view of homosexuality - although I doubt they want to punish people for it as the Islamists do. OTOH, many Episcopalians in the States are looking for homosexuality to be legimated by the Anglican communion. He does his best to please both camps - even at risk of being less than honest about what he thinks about these issues himself.
The recent Guardian interview is revealing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735404,00.html
As I commented in another thread here, it seems he's aware that Islam may be demanding things no one in the West could with a clear conscience accede to and it looks like he's saying he would balk at that and break of his "dialogue". This is in response to a very direct question from Rusbridger, viz.
This, in the end, is what we get out of him:
Hardly a ringing declaration, but I suppose it is something.
The people I could imagine being amazed at this story are the kindhearted folk who attend the interfaith meetings. Imagine if Rebecca's bluescarf league were to pass around photocopies of this article, about a man who may be executed for being a Christian according to the holy laws of Islam, at one of those meetings. What would their reaction be? What sort of questions would they have for the kindhearted Imam who came to speak to them today about the Religion of Peace, care for a piece of falafel Mum?
These interfaith dialogues go on all over the country, all over the world. Isn't the issue of death-for-Christians-Jews-Hindus worth a protest or two? And not a bullhorn-in-somebodys-ear kind of protest, because few of us are comfortable with that, but a quiet-orderly-information-dispensing kind of protest. It's not even protesting, as much as educating. Anyone willing to be an educator? Any of you tough-guys who want to drop the A-bomb here and there, could you drop off a few fliers at the corner church?
allen-
Galileo was relentlessly logical in his arguments and seems to have had a dry sense of humor.
At one point the Inquisitors advised Galileo that the Bible said the moon was a perfect sphere-and asked Galileo if it were not possible that the moon might be covered by an invisible and perfectly smooth crystalline surface, that the moon only appeared to be rough terrain. They asked: might that not be true?
Galileo answered that what the Inquisitors proposed might be true, but that it might also be true that there were invisible mountain ranges rising out of the smooth crystalline surface.
I quit being 'amazed' at the ignorance of Christian leaders about Islam a long time ago.
I am reading Bruce Bawer's book also, about half way through. The degree that dhimmitude has become accepted among the political leaders of Europe, well, I would say it 'amazes' me, but it's more disgust than amazement.
I didn't buy Mr. Bawer's book. I asked my public library to buy it and they did within 2 weeks of my request. At least some of my tax money actually bears fruit I can eat.
Bros before hoes, on their tilth they cultivate.
With regard to the variances in adultery punishment in Islam, the fact that a suave ostensible modernist like Tariq Ramadan can respond to the question, How do you feel about lapidation?, with "respect" for cultural differences and the proposal for a "moratorium" as we culture-bridgebuilders "discuss" the issue, when we who are not amazed all would agree there is absolutely nothing to discuss, reveals the larger problem beneath the variances.
Islam's own sacred texts show Muhammed sentenced people to death for leaving Islam. For example:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
According to the University of Southern California website, "Compendium of Muslim Texts":
...Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah [life] of the Prophet...The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an. Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them.
To Proud Infidel and Interested
I agree, Bruce Bawer's new book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within is superb -- and a very quick and easy read, because so gripping. Remarkably rich in description of the current European situation, as Bawer has experienced it firsthand.
"or e [sic] e [sic] cummings...
-- from a posting by "Interested" of Islington above
You forgot to dot your e's. Nonetheless, you did write the magic word, or one of many, Groucho's duck has descended, the duck descending breaks the air, and for more on the theme of E. E. Cummings at Jihad Watch you may wish to refresh your memory, by reading Blasts From the Past below:
1.
"Mr. Owens has referred very beautifully to E. E. Cummings' old Underwood, thereby picking up the theme adumbrated in a posting under another item (Warnings to Christian Missionaries), which mentions -- not the first time -- the role in spreading the gospel of the Reverend Horace Underwood, Presbyterian missionary and founder of Chosen Christian College, now -- under a different name -- one of South Korea's leading universities.
