"Don't Try"

That's Bukowski's epitaph, "Don't Try." I'm not sure, but I think Bukowski was standing for philosophical skepticism. I don't think we was trying to say don't try to do anything, but, rather, he was trying to express that it's silly to take up anything serious or dogmatic, i.e., an ideology, just as the ancient Skeptics like Sextus Empiricus tried to express. And I think Ehab Lotayef is trying to say something similar here as well. To the Quebecois he speaks: Don't try to defend your culture, because all cultures will be destroyed anyway:

Let me give you the bad news and get it done with: No culture is safe. None ever survived forever and none will.
...
The values, ideas and beliefs that are worthwhile will survive and become a part of the new global culture, and those that aren't will fade away, without sorrow. This is in the interest of the human race as a whole and no one in his or her right mind should fight it or try to prevent it.

Immediately I'm struck with the nonsense of this. Judaism has existed since, well, since we don't even know when, as it was so far back, yet Judaism is still around. Hinduism too. There's still some Zoroastrians around. Et cetera. When will these pieces of culture disappear? I don't think it's clear they ever will; not before humankind disappears with them.

As Islam grew exponentially in Quebec over the past 20 years, the result of the active policies of the government of both Canada and Quebec, no one like Mr. Lotayef stood up and said, "Hey, don't promote this cultural growth, because cultures don't matter; no point promoting one over the other." But now, as the majority rethink multiculturalism and consider taking active policies that would promote their culture instead of Islam, this is when Mr. Lotayef says that. Strange, no?

But, if cultures just have to disappear, I vote for Mr. Lotayef's to be the first to go.

Born With Hijab

One Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (why not drop the Islamic? Just, Supreme Council of Canada. I like that.) says that Safaa Menhem, who was pulled from a soccer game a while back because a headdress like the hijab was not allowed to be worn on the field, should not have been. The decision was racist, he says:

I don't buy it because a person could also pull a shirt and choke a person. This is not a safety issue. It is just a racist and discriminatory decision against Muslims

How could it be racist? Well, if hijab-wearers formed a race, maybe then? But no one is born with a hijab. Or if hijab-wearing was limited to some races? But this isn't true either, because people of all races wear hijabs. Or maybe if hijab-wearing was necessarily correlated with some races? But there is no necessary correlation: There could be any proportion of people of any number of races that could wear the hijab. So we are left with the claim that it is racist because, as a matter of accident, hijab-wearing is not currently correlated with all races indifferently. Pretty bizarre definition, unlike how racism is normally defined, I would say. But we can take it anyway. Here's something else:

Her rights should be respected -- this is her free choice.

So she has this right, but, then, where do the rights of the league to determine uniforms go? Did they not freely choose to define the uniform code as they did? Is the league not allowed to define what is an appropriate uniform for their soccer games? Really, everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, so this girl should be allowed to wear the hijab? But that's actually not what the Islamic groups are saying: Not everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, but rather, only hijab-wearers get this benefit. Out with the old rights, in the with the new, I guess. The new are looking more like they are defined by sharia everyday.

How does this sound: The soccer leagues allow anyone to wear the hijab, if Islamic organisations allow anyone to not wear the hijab. Surely, as per our working definition of racism, requiring someone to wear the hijab is a racist and discriminatory decision against kafirs! For some reason, I don't suspect these groups will go for this fair and equitable agreement, because they don't want fair and equitable.

Freedom For Whom?

The Star reports that an Islamic group called Refusing Intolerance in Quebec spoke out concerning the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation. I don't find any information on this group, but the Star's quote from them exists in this "Citizen's Statement"(sic) on the Montreal Muslim News site, which is apparently from Mohamed S. Kamel of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The Statement says, "We therefore call for a true debate, an unhurried debate carried on in an atmosphere of peace of mind and unfailing respect for the rights of all, men and women, who live in Québec." Alright, let's start this debate then.

