Yesterday at 03:22 · Edited ·
I am sitting on a United airlines flight in the air 30,000ft above and I am in tears of humiliation from discrimination. The flight attendant asked me what I would like to drink and I requested a can of diet coke. She brought me a can that was open so I requested an unopened can due to hygienic reasons. She said no one has consumed from the drink, but I requested an unopened can. She responded, “Well I’m sorry I just can’t give you an unopened can so no diet coke for you.” She then brought the man sitting next to me a can of UNOPENED beer. So I asked her again why she refused to give me an UNOPENED can of diet coke. She said, “We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people because they may use it as a WEAPON on the plane.” So I told her that she was clearly discriminating against me because she gave the man next to me an unopened can of beer. She looked at his can, quickly grabbed it and opened it and said, “it’s so you don’t use it as a weapon.” Apphauled at her behavior I asked people around me if they witnessed this discriminatory and disgusting behavior and the man sitting in an aisle across from me yelled out to me, “you Moslem, you need to shut the F** up.” I said, “what?!” He then leaned over from his seat, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “yes you know you would use it as a WEAPON so shut the f**k up.” I felt the hate in his voice and his raging eyes. I can’t help but cry on this plane because I thought people would defend me and say something. Some people just shook their heads in dismay. #IslamophobiaISREAL
Tag Archives: Islam
Saturday 31 January 2015
Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it
A tweet from Richard Dawkins’ account suggests beaming porn all over the Middle East. And Stephen Fry is angry with God. Who cares anymore?
By Tim Stanley12:15PM GMT 31 Jan 2015
Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of “erotic videos” to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that Islamists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.
After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor. Time was when it looked like Dawkins was about to go the full “nut-job 180” and declare that, upon reflection, there actually is a God and it’s Richard Dawkins – and have himself blasted into space on the back of a dolphin singing Onward Christian Soldiers.
As you can tell, I’ve come to regard Dick with a great deal of affection. He’s just a mad uncle – a genius academic with monomania who probably isn’t a bad person just a rather naïve one. And his capacity for dreaming up new ways to irritate the religious is, at least, not boring.
The same, alas, cannot be said of Stephen Fry. When asked by the great Gay Byrne on Irish telly what he would say to God if he met him, super atheist Fry had this response: “I’ll say: bone cancer in children, what’s that about? How dare you how dare you create a world where there is such misery that’s not our fault? It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”
He went on to say that he much prefers the Greek gods.
Saying that you prefer the Greek gods to the Christian one is akin to screaming “I did classics at school!” and is really just showing off. It’s also morally corrupt, because the Greek gods rather liked raping and murdering – and were often immune to human pleas for compassion. Moreover, Fry’s central point, that a God who is all-powerful yet does nothing about suffering must be cruel, is – sigh – rather passé.
Not only has theology dedicated itself for thousands of years to unpicking that problem but the answer to it is there in the very Bible itself. Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, we’ve been living in a fallen world full of pain. God granted us free will not only to do bad things but also good things – like finding a cure for cancer or caring for those dying from it.
Terrible things happen because of a) random acts of nature, b) the intervention of the Devil or c) the corruption of man. I’m not saying anyone has to believe what I write, but please don’t act like it’s never been said before or that the answer to Fry’s facile question doesn’t exist. Dear Stephen imagines that he’s the first person in history to wonder why folks suffer. He’s not. He is, however, strangely upset about something that he doesn’t even believe in. Who gets angry about an imaginary conversation?
Ultimately, I don’t care that Fry doesn’t believe in God or that he spouts off about it at every given opportunity like a crazy man on a bus. What irritates me is that his remarks are reported as though they are important. He’s not Oscar Wilde (who died a Catholic). He’s not even Benny Hill (who was funny). Celebrity atheism was a big thing ten years ago but now is old hat and rather tiresome. Oh, there are atheist thinkers out there whose opinions are worth hearing and there are eloquent people of faith ready to respond. But why must it always be the same old bores boring on about the subject? This yawnfest has to stop.
