Recent Comments
RSS feed
The kidnapping of teenage girls by Muslims
May 15, 2014 — xanthippaOf course, not all Muslims will kidnap anyone, much less underage girls.
But, this episode with Boko Haram (or, as their full name is, ‘Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad’ – and they are most definitely Muslims who are following the literal example of their prophet) has stirred up a lot of emotions in me, for reasons that, perhaps, it is time for me to share.
A distant cousin of mine was, just a few short years ago, working for an aid agency in Africa when he and several of his co-workers were kidnapped by Al Shabaab – they were later released under undisclosed terms, but, that is not my story and am not at a liberty to share it.
There is a much older story, which I can share, because it happened to me – personally.
This was my first encounter with Islam – but it was an encounter that had made a very deep impression on me and, as I was already interested in studying the various religions (on the other side of the Iron Curtain, I was only able to study ancient ones) and this encounter started my decades long study of Islam and Sharia…
I know, I know – thou shall not drink and blog is THE golden rule of blogging, but, I admit, I have had to have had a glass or two of wine to get my courage up to write about this….
First, a bit of background….
I went to a language school – 72 kids in a country of 15 million got picked every year to enter, based on a barrage of aptitude tests. I was not supposed to be permitted to be tested, but, through an administrative error (and a signature forgery on my part – which had never been discovered), I managed to get myself tested. I tested so high on the aptitude to learn languages that even my dad’s status as an only partially rehabilitated political dissident could not get me excluded, because the linguists on the admissions board insisted. (I learned about this much, much later when one of my former teachers came to visit me in Canada.) Suffice it to say – I was admitted to this elite language school where I learned a number of languages.
As part of this school, I was exposed to a lot more ‘foreigners’ than most other schoolchildren behind the Iron Curtain were.
I had ‘pen pals’ in few of the ‘brother socialist countries’ and even though our letters were supervised by the school, their letters (and especially the photos from my pen pal in the Irkutsk) were quite eye-opening.
In addition, when foreign dignitaries from other countries would come, or sports competitors would visit, we would be the schoolchildren paraded out and presented to meet them – as we could communicate in their language (or, in some cases, in Russian – which was the case with, say Cuban visitors, etc.).
For example, the town I was from holds world-famous horse races. Even Dick Francis mentions having raced there. When I was about 11, 5 of us girls were sent to officially ‘entertain’ the Cuban delegation to this race….with no adult to ensure our safety. It was the first time I was kissed by a man….but I got myself and the other girls away before it got out of control! (Some of the other girls were even jealous that I got kissed and they didn’t…we were so innocent!)
But, school was not the only place where I met ‘foreigners’.
Even though he was a political dissident, my father was also a world-class scientist who specialized in artificial intelligence. By the time I was in the language school in the late 70’s, he had published a number of ground-breaking books on the subject. And, even though they had to be published under his bosses’ name (my father’s name was deemed too inflammatory), he was well known in scientific circles. As such, he got sent to Moscow a number of times (whenever they stole some Western tech and needed him to reverse-engineer it). In Moscow, he met other scientists sent there and visiting there from other countries. He was well liked and respected – he is, after all, a smart cookie!
So, a number of these scientists (mostly from ‘brother nations’) had visited my daddy at our home – and he and I would take them sight seeing. Sometimes, there would be several scientists, some speaking only English as our common tongue while others speaking only Russian. As I was perfectly fluent in Russian, I would act as the interpreter for the Russian-speaking scientists while he translated for the English speaking ones. Again, these were fascinating experiences that greatly broadened my horizons.
Thus, when I was 13 years old and we were in the process of escaping from behind the Iron Curtain, I was much more ‘worldly’ than an average child of my age.
Yet, nothing in my exposure to people from various lands and cultures had prepared me in the least to my encounter with Islam….
So, what happened?
We were escaping from The People’s Socialist Paradise – towards freedom!
