Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, were found responsible for 9/11 attacks

Bloomberg reports:

“In Havlish,   et   al.   v.   bin   La den,   et   al. , Judge Daniels held that the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Iran’s agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”), and Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11.  “

This is all well and good, but what does this truly mean?

Will the representatives of the Iranian regime who enter the U.S.A. be arrested and held accountable?

Will they – at least – be expelled from the US and will all representatives of the Government of Iran be prevented from entering the US, including to attend the UN, ehich is physically located there?

Because if they are not then what is the point of even going through with this exercise?

“A Black Day for Austria”

Do you remember the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian woman who had the courage to speak truth about Islam?

Her criminal conviction for disrespecting Islam had just been upheld…

Europeans are increasingly legislating dhimmitude!

Where will this end?

ThunderF00t: Futurama logically PROVES God has no free will!

 

When can raising charity money for orphans land you in a ‘re-education camp’?

When you live in a land ruled by Sharia!

Zilla of the Resistance has the story.

(Check it out and have a listen to the music:  I rather like the tune I suspect is the ‘swing classic’ ‘Clementine’ done in Indonesian punk – a definite improvement over the original!)

Via:  BCF

Quite apart from this story, it is important for us, Westerners, to understand that in lands ruled by Sharia, ‘charity’ does not work the same way it does in our part of the World.

This does not mean that Muslims are not charitable people:  not at all!

And it does not mean that in countries with Muslim populations, people do not perform charitable acts for the sake of helping their fellow human beings, regardless of race or creed.  They do – and we have many stories of Muslim women helping Westerners (men, women and children) who were in Japanese prison camps during WWII!

Rather, as Sharia rules every single aspect of life of those unfortunate to live under its oppression, so it has very specific and rigid rules for ‘charity’.

Let me illustrate this with an example:  following the Tsunami a few years ago, people in Bengal (I refuse to use the new colonial name for the country) were upset that many Western charities got volunteers on the ground and started providing aid.  The Bengali fear was that these aid groups were there trying to steal their children…

Many in the West were perplexed by this:  why would the people there refuse aid, willingly provided without any strings attached?

Because right now, Bengal is under Sharia.  And Sharia strictly differentiates between ‘Muslim charities’ and ‘non-Muslim charities’.

It is forbidden, under Sharia, for Muslim charities to help non-Muslims – and for non-Muslim charities to help Muslims (though, to be honest, non-Muslim charities do face a lot of regulatory interference under Sharia and are thus prevented from being as effective in providing aid as Muslim charities are).  Therefore, when non-Muslim charities attempted to aid Muslims in Bengal, the response among the population was confusion and fear – and, ultimately, rejection of much help.  The problem was finally resolved by the non-Muslim charities simply giving the money and aid materiel to Muslim charities, who then operated on the ground…

Another ‘perplexing’ example came even more recently, during the terrible flooding in Pakistan.  Even as money poured into the county through Red Cross, there were appalling stories of whole non-Muslim families starving – even in regions where food aid was plentiful.  Again, people in ‘The West’ could not make heads-or-tails of this and many wrote these stories off as propaganda.

Not so.

The primary channel for the aid funds was The International Red Cross.

In Sharia countries, the Red Cross partners with its affiliated Islamic charity, the Red Crescent, and channels all aid through it.

In Pakistan, which is for all practical purposes governed by Sharia, the Red Crescent operates as an Islamic charity under Sharia does.  That means that Mosques are used as the centres from which the aid (from food on down) is distributed.

To most of us, this does not seem particularly odd:  Mosques serve as community centres, so they are centrally located and accessible.  Plus, they have the room to store the supplies to be distributed, so this would be a logical place to distribute aid from, right?

Plus, under Sharia, the Red Crescent is only permitted to distribute aid through a Mosque.  So, it is not just the ‘logical’ course of action, it is the only permitted course of action.  And the Red Crescent did make various statements to the effect that everyone who came to them for aid, received aid!

So, what was the problem that caused the non-Muslims to starve?

Under Sharia, a non-Muslim may not enter a Mosque!

Not being permitted to enter the place from which the aid from Western countries was being distributed, non-Muslims could either starve or convert to Islam…

I suspect there is a lot more about ‘charity under Sharia’ we just don’t know…

Clay and Water: Illustrated biography of Mohammad

Clay and Water is running a special feature:  an illustrated biography of Mohammad, with references from the Koran and the Hadith.

Check it out.

A Biblical ‘Mathematical’ Puzzle

Lately, I have found myself pondering (and writing about) topics that are more ‘philosophical’ than ‘political’:  perhaps this is an indulgence, but it does ‘recharg my batteries’, so to speak!

The fourth birthday of my blog is coming up and, being in the ‘philosophical’ state of mind, I have thought back to some of the early posts I have made.

One post (in two parts) which I keep thinking back to is a Biblical ‘Mathematical’ puzzle I presume to have solved:  and I would be curious if my current readers have some views about my proposed solution – interpretation of the exceedingly long lives of early Biblical Patriarchs!

The ‘puzzle’ is presented here.  Please, read it first and consider it.

My proposed ‘solution’ is here.

Thoughts, comments, ideas?

Asperger Syndrome and ‘religious belief’

Here, I would very much like to ask Aspies who consider themselves to be ‘theists’ (who believe in one or more deities) to describe the mechanics of their ‘belief’ as best as possible.  (Of course, I would like all Aspies to describe their mechanics of ‘belief’ – but theist ones in particular, because I suspect that Aspie theists are quite rare.)

Why?