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2015
Islam Creates Monsters Says Psychologist
Added by Rebecca Savastio on May 2, 2014.
Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, an expert in working with Muslim youth criminal offenders, has written a new book entitled Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experience from the Copenhagen Municipality, and in an essay supporting the book, he claims that “Islam creates monsters.” A recent study out of Germany supports Sennels’ statement. It found that devout Muslims were more prone to violence than the non-Muslim participants in the study.
Sennels says Islam is different from other religions because the way it is taught brainwashes its youth with violent messages. Parents inflict violence on their children repeatedly, Sennels claims, and at the same time, deliver religious ideology. He says this behavior makes Muslim extremists far more violent than extremists of other religious faiths.
The brainwashing, as Sennels terms it, begins very early on in a child’s life, and religious messages are repeated vigorously along with a heavy dose of physical discipline. It is this combination of pain and reinforcement, Sennels claims, that creates Islamic “monsters” who then feel justified in torturing and killing innocent people.
Sennels points out that parents want to indoctrinate their children into the religion as early as possible so that the kids will remain Muslim instead of looking to another faith—under Sharia law, turning against Islam is a crime punishable by death.
He goes on to point out that Muslim culture lags far behind in the “understanding of human development,” and therefore, the techniques that Westerners would call child abuse are deeply ingrained and normalized among Muslim parents as correct child-rearing strategies.
Sennels says that in Muslim culture, the idea of “constructive criticism” doesn’t exist, and any criticism of Muslim identity will result in extreme anger and quite possibly, physical violence. The Quran itself, Sennels claims, does not allow for the idea of tolerance, and calls for Muslims to separate from non-Muslims and view people of other faiths as inferior. This, in turn breeds hatred, Sennels claims. He explains:
The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.
His remarks have stirred up a great deal of controversy, but a large study out of Germany, involving 45,000 teens, seems to support Sennels’ claims. In that study, a strong link between the level of religious Muslim belief and the willingness to participate in violence was revealed.
Notably, the study’s author undertook the project hoping it would prove the opposite outcome. Christian Pfeiffer, a scientist who works at the Criminal Research Institute in Saxony, said that he has been active in opposing any campaign to denigrate Muslims or other foreigners, and he was disappointed by the study results.
Studies and the opinions of experts like psychologists that show a correlation between Islam and violence are widely criticized by supporters of Islam, and are often described as “Islamaphobia” no matter how scientific the claim.
Supporters of Islam say that it is a religion of peace, and that it is no more likely than other religions to cause violent behavior. In a paper out of the University of Notre Dame, author Rashied Omar says that Islam is not meant to be a pacifist religion and simplistic definitions of the faith are reductive. Despite the fact that Islam is not meant to be a pacifist tradition, Omar says, “the history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other traditions.”
Islamic studies professor Waleed El-Ansary in an interview with NPR stated that the Quran forbids the killing of innocent people and sets clear distinctions between Jihad and terrorism. Jihad is considered to be legal war with set parameters and rules, while terrorism is expressly condemned by the Quran, Ansary says.
Muslim scholar Anas Hlayhel, an imam dedicating to eradicating Islamphobia, states that the Quran dictates peace toward those who also show “an inclination for peace” and forbids any violence toward innocent civilians.
Psychologist Nicolai Sennels says Islam creates monsters; a statement that has strengthened the raging debate about the link between Islam and violence. It is a debate which shows no signs of slowing down soon, and one that many feel requires additional scientific stud
By: Rebecca Savastio
Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY
Telegraph.co.uk – Sunday 23 March 2014 By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor 22 Mar 2014
Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.
The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.
Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.
“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.
It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.
It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.
The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.
Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.
A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act.
They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.
But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.
Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.
They offer “mediation” rather than adjudication, although some hearings are laid out like courts with religious scholars or legal experts sitting in a manner more akin to judges than counsellors.