On the one hand, those behind the Statement, "reject any limitation of rights, any reduction of fundamental freedoms." On the other hand, they say that the hijab shouldn't be allowed to exist as "an obstacle to...full participation in social life, in the labor market..." But how does forcing the other people in those realms, in employment for example, to accept the hijab, not reduce their fundamental freedoms? For example, if the public rejects the message of hijab, just as they may reject the message of the swastika for example, yet is not allowed to ban the hijab from the public schools which it controls, just as it is allowed to ban the swastika, are not the rights of the public reduced? Or if an employer disagrees with Islam, just as she may disagree with national socialism, yet is not allowed to pick someone else for employment over an adherent of Islam, just as she is allowed to pick someone else over an adherent of national socialism, are not this employer's freedom of association reduced?

This gets to my main criticism with how the West treats Islam. Islam has political implications, it is a "total way of life" that involves political ideology. Yet it's adherents are protected from the discrimination that is allowed with other political ideologies, because it takes up the banner of "religion." So the propagation of a political ideology must be permitted in all spheres of life, even those under the control of people who disagree with the ideology, lest they commit the sin of "discrimination on the basis of religion." Don't hire someone because they are a Muslim: you're a bigot and a criminal. Don't hire someone because they are a Communist: you're just exercising your inalienable freedom of association. This double standard must change.

Let's do a little bit more. Look at how they define secularity: "the neutrality of the state with regard to the opinions, beliefs and practices of its citizens." This is just bizarre, because the state never remains neutral on all the practices of citizens. Pedophilia is a practice of citizens, yet who would suggest the state remain neutral on it? Perhaps they meant religious practices? Well, one could easily found a religion involving pedophilia. But take an actual example: sati, the Hindu practice of sacrificing, on the husband's funeral pyre, a wife who is unfortunate enough to outlive her husband. No one suggests tolerating that religious practice in Quebec, so we can agree that no one suggests tolerating all religious practices, only some. So the question is, which do we tolerate and which don't we? The Quebec public seems to want to stick a few Islamic practices in with the "do not tolerate" pile. In a democracy, the public is sovereign.

One more quote from the Statement:

Just as the values and principles dear to Quebeckers are not for sale at any price, neither are equally universal values and principles of other cultural horizons that enrich Québec. The two are not in opposition, rather they enhance one another, with the same quiet resolve and the same far-reaching commitment to justice, sharing, and equality that we believe motivate us all.

Is this true, that they are not opposition? This is what Mohammed said to do: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9:84:57). Compare that sentiment with something more Quebecois. Here's a passage I like from the end of Simone de Beauvoir's The Blood of Others (Le Sang des autres), which I think grasps something about the West in general, its relationship with freedom:

But if only I dedicate myself to defend that supreme good, which makes innocent and vain all the stones and the rocks, that good which saves each man from all the others and from myself -- Freedom -- then my passion will not have been in vain.

In the latter, we have the sentiment of dedication to freedom above all else, in the former we have the denial of freedom: You are only worthy to exist as long as you do not go against Allah. How are these two sentiments "not in opposition" as the Islamic groups would have it?

I can only say, it's not intolerant to not tolerate the intolerant.

A Bit More on Elmasry

Last post I wrote about Mohamed Elmasry, a professor at University of Waterloo and head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. I've collected more information on him here.

In September 2004 he called for alcohol to be banned from campuses. He said that his position did not derive from the Islamic point of view, but I sure wonder; seems a little weird that the leader of an Islamic political group would call for the banning of alcohol and it not have anything to do with Islam when Islam involves just that. If I would guess, I'd say he was trying to gain support for his organisation by calling for more implementation of sharia law. And indeed, Elmasry supported the introduction of sharia courts for family issues.

One month later he said all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets of suicide bombings. There was, of course, much brouhaha about this, with the angry letter writing and calls for resignation and all. The comments were even investigated as hate crimes. You might think this ironic considering that Elmasry speaks so thoroughly against hate speech:

In fact, the swollen hate-language of anti-Islam voice messages received recently by the CIC, reads as if the callers were trying to outdo Falwell and his colleagues: "Muhammad was a pedophile, a mass murder, a demon-possessed maniac, a false prophet," said one. "Islam is a false religion. The Qur'an and the Hadith are both books of lies and deception," said another. And so on; it is offensive even to repeat such words in making a case against them. There was no doubt that those who left these, and messages like them, could be charged with hate-crime.