Perhaps future occasions will permit the appearance of Ben Jonson's "Underwood" or Mandelstam's line "gde-to shchelknul Undervud" ("somewhere a typewriter clickclacked" -- for in Russia in that period, the brand "Underwood" generically stood for "typewriter"), or the actual, tiny, modest Underwood of Venustiano Carranza, that Kerensky of Mexico's first post-revolutionary government, that sits in the museum dedicated to V.C., with all of his artifacts, in sunny Veracruz. An Underwood makes the whole world kin.
E. E. Cummings' own Underwood may well have click-clacked, with or without the CAPS key, in the house he was born in, on the corner of Irving and Scott Streets, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and from which he would have been able to see, from his own upper-floor window, just across Irving, the house of a certain Professor William James, whose "Varieties of Religious Experience" would, I think, have accomodated the belief-system of Islam only with great difficulty.
Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2004 01:24 PM
Hugh, my friend,
This is interesting. I would have thought Mandelstam used a Woodstock, like Alger Hiss.
Cordially,
Robert
Posted by: jihadwatch at July 22, 2004 01:29 PM
Robert--we could both be right.
Mandelstam did not reveal the brand of typewriter he used -- just that in his poem, "somewhere an Undervud (i.e. a typewriter known in Russia by that famous brandname, on the model of xerox for all copiers) clickclacked." I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Mandelstam was, like Alger Hiss (I think his wife Priscilla did the typing), a Russian spy. Russian yes, spy no. It is conceivable, as you suggest, that Mandelstam himself, though he referred to an "Undervud" (Underwood) might have chosen it because the scansion demanded three syllables, and he himself, if the poem was written after 1915, when the first Woodstock went on the market, might have used one. So, as I say, we might both be right. Or all three of us, because Mr. Owens started the associational ball rolling and coming to rest only -- now.
But what if Mr. Owens just plucked "Underwood" out of the air? Cummings was born in 1894; the first Underwood was on the market in 1895; other models followed in 1912 and 1922. It was very popular. The first Woodstock appeared in 1915. By that time Cummings had graduated from Harvard, and would spend only one more year in Cambridge getting his M.A. before becoming an ambulance driver.
If Cummings was typing on that typewriter while looking out the window at the house of his neighbor William James, it would have to have been before 1910, the year William James died. Mr. Owens suggested the Underwood and it is plausible indeed; that company had much of the market, which is why, in distant Russia, it had become generic for "typewriter."
If Mr.Owens had suggested that Cummings should have gotten the Caps key on his "Woodstock" fixed, that might have set another associational train of thought, or at least a determined I-think-I-can-I-think-I-can choo-choo, right out of the roundhouse and onto the mental tracks. Instead of "Underwood" by Ben Jonson, that little train would have recalled another of his works, "Timber, or Discoveries." The "Woodstock" brand could have also evoked Queen Elizabeth I's poem "Written With a Diamond on a Window at Woodstock" and Bob Dylan, with his flight-from-Woodstock concerts on the Isle of Wight, and the Isle of Wight would have led to the vectensian verse of Keats, including the line "A thing of beauty is a joy forever" and the mention of both Keats and Bob Dylan would lead have evoked Christopher Ricks (who at times uses the "too-clever-by-half" method of criticism that is being imitated, just for fun, in this note), and then the part played by the Isle of Wight in the famous decapitation of Charls I, in January 1649 would come up, and then...
Well, don't blame me. Blame Mr. Owens. He started it.
In any case, one hopes that what began all this, the perfect reworking, through rewording, of e.e. cummings by Mrs. Obelix into a poem that appositely expresses the crazy will-to-not-believe of many, will be printed out by jihadwath visitors, for handy distribution to all those who continue to deny that for which the evidence is far more overwhelming, even, than the evidence supplied by those Pumpkin Papers, typed by Priscilla Hiss in 1938, on that Underw --- ooops, I mean Woodstock.