One study estimated that there were now around 85 Sharia bodies operating in Britain. But the new Law Society guidance represents the first time that an official legal body has recognised the legitimacy of some Sharia principles.
It opens the way for non-Muslim lawyers in High Street firms to offer Sharia will drafting services. The document sets out crucial differences between Sharia inheritance laws and Western traditions.
It explains how, in Islamic custom, inheritances are divided among a set list of heirs determined by ties of kinship rather than named individuals. It acknowledges the possibility of people having multiple marriages.
“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class,” the guidance says. “Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.
Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death. This means you should amend or delete some standard will clauses.”
It advises lawyers to draft special exclusions from the Wills Act 1837, which allows gifts to pass to the children of an heir who has died, because this is not recognised in Islamic law.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2014Terms and Conditions
FOOTNOTE: Scots Law is different from English; I don’t know if this will apply here (Meenister)
BBC News Website 2 January 2014
More than 300 Bibles are confiscated in Malaysia
Two copies of the Bible in Malay (left) and the Iban dialect are seen in this picture illustration taken in Kuala Lumpur Christian organisations in Malaysia say that they are alarmed by the confiscations
Islamic authorities in Malaysia have seized more than 300 Bibles from the Bible Society because they use the word Allah to refer to God, officials say.
Bible Society officials told Reuters that two of their members were briefly detained following the seizure.
A court ruled in October that non-Muslims could not use the word Allah to refer to God.
The appeals court said the term Allah must be exclusive to Islam or it could cause public disorder.
People of all faiths use the word Allah in Malay to refer to their gods.
Christians argue they have used the word, which entered Malay from Arabic, to refer to their God for centuries and that the ruling violates their rights.
The October court ruling overturned a 2009 ruling which said that a Catholic newspaper, The Herald, could use the word Allah in its Malay-language edition to describe the Christian God.
The 2009 ruling sparked tensions, with churches and mosques attacked.
Critics accuse the government of tacitly condoning Bible seizures as a way of deflecting anger against Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government from poor Malay Muslims who are angry over subsidy cuts likely to force up electricity, petrol and sugar prices.
‘Nothing against the law’
The Malay language Bibles were seized from the Malaysian Bible Society in the state of Selangor near the capital, Kuala Lumpur.
Muslim demonstrators chant slogans outside Malaysia’s Court of Appeal in Putrajaya, outside Kuala Lumpur 14 October 2013 The October court case rekindled a long-running debate in Muslim-majority Malaysia about the use of the word Allah
“We were told that we were under investigation for breaking a Selangor state law banning non-Muslims from using the word Allah,” Bible Society of Malaysia Chairman Lee Min Choon told Reuters.
The main political party within Mr Najib’s ruling coalition, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), said its Selangor members would protest at all churches in the state on Sunday against the unauthorised use of the word Allah.
“There are laws in Selangor and there was a decree by his Royal Highness the Sultan. So what they are doing is carrying out the Sultan’s decree,” Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President Muhyiddin Yassin was quoted by media as saying.
“They are not doing anything against the law.”
But in a statement the Council of Churches of Malaysia said it was “alarmed” by the raid and urged the government to “protect religious rights as provided under the Federal Constitution”.
The 2009 dispute began when the Home Ministry threatened to revoke the publishing permit of The Herald for using the word Allah.
Malay Muslims make up almost two-thirds of the country’s population, but there are large Hindu and Christian communities.
Mr Najib’s coalition won elections in May, but it was the coalition’s worst result in more than half a century in power.
By Telegraph Reporters12:00PM GMT 17 Jan 2013
The hooded men, who call themselves Muslim Patrol, have been filmed loitering around English streets and intimidating people.
They have uploaded videos to their YouTube channel with the most recent three-minute clip causing a stir online.
“The Truth About Saturday Night”, which was uploaded on Sunday, has already been viewed more than 42,000 times.
It was shot on a mobile phone at night in what is believed to be East London, with a number of men seen shouting ‘this is a Muslim area’ towards white Brits they’ve confronted.
