Bloggers
Diana Hsieh
Gina Liggett
Ari Armstrong
Paul Hsieh
Blog Links
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
RSS by E-Mail
Blogroll
NoodleFood
Principles in Practice
Ari Armstrong
Wall of Separation
Archives
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
|
| | |
| Monday, January 11, 2010 |
Careful! Don't Say the "A" Word!
By Gina Liggett @ 10:00 AM   
Okay, here's the story. And I'm not saying a WORD! So get those explosives out of your underwear!
Three Christian churches were attacked January 8th by three young Muslim arsonists outside the capital of Malaysia over a controversy and supreme court ruling surrounding the publication of the word... (I'll whisper it, ... it's the name Muslim's give for God) ... in a local Catholic journal. Four days ago, 13 non-governmental organizations also didn't like the ruling and put up a fuss.
They are all upset because the word, "A," should only be reserved for Muslims, NOT non-Ms. The Catholics reportedly were using the word to signify piety, although I think there are probably better choices since there are some "Ms" in this world that like to blow things up.
These bombers were mad (a common lunatic's excuse for arson) because they wanted the Malaysian high court to annul a ruling allowing the journal to print that particular word. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak condemned the attacks, which is a good thing (especially since there are other religions besides Islam in that country). He wants to keep the "harmony." But I think a better reason would be upholding that western concept, RULE OF LAW.
What I can't understand about the "thinking" of the arsonists and 13 protesting non-governmentals is: Don't they think "A" can take care of Himself? That is, I think that's pretty dern blasphemous to say that "A" can't deal with what any scrawny, puny, miserable, infidel, scumbag of a human being might say or print.
And another thing! That is mighty arrogant of those fire-bombing "Ms". They are supposed to be "submissive," like "A" demands, but they then go around being "A's" public relations spokesperson... I mean, spokesMAN, if you get my drift.
It appears that the attacking "Ms" were worried that other "Ms" in the country and world would be confused by the cross-fertilization of the use of the word,"A," and quickly convert to "C-ism." I don't mean Communism (they're no fun anyway because they don't serve wine at their Gulags). But the protesters shouldn't have to worry about mass confusion-turned-conversion anyway, because "Ms" are not supposed to utilize their conscious choice. They must simply OBEY!
And another thing! I don't know what's gotten into these Catholics... I mean "Cs"... because in the Netherlands a couple years ago, a retiring bishop thought all of the main monotheistic believers, the "Js", the "Cs" and the "Ms", should all use the "A" word when referring to "G." Well, some other Catholics didn't think that was such a good idea. But Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, thought it would help interfaith understanding. Uh... I don't think so. I don't think we can have a lot of interfaith understanding with all these bombs some people keep carrying around in their pockets!
Well. I could say a LOT more. But I think I won't for now. I'll just give thanks to the entire alphabet that I hold REASON as my absolute!Labels: Catholicism, God, Humor, Islam
|
 E-mail Gina Liggett
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments
|
| Monday, March 16, 2009 |
Justice in Saudi Arabia?
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Here is theocracy in action: Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling.A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports.
According to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan, troubles for the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, began last year when a member of the religious police entered her house in the city of Al-Chamli and found her with two unrelated men, "Fahd" and "Hadian."
Fahd told the policeman he had the right to be there, because Sawadi had breast-fed him as a baby and was therefore considered to be a son to her in Islam, according to Al-Watan. Fahd, 24, added that his friend Hadian was escorting him as he delivered bread for the elderly woman. The policeman then arrested both men.
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism and punishes unrelated men and women who are caught mingling. The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, feared by many Saudis, is made up of several thousand religious policemen charged with duties such as enforcing dress codes, prayer times and segregation of the sexes. Under Saudi law, women face many restrictions, including a strict dress code and a ban on driving. Women also need to have a man's permission to travel.
Al Watan obtained the court's verdict and reported it was partly based on the testimony of the religious police. In his ruling, the judge said it was proved that Fahd is not Sawadi's son through breastfeeding. The court also doled out punishment to the two men. Fahd was sentenced to four months in prison and 40 lashes; Hadian was sentenced to six months in prison and 60 lashes. In a phone call with Al Watan, the judge declined to comment and suggested the newspaper review the case with the Ministry of Justice. Sawadi told the newspaper that she will appeal, adding that Fahd is indeed her son through breastfeeding.
A top Saudi human rights lawyer, Abdulrahman Al-Lahem, volunteered to defend the woman and the two men and has been given power of attorney by them. He told CNN he plans to file an appeal in the case next week.
Efforts to reach Saudi officials at the Justice Ministry, religious police and other agencies were unsuccessful. A spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington said he had no details on the case.
The case sparked anger in Saudi Arabia. "It's made everybody angry because this is like a grandmother," Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN. "Forty lashes -- how can she handle that pain? You cannot justify it." This horrid story -- like so many others -- reminds of me of Ayn Rand's notable comment on the essence of civilization: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."Labels: Islam, Theocracy
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, February 16, 2009 |
Muslim Man Beheads His Wife in Buffalo
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
This story from The Buffalo News shows the horrifying reality of the Islamic view of women as chattel:
Prominent Orchard Park man charged with beheading his wife
By Gene Warner
Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband -- an influential member of the local Muslim community -- reported her death to police Thursday.
Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder. "He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning. Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.
Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light. The killing apparently occurred some time late Thursday afternoon. Detectives still are looking for the murder weapon.
"Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible," Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said today. Authorities say Aasiya Hassan recently had filed for divorce from her husband. "She had an order of protection that had him out of the home as of Friday the 6th [of February]," Benz said.
Muzzammil Hassan was arraigned before Village Justice Deborah Chimes and sent to the Erie County Holding Center. Honor killings are commonplace in Europe, as this excellent 2005 article in Der Spiegel details. To refer to such murders as "domestic violence" trivializes them: they are pure barbarism. And if Americans do not wish to see more of them, we must treat them as such.Labels: Islam, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, February 6, 2009 |
13 Year Old Girl Stoned to Death
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
The BBC reports on a horrifying case of a young girl stoned to death for being raped:
A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.
"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.
Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.
Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones until she died in front of more than 1,000 people last week. That such could happen in this day and age -- anywhere in the world -- is horrifying. Is a worse injustice possible? I think not. Yet such injustices are the inevitable result of blind adherence to religious dogma: the facts of this world do not matter in face of God's will. As one of the Islamic administrators said, "We will do what Allah has instructed us." So they did.Labels: Islam, Law
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Tuesday, September 16, 2008 |
Sharia in the UK
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
This news from Britain about the establishment of a parallel Muslim legal system is very disturbing:
Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. ...
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations. Such courts pose a particular threat to Muslim women. They may be threatened into accepting these courts, then denied justice within them:
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men. Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance. A just state must respect and protect the rights of every person within its borders, even when that conflicts with religious doctrine. Muslims are welcome to live by sharia by their own ongoing choice, but such decisions ought never be enforced by law. To do so when grave concerns exist about whether people -- particularly women -- genuinely consent to be ruled by sharia is beyond the pale for a civilized nation like Britain.
Happily, at least some politicians are speaking out against this situation:
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so." That's exactly right.Labels: Islam
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, July 28, 2008 |
Stonings in Iran
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
If you wish to know the ugly face of theocracy, you need look no further than Iran:
At least eight women and one man have been sentenced to be stoned to death in Iran and may be executed at any time, the lawyers defending several of those sentenced said today. The eight women, ranging in age from 27 to 43, had convictions including prostitution, incest and adultery. ...
Judiciary officials were not immediately available for comment. But the Iranian authorities routinely dismiss charges of rights abuses, saying they are acting on Islamic sharia law. ...
According to Iran's Islamic penal code, men convicted of adultery should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests for stoning. Stones used should not be large enough to kill the person immediately. In a theocratic state, unsanctioned sex always tops the list of offenses. The purely private, selfish, earthly pleasure of sex is intolerable to those seeking to impose God's will on a nation. People in the throes of sexual ecstasy -- particularly if protected by biology or birth control from the fear of pregnancy -- aren't fearing God and his earthly representatives, nor castigating themselves as unworthy, sinful creatures. They are celebrating the joy possible to humans in this early life.
The theocrats -- whatever their religion -- are never pleased by that. Hence, stonings.
Update: Don't miss the next post on the prospect of Christian stonings.Labels: Islam, Theocracy
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
|
