Human butchers mass murder in Jerusalem yeshiva

Just disgusting. Israeli Arab terrorists killed at least eight yeshiva boys today.

I have no words. This is an Israeli Arab group, supposedly 'so well integrated' into society,' who are doing the butchering, and in this case they purposely attacked a school - with teenage boys. The brutality and inhumanity is disgusting and beyond words.

What is most shocking is that somehow, despite the fact that this attack happened, 'peace talks' will go on, as if somehow there is a culture for 'peace,' or anything other than a desire for PIECES of Jews.

Tragic.

UPDATE:

If you have time, please say the following:

PSALM 130: A song of ascents. From the depths I called you Ado-nay. My Lord, hear my voice, may Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas. If you preserve iniquities, O' God, my Lord, who could survive? For with you is forgiveness, that you may be feared. I put confidence in Ado-nay, my soul put confidence, and I hoped for his word. I yearn for my Lord, among those longing for the dawn, those longing for the dawn. Let Israel hope for Ado-nay, for with Ado-nay is kindness, and with Him is abundant redemption. And He shall redeem Israel for all its iniquities.

PRAYER FOR THE ILL: He who blessed our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'acov, Moshe, Aharon, David and Shlomo, may He bless and heal those injured today in the terrorist attack at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav. Because I (insert your name) will, without taking a vow, contribute charity on their behalf. In reward for this may the Holy One blessed be He be filled with compassion for them to restore their health, to heal them, to strengthen , to revivify them. And may He send them speedily a complete recovery from heaven among the other sick people of Israel, a recovery of the body, a recovery of the spirit, swiftly and soon and let us all respond Amen.

Overheard on the subway...

I was on the subway this morning, when I overheard a very telling comment. It is the very picture of 'liberal fascism.'

I cannot believe the Republicans are even running a candidate in this election. They should be taken out and shot for how they have ruined this country.

That is an exact quote I overheard. This person think she is the height of morality and superiority, in comparison to ChimpyMcHalliburton.

Illiberal liberalism at its 'finest.'

The Peaceful Realisation of The Palestinian Right of Self-determination

I found this link worth reading:

For nearly four decades, he expressed and symbolised in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Now that he is gone, both Israelis and Palestinians, and the friends of both peoples throughout the world, must make even greater efforts to bring about the peaceful realisation of the Palestinian right of self-determination.

It looks like sort of new Gandhi to me...

Whatever, world leaders thoughts are alredy registered. My own comments will be too harsh if i publish them. Yet I wanna know, what do you think?

Jerusalem Our Capital

Via Carl in Jsrusalem:

In response to the murder of fifteen innocent civilians by a suicide bomber at Sbarro's Pizza in Jerusalem earlier that day, on August 9, 2001, Israeli security forces shut down Orient House (pictured at top left), a building just over the 'green line' in 'east' Jerusalem that the 'Palestinians' had made into a quasi government headquarters in violation of the Oslo Accords they had signed with the Rabin government in 1993 and 1995.

In August of this past year, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen appointed former director of the Islamic Wakf Adnan Husseini as his 'adviser on Jerusalem affairs.' The Wakf is the organization that controls anything the Muslims call a holy site, and that currently controls the Temple Mount; the organization is responsible for multiple, daily violations of Israel's Antiquities Law on the Temple Mount. Husseini is also a cousin of the late Faisal Husseini, who held the position under Yasser Arafat. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post shortly after his appointment, Husseini placed a priority on reopening Orient House.

My only question is: Why isn't Israel making Jerusalem its true capital?

How Rachel Corrie Really Died

Hat Tip: Carl in Jerusalem, How Rachel Corrie Really Died.

Please see the videos below, and Carl's commentry above.

[ Video Source ]

[ Video Source ]

[ Video Source ]

Also see: The Strange Case of Joseph Smith

Will Hillary Defeat Obama?

BlackTigrrrr thinks so, and I feel the same way.

The people who hate her [Clinton] have maxed out. If anything, she might win over a small amount of them. Those who love her will fight to the death for her. People have gone to jail for this woman. They have died for her. They will do anything for her. That means anything.

Anything means destroying a man [Obama] who is an image, but largely undefined.