My parents exploited some red tape to get visas for all three of us to Yugoslavia: the one ‘socialist’ country that was not 100% compliant with the Soviet Union’s policy and thus gave some hope of getting out. Nothing was guaranteed – we could have been caught and our lives ruined, or we could win the lottery and get out. Our chances were about 70/30 in favour of success – if we avoided Serb-controlled border points (the Serbs were loyal to the Soviets and would send us straight to jail, the Croats would let us out just to spite the Soviets – we knew this and hoped to capitalize on it – excuse the pun!).
In order to get out of Yugoslavia legally – which was our wish, as breaking the laws of the country we fled to (in our case, Austria) would be contrary to the code of lawful behaviour. After all, if we sought protection from a country, breaking their laws in entering it would have been unthinkable for us!
So, once we entered Yugoslavia (an absolutely awesome holiday place), we went straight to Belgrade to seek visas from the Austrian and German embassies.
Aside: we had heard that the conditions in Germany were much better for refugees than in Austria, so we sought a visa to go there – but then we heard that the rules for seeking a political asylum required us to file in the first country we entered where we could seek political asylum, and that would have been Austria, so we abandoned the attempt to get German visas (even though they were willing to grant them to us) and decided to seek asylum in Austria.
When we got to Belgrade, we were too poor to stay in a hotel – we stayed instead at a campground just North of the city. We had two pup-tents: one for my parents (orange) and one for me (yellow). It must be made clear that European campsites are nowhere near as private as North American ones – indeed, there is little or no privacy at all as one tent is very close to another, with no trees or bushes in between.
We set up our tents and went to the Austrian and German embassies to seek visas. Both embassies were only open between 8 am and noon, and there were lineups outside the doors (so we did not get into the German embassy on the first or second day).
The second day of us staying at the campsite, a rich oil sheik with an entourage of several SUVs (armed men) and two air conditioned luxury tour buses (women and children) set up camp in the same campground that we were staying at – just under a steep slope that was too steep to set tents up on, but which formed a natural amphitheater. In the evening, they started playing very exotic eastern music – and some of the women and girls were dancing. It did not take long for many of us ‘other campers’ to gather and sit on that slope and watch in utter fascination something so very exotic and tantalizing! It was beautiful!
It was on our third day waiting outside the German embassy that a shot, plump, smiling, 50-ish man approached my father. He opened his wallet and pulled out a VERY thick stack of $100US bills – and, speaking broken English/German, he asked my father to sell me to him.
My father flatly refused.
The smiling man would not be rebuffed so easily: he kept talking to my father, explaining that I was not for him – he wanted to buy me as a birthday present for his son!
Needless to say, my father did not sell me. Like I said, he is a smart cookie and a good guy to boot!
That evening, at the campground, the sheik’s entourage put on another performance! And, fascinated, we went to watch…
This evening, the women and girls dancing started inviting the gathered watchers to join in the dancing, teaching both women and men the moves. Of course, I wanted to join in – but my dad, looking more grim than I ever remembered him, would not let me.
Then an 8-or-so year old girl came around, offering sweets to everyone – again, I was eager to taste it but my dad forbade me to take one.
It was then that he pointed out that down by one of those buses was that guy who had tried to buy me ‘as a birthday present to his son’. Indeed, that was the very sheik who was the owner of this harem and entourage…and he kept staring at me.
That night, after everyone seemed to go to sleep, my dad poked his head into my tent and said that we were leaving – right now!!!
We packed in a huge rush – not even putting the tents into their cases – and drove out of the campground. Two dark vehicles from the sheik’s spot followed us. We drove at relatively high speeds through Belgrade – with the two dark vehicles on our tail. I don’t know quite how, but, eventually, my dad lost them and we drove far, far away…
Back then, I did not grasp the full significance of what had happened. Sure, I was frightened – but, well, not enough….I simply had no concept of how serious the situation was or just how drastically my life would have been altered had my father not had the foresight he did.