Posted by: Hugh at July 22, 2004 03:52 PM
2. "These "blue-eyed" murderers put one in mind of the famous final lines in E. E. Cummings's poem about Buffalo Bill:
how do you like
your blue-eyed boy
mr death?
The other day allusion was made at Jihadwatch to Buffalo Bill's grandson, once a Cold Warrior and operative out of Paris and points east.
Some may recall the previous mention of E. E. Cummings at Jihadwatch, in which reference was made to him as a boy gazing from his window across the road at the house inhabited by William James (until 1910, when E. E. Cummings was eleven, and James died). The context was a lively discussion of that often proper noun "Underwood," as in typewriters, Mandelshtam, Ben Jonson and Drummond of Hawthornden, and things like that. Disparates yoked together, as when you throw rotten eggs at candidates from both parties because none of them seem able to discuss or even to think about that often improper noun, Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2005 12:30 PM."
There may be more entries on the same theme; I can't remember.
I prefer to spell the poet and ambulance driver's name as E. E. Cummings. I would not dare to capitalize his poems however. If in his poetry he wished to do anything, commit any sort of outrage against the gods of Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation, that may have artistic justification.
Cummings's decision to spell his name completely in lower-case was simply attention-getting stuff, marketing or public-relations avant la lettre (et avec les lettres) at a time when Edward Bernays, a later resident of Cambridge (with a descendant living quite nearby to Cummings's childhood house), was if not still in knickerbockers, then at least still in Europe.
Duck rising now back into the ceiling. Upside-down deus, ex-machina, safely in-machina again.
or e [sic[sic]] e [sic[sic]] cummings...
We don't dot things as much in Islington, or in the UK generally, as you do "Over There" [sic?].
At work our publishing house style, for example, forbids it, along with dots after "etc", etc. We don't usually put dots in abbreviations such as Mr, UK, or USA, although this is not a hard and fast rule. And it is my belief that Americans over-hyphenate.
But what we lose on the dots, we gain on the "u"s and prepositions, which you lot omit with gay abandon.
And what is "lukeward" Christianity? Matthew, Mark and John not good enough?
Yours
Still in Islington and still In the Right.
"what arcane, untenable orthodoxy are the gentlemen above and their minions attempting to preserve..." -allen
Perhaps this:
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, for evil is a figment of imperfect man's imagination... Born from a nicely shortened easy to remember condensation of the Muslim Shihada: "No God there is..." and there is stops. No God. No good. No evil. Just relativities swirling and whirling in this heliocentric solar system which spins on infinitely and forever, amen...
or
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, for if evil is acknowledged, then we'll have to do something about it...
Did anyone see C-Span yesterday? It featured a horrifying exhibition put on by George Washington U lovingly entitled: "Guantanamo Bay Dentention Policy". It was put on by the George Washington University Law School, and featured former British Gitmo detainees, their attorneys, and a fawning faction of fatuous fans.
We were treated to stern lectures (this part was hard to watch) by the "Civil Rights" attorneys hired by these X-detainees. They instructed us about the enormities and the calumnies perpetrated by the evil US "Regime", the one bent on human slavery and world conquest... You know the rant. We were then treated (and this part was extremely hard to watch) to lengthy comments by the detainees themselves, perched in London, at a fancy law office -- all smiling, drinking copious amounts of orange juice, and spewing copious amounts of Muslim drivel and dissumulation. We we told about their heinous treatment, about their unjust detention -- all were in Afghanistan at the outbreak of war -- yet, to a man, not one had done anything wrong. (Never mind they didn't explain why they were in Afghanistan in the first place, and the zenith/nadir of the Taliban "Regime" -- that question seemed strictly non-topical - not even worthy of being asked...) It was revolting to hear them slander the US, slander the West, smugly explain how Islam is being attacked by Western bigots. They chuckled. They laughed. A good time was had by all.
