Now We Can Read Arabic

Just as I predicted, Arabic script is now presented to us without the English translation.

Here is a photo of a halal sign I took on the window of a kabab shop on the busy Yonge street. This is no "ethnic" restaurant. This is your regular fast food pita-with-fillings shop. I suspect the writing is exclusive to Muslims, but I just think it is part of the gradual indoctrination for non-Muslims and non-Arabs to recognize Arabic words and script.

What are they preparing us for? To read the Koran? I said it here first!

A Rough Transcript of the Debate on the Counter-Jihad Movement

I listened to the very interesting hour-long debate between Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi at the event organized by ACT! For America (which I blogged about here).

This debate, which also included the participation of audience members, occurred after each presenter finished a prepared speech, and answered questions from the audience.

Mr. Auster began his challenge to Miss Zaidi by saying:

What I heard over and over again was wishful thinking. Your position is, I think we ought to have standards, I think Muslims should not impose their faith on others, I think there ought to be moderate mosques, I think people should not yield to the power of jihadist Islam. These were all your personal opinions the way you would like things to be. The reality is that is not the way Islam is.

And from this introduction, below are what I considered the pertinent points of the debate, which I have divided into segments. Some of it is directly transcribed from the audio, most of it I've simplified in my own words.

You can go to the Unofficial Lawrence Auster page and scroll down to "Who belongs in the counter-jihad movement?" and "The Debate" to hear the whole debate, which I do recommend, partly to hear the debating style of Miss Zaidi, who I found cleverly rebutted several arguments, but who at the end of the day was unable to see the fallacy of her argument of plucking this moderate Muslim out of the thin air of her imagination. I found this inability strangely stubborn, as though some personal stance was at stake. Maybe if she started to acknowledge the violence and aggression of her religion, it might make her less religious, or even renounce her religion altogether?

-----------------

Organizing moderate Muslims

Z. We need to organize the moderation of Islam.
A. How long will moderation [reform] of Islam take?
Z. A couple of decades.
A. So we should let these people in, work on them for 50 years [until they're moderate], in the mean time they’ll do what they do?
Z. Screen them both at immigration level, and their schools, mosques and those individuals once in the country.
A. Still not enough. What if they don’t do what they say [or do what they don’t say]? Robert Spencer has finally said that screening is ineffective, and all Muslim immigration should be stopped. Why should a country allow people in with such huge problems in the first place?

-----------------

Who are the Islamists and who are the Muslims?

A. Are sharia believing, jihad believing Muslims objectively Muslims?
Z. Yes.
A. Then why do you call them Islamists?
Z. All Islamists are Muslims, all Muslims are not Islamists.
A. The net effect of this is saying that Islam is not the problem, but only Islamism is the problem. This weakens a society’s ability to defend itself from the dangerous form of Islam.

-----------------

A private vs. a public religion

Z. You should be satisfied with practicing your faith at home – in private.
A. Real religions are not just private.
A. The real Islam by its very nature is public, social, political – the real Islam is not just private.
A. Miss Zaidi is trying to create something that has never existed except in the
individual private realm and try to act as though this can become the common Islamic practice for most or all Muslims.
A. Shall we gamble our society on this wishful thinking?

-----------------

Is Sharia different in different situations?

Z. Sharia is an intangible; it means nothing, it illustrates itself in different ways depending on the generation or the century.
A. Spencer completely disagrees. The fundamentals of sharia are the same in all the Islamic splinters, they may differ on details.
A. This is a typical liberal argument – "there is a lot of diversity in Islam, you don’t need to worry about it". They do this to distract people from the essence of Islam.
A. There are all types of conflicts within Islam, does that mean that there is no such thing as Islam?

-----------------

What to do about the aggressive Muslim presence

A. The general trend of Western societies is to yield gradually to Muslims’ demands.
A. The inevitable dynamic happens where Muslims’ sharia-mandated aggressiveness and Westerners' acquiescence results with Muslims getting more and more power.
A. Separation of Islam from the West is the only solution to counter their sharia-commanded aggressiveness and Westerners' inevitable acquiescence.

A Preliminary Review of Supna Zaidi's Speech and Q&A

The presentations on Islam organized by ACT! for America with Lawrence Auster and Supna Zaidi is now on Youtube. There are four parts to the videos: one each for each presentation by Mr. Auster and Miss Zaida, and two more for a question and answer period for both presenters. The debate between the two apparently has been recorded as an audio, and will be made available.