I have as yet to meet one…

I do know many Aspies, most of whom have been raised in theist homes when they were children.  Yet, when I have discussed this whole topic of religion and belief, it has become clear to me that not one of them ‘believes’ in deities in the sense that neurotypicals who ‘believe’ do.  The closest to ‘belief’ these people have come is to choose to live as if this whole ‘God proposition’ were true in much the same way that people can accept that something ‘is true’ in the ‘universe of Star Trek’ and can then extrapolate ‘new ideas’ within that pre-defined frame.  Within these parameters, this is true…

But, of course, this does not really relate to reality…

I am not sure if I am explaining this in a way that non-Aspies will understand.

What I am trying to describe is akin to saying:  not that I agree with this, but let’s accept this to be true for the sake of this discussion…  I suspect that the Aspies who live as theists follow some version of this reasoning, which I understand is different from the ‘belief’ that most neurotypicals experienc.

Yes, I do understand that I am skirting the whole debate ‘what constitutes belief’  – but I hope that rather than focusing on the greater debate here, people will comment (so we can explore this discussion) on the difference between ‘religious belief’ as experienced by Aspies and non-Aspies.

Why do I think this is a topic worthy of discussion?

For the sake of the children, of course…  Let me explain.

I know that I am incapable of ‘belief’ in the traditional sense – at best, I view validity of ideas based on probabilities.  Even the ideas I hold as my ‘core views’, the ones I consider define me as me, even those ideas I cannot rate at 100% probability.

I have been this way from as far back as I can remember.  I could never understand why other children would behave as if things were ‘definite’ or ‘certain’, how they could be so sure of, well, anything…  They, on the other hand, thought that my constant qualifications of my position on anything meant I was setting things up so I could lie, or some other display of dishonesty…which, of course, was the exact opposite of what I was trying to do.  I have since learned, in most social interactions, to censor out the vast majority of the uncertainties and qualifications – yet my speech still contains much more of these than displayed in majority of neurotypicals’ conversations.

Back to ‘the children’:  I know many families where two non-Aspies have Aspie children, but I do not know of a single family where two Aspie parents would have any non-Aspie children, which is why the focus of this discussion is on Aspie children in non-Aspie households.

If I am correct in my observation that Aspies are physically incapable of ‘neurotypical belief’, what happens when theist parents are raising Aspie children?

What happens when Aspie children are sent to be educated in religious schools?

The demands made on Aspie children to ‘believe’ (in the neurotypical manner) in deities may be something these children are simply not physically capable of!

Of course, in theism, failure to ‘believe’ in just the right manner is interpreted as ‘sin’ and ‘heresy’ – a very bad thing.  Children who fail to ‘believe’ are considered defiant and disobedient, to be punished and broken until they ‘believe’.

I have observed a number of Aspie children in these situations.  In some Aspie children I have observed, this demand to ‘believe’ in a way they were physically incapable of had led to serious internal turmoil and led them to believe they were inherently bad people.  In others, it led to further withdrawal from social interactions, and in two cases I am aware of it led to serious childhood depression.  (Granted – other factors were there, but this was a big complication…)

So, we are talking about very serious effects here.

Last summer, an Aspie friend of my son joined us for our holidays:  it was his first time away from his family and his parents were thrilled that he got an opportunity to spend a week ‘with his own kind’ – in an all-Aspie household.  I think he had enjoyed himself, but there was one incident I was not certain of how to handle.

We holidayed up north, where the nature is pristine and light pollution is very low at night.  As we were going through a meteor shower, we spent one clear evening lying on our backs on the beach and watching the deep, velvety night sky bejeweled by millions of stars.  We saw some spectacular ‘shooting stars’ when our young (13) Aspie friend got quite upset:  he explained that watching the vastness of the universe in the night-time sky made him finally realize that there probably is no afterlife…

This inability to ‘believe’ – in spite of a desire to – is unpleasant in itself.  Adding to it parental and societal disapproval for ‘not believing’ – that can cause definite damage to a young person’s ability to grow up healthy and to their maximum potential.

Obviously, even though I probably know more Aspies than an average person does, my sample size is insufficient for anything more than ‘a hunch’…which is why I would welcome comments that might help us explore this issue together.

Thunderf00t: debunking the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’

City of Toronto ‘multifaith’ prayer room

BlazingCatFur got a tip:

‘The cab driver was mortified to see that prayer room, it is in no way shape or form inclusive or respectful of others, in fact it’s downright threatening to those who suffered at the hands of Muslims in their countries of origin.’

Living up to the challenge and went to investigate:

Head over to his site and check it out.

Of course, I maintain that prayer – under all circumstances – is demonstrably immoral and offensive and that not a penny of any taxpayer money must be permitted to go to anything even remotely related to religion(s).  No publicly funded prayer rooms, no publicly funded preachers and no praying in public.  That would avoid this all mess!

In somewhat related news, here is some advice from Mark Vandermaas over at VoiceOfCanada:

‘Our Western countries have become divided states, one part for the radicals and one for the majority of citizenry — and, by virtue of our free and fair society, they are both afforded the same rights.’

And, I know this is a few days old, but:  check out women’s rights under Sharia! (And, yes, this is precisely why we must not have a law banning the burka:  the moment the state is given the right to legislate how we dress, we are giving up our right and ability to protest against this.)

Judge Michael Kent rules!

Australian judge Michael Kent rules that a child’s rights trump Sharia!

Well done, judge!

If only more judges acknowledged that, even in circumstances as difficult as divorce, the best interests of a child trump everything else.

In this case, the mother wanted the ruling to be done in Saudi Arabia so that it would be made under Sharia – a set of laws which only considers the Islamic religious beliefs, not the rights of people, much less the best interests of the child.

Thank you, judge Michael Kent!

After all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.

I wish more judges were like judge Michael Kent.

H/T:  Religion of Peace