The video description states: “From women walking the street dressed like complete naked animals with no self respect, to drunk people carrying alcohol, to drunks being killed in the middle of the road, we try our best to capture and forbid it all.”
One scene shows the hooded yobs forcing a passing man to put a can of lager away, telling the stunned gentleman they are the Muslim Patrol and that alcohol is a “forbidden evil”.
They then tell a group of women “they need to forbid themselves from dressing like this and exposing themselves outside the mosque”.
On another occasion, a young lady takes offence to their requests and tells them they’re in Great Britain at which point they respond by saying “they don’t respect those who disobey God”.
The group add: “We don’t care if you are appalled at all”, before calling themselves “vigilantes implementing Islam upon your own necks”.
Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim organisation which campaigns for a peaceful co-existence among communities, has condemned the group’s behaviour.
He said: “We live in the UK and we are governed by UK law, there should be no mob rule. If people are involved in this behaviour then it is worrying but it is an isolated incident.”
The vigilante video follows an earlier clip made by the group where they protested against adverts for push-up bras by High Street retailer H&M.
In the clip they say: “The Muslims have taken it upon themselves to command the good and forbid the evil and cover up these naked people.”
They then show a number of adverts for the product which has been sprayed over and also film themselves pouring petrol over one advert and setting it on fire.
Three members of a self-styled “Muslim Patrol” vigilante group have been jailed for harassing, intimidating and assaulting people on the streets of east London while claiming they were enforcing sharia law. judge at the Old Bailey had heard that Jordan Horner, 19, Ricardo MacFarlane, 26, and a 23-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons, had terrorised a couple for walking through Bethnal Green holding hands, told a woman in Stepney that she would be punished in “hellfire” because of the way she was dressed, and attacked a group of men who were drinking in Shoreditch.
Horner – who has previously said he wants to bring sharia law to Britain – was jailed for a total of 17 months after pleading guilty to two charges of assault and two charges of using threatening words and behaviour.
MacFarlane was sentenced to 12 months in prison after pleading guilty to affray, while the 23-year-old received a six-month sentence after pleading guilty to affray.
Passing sentence on Friday, Judge Rebecca Poulet QC told them that while Islam was a peaceful religion, their conduct was “unfortunately anything but”.
“One of the many good things about living in Great Britain is the tolerance and respect members of the public generally show to one another’s religious beliefs, his dress or his chosen way of life.
“When, on occasions, a person shows their intolerance of another individual, whether by aggression or violence and in such a way as to cause real fear to the individual, then the law can be invoked to protect that individual.”
The judge said that her sentencing powers were restricted because the prosecution had chosen not to prefer religiously aggravated offences.
The court had been told that Horner and the 23-year-old man drove alongside Joshua Bilton and Anna Reddiford in Bethnal Green and yelled at them through a megaphone.
Horner shouted: “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!”
The couple initially believed it was a joke but the group repeated the warning until they let go of each other’s hands.
When they started holding hands again a few minutes later the car re-appeared and blocked their path until they let go.
Two weeks later, on 6 January this year, Horner and MacFarlane attacked a group of men drinking in the streets of Shoreditch.
They said that they were there to “enforce Sharia law” in “Allah’s land”, and shouted: “Kill the non-believers”.
Horner then punched two of the group, hitting James Forward in the jaw and knocking out Patrick Kavanagh with a punch to the head.
A week later, Horner and the 23-year-old confronted another couple, Clare Coyle and Robert Gray, walking in the street in Stepney. The 23-year-old accused Coyle of dressing inappropriately in a Muslim area and that she would be punished in “hellfire”.
Horner filmed the incident on his mobile phone and called Clare Coyle a “slag”. She told him: “This is Great Britain. I can dress how I wish.”
In the video, which was later uploaded to YouTube, the group can be heard shouting: “You need to control this area and forbid people from exposing themselves outside the mosque. Remove yourselves now. Muslim Patrol. Move away from the mosque. Don’t come back. We don’t respect those who disrespect God.”