But how could they possibly be charged with hate crimes for saying those things? As he is portrayed in the Islamic texts, he was a pedophile -- he consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was only 9 years old. He was a mass murderer -- he killed or expelled all the Jews from Medina. He was demon-possessed -- that was the whole issue of the Satanic verses, where the devil possessed him to write certain things into the Quran. And that he was a false-prophet -- wouldn't pretty much every non-Muslim hold this belief? How could making any statement about a character of a literary work be considered a hate crime? Let alone ones that are, in the relevant sense, true? Elmasry is blinded to all reason by his devotion to Mohammed.

Indeed, Elmasry seems to have a thing for defending Mohammed's make-believe honour. When the Western Standard republished the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Elmasry was on the case as well, saying that "his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature." Of course, it was never charged, because the images aren't hate speech -- though, admittedly, many Muslims hate them because they were poignant criticisms of their ideology.

Hate speech according to Mohamed Elmasry:

Canadian Prof on Islamic Scientific Advancements

Mohamed Elmasry of the University of Waterloo has some dawa for Media Monitors Network, wherein he writes on the scientific achievements of Islam.

But, try to find in any of the advancements listed one that comes from Islam itself, or from the characters of Islam, Mohammed or his companions, rather than from regular scientific people who were also Muslims. I don't find any, just as when I looked at this phenomenon before.

The best that Elmasry can do in showing that these achievements derive from Islam is to say that they are "a reflection of the Islamic faith in the mathematical concept of a universe whose creation by God is an unending, or infinitely living process." Which is a pretty nebulous claim in itself, and, further, doesn't even appear to be true, since I think the Muslim opinion is that at some point the universe comes to an end. Here's what the MSA says about the "Last Hour": "At this point, the Day of Resurrection commences in which the skies and earth are destroyed by Allah." Elmasry says also that they "expressed the fundamental aims of Islam, which urged a never-ending quest to understand God’s visible signs in the cosmos." A much less nebulous claim: Islam actually promotes these advancements. But, again, one without base. This commandment doesn't exist, and again, how could the quest to understand the cosmos be never-ending when the cosmos themselves are not "never-ending?"

No one is denying that Muslims are people who can do good things. What I'm denying is that Islam is an ideology that can do good things.

Sohail Qureshi -- pro-Taliban, anti-democracy, and....relativist?

Sohail Qureshi of Calgary was arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of terrorist activities. He traveled there this year. He has since been released and is back at home. From the article:

He talks about Islam as historically being "spread by the sword." He urges the removal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and other Muslim lands. He lauds the period when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.
...
His father also spoke to a local imam of his son's extreme religious views, including an announced intention to become a jihadist in Afghanistan. The imam, in turn, reminded the young man the Koran prohibited such actions.

"After he confirmed this was his intention, I told him he had to stand down," Imam Sheik Alaa Elsayed recalled.
...
Mr. Qureshi, however, has much to say. Mr. Elsayed spoke without having the "slightest bit of evidence" about why he was captured in Afghanistan, Mr. Qureshi says, adding that the imam is spreading false interpretations of the Koran.

"The reason is because he and others following his path wish to please the Christians and Jews by creating an image of Islam and Muslims which they will accept, instead of trying to please Allah by spreading the true Message of Islam," he explains.

Qureshi writes about sharia and democracy in Canada:

"It is quite difficult for Muslims to live in Canada according to the true Message of Islam," Mr. Qureshi wrote. "This is because they are ruled in their everyday lives by secular, democratic law, which is in opposition to the values of Islamic sharia."

He also says, "the allegations made against me is terrorism from the point of view of those in the West" This is really the same thing you hear a lot: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. " Whenever this is said it always strikes me as the most inane comment. I mean, of course that's true! No one actually believes they're doing the wrong thing. Who actually believes that terrorists go to bed at night thinking "Oh, I'm an evil terrorist; it's too bad I have to wake up tomorrow to do more evil things." It's obvious they believe they're on the side of good, but it's equally obvious that, despite their belief, they are not actually on the side of good. And that's why the statement always betrays a relativist sentiment: "Whatever you believe actually is true!"