But the hardest part to watch was the Q&A where the fawing fans got to gush their questions at their X-detainees. Herein lays the link that relates this tale to the topic of this thread:
Several of the audience came from what I believe was a Christian outreach and possibly an Anglican outreach group... Their comments were jaw dropping.
One man, who refused to ask a question, effusively took the opportunity to explain how deplorable Western actions have been. How Muslims are simply reacting to the horrors and the abuse they've been subjected to through years of Western and Christian abuse. How none of the terrorism in the world would be happening if it wasn't for the evil West, and the evil Christians. How the Muslims were blameless. How Westerners of good faith have failed to stand up and show their Muslim "brothers and sisters" and "solidarity" or love, and how the Muslims have always only wanted to do this and have this with the West. How apologies were owed by every Westerner to every Muslim. How "REPARATIONS" must be paid immediately along with those abject apologies -- how, if we only followed all of this, if we only agreed with all of this, if we only apologized and then paid for our transgressions and then left the Muslims alone - then everything would be OK. Several in the audience clapped. The Muslims on their short circuit TV link -- even they looked embarrassed by the outpouring. I myself was nauseated.
"publishing house style..."
--- from a posting by I from I, with a hint of I for an I, above
Many are forced to endure the homogenizing house style, or homogenizing house styles. It maddens. But even if, at your place of work, you must endure the affliction, when you are posting outside of work, or at work, but not at work, can't you do what you please, and ignore the guards and the warden, and put those periods, commas, dashes in, or take them out, as you see fit, and not as this house style which sounds like levelliing, "Basic English" stuff, to me? What's next -- making spelling easy by regularizing it? Besides, the people who compose these house-style things don't know what they are doing. The rules they impose are almost always in the direction of Simplifikashun, and they deserve -- you know what. Was someone watching to see how you would handle "E. E. Cummings," to make sure you would write "e e cummings"? Or have you decided to accommodate yourself to that "hous-stile" or even quite like it, or at least you see the point of it, or something?
American newspapers are dull for many reasons. One is that House Style. Another is the careful excising of puns, allusions, liveliness in prose, anything idiosyncratic that might, for example, draw attention to the writer and his personality, when it is Dragnet's "Just-the-Facts-Ma'm" all the way, except for the few, ill-educated columnists such as Friedman. And most of them are all predictable in their postures, and posturings. Compare what is still allowed in, for example, the Italian press.
Editors and writers of the world, unite! Stop the forced homogenization. Rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation -- yes. But at a certain point, no. You have the right to remain different. Anything you say will not be held against you.
Rise up. You have nothing to lose but your chains -- your "house-style," hostile-to-humanity, chains.
Our house style is simply best practice, aiming at consistency. It is a convention, but not one I feel constrained by at all. It concerns mechanical, mundane matters like hyphens (which is a grey area, not a gray area), spacing, layout, and so on but not content. If house style is fixed with respect to dull things, it frees the mind for more interesting things. Constraints can be liberating.
The business with the dots is simply a difference between British and American English. Which means you are wrong, because we started it.
A sterling measure, I think, of the right balance between reverently scrupulous orthography and witty insouciance is found in the writings of the theater, film and literary critic John Simon.
Human Rights and Islam
As defined in the Human rights Charter
Article 18 " Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance ".
Islams version:-
Quite clearly under Islam, one does not have the right to change one's religion, if one is born into a Muslim family. Applying double standards, Muslims are quite happy to accept converts to their religion, but a Muslim may not convert to another religion, this would be apostasy which is punishable by death. Here is how the great commentator Baydawi (c.1291) sees the matter:
" Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard ".
Islams reaction to Article 18:
It is clear that Islamic militants are quite aware of the incompatibility of Islam and The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. For these militants met in Paris in 1981 to draw up an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which left out all freedoms that contradicted Islamic law.