There is a very, very long tradition of hunting down Slavic girls for Islamic harems…something I was totally unaware of then.
Did you know that the very word ‘slave’ comes form ‘Slav’?
Because so many of us have been hunted down and sold into slavery in Muslim lands?
Way more of us were enslaved in the Muslim lands than there ever were black slaves sold to Europe or the Americas….
Mohammed himself had a Slavic Christian girl, Miriam, as a sex slave – given to him by the fathers of Constantinopole in the hopes it would appease him…
The hijab itself is indeed a variation of the Slavic head-dress – which so enchanted Mohammed that he imposed it on all of his ‘wives’!
After Mohammad’s example (a man ALL Muslims are ordered by the Koran and the Hadith to emulate), it became a ‘fashion’, a status symbol, for pious Muslims of means to own a Slavic Christian sex slave.
As in, Slavic AND Christian girl is the highest value sex slave, but a Christian of any race is acceptable…
And THAT is who Boko Haram consider it acceptable to capture, hold and sell Christian girls into sex-slavery – they are following the example set by Mohammed, which their religion, Islam, demands that they emulate.
I truly and honestly feel for these girls – but for my father’s wisdom, I would have been one of them!!!
John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 4 part 2
April 6, 2014 — xanthippaDay 1 part 1 and part 2 are here. (all previous caveats still apply, though I have temporarily borrowed slightly better tech.)
Alternate account is here: day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4.
As promised, let’s start with the ‘Fern Hill’ bit: though, I am warning you, I might get a bit philosophical…
In her opening statement, Connie Fournier said her testimony would demonstrate a multi-year cyber-bullying campaign of herself by Dr. Baglow and that this lawsuit is just another means through which he is victimizing her. It was alleged that, among other things, Dr. Baglow attempted to isolate Connie by bullying and targeting people who supported her and even attempted to sabotage a fundraiser for their legal costs. In order to have Dr. Baglow’s side of the story (as Connie’s testimony is still in the future), Mr. Burnet had to ask Dr. Baglow a lot of questions about this and thus bring his side of the story forward.
So, this is what is happening here. I’ll explain this the best that I can – though, again, I cannot stress strongly enough that it is extremely difficult to follow what is happening in court because everyone has exhibits and is reading all kinds of materials which are being discussed, but the spectators have no access to these materials and only hear the references to them, what their importance is or is not according to all the different people. So, I’ve tried to piece this together as best as I could…
Fern Hill is a blogger – and a decidedly progressive one. Unlike Connie Fournier, Fern Hill is 100% pro choice and, from what I’ve gathered, she is very proudly far left of centre. She has several co-bloggers, including a female blogger named DammitJanet. And, as a fellow ideological leftist, she and Dr. Baglow were on very friendly terms.
Yet, when Dr. Baglow filed this particular lawsuit against the Fourniers, in my never-humble-opinion, Fern Hill saw the existential danger to the whole blogosphere that this lawsuit poses: should Dr. Baglow be victorious, it will not be a ruling against the Fourniers and Roger Smith: it will be a ruling against the blogosphere, as it exists today. If one can be fined tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and penalties for a honestly believed-in comment that 5 or 6 people saw (before the Streissand effect applied), then one could not possibly post one’s own honestly believed-in opinions on any kind of an open forum.
Fern Hill was a friend of Dr. Baglow – but hoped the defendants (whom she disagreed with, but whose silencing she saw as being potentially capable of silencing herself) would prevail in this particular case. This put her in a very uncomfortable position: side with her friend and loose her rights, or side with her rights and anger her friend!
Fern Hill arrived at what she thought was a win-win solution: she would work hard to raise funds for BOTH sides!
This way, she would support her friend, Dr.Baglow, in his fight and thus show her loyalty. At the same time, she would raise the same amount of money for the defendants, as they were also fighting for her own right to speak freely.