Last point. Look at his reason for traveling to Afghanistan:

Afghan officials said at one point that Mr. Qureshi claimed to be in Afghanistan to find work, due to lack of employment opportunities in Canada.

Oh yeah, real hard to get a job in Alberta lately. And his father's a millionaire, why would he need a job so badly that he would travel to the other side of the world for? And he has a university degree in computer-science: How many positions in computer programming are there in Afghanistan? Wait? From a millionaire family? And he's a university graduate? So much for poverty being the cause of extremism.

Well, aren't you glad he's back? No, me neither.

No Borders

Little bit on the Taylor-Bouchard commission. They quote a group "No One Is Illegal" who the CBC simply calls a migrant rights group.

This is a nominally Marxist group and calls for the abolishment of all borders and immigration control, which goes along with the, you know, general abolishment of Western nations: they never seem to ask for non-Western nations to open up their borders. Perhaps this has something to do with their association with Islamists who would otherwise have nothing to do with Marxism.

Unless you abolish your borders and allow absolutely anyone and everyone to move to your country and commit yourself to Marxism, you are a fascist. So this group gives citizens of Western nations two options: communism or fascism. Talk about a false dichotomy.

Here's something else from the first link, quoting Carmen Chouinard, of the Centre Islamique Libanais:

"There was no problem in Quebec. Were people being beaten in the streets, assassinated? Not at all, things were going well," she told reporters.

That's very telling I think. Her assumption is that whenever people have problems, they necessarily turn to violence. As if there could be no non-violent airing of issues. And then when people do start this airing, she responds with disbelief: "There couldn't actually be a problem! You're not killing and maiming people! You must not actually be serious." A very common Islamic attitude, I would say.

More of the Same

In the same vein as the last post, Woman claims discrimination for not being allowed to wear hijab at work at Pearson aiport:

She rejected a below-the-knee uniform skirt and wanted a longer garment to conform with Islamic dress code, which calls for women to wear loose-fitting clothes that cover the entire body except the face, hands and feet.

She sewed herself an ankle-length skirt in the uniform fabric and colour and wore it for about six months until the company, citing uniform regulations set by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, refused to allow the change and suspended her in August.

Really the name "uniform" says it all. One form. The idea is that having one form for all the employees helps the business in some way. If you are allowing employees to not wear the uniform because of religious requirements, I say you have, in effect, committed to allowing employees to wear whatever they want, because anything can be a religious requirement. Bring in the giraffe hats for this one too.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, something else. A lot of news stories are saying she was fired, but this is not true. She's free to come back to work as normal if she wears the work uniform.

Judo Hijab

A small girl was barred from fighting a judo tournament in Winnipeg because she wanted to wear a hijab. CAIR, of course, is up and about, lying away:

"Dave Minuk's decision effectively bars Muslim women from judo. For decades, women have fought hard for their rights and Minuk's call is taking them away," said the statement from the Council of American-Islamic Relations Canada.

This has nothing to do with women. If the person who wanted to wear the headscarf had been a male, it would have had the same result.

One Stacey Ashley in this CTV article has to lie as well in order to make her point, saying, "Judo Manitoba gave a bureaucratic boot Saturday to a little girl who just wanted to participate in a tournament." She didn't just want to participate in the tournament. If that's what she wanted, she would have! Instead, she wanted to both participate in the tournament and wear a prohibited headdress. Do not all sane people see the difference there? CTV doesn't.

If they change their decision for the sake of accommodation, I encourage anyone in the relevant tournaments and who disagrees with as much just to wear whatever they want on their head and necks. Maybe like a big old giraffe hat, they look pretty cool, something like this. That'd be pretty intimidating too. Just say it's a requirement of your religion -- you'll have as much justification as Muslims do for wearing the hijab.

The mother of the girl said she is contacting Sport Manitoba who apparently has some say in these matters. May I suggest to all those who are interested to offer their own opinion on the matter? Sport Manitoba's contact information is here.