I can't say much about the actual debate until I hear the audio. I think that is the interesting part (for me, at least, since I have been blogging about Mr. Auster's recommendations for how to treat Muslims in the West in a few blogs now). I don't think there ever has been a debate between someone who doesn't accept the term (or the person) "moderate Muslim", and the other party proclaiming to be a real-life moderate Muslim. Even the eminent Islam critic Robert Spencer, who has of late announced that Muslim immigration should be stopped, still cannot quite accept that his Muslim acquaintances are part of the violent, jihad-supporting group that much of Islamic history seems to point towards.

Until the debate is available, here are a few thoughts and comments (and a question here and there) on Miss Zaidi's presentation:

- Miss Zaidi says that without affiliation with mosques or Imams, movements Muslims such as herself try to initiate - a moderate approach to Islam - would be futile. But, aren't mosques and Imams the last place to go for moderate view points, and if they are behind it, won't the movement become other than moderate - i.e. radical? Doesn't that put into question the whole possibility of organizing large groups of Muslims as moderates?

- She talked extensively about her country of birth, Pakistan. When describing the modern history of Pakistan (actually, all of Pakistan's history is modern), doesn't it show that the country seems to be getting progressively less moderate? Isn't that the historical progression of all Muslim countries? Even Turkey, which had a secular government for the last sixty years or so (a very short period given the country's long history), is now beginning to slowly denounce its secularism, by the popular election of a conservative president who is a "former Islamist", and whose wife is wearing the formerly banned hijab in public.

- Is America to be the Islam reformer, where due to its cultural and political institutions, it seems to help people like her to pursue their quest for moderate (reformed?) Islam? As I mentioned above, almost all countries with Muslim populations haven't been able to advance that proposition. Why does she think America will be able to do it?

- She worries about her 1-year-old nephew's influences when he's a young adult and wishes to associate with other Muslims, who might have a radicalizing effect on him. I doubt that a Greek Orthodox or an Israeli Jew who immigrate to America would have such concerns about their younger relatives. Why is Miss Zaidi worried about hers? Isn't there something in Islam that underlines violent means for disseminating the faith that is making her worried? So, is Islam (or are Muslims) ever really moderate?

- Finally, I am surprised at her dismissal of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - which I've blogged about here. ISNA is a virulent organization, working under the radar, but which is fully immersed with other organizations which advocate jihadi-like violence when confronting Western (and other) antagonists.

I look forward to listening to the debate. I am sure Mr. Auster will be generous and considerate towards Miss Zaidi, but at the same time, I don't think he will let inconsistent and unclear outlooks by Miss Zaidi pass over unremarked.

Debating a Moderate Muslim

Muslims who desire to appear moderate (or at least in opposition to what are perceived as radical, fundamentalist Muslims) have various ways of describing (or rationalizing) their positions. Here is one such argument from Tashbih Sayyed, a newspaper columnist and writer:

Tashbih Sayyed, a secular Muslim (or ex-Muslim, I’m not sure which), found the passage in the Koran that says, "There is no compulsion in religion," and decided that he would make that his view of Islam; meaning that he was ignoring the fact that the passage was abrogated by the Medinan suras, which call for endless war against, killing of, and terminal scalding and flaying in hell for those who reject Islam.

Here's more on the recent debate on Islam with Lawrence Auster and Tashbih Sayyed's daugher, Supna Zaidi, who is the assistant director of Daniel Pipe’s Islamist Watch and who calls herself a moderate Muslim. The debate was organized by ACT for America during the weekend.

I think this is the first time anyone who doesn't accept the term "moderate Muslim" has debated a self-ascribed moderate Muslim. But the crux of the debate (or speech) is Mr. Auster's recommendations for what to do about the dangers of Islam. Such an approach at looking at Islam - what to do about its dangers - is gaining more attention, and ACT for America has a useful set up where such issues can be discussed and disseminated to a wider public, hopefully conservatives and liberals alike.

The Canadian Coptic Centre's Imposing Warning Sign

The Canadian Coptic Centre, in Mississauga, Ontario

While driving through Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto, I saw the most formidable church I have ever seen. Not even the Cathedral of St. James, in Toronto, comes close, at least in size and prominence.

The Canadian Coptic Centre is a colossal building with some eight or nine cupolas. Its church was consecrated as the Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius in 1989.

A few miles down the same road is the Al-Farooq Mosque, an unassuming building for now, but with plans for a $6 million expansion.

Copts in Egypt have suffered constant persecution from their Muslim conquerors, and in fact, the antagonism and violence against them in Egypt seems to be growing. Many Copts here in Canada know of this experience first hand. What a shock it must have been for them that just down the road is a mosque, relatively small and innocuous for now, but with the promise of huge expansions.

Al-Farooq Mosque was established in 1987, as the first mosque in Mississauga. The Canadian Coptic Centre's Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius was consecrated just two years after, although its property had been bought in 1982, when construction continued for another eight years.