The really bad news:
Even more worrying is the fact that under pressure from Muslim countries in November 1981, the United Nations Declaration on the elimination of religious discrimination was revised, and references to the right "to adopt "(Article 18, above) and, therefore to " change " one's religion were deleted, and only the right " to have " a religion was retained [FI Spring 1984 p 22].
Apparently we allowed this change to be made under pressure. It is appaling that this slipped by the leaders in the West.
Peter
Has anyone done a point-by-point comparison of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights of 1990 and the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948? (Secondarily: has the UN Declaration of 1948 been revised or updated since 1948?)
In the meantime, here's something I stumbled upon on Google, from a pro-Islam website:
"When one were to compare between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam 1990, three things deserve to be borne in mind. First is that the different perspectives are used in perceiving the human rights notion in each of these declarations. The UDHR is very much colored by the concept of natural law from the Greek philosophy, while the Cairo Declaration is based on the Islamic concept and Islamic worldview. In the former, man-made law is the source, while in the latter it is divine law that serves as the source of human rights.
"Secondly, the UDHR presumes inherent human right due to the birth per se, the Cairo Declaration, on the other hand, affirms the inherent human rights in a person for his status as God’s vicegerent in this world. Thus, the recognition of human rights in Islam is not for the sake of right only, but further the rights are granted in order for human to serve Almighty Allah. The concluding articles in both declarations confirm this proposition. Article 30 of the UDHR stipulates that ‘nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any sate, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any rights and freedoms set forth herein’. Here the preemption is made in regard with the frustration of those very rights and freedoms solely and ultimately. In the Article 25 Cairo Declaration an ultimate submission is made I reference to the divine law when it stipulates that ‘the Islamic shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration’.
"Observing each and every rights stipulated in both declarations, it is found that almost every essential rights are shared, even though they must be seen with their different perspectives respectively. However, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association which is in art. 20 of UDHR, is not embodied in Cairo Declaration. And conversely, the specific exclusion of usury (riba) in the Cairo Declaration does not have place in the UDHR.
"Last but not least to be touched in this paper, is how these declarations are equipped by instrument to ensure the implementation of the rights and to measure any future violations. As we know, the UDHR is a UN-governed covenant and falls in the domain of the international law. In one way or another, the UN can do many things to uphold any enforcement, and to act against violations. The Cairo Declaration, on the other hand, is poor in term of enforcement body. In this sense it is far less practical than the UDHR. That is why the Cairo Declaration will remain more as the general guidelines for Muslim countries without any binding force.
"...It is obviously shown that the Islamic concept of human rights are more genuine and closer to the truth of human rights, that is due to the fact that Islam perceives human rights more as a tool towards most ultimate objective of human life, i.e. to serve Almighty Allah’s will."
http://islamic-world.net/islamic-state/right_survey.htm
If one had to choose between a human rights code made up by mere mortals, and a human rights code written by God Himself -- well, who in their right mind would choose the former?
former British Gitmo detainees, their attorneys, and a fawning faction of fatuous fans
These wet-behind-the-ear losers were lauded on UK TV as national heroes. There was no mention of their visiting an Afghan mosque that was a known centre of mujahedeen activity. Or that their local imam in Tipton was the convicted hate-preacher Mohummed al-Faisal. They were portrayed as earnest aid workers, equivalent to those they would probably have kidnapped themselves if US forces hadn't detained them (or rather rescued them from their own stupidity).