Both sides get some help – all benefit, her conscience is clear.
Win-win!!!
Right?
Wrong!!!
And it was during this portion of the testimony that Dr. Baglow was not his polished, professional self but let some of his raw emotion show. He was truly and honestly hurt by Fern Hill’s suggestion that she support both her friend and her rights (as she saw it)! In my never-humble-opinion, Dr. Baglow truly and honestly did not get Fern Hill’s dilemma, nor her reasoning for the proposed solution. To him, this was a black-and-white issue: either you support your ideogical allies, or you are a traitor to the cause worthy of the worst possible abuse.
This brings in the philosophy bit….
In my never-humble-opinion, this is a key, fundamental, un-negotiable divide between collectivists and individualists…and why the two cannot begin to see eye to eye.
Individualists realize just how important to humankind the approval of their peers is, how necessary it is for one to have the acceptance/approval of the social group one exists in in order to thrive, physically and mentally. It is precisely because they understand this basic human need ‘to be accepted’ that individuals who stand up to the group and/or specific elements of the group (which may be influential and/or powerful) and stand up for what they believe is right and wrong.
In other words, risking social rejection in order to stand on principle is, to the individualist, the highest form of morality, worthy of the greatest praise and admiration.
Conversely, compromising one’s ideals in order to conform to the group is, among individualists, considered to be the height of hypocrisy and the most contemptible, hypocritical behaviour ever.
Now, let us consider the collectivist point of view:
To the collectivist, the group IS the embodiment of the ‘self’.
Thus, setting personal principles aside and supporting ‘the group goal’ (even if parts of it, or the means of achieving it proposed, are against one’s personal principles of ‘right and wrong’) is seen as the most admirable, praise-worthy quality of self-lessness and altruistic dedication to ‘the cause’.
Standing up against ‘the group’ (or, by default, the loudest and thus most influential elements within the group) in order to preserve one’s principles of right and wrong is seen as the cardinal sin of ‘arrogance’ and ‘self-gratification’ by the collectivists.
With such a different conception of what constitutes morality – standing on principle against the group vs. giving up principles to the will of the group – is it any surprise that a collectivist would not only fail to see how standing on one’s principles would not be praiseworthy, but how he could perceive a person trying to protect themselves from the actions of ‘a member of the group’ would be seen as ‘betrayal’.
And this is what I think Fern Hill’s problem was.
Dr. Baglow testified that he felt betayed by his friend and ideological ally, he saw her action as aiding and abetting of Nazi enablers (because, even though the Fourniers are not themselves Nazis, by fighting for freedom of speech for everyone, even the distasteful elements in society, he sees their actions as enabling Nazis to spread hate speech). I hope I have understood this accurately – if I have made errors, please, let me know.
Because Dr. Baglow felt so betrayed by Fern Hill’s support for both sides, he posted and Tweeted some nasty things, designed to express the depth of hurt and anger that he felt. And, as a true collectivist who presumes guilt by association, he smeared anyone who stood up for Fern Hill (I believe it was in this context that some misogynistic abuse was hurled at DammiJanet, Fern Hill’s co-blogger and a fellow progressive). He demanded that Fern Hill pick sides – and clearly indicated which side he thought she ought to pick.
In my never-humble-opinion, this admission proves the charge that he interfered with Connie’s fundraising efforts as well as her accusations that he tried to bully people who stood up for her cause, isolating her from supporters. But, my understanding is necessarily imperfect as I have no legal training, and it is difficult to predict what kind of impression this made on the judge.
Are you familiar with the expression: “Looking down one’s nose at something/someone”?
I am not a very good observer of facial expressions or body language, so I don’t really recall ever having quite understood what people mean by this phrase. Until Dr. Baglow’s cross examination, that is.