Horner, who changed his name to Jamal Uddin, was jailed for six weeks in July this year for assaulting a photographer and causing £3,000 of damage to a car in an attack in Walthamstow. He was also seen putting up posters across east London “banning” alcohol.
One of the three members of ‘Muslim Patrol’, Ricardo MacFarlane, outside the Old Bailey. Photograph: Ed Willcox/Central News
Walter Russell Mead’s Blog
November 25, 2013
Angola Banning Islam
As Africa’s God Wars churn on, it appears that majority-Christian Angola is taking steps to ban Islam on its territory:
Weekly French-language Moroccan newspaper La Nouvelle Tribune published an article on Friday sourcing “several” Angolan officials, including the Southwest African nation’s minister of culture, Rosa Cruz, who reportedly offered the following remarks, which have been translated from French: “The process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, their mosques would be closed until further notice.”
The media reports have not described why exactly Islam apparently faces a need to be legalized despite its presence in the country for many years.
OnIslam.net reports that the African economic news agency Agence Ecofin wrote that Cruz made the statement at an appearance last week before the 6th Commission of the National Assembly. The website goes on to note that, “According to several Angolan newspapers, Angola has become the first country in the world to ban Islam and Muslims, taking first measures by destroying mosques in the country.”
This is emphatically not a good idea. There are many Christians in Africa where religious conflict is rising, and Christian believers and churches have suffered attacks and intimidation. They are increasingly tempted “to do unto others as they do unto you”—or even to do unto others before they do unto you. Our advice, difficult to follow as it may be, is to stick with the original version of the Golden Rule. Religious persecution is not the way of Christ, and history has too many examples already of the horrible things that can happen when Christian believers indulge.
If specific preachers, funders or organizations incite or practice violence, society has a right to protect itself. But people who live peacefully and obey the laws of the land should never fear persecution because of their faith—or for that matter, their lack of it.
President Jose Edurado dos Santos reportedly told the Osun Defence daily: ‘This is the final end of Islamic influence in our country.’
Along with Islam, which is a religion associated with less than 1 per cent of the population of 19 million, 194 other ‘sects’ have been banned in the nation, where more than half the population is Christian.
Ms Cruz e Silva said: ‘The legalisation of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights [and] their mosques will be closed until further notice.’
Clashes between Christians and Muslim people are frequently reported in the local media.
Turkey’s Directorate General for Religious Affairs issues fatwa against tattoos
‘In Islam, drawing attention [to oneself] and changing the properties and form given by birth is considered to be altering creation, and is therefore banned,’ the Directorate General for Religious Affairs has said regarding tattoos. AFP photo
The Directorate General for Religious Affairs (Diyanet) has issued a fatwa stating that tattoos are not in accordance with Islam.
“The same way that they are harmful for health, they are prohibited by religion,” the body’s High Committee of Religious Affairs said on Nov. 2, in response to a question over whether tattoos were permissible.
“In Islam, drawing attention [to oneself] and changing the properties and form given by birth is considered to be altering creation, and is therefore banned,” the Diyanet said, adding that the practice dated back to the pre-Islamic “age of ignorance.”
The statement also mentioned that the Prophet Muhammad said that those who changed how they were created were distancing themselves from God’s mercy and grace.
“Therefore, getting tattoos is not permissible,” it concluded.
Long hair in men acceptable, earrings not so much
The Diyanet also clarified that Islam disapproved of earrings and other such piece of jewelry in men.
“Muslim man should keep away from using jewelry that is proper for women, because our Prophet ordered: Men who try to resemble women and women who try to resemble men stand apart from God’s mercy and grace,” the statement said, adding that this would be considered “mekruh,” in other words “almost illicit.”
However, the statement said that long hair on men and styling hair in any kind of way is not considered illicit, so long as the hair is kept clean.