Safe Haven for Convert from Islam

Here' s a story of Allan Mamemi, a convert to Christianity from Iran, who sought refugee status in Canada:

Ali had to remain in Iran for compulsory military service. While there, according to his story, he held hands in a public park with a woman whom he failed to realize was married. For this he was beaten, and ordered to report to a labour camp. Instead he left for Canada, arriving in 1999.

But his claim of refugee status was denied. In May of 2006 he was ordered deported. At that point he went into sanctuary at St. John’s and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He remained in sanctuary, either at St. John’s or briefly at two other parishes, which Meakes declined to name.

Meakes said that before going into sanctuary Monemi converted to Christianity and asked that people call him Allan. At his baptism, MP Don Bell became one of his godfathers. His conversion raised the stakes, since leaving Islam can be a capital offense in Iran.

We seem to have more of a problem with deporting people like Said Jaziri and Mahmoud Jaballah than people like Allan Mamemi.

Westerners seek real Middle East...at an American School

Here's an article about increased study of Islam and the Middle East in general since 9/11:

The number of American students at the University, known as AUC, has about tripled since 2002 and reached a record of more than 400 this year.
...
After unrest in Lebanon dimmed the appeal of the American University of Beirut, Arabic programs in Cairo are meeting demand from the United States, Canada, and European countries.

Notice that, even though they're in Cairo, they go to an American-ran, liberal arts school, and not an actual Islamic institute. The "foremost" Islamic school is actually in Cairo too: al-Azhar University. But, Americans might have a hard time going there...because they ban non-Muslims from enrolling. Of course, not a single university in the West forbids Muslims from enrolling, not even the most devoutly Christian universities. Where is the reciprocity? And who is really holding back dialogue? Just another example of what I've been talking about. Why don't groups like CAIR push for opening up Islamic universities to non-Muslims if they actually want non-Muslims to learn about Islam, as they say?

Here's something else from the article:

Weakley, the Baylor student originally from Kentucky, said he would try to reverse some stereotypes about the Arab world when he returns to Texas.

"People think everyone here is a terrorist or they hate you because you are Christian," he said. "That's not the case. When I get back I am going to tell my friends that these are good people."

How many people actually believe such sweeping generalisations? Sounds like he has some stereotypes of his own.

English: the language of ad-Dajjal?

At the Jawa Report:

Armed men arrived at the school in the Sayed Karam district of Paktia province and grabbed a 16-year-old student and dragged him outside.

“Taliban militants took the boy out and killed him outside the school just because he was teaching English to his classmates,” said General Esmatullah Alizai, the police chief of Paktia province.

But hey, the Taliban are rising Islamically, and to fight them would be a war against Islam, according to McMaster students.

Don't Stand Down, Hijab at School

Islam means something. It actually says something, it prescribes things. Islam can have influence and this influence can have actual results.

This should be kept in mind when talking about religious accommodation, for example religious symbols in schools. This is one of the issues in the debate in Quebec. Some complain that preventing women from wearing hijab as teachers or as students, is "very intrusive, very discriminatory." Yes, it is discriminatory against the message of Islam as embodied in the hijab. But, a public school is put together by the public in order to, in some part, educate and raise children. The public always discriminates among the wide variety of ideologies which exist and thereby decides what messages the children are exposed to. If the public disagrees with the message of Islam, they have both the right, as they have the final say as to what transpires in the schools, and the responsibility to not allow that message in the school. There's no absolute reason to accommodate ideologies you disagree with. One doesn't allow a teacher or a student to wear whatever symbol they wish to at school, and no one argues against this. For example, a NAMBLA t-shirt wouldn't be worn for very long in a public school. So, everyone agrees the issue is not in deciding whether to accommodate every point of view, but rather the issue is in deciding which points of view should be accommodated and which should not. The public, of Quebec at least, doesn't want to accommodate the Islamic point of view that some wish to bring to schools. I think they're right: it's a very poor ideology, both in message and in results. Those who agree on this shouldn't stand down.

If the public thinks the message of Islam is bad, then why should they have to allow the propagation of that message at the schools they are in charge of? The French know the answer, and that's why they banned the hijab at their public schools, with a bill "passed by 494 votes to 36." I'm sure if a similar movement was brought in the Quebec National Assembly, it would find similar support.