They were also interviewed by MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala in a good-cop / bad-cop playoff, though what came over was slow vs fast Jihad. IMO they should've been debriefed then decommisioned straight away. Out of sight out of mind. Instead, they're STILL enemy non-combatants, they've had fifteen minutes more than they deserve and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Allen: is it possible in this day and age to repeat the smelly old lies of nineteenth-century atheists, not only without any notion that there is any alternative view, but with the attitude of someone who brings something new and profound to the debate? You evidently have no idea whatever of seventeenth century culture, nor of what happened to Galileo (he certainly was not tortured as you imply), nor of what he was condemned for, and told to do. As for your statement that the Church deliberately teaches what it knows to be wrong, it is beneath me to answer it. Remain in your vainglorious ignorance, sir. Unfortunately freedom of speech does not seem to imply a corresponding duty for anyone who opens their mouth to know what on God's green earth they are talking about. But at least it allows me to call you an arrogant, insufferable, and pathetically stupid dolt. Do not bother answering, sir; having said what I think of you, nobody will be surprised that I have no intention to ever have anything further to do with you.
To everyone else: Nazir-Ali's personal ambition is the most important feature here, and it is one thing that does not seem to have been noticed in the debate so far. He is notoriously one of the most ambitious, upwardly mobile, deliberately self-publicizing clerics in the CofE, and it is my belief that he has a secret compartment in his wardrobe for the Archbishop of Canterbury robes he has already purchased and worn in private. As such, he has of course adopted every belief that would help his rise, never taken a publicly unpopular position, and been relentlessly PC. Whatever his family may have known about Islam, he surely studied to unlearn, because in order to rise in his chosen profession he had to be nice to everyone, and especially to the PC elites that rule the CofE. I know a man who once was on a board of some kind, I think something to do with education, with a selection of CofE bishops; and he told me how astonished he was, as he got to know his fellow board members and talk developed, to realize that not a single one of the Anglican bishops in their dog-collars and garters was speaking as if Christianity were true! They all seemed to argue from the position that belief in the Gospel is for illiterate inferiors to be treated with pity. My friend is an agnostic of distant Jewish descent, but he did not find this particularly honourable.
Having neither the talent nor wit of a J. Swift, M. Twain, or M. Steyn, I scrupulously avoid implication in explication. Fortunately, as a native English speaker, I have at my disposal an unsurpassed tool kit, permitting blatant concision. I did not use “torture” to describe Galileo’s suffering because, I suspect, that would suggest a physicality absent from his plight. However, the use of “torment” was completely apropos if that is understood to mean etymologically to “disturb” or “frighten”. Faced with threats of the use of the instruments of interrogation sanctioned by Church; no doubt pained by the prospect of the humiliation of auto de fe; forced to publicly illegitimize his intellectual progeny; and suffering years of close house arrest, would by any reasonable standard constitute torment.
As to nineteenth century atheism, without citation or example, I would not know where to begin. Suffice to say, in the Greco-Roman sense and, thereby, that of the First Council of Nicea, I would stand convicted of atheism; to be sure, I am not a polytheist. And for good measure, the children of B. Spinoza would likewise find me wanting; I am not a pantheist. No, I am just a simple man striving, imperfectly, for Tikkun Olam, recognizing that ad hominem is the refuge of a frightened and very often fanatical critic.
Having said all this, I still must ask whether Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush, and the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali are “amazed” because they are unlearned parish priests or the cynical cardinal inquisitors of Galileo.
Having neither the talent nor wit of a J. Swift, M. Twain, or M. Steyn, I scrupulously avoid implication in explication. Fortunately, as a native English speaker, I have at my disposal an unsurpassed tool kit, permitting blatant concision. I did not use “torture” to describe Galileo’s suffering because, I suspect, that would suggest a physicality absent from his plight. However, the use of “torment” was completely apropos if that is understood to mean etymologically to “disturb” or “frighten”. Faced with threats of the use of the instruments of interrogation sanctioned by Church; no doubt pained by the prospect of the humiliation of auto de fe; forced to publicly illegitimize his intellectual progeny; and suffering years of close house arrest, would by any reasonable standard constitute torment.