[ Full Article ]

“Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

A worthwile read:

How can there be something “new” about something as old as anti- Semitism? Hostility to Jews—because of their religious beliefs, their social or ethnic distinctiveness, or their imputed “racial” differences— has been around for a long time. But, as this erudite essay by Professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University demonstrates, hostility to Jews has morphed into hostility toward a Jewish state, and that hatred has acquired the ability to leap across national, linguistic, and religious boundaries.

[ Download, Mirror ]

Redesign

[ Updated: 14th Feb ]

Hi all!

Any feedback/thoughts with regards to the template so far?

Here is the current off-my-head-to-do-list:

1. Themes
   • So far I have not created any themes, just a print-view and 2 font sizes. I could, however, completely alter the appearance of the site. Do you have any colour schemes or theme ideas?
   • I was told by someone that the website is hideous, and I need more colour!
2. Usability Issues
   • Add "more posts" or "previous posts" to the bottom of main/archive.
   • Fix the problem where post elements (such as videos) jump to the bottom of the column when they are too wide for the post area (IE Only).
   • There are no defined accesskeys.
   • I need to include a list of all the tags used in posts in the right-hand-column.
   • Intense Debate has a few glitches every now and again which need to be fixed or taken into account. (Note: The Intense Debate staff absolutely rock! I have complete confidence that these things glitches will be fixed.)
   • List how many comments have been posted prior to viewing the itempage.
   • Date headers (for all but the first date).
3. Javascript
   • Have some sort of warning to let people know when JS is disabled and that C4A would operate better with JS.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. Constructive criticism is always good - so please be brutally honest.

Steven

RSS Reader

What is RSS?

ProBlogger answers:

RSS is a technology that is being used by millions of web users around the world to keep track of their favorite websites.

In the ‘old days’ of the web to keep track of updates on a website you had to ‘bookmark’ websites in your browser and manually return to them on a regular basis to see what had been added.

I am currently trying to maintain a public RSS Reader with collects updates from various sources all over the web.  I have organised the public reader into 3 levels of priority as follows:

Level 3: Master Feed
This is where all the stories appear as soon as they arrive.  Anything could appear here, even stories that I don't support.  [Link]

Level 2: Selected Stories
When I am browsing the internet and I see a story I want to share, or if I read a story from the Master Feed that I want to share, I add it to this list.  [Link]

Level 1: Starred
When I feel a story is a must-read, it will appear in the "Starred" list.  [Link]

Meaningless Words

How can anyone debate anything in this age when we don't even agree on the definitions of words?

What does it mean to want "Peace"?

What is "Terrorism"?

What is "Barbarism"?

What does it mean to be "Liberal"?

What qualifies as "Torture"?

What does "Palestinian" really mean?

How can we have conversations about so many issues when we often don't agree with the definition of simple words?

The Culture for All Dictonary

I want to regain control of the meaning behind the words I use.

From now on, when anyone has any doubt about a word that I have used, I am going to write a definition on Culture for All and label it with the "Definition" tag.

This dictionary is not authorative, but it will serve its purpose.

Global Warming

I am no expert, however I can identify propaganda and find people who refute it.

I can also weigh up the options... to see what choices are avaliable to us.

Video 1: Propaganda

Video 2: Refutations

Video 3: Choices

Also take note that:

• Alternative renewable energy will help reduce or eliminate our dependency on oil-exporting countries
• Oil reserves are finite, so eventually we will be forced to use renewable energy no matter what.
• Natural renewable energy will not pollute our environment.

Make your choice.

Wrong. Just Wrong!

When I read the following story... I immediately looked towards the chocolate cake picture and felt cravings.

Mmmm. Chocolate cake!

But then I read the headline.

Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Two shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake - which had been sprinkled with human faeces.

A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn't taste or smell "quite right" and handed the cake to public health scientists.

The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.

Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.

This, is utterly revolting.

I know I don't need to explain that, but - saying it helps!

Yuck.

Yuck. Yuck. Yuck.

"Subsequent examination by the public analyst and national public health service laboratories confirmed the presence of faecal matter.

"There were bits of it all over the top of the cake.

"We cannot say for definite what kind of faecal matter it is, although it is very likely it was human. It would have to go through a DNA test for us to know for absolutely sure."

When I said I would have liked a strong Chocolate industry in my ideal society, this is not what I meant!

The case has taken 18 months to come to court and the pair have both left the Pizzeria.

Shams Mehrabi, who took over the Italiano Pizzeria in March, condemned the actions of the two men. He now has hygiene certificates on the wall and said: "I have the highest standards.

"This is a completely different business now. We have a lot of happy customers - we won't be selling chocolate cake."

Thank goodness, a happy ending!

The moral of the story: Be careful when you eat out!

[ Update: Beware of the Chocolate Conspiracy! ]

[ UPDATE (Red Tulips): I just wanted to inform you that not only is there a chocolate conspiracy...there is a VAST NETWORK of a chocolate conspiracy! Be afraid! There is a plot for worldwide chocolate domination! ]

[ POST-SCRIPT UPDATE: (Red Tulips): FYI, Steven actually prefers white chocolate to dark chocolate! White chocolate is not even really chocolate! Culture for All readers, I declare it is our duty as citizens of the world to show him the error of his ways. He has blasphemed the chocolate faith, dammit! Attica! Attica! ]

[ Update (Steven): Leave the dark side! Its tastes bitter! ;-) ]

Scalia Defends Ticking-Time-Bomb 'Torture'

Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court recently echoed Alan Dershowitz's 'ticking time bomb' idea on torture. His words are below:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that aggressive interrogation could be appropriate to learn where a bomb was hidden shortly before it was set to explode or to discover the plans or whereabouts of a terrorist group.

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia told British Broadcasting Radio Corp.

Scalia said that determining when physical coercion could come into play was a difficult question. "How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be? I don't think these are easy questions at all, in either direction," he told the BBC's "Law in Action" program.

[ Source ]

I have had this discussion with many law colleagues of mine. I asked them the following...

Assume, for the sake of argument, that torture works. Let us just assume this - because in fact it has been proven to work in certain instances. If there is a ticking time bomb that could kill thousands of people, would you be willing to torture someone to find/diffuse the bomb? What if your sister, your mother, your niece, the love of your life...is under imminent threat to be raped/maimed/beheaded? Would you advocate a form of torture in order to save them?

My friend said no. He said that - literally even if a million people were to die - he still would not torture anyone. That is what he told me. I think that is not only absurd, it is unrighteous. Then, when pressed, he said that was because he really did not believe torture worked. But with his back against the wall, he said he would torture someone to save his family, to save humanity, BUT, he thinks that he should be punished afterwards for doing so.

So I ask this to the John McCains of the world, knowing that waterboarding was used to get vital information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...

Why is it righteous to let a million people die, just so...what? For what? For a 'principle'? What sort of principle? Why is it inherently evil to torture, for any reason whatsoever, even to save a life?

I will put it this way. We believe murder is wrong. But killing in self defense is not wrong. So why is "self defensive" torture - not for revenge, but rather to glean information to save lives, inherently wrong? And what is torture, exactly? Is waterboarding torture? You can recover from waterboarding. Wouldn't REAL torture mean harming someone to the point that they are harmed for life? (such as, to be graphic, hacking off limbs) Why is it so inherently true that waterboarding is torture?

I believe we have a duty to treat prisoners humanely. But why do we have a duty to treat prisoners who have information vital to saving lives SO HUMANELY, that it puts American lives at risk? Why? Under what theory, exactly?

As an aside, I wrote of this subject on Culture for All a while back, and I still agree with what I wrote back then.

[ UPDATE FOR CLARIFICATION ]

I just want to say that I do not think REAL torture is ever justified, but the CURRENT definition of torture DOES find justifications, in my opinion. (under the 'ticking time bomb aegis) I view REAL torture as inflicting permanent injury to a person. (the hacking off limbs scenario) I am simply not convinced that it EVER is necessary - from a security perspective, or getting information perspective - to engage in such barbaric tactics to save lives. And even if it were...where does the slippery slope end of the 'ends justifying the means'?

What is the Target?

In the past few weeks I have argued that people must stop labeling Islam as evil, and to just focus on the issues at hand. This meant, I said, talking directly about Sharia and preventing its spread.

Clearly Sharia (and other Fascist Islamic Supremacist tools) are linked to Islam, however I believe that I can separate the two. Furthermore, I believe that by separating the foundations and constructs of Islam from the broad label "Islam" it will A) protect Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia on us and B) be more effective at combating the spread Islamism.

I will explain further by quoting from a couple of conversations I have had in the last week.

You [Aka. Me!] claim saying 'anti-Shariaization' is better than saying 'anti-Islamization'.

Why is it better?

Robert Spencer would probably say that you cannot be a devout Muslim and NOT want Sharia to rule over everyone.

If the foundations [Sharia law etc.] are the same as the building itself [Islam]... maybe there is no difference.

I replied as follows:

I may agree with Robert Spencer there - but I don't need to discuss Islam.

Specifically fighting Sharia law will affect Islam, but it will not harm any Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia law on our societies.

It's the difference between being against Judaism, or being against Halacha.

If someone was anti-Judaism you would be defensive.

If they were anti-Halacha, you could more easily shrug your shoulders.

I think we should fight Sharia on the specifics of what the law actually represents. Muslims can debate the theology themselves.

I believe this would be vastly more successful than the anti-Islam positions that most anti-Sharia groups are propagating.

On a previous occasion I also wrote:

I am sure most people in the UK who are not Muslim, would not take kindly to an organisation that suggests all Muslims are Islamists, unless they are afraid of leaving Islam. If I went around and said Islam is evil to the core and there are either Islamists and Muslims who want to leave Islam - I would look foolish. Muslims are everywhere here. I know Muslims who are not Islamists and don't wish to leave Islam... this simple bit of personal knowledge would be enough to completely discredit the entire anti-Sharia organisation... which is currently not doing buch more than creating climate of suspicion and fear of all Muslims.

Maybe not all these Muslims are "real" Muslims... I don't know - but even if they are not I don't really care. What I do know is that they think they are Muslim and their identities are linked to Islam... yet they are good decent people. Saying that Islam is evil doesn't get us anywhere. It is up to the theologians to discuss religious tenants - and up to the individuals to make up their own individual minds as to whether or not Islam is for them or not.

If we fight Sharia it will force Muslims to discuss Islam... but discussing Islam is their job, not ours.

I do not want to allow the establishment of a state within a state... it will not have positive ends. I think we should make efforts to fight Islamic supremisism, and that includes fighting against the establishment of Islamic law in our societies.

I am open to criticism... please share your views with me. Thanks.

Your Values

I have been speaking to Red Tulips about what values are important for me in society. I came up with this basic list of values:

• Secular law.
• Freedom of expression.
• Freedom of religion.
  • *Any* religion - because religion is a personal matter, not state business.
  • Religious practices that breach secular law will be deemed illegal.
  • A state can have an official religion if it likes, so long as everyone has freedom of religion.
• A representative and accountable government.
• A strong chocolate industry. ;-)
• Standing behind these values and not subscribing to cultural and/or moral relativism.

If you could create any society, what would its values?

Cute Zionist Octopus!

Elder of Ziyon via Israellycool gave me a smile today with a very cute [and evil] "Zionist Octopus".

Here he is!

"We urge the Muslim and Arab nations to act decisively against the Zionist octopus that threatens the security of Arab and Muslim countries," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.

*Grins*

The dehumanizing antisemitic octopus imagry is not new, as evidenced by two famous examples below:

[ Source ]

[ Source ]

Reuters Whitewash Sharia

Reuters (who are published across the globe, including in countries like India) are again whitewashing the Islamofascists who are attempting to Hijack democratic society and establish a theocratic Global Islamic Caliphet. This time they have decided to whitewash Barbaric Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system. Untill now, Mohammedians have been blamed about "misinterpreting" literature from the "Religion of Peace" - now the blame is pushed towards non-Muslims. (Please see the video embedded at the bottom of this article.)

Sharia discussion was provoked after the suicidal comments of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who said that Britain should give space to Sharia law. His comments sparked off a global storm from people who want to defend their secular system from religious apartheid Sharia laws which reduce every non-Muslim to a 2nd class citizen.

Here are a few quotes from the Reuters desk:

British Muslims defending him [The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams] stressed most of the Islamic world also rejected the ultra-orthodox model that he clearly ruled out.

Just wait to get a introduction about the British Muslims Reuter's are talking about...

"There are 57 Muslim countries in the world and only two or three of them impose full sharia criminal law. Why on earth would we want to have that here?" asked Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.

This is the same preacher from channel 4's 'Undercover Mosque' report, which was preaching Islamic supremacy from Green Lane. MPACUK can still be found defending his Fascist Islamic-supremisist speeches. ( Scroll down one-third of that page. )

Reuters further added:

There are also widely differing interpretations of Sharia, both within the four classical Sunni and one Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and between traditional and modern thinkers.

And? Does it change the barbarity? Iran is Shia and Saudis are Sunni's... and the introduction of Sharia from both sides look extremely barbaric to me.

"In the Muslim world these days, 'Sharia' means a whole variety of different things," said John Voll, professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington.

Dr. John voll is right here... 'Sharia' can mean a whole variety of different things. It even includes laws which dictate how to go to the toilet.

Hudoud, the corporal and capital punishment outlined in the Koran, has not been applied there in modern times.

The frequently published news about corporal and capital punishment from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and so on... must all be hoaxes then.

Muslims cannot convert to other faiths and non-Muslims who convert to Islam are not supposed to leave it, but a court allowed this for 12 people in a landmark case last week.

No comment...

Apart from a few public lashings since Islamisation started in the 1980s, harsh physical punishments have not been imposed. Nobody has been executed under a law banning blasphemy against Islam, but some accused blasphemers have been killed by mobs.

OK, all those news with photos still available on The Religion of Peace.com are complete Hoaxes. Got it! Its a Hindu-Zionist conspiracy to rule the world!

In India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and followers of other faiths can decide whether they want to be bound by secular personal law or their own religious code.

Looks like some Indian Muslims are living in some myth, that there only exist two law boards in India... i.e. Islamic Personal law board, and secular law board for other communities.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation and quite moderate in Islamic terms. Its western province of Aceh uses sharia law as part of a local autonomy deal granted by Jakarta and people have been caned for adultery, gambling and stealing.

Are they kidding me? What is moderate then?

Nigeria's northern states adopted a harsh sharia code in 2000, but punishments have been rare. A woman convicted of adultery, Amina Laval, was freed on appeal after her sentence of stoning to death caused an international uproar.

So nice of them, at least they follow international preassure. I think its "moderate" like the "moderate" Fatah of West Bank.

About a dozen other women convicted of adultery have also been freed on appeal.

So you want us to be begging to free the 'convicted' in London too?

This approach can accept secular laws as "sharia-compliant" if they reflect Islamic values. "Even simply by trying to respect Muslim ethics, one is already in the process of applying the sharia," Ramadan has written.

Beautiful advice from Reuters and British Muslims, but no thanks. We simply have to say: "NO SHARIA HERE".

Mr. Ramadan can be located in video embedded below, incase if you missed his discussion on BBC... Tariq Ramadan said that the people discussing their legitimate concerns about Sharia law were 'Islamophobic', and 'trying to use controversy to spread fear in British society'.

[ Video Source ]

The State Department, In a Nutshell

I have trouble believing this story, its too crazy.

The USA will defend the PLO - an anti-American and anti-Israel Jew-Hating Nazi-based organisation against Americans who have been harmed by their bombs....

That can't be right.

Can it?

Palestinians Ask U.S. To Intervene in Suits Over Terrorist Attacks

The State Department is considering supporting the Palestinian Authority in its quest to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements won by American victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, according to Palestinian officials and defence lawyers involved in the cases.

There should be nothing to consider.

U.S. officials insist that no decision has been made regarding the complex litigation, which could force the Bush administration to choose between supporting compensation for victims of terrorism and bolstering the Palestinian government as the United States presses for a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Palestinians do not want co-existence with Israel, the so-called "peace" talks are a complete farce.

Testimony in Israeli courts has connected senior Palestinian leaders -- such as the late Yasser Arafat -- to specific terrorist attacks involved in the lawsuits. But Palestinian officials have argued that it makes no sense for the United States to be providing millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority while U.S. courts are threatening to bankrupt it.

No kidding, it makes absolutely no sense for the USA to be fighting a "war on Terror" while supporting terrorists.

In response to a plea for assistance from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 13 months ago sidestepped the issue, writing that "the United States is not party to these enforcement proceedings." But in December, a U.S. federal judge asked the government whether it would get involved, creating the current dilemma for the administration.

"There has been a rethinking in the State Department that I wholeheartedly welcome," said Afif Safieh, head of mission in Washington for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He said the lawsuits were "politically and ideologically motivated to drive the Palestinian Authority into bankruptcy."

It couldn't have anything to do with all those terrorist attacks against innocent men, women and children could it? No, of course not. Do you feel sorry for the Nazi-rooted terrorist organisation?

Victims, who will meet with top State and Justice Department officials tomorrow, said that a U.S. intervention with the courts would make a mockery of the administration's fight against terrorism.

No shit?

Leslye Knox, a 46-year-old mother of six children and widow of Aharon Ellis, a U.S. citizen who was killed in 2002 while singing at a bar mitzvah in Hadera, Israel...

Article Author: Glenn Kessler

[ Full Article ]

[UPDATE: (Red Tulips): Soccerdad, via Meryl Yourish wrote about this subject as well, and has extra details you will want to read about. Run, don't walk, to read his post!]

Dishonour Killings in the UK

Via LGF: Police say 17,000 women are victims every year

Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs.

And official figures on forced marriages are the tip of the iceberg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

It warns that the number of girls falling victim to forced marriages, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and even murder by relatives intent on upholding the "honour" of their family is up to 35 times higher than official figures suggest.

The crisis, with children as young as 11 having been sent abroad to be married, has prompted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to call on British consular staff in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan to take more action to identify and help British citizens believed to be the victims of forced marriages in recent years.

The Home Office is drawing up an action plan to tackle honour-based violence which "aims to improve the response of police and other agencies" and "ensure that victims are encouraged to come forward with the knowledge that they will receive the help and support they need". And a Civil Protection Bill coming into effect later this year will give courts greater guidance on dealing with forced marriages.

[ Full Article ]

Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage from the British Muslim community?

Question of Legitimacy...

Got it!

I was looking for this video for quite a time in order to answer Red Tulips questions, to explain why we in Eurasia are far more concerned about Sharia law than our American and Canadian counterparts. This Video speaks in itself.

[ Video Source ]

Hope you are not shocked! That is Deobandi Ideology, which is also seen in the majority of Indian Muslims. That interview was shot in the London BBC, not in Al-Jazerra Qatar!

PART 2:

[ Video Source ]

Opposing Sharia law

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...

2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.

Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).

Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).

Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).

Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).

Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.

In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.

A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.

This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.

The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that

It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.

Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...

5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law

Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?

And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)

So that is difference one.

Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.

It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!

Ch-Ch-changes!

After last weekend, it appears that Barack Obama is leading in the polls. And I completely understand the reason why...he stands for CHANGE! And who would not want change, anyway? As Irina said to me in chat,

You want change? Go to the supermarket!

Anyway, people seem to like to get change. They like the feel of it jingling in their wallets. And Barack Obama stands for CHANGE more than any candidate ever did in the history of the world...so you should all vote for CHANGE!

As you can see, Obama really stands for CHANGE! The signs clearly state as such in the background!

And yet...I wonder...does Obama stand for change more than the other candidates in the 2008 elections? I fear...I have a difficult time deciding...who best stands for CHANGE??

Culture for All readers...I ask you...can you please help me figure out this difficult question...which of the candidates best stands for CHANGE? It is the decisive question which must be answered in this election!

UPDATE: Stephen Colbert (Note he spells his name with a 'ph' and not a 'v') and South Park also noticed the curious addiction certain politicians have to 'change' a few months back. Must see video!

One Mans Terrorist is Another Mans Freedom Fighter?

I was sent a link to the following video recently. What are your thoughts in response to the arguments presented?

Red Colour

[ Video Source ]