At times, he would remove his glasses, tilt his head back and glare contemptuously at Barbara Kulaszka (who was the first to start the cross examination) and the rest of the defendants and, in the most derisive, patronizing tone, he’d utter phrases like “extreme free speech types”… I found this very uncomfortable, because this did not seem like the very charming, courteous man whom I’ve had the pleasure to chat with.
Plus – compared to me, the Fourniers are very much ‘centrists’ when it comes to ‘free speech’ ideas. Myself, I am an anti-slavery fundamentalist, and, thus, through logical evaluation, I must take the position of a free speech absolutist. If I own my self, then I am 100% responsible for my actions, regardless of who does and says what. This also means that if you own your self, then I am not responsible for your actions or how you react to my words. Thus, falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre must not be prohibited because if I were to be responsible for how other people react to my words, then such a responsibility implies at least part ownership. After all, how can I be responsible for you if I have no coercive power over you? And if I have coercive power over you, then you do not truly own your self….or so the reasoning goes. Others have said all this much more eloquently many, many times before.
Anyhow, the cross examination was very exciting.
Barbara Kulaszka, the lawyer for Mark Fournier, had gotten Dr. Baglow to agree to some of the basic facts about the Khadr case – in particular, that Omar Khadr had been picked up in a raid on the Taliban. In other words, we were again covering the whole Al Qaeda vs Taliban thing.
Then we got into the ‘Taliban Jack’ nickname for Jack Layton because of his perceived support of the Taliban and why that was not defamatory.
The next bit covered had, I suspect, something to do with ‘context’.
Throughout is testimony, Dr. Baglow had testified that he did not remove words even more insulting and offensive that he was called, on his own blog and under his control, because of the context…either they were clearly miss-use of the words or they were a simple vulgarity or if was so obvious from the context that they were just silly that it was not worth his time to bother with them. This, however, was different, because there was insufficient context around the comment to make it clear it was not literally true.
Barbara Kulaszka skillfully walked Dr. Baglow through many instances on his blog where he relies on ‘general information’ for context and does not supply it – nor does he repair broken links that provide context on older posts, thus committing the same error of publishing strong statements of views without the necessary context. I think she demonstrated this clearly, as it was at this point in the cross examination that Dr. Baglow began fidgeting in his seat.
There was a lot of back and forth, asking about the blogosphere, other fora and blogs and bloggers – and commenters. One name kept popping up quite a lot: ‘MarkyMark’. Dr. Baglow testified that they had met through the blogosphere and became friends and that MarkyMark even stayed in his house!
When asked about blogs on the political right, he named many. When asked about blogs on the political left, he hmmmd and eventually came up with a few rather unknown ones while not naming any of the ‘biggies’ (that even I know about – and I know very little about the ‘progressive’ bit of the blogosphere, for obvious reasons). I was quite surprised at this and wondered about it.
He testified, with a straight face, that when he told people that if they were looking for Nazis (people who said they had guns and were looking to kill Nazis, no less), they should go see Connie Fournier, he did not intend for them to take their guns and threaten Connie but that he honestly believed ‘she could facilitate contact’ with them. It continued much in this way for quite some time, suggesting Connie should be imitated with a staged Gestapo accent, and so on. This is obviously just teasing and not abusive in the least, as per Dr. Baglow.
About his online implying that Connie had maliciously sent him an email with an electronic virus, Dr. Baglow forced out a chuckle and said that right after he had read his email, his computer crashed, so he joked about it.
Dr. Baglow mocked the Fourniers from the stand for winning the George Orwell Free Speech Award, sneering that was not an honourable award to win.
It was a bit after this when BlazingCatFur (BCF) was mentioned, and in that context the term SLAPP suit was raised.
For those who do not know, a SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and a favourite tool of the totalitarians to suppress free speech by suing people into oblivion. If you did not know what this term was, you are not alone – the judge did not know either and commented on what an interesting concept this was.
It was at this point that I got a bad toothache and I did not take as good notes afterwards. My apologies – I’ll have to be a little bit brief.