As to nineteenth century atheism, without citation or example, I would not know where to begin. Suffice to say, in the Greco-Roman sense and, thereby, that of the First Council of Nicea, I would stand convicted of atheism; to be sure, I am not a polytheist. And for good measure, the children of B. Spinoza would likewise find me wanting; I am not a pantheist. No, I am just a simple man striving, imperfectly, for Tikkun Olam, recognizing that ad hominem is the refuge of a frightened and very often fanatical critic.
Having said all this, I still must ask whether Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush, and the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali are “amazed” because they are unlearned parish priests or the cynical cardinal inquisitors of Galileo.
Draft twice submitted by accident.
For those confused by my recent submission, may I please elaborate?
Having neither the talent nor wit of a J. Swift, M. Twain, or M. Steyn, I scrupulously avoid implication in explication. Fortunately, as a native English speaker, I have at my disposal an unsurpassed tool kit, permitting blatant concision. I did not use “torture” to describe Galileo’s inquisition because, I suspected, that would have suggested a physicality absent from his ordeal. However, the use of “tormentor” was completely apropos if that is understood to mean etymologically those who “disturb” or “frighten”. Faced with the inherent threat of the use of the instruments of interrogation sanctioned by Church; no doubt, pained by the prospect of the humiliation of auto de fe and the potential of subsequent summary execution; forced to publicly delegitimize his intellectual progeny; and suffering years of close house arrest, would by any reasonable standard constitute torment.
One writer speaks of nineteenth century atheism, presumably accusing me of same. Without specific citation or example, I would not know where to begin rebuttal. Suffice to say, in the Greco-Roman sense and, thereby, that of the First Council of Nicea, I would stand convicted of atheism; to be sure, I am not an overt or conveniently covert polytheist. And for good measure, the children of B. Spinoza would likewise find me wanting; I am not a pantheist.
Recognizing that ad homenim is often the sole refuge of a frightened and frequently hysterically fanatical critic, I am willing to take the risk by asking, again, whether Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush, and the Right Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali are “amazed” because they are benighted unlearned parish priests or the cynical cardinal inquisitors of Galileo.
as for a comparison of the Universal Declaration of HR and the Islamic declaration of same.
David Littman published one I believe in Midstream magazine or Middle East Quarterly about 5, 6 or 7 years ago. Carlo Panella did a comparison and gave a discussion of the background of the Islamic "DHR" in his recent book, Il Complotto Ebraico [2005].
Galileo's punishment, I believe, was merely to live out his days under house arrest in a nice Italian villa where he could still potter around at his leisure and pursue his interests. Giordano Bruno's was a little hotter under the collar.
Thanks Eliyahu; that Carlo Panella book looks interesting. The brief descriptions of it and quotes from it I found remind me of another Gnostic feature of Islam: the belief that the Jews are the inheritors of the twisted teachings of the evil Demiurge (according to classical Gnostics, Yahweh) and that their religion has tried to hoodwink people into worshipping the false God (the demiurge), as opposed to the true God known only to the Gnostics, who by some divine manner have been privileged to have the esoteric truth -- that the World has been taken captive by dark forces (including Jews) -- communicated to them.
What makes Islam a sui generis ancient Gnosticism (if that term indeed accurately applies to them) is its blatant and comprehensive militarization and politicization of its esoteric Gnosis about the cosmos and the eschaton of the cosmos.
Later variants of Gnosticism -- the "modern Gnosticism" of the Nazis and Communism -- of course militarized and politicized their esoteric Gnosis to the max; but their variant differs significantly from the Islamic variant by their radical immanentization of all elements of transcendence. What's interesting about Islam is that it retains, theologically, mythologically and eschatologically not only transcendence, but a radical transcendence, even as it immanentizes (through massive, concrete militarization and politicization) key elements of classical transcendence: namely, the tension of existence, the mystery of evil, and the movement of the soul towards its eschaton.
And it is my belief that Americans over-hyphenate.
Posted by: Interested at March 21, 2006 03:58 PM
___
My wife says the same thing, but I refuse to quit totally.
The Texican.