Now, this is speculation on my part, but it looks like the mosque came later (established 1987, says its web site, whereas the Coptic church started construction in 1982 which was completed in 1989). So, surely the Copts, in retaliation to what looks like the antagonistic presence of their age-old enemies, continued to expand this cupola-rich church to ward off, and to warn against, their new Muslim neighbors?

What more can they do? If they talk too negatively, they will be harming the “freedom of religion” mandate of Canadian society. And Muslims will never let them get away with it. To me, the best they could come up was to build their imposing building, both to protect themselves (spiritually), and to warn their Canadian host country of the dangers they had to flee, literally in life and death situations. And that the same could happen to them again, and in fact to anyone in the path of the single-minded Muslims.

I hope people are listening.

Are Canadians a Cowardly Bunch?

A review of the presentations in London, Ontario, on the HRC by Levant, Shaidle, and Mansur

I don't think this photo was necessary
(read last section below).

I've posted here the presentation in London, Ontario, by Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur, where I normally post on information related to Islam, because the topic: "Human Rights Commission, Useful or Obsolete" relates both directly and indirectly to Islam.

Levant, as I've blogged before, was caught in the Human Rights Commission (HRC) nightmare when he published the Mohammed cartoons three years ago. Shaidle has written a book called The Tyranny of Nice, also dealing with the HRC. And Mansur presents a Muslim's perspective on the HRC.

The videos are available at Levant's website. Levant's presentation is in Part 2 of the videos, and begins at around the 23-minute mark.

Levant's impassioned speech was actually a pleasure to listen to. I agreed with his premise that Canadians are not a cowardly bunch, and he cited for example the World Wars, and the mission in Afghanistan. This is as good a time as any to bring up Canadian courage.

Levant's pugnacious start was in response to Shailde's challenge that the HRCs got so far ahead because of complaisant Canadians. But part of the problem with the HRCs is their undercover nature. They pounce on unsuspecting business owners, teachers and Christians (let's face it, the religious people they attack are Christians), who then, under the shock of losing their jobs and businesses make a "deal" to avoid further harassment. So, I disagree, and that rather than being complacent, people are shell-shocked into silenced.

The other point Shailde made was that the HRCs are a "typical" Canadian knee-jerk reaction of one-upmanship on the Americans, who had their lunch counter protests and a full-blown Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, this may be partially true, but the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was part of a strange global radicalization towards the left, which Canadians also participated in.

Shaidle frequently references some kind of Canadian Envy towards the U.S. which she says dictates many of the policies and developments made in the country. I actually disagree with this very strongly. It is normal that Canada react to the U.S. on many levels, just being close to the border makes this inevitable. But, many of the ways the country has shaped itself is a purely Canadian exercise.

Even the apparently complacent reaction to the HRCs is reminiscent of the matter-of-fact attempt of a country trying to keep many diverse (in the real sense) elements together at its inception, including a French minority, a British presence, and even the very first Prime Minister whose Scottish background forced him to interact with a "colonial" Britain, similar to the way his own Scotsmen had compromised back in Scotland.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong in saying that Canada is a land of pragmatic compromise, with an acute awareness of diversity. These were the loopholes that the HRCs managed to wiggle themselves into, to foment their destructive setup.

But, they had to get caught at some point, because the other traditions, the courage and fairness which Levant brought up, are still an innate part of Canadians' psyche.

One final thing. Shaidle opines that part of the HRC's modus operandi is to shut up the normally outspoken and vocal lower classes through an educated, upper-class elite. I have to disagree here also, since they are obviously pretty indiscriminate. I wouldn't call Ezra Levant a vocal lower class, nor does that fit MacCleans magazine, which along with Steyn, was part of a recent HRC scuffle. Nor would I classify the myriad of teachers, pastors and business owners, who keep getting the summons ticket, as lower class.

On a related, but tangential point, Shaidle and Wendy Sullivan have both posted a photo of them having drinks with friends, including two South Asians (including Salim Mansur) and one Iranian, after the lecture. This is to show that they are not "racist". I wish they didn't have to resort to this. As always, the right is reacting to the left, putting itself in embarrassing, if not unnecessary, situations (remember the I Am Sarah Palin video Sullivan did?). It was enough to have given the lecture, and that an unprecedented 600 people showed up.

Also, not to mention Levant’s very successful book tour, and his influence on a Conservative leader who plans to take on the HRC issue.

Burquas for Turkey

Doesn't Turkey's government call itself "secular", and hasn't it banned the hijab, at least on University campuses?

Well, apparently, on February Turkish parliament has:

[V]oted 'yes' for a proposal tabled by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to amend the Constitution to relax the ban.

This is not an amendment yet, and could still not pass, although I doubt it very much. Just the hijab-donned wife

Type rest of the post here