The most important thing that came out during next little bit of talking about BCF and his blog was something Dr. Baglow had written. It seems that something negative was said about BCF on another, most likely Dr. Dawg’s, and BCF copy/pasted it when rebutting it or somehow responding to it, so that the offensive term appeared again, this time as part of BCF’s comment.
Dr. Dawg had then written something to the effect that by showing the text and responding to it, BCF had, in fact, re-published it.
This is important because the words that are the subject of this lawsuit were similarly copied and re-published by the plaintiff. So, getting him on record that repeating and responding constitutes republishing may become an important part of the case.
There was also quite a bit of stuff about Dr. Baglow saying rather unpleasant things about a lot of people, some in anger, some in frustration – it is what it is – as well as about the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who also happens to be intervening in this court case as a friend of the court.
Oh yes – and Mr. Burnet, Dr. Balow’s lawyer, had, at one point, jumped to his feet and outed himself as PeterOne or Peter1 or some name that sounds like this and admitted taking part in some of these online verbal skirmishes.
At one point, Dr. Baglow testified that ‘there is a lot of political motivation behind it’ – and by ‘it’ I understood he meant this lawsuit (I tried to insert other things, but this was the only one that made sense in this context), which would have proven what Roger smith had said in his opening statement: this is a political disagreement and does not belong in a court of law because it is inappropriate for the courts to be deciding which political opinions are legal to hold and which are not.
And this ends my account of day 4 – report on day 5 coming soon!
Manning Networking Conference 2014
February 27, 2014 — xanthippaIf you are planning to attend the Manning Networking Confeence 2014, please, do stop by booth #302 – the booth that was generously donated to Free Dominion: I’ll be helping out there, so, please, do stop by and say ‘hello’!
In related news: blogging will be light as I’ll be ‘afk’ and at the conference.
EU court rules linking does not infringe copyright
February 14, 2014 — xanthippaWhile most of us would, I hope, consider this common sense, it is nonetheless nice to have the EU courts confirm it.
This is important because the EU has some of the strongest copyright protection laws, which give authors a great deal of control over their published work.
‘The court had to consider whether by providing links Retriever Sverige had taken part in an “act of communication to the public”. Under EU copyright law, authors have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works.
The court ruled that the law had not been broken because the articles in question were on Goteborgs-Posten’s website and therefore already “freely available”.
In a statement it said: “The owner of a website may, without the authorisation of the copyright holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works available on a freely accessible basis on another site.” ‘
A link that would take you behind a pay-wall, that is a different thing…
However, this ruling parallels the victory Connie and Mark Fournier of the now censored Free Dominion had won in Canada’s federal court over Richard Warman, who claimed they had infringed his copyright by linking to an image on his own website. In this particular case, the judge ruled that Warman had complete editorial control over his image and that linking to it, even should a thumbnail be displayed, did not constitute re-publishing it without permission.
Lifetime gag order kills Free Dominion
January 25, 2014 — xanthippaSad, but true.
This message has replaced Canada oldest right-leaning online political discussion forum:
As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.
Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened –unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we were blocked at every turn from presenting a defense– we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!
We are assessing our options.
In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier
Words we must speak daily – if we dare
January 14, 2014 — xanthippaHere is a list of 40 words (along with their definitions) that every free-speech lover ought to say out loud, at least once, while we still can:
Akhirat: The Islamic concept of the ‘afterlife’.
Al Qran: Literally ‘the recitation’, it is the central book of Islamic teachings. Muslims believe that these ‘revelations’ were made to their prophet Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel regarding the will of the Islamic god named Allah and are the literal word of God. These ‘recitations’ were not written down during the lifetime of Mohammed but only collected when it became apparent that Mohammed’s closest companions were dying out and so it became important for Muslims to preserve his teachings in a written form. It was compiled by the Caliph Abu Bakr, who ordered the Muslims who remembered Mohammad’s recitations to have them written down and sent to him. These he then organized into