 |
Frontpage Magazine has an interesting article comparing the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus the Muslims discuss in the Koran, titled: Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus of Neverland.
The article has a lot of interesting information. One is the flat out contradictions between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Koran. The writer (William Kilkpatrick) asks pertinent questions to determine the authenticity of the sources (the Bible vs. the Koran). He discusses how the Islamic version of Jesus falls apart when put under the same scrutiny as that of Jesus of the Bible.
I think one of the most rigorous arguments for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible is all the narrations that depict his presence, his words and his actions. The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, has no personality or even a presence. He appears like a disembodied spirit. Here is what the author writes about him:
The Jesus of the Koran appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels, but “appears” is really too strong a word. This Jesus doesn’t attend weddings, or go fishing with his disciples, or gather children around him. He has practically no human interactions, and what he has to say is formulaic and repetitive. He is more like a disembodied voice than a person. And, to put it bluntly, he lacks personality.The author claims that this Jesus in the Koran "appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels." It is an interesting argument. Do read the whole thing to get more insights into one of the most fake religions of the world. The more I learn about Islam, the more I realize that it was created on the backs of Christianity. The Anti-Christ if ever there was one.
Frontpage Magazine has published an article of mine: Burqua Prejudice. You can read it here, with interesting comments by readers following the article.
I must say, I like the ambiguous photo that FPM has put up of the Fabulous Four. If I were a Muslim (and even not), I wouldn't want the women in my culture to dress and look the way they do. We don't have to be Muslim to be modest.
 |
The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us...is surely indicative of a mind that is amenable to the messages of the Koran?
Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.
"Follow the Islamic say to save the world," Prince Charles urges environmentalists
 |
Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon, two prominent scholars and chroniclers of Islam, were the speakers at yesterday's event organized by the International Free Press Society- Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society. When I went to the venue, which was at a synagogue in the northern limits of Toronto, my only concern was that I wouldn't be able to get there on time due to the heavy traffic exacerbated by road construction. I made it in ample time. But the synagogue became more significant than just a venue. Bat Ye'or started her presentation by saying that this is the first time she has given a speech in a synagogue. Sam Solomon's speech was titled, "Islam and its eternal enmity towards the Jews." So, a synagogue was infinitely appropriate for this very important conference, where both Bat Ye'or and Solomon repeatedly reminded the predominantly Jewish audience that Muslim enmity towards them is very real, and growing daily.
Sam Solomon spoke first. I dutifully took my notebook and pen at hand, to jot down his words. But, after his first sentence, it was clear that we were in front of a formidable orator, and it was better just to listen. Solomon, a former Muslim, is now a Christian. He was a Muslim scholar and sharia law expert. His introduction to the majority Jewish audience was to plead forgiveness for having condemned and maligned them in his former days while a devout Muslim. Then he plunged right into Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel, which he says is inaccurately attributed to the creation of modern-day Israel. He explains that this deep-seated hatred goes to the origins of Islam, when the Jews rejected Muhammad's newly-created religion, and he condemned them for it. Solomon has a new book out, which bears the same title as his presentation: Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews.
The extraordinary effect of a former Muslim, who cites chapter and verse of the Koran in Arabic in order to gets his message across, is mesmerizing. Solomon has an incredible oratory voice despite his slight build; a voice which could have easily traveled across the large room without a microphone. His citations in Arabic conjure up images of a Muhammad throwing out these phrases in fits of fury (or Allah's fury, to acknowledge Muhammad's source). The harsh guttural sounds of Arabic almost need no translation into English; we know that these words are not said in love or compassion, but in hatred and destruction. Jew hatred, in Islam, is not an incidental affair resulting from border skirmishes. It is deep-seated in the psyche of Muslims who read (or listen to) Muhammad's words, words which are set in stone in the Koran. Muslims are mandated to hate Jews (and Christians).
This spiritual connection between Muslims' hatred of Jews and Christians is further elaborated by Bat Ye'or. Despite her quieter demeanor, this small lady is no less extraordinary, if nothing for her meticulous description of Islam's infiltration into European society, and now the world at large. She too has a new book coming out which is titled, Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism. She explains that her new book will delineate the global network that bodies like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are building in order to finally construct their worldwide Ummah.
One of the most significant insights I got from her presentation was her explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in spiritual terms. Informed people understand that the conflict has been manufactured by Muslims and Muslim apologists in order to find a basis for the destruction of Israel. But, Bat Ye'or says that the efforts behind the Palestinian concept is to separate Christianity from its Judaic roots to facilitate the Islamizaton of Christianity, and to render the whole region Islamic. Israel and the Jews can then be destroyed through a united Muslim front, as the Jews' natural allies, the Christians, become Islamicized. The end goal is to replace Israel with Palestine, rendering the whole region Islamic, and where Jerusalem takes its seat as the center of Islam.
For Christians, Israel and Jerusalem culminate with Christianity (through God's final design of bringing all His people under His wing through His Son Jesus Christ). Muslims have their alternate "Jesus," whom they call Isa, and to whom attribute prophetic rather than Messianic characteristics. This alternate Jesus is inscribed into the Muslim and Palestinian "narrative." Israel has occupied a land that rightfully belongs to Muslims, who have both spiritual and historical claims to this land. Thus, those "disputed" territories are neither Jewish, nor a Holy Land for Christians, but belong to Muslims and Isa. This Isa came to Jerusalem not to promote the Judeo-Christian God, but the Islamic Allah. Palestine is where Muslims fight their ultimate spiritual battle against Christians and Jews, the land which their Isa has proclaimed for them and their people.
Not many people describe the Palestinian and Jewish/Christian conflict in these spiritual terms. Even devout Muslims explain it in terms of territorial claims. But, Bat Ye'or, by peeling away at the layers has, I think, come up with a strong spiritual argument for why the Palestinian question consumes the whole world at such a visceral level. It is a matter of Isa vs. Jesus, Allah against God. Truth battling falsehood.
|
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations...It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.Ali, in her supreme self-centeredness, cannot see through this description. After all, in her eyes, the clash is not between these two opposites, as Sultan explains, but between her (Ali) and the rest of the world. In fact, she has now decided that she, in her lofty conclusions, will clash with the very element that has made the West a formidable foe to Islam; she will fight Christianity.
Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.
The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.
The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.
Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.
Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.
 |
(Cross-posted at Camera Lucida)
Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.
Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):
How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?
Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.
Allan Greg hosts half hour interviews with notable members of the public. Recently, he interviewed Globe and Mail writer Sheema Khan about her life in Canada. Greg was infinitely respectful towards Khan, who calls herself "A Canadian Hockey Mom," while permanently wearing her hijab. She talked about her children's integration in Canadian culture, and her unabashed support for her adoptive country.
Things got interesting near the end of the interview when Khan carefully said that one of the ways for Muslims to live peacefully in Canada is to carve their own Muslim place in the country. Greg didn't even blink an eye, let alone ask her to expand on this statement. She is simply saying that the best possible life in Canada for Muslims like her is if they live apart as Muslims. So much for moderate Muslims, and there goes the "integration" she talks so eloquently about.
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Islam" by Andrew McCarthy at The Corner. It is also discussed at the View from the Right.
The most frustrating thing about "moderate Islam" is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called "radicals" tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too "extreme." This doesn't come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that's the case that has to be made.
Christine Williams hosts the popular current affairs show On the Line. She could be the female Michael Coren, since she doesn't shy away from unpopular topics, and is one of the few television hosts in Canada who is leans more to the right. I don't use "leans more to the right" lightly, because she is a moderate on many issues. Like Coren, she takes special care to cover all the grounds, and often defends many of the non-right issues in Canada in a, well, right angle.
For example, she has clearly stated that she believes the problem with Islam is that it has adherents who prefer to enact its more violent messages. Hence her insistence that it is the radical elements of Islam that are the problem, and not Islam itself. She has actually described jihadists as psychopaths and not as what they really are: the vanguard of Muslim society who are fulfilling their religion's commands through violent means.
She discusses multiculturalism extensively on her show. Her view is that since Canada is now inevitably a multi-ethnic society, there is no choice but to deal with it through multiculturalism, or more precisely, through generalized respect for all cultures. This implies that she is sympathetic to some multicultural policies. She still supports, and believes in, assimilation. But, she has outdated or incorrect data about the assimilation of nonwhite immigrants. Children of immigrants from non-European countries repeatedly say that they feel less assimilated than their immigrant parents. Immigrants of different cultures are having a difficult time relating with each other let alone with the culture at large. More and more immigrant and ethnic ghettos are cropping up in major Canadian cities. These are the kinds of facts that Williams should have at the tips of her fingers. Otherwise, she is simply be building a "wishful thinking" scenario, and deluding her public in the process.
Williams is interviewed here [two-part video], providing many insights into what formed her character. She came to Canada from Trinidad as a four-year-old, and spent difficult years growing up. Her parents often shuffled her back and forth between Canada and Trinidad as they adjusted to their adoptive country. Eventually, through rebellions and then conversion to Christianity, she became one of the model immigrants in Canadian society.
But, there are a few strange elements in her life too. The most outstanding is that her parents' lifestyle in Canada was initially dramatically inferior to that in Trinidad. By her account, they seemed to have been respected members of Trinidadian society, and perhaps even relatively wealthy. It took them many years to adjust to Canada, but they persisted until they achieved some success.
Another piece of information she provides in her interview is that despite having been in Canada since she was four, she never dissociated herself totally from Trinidad. She went back and forth to Trinidad regularly, sent by her parents as a child, and later on as an adult of her own free will. It was at one of those trips as an adult that she met her Trinidadian husband, who joined her in Canada. Twenty years later, they have two children in their teens. Are these the kinds of children of immigrants that I discussed above who feel less Canadian than their immigrant parents? Quite possibly.
I always wonder about people like Williams and her parents. The parents caused their daughters (Williams has a sister) a lot of anguish while growing up due to their stubborn insistence to "make it" in Canada. Williams herself is either delusional about the realities of non-Western immigrants in Canada, or she is being disingenuous, and ignoring important data about immigrants and assimilation (or lack thereof).
Ultimately, Williams comes off as a semi-advocate of multicultural policies, of the "lets all assimilate, but respect each others cultures" variety. I think this is is her way of reconciling her Trinidadian background with her Canadian reality. So, perhaps unconsciously, she wants it both ways. She is certainly holding two contradictory views: supporting a multi-ethnic, and by extension a multicultural, Canada; and promoting immigrant assimilation through Canadian "values" and "culture."
Harboring multicultural sentiments can be pernicious, such as respecting Muslims, and only reining in on the violent (jihad) and stealth (sharia) activities they exhibit. These, according to Williams, are only practiced by a radical handful. The rest, like all other nonwhite immigrants in Canada, and just like her and her family, simply wish to assimilate and become "Canadian." But the reality shows otherwise.
I wonder if people like Williams, successful, and by all appearances assimilated immigrants, have ever thought of going back to their countries of origin? There seems to be a subtle disconnect within even the well-intentioned non-Western immigrants like her, who get pulled into contradictory statements as they try to work out their place in Canadian society. Surely Williams would have a much easier time in Trinidad. After all, she followed her roots by marrying a Trinidadian man. And by all accounts, her children are less likely to feel Canadian, and more likely to accept their "differences" than she is (or can). She can be at least honest (although she is certainly very genuine, and her problem is lack of systematic thought on the subject) and say: "I am different, and I am leaning on multiculturalism, ethnic diversity and the wonderful smorgasbord that is Canada to allow me to live comfortably in Canada."
If this is how I assess Williams, then what about all those who adamantly do not wish to assimilate, and who fight to change Canadian society to fit their needs by unequivocally supporting the policies of multiculturalism? These are the ones that really need to go back, to their familiar societies, which do not require any radical changes in order for them to feel "at home."
What a concept! I haven't heard anyone argue about solving the multicultural disaster this way. So, it is time for concerned citizens like Christine Williams, and Salim Manur who wrote about the pernicious effects of multiculturalism here, to reassess themselves and their solutions.
 |
Salim Mansur has written in the Toronto Sun:
Multiculturalism is a diminution of Canada’s founding history. It diminishes the vitality and largeness of the political culture that has accommodated a multitude of ethnicities within its borders, while it fails in bringing to immigrants — especially of non-European origin — a compensating increase in appreciation for those values that went into building Canada as a model of civility...Mansur fails to explain something: why is it that multiculturalism flourished soon after non-Europeans started to enter and remain in Canada? Could it be that the differences between Canada’s founders and these current immigrants are just too great?
It is now for the rest of us to engage in a constructive discussion on how to roll back multiculturalism, this doctrine of divisiveness, for the love of Canada.
 |
I made a point to watch Michael Coren's hour-long interview with Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (with a title like that...), a couple of nights ago. Kenney has kept the high levels of 250,000 new immigrants for 2010, and is coyly playing with the idea of doing the same for 2011, despite the recession. I was sure Coren would ask him about this decision, and even discuss immigration as a broader issue.
Well, it didn't happen. Instead, Kenney spent many minutes talking about his "good will ambassadorship" visiting immigrant and ethnic communities and asking them how he could make things better for them. Of course, each ethnic community will have gripes, and will make demands that he favor their group, include more of their group in his new immigration numbers, give them more money for their particular cultural activities, and so on. None of them will say "reduce immigration, and dismantle the Multiculturalism policy," which is how things can really get better.
What was even stranger is that in order to deflect accusation of "racism" that his government may have had – Conservatives are always considered racist simply for being conservative – he was boasting how his immigration numbers are as good as, or better than, the Liberals'!
I don't see any MSM bringing up these topics (other than to say that it's all good), and no blogs either. Issues such as Muslim immigration; the effect of immigration on the future composition of big cities like Toronto (a major study recently reported that 28% of Canada's population will be foreign-born by 2031); multiculturalism and the public coffers, etc. are considered too inflammatory. I don't see why, since they pertain to important national issues.
For Jason Kenney, the unassimilable masses from the Third World is a myth. He thinks his good will, extra government funding, more "settlement" programs, and general wishful thinking will remove any doubts that the (very few) immigration and multiculturalism critics, including immigration expert James Bisset, bring to the table.
Even Third World (including Chinese and Indian) immigrants know better. They form their own ghettos, demand special treatment whether financially or culturally, and coerce the government to perform according to their needs.
"Conservative" independent filmmaker Jason Apsoto has recently released a film on Islam called Kalifornistan. The website promoting Kalifornistan has this to say about the film:
KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with his 'mighty plutonium superbomb' - while being distracted by an exotic dancer.There are enthusiastic reviews for this film at its website, but I will be more critical. Apsoto has made his jihadist a lone, lunatic sex maniac, whose mission to destroy Los Angeles is due more to his deranged personality than his religious convictions.
KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbor into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali pops up periodically to comment on the prevailing Muslim incident. This time she is reacting to the South Park censorship. As far as I can tell, she has been interviewed by Fox News and has had an article published by the Wall Street Journal on this topic. And here is a link to her interview with Anderson Cooper from CNN. That is more attention than the astute Diana West, whose analysis of the incident is far more valuable than Ali’s.
Near the very end of the interview on CNN, Hirsi Ali says:
We have to take them [Muslims] on. And that means, I think, scrutinizing Islam, criticizing it in the same way that we criticizing Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies, and other religions.It never occurs to Ali firstly, that Islam has no business being alongside Judaism and Christianity to merit "equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense."
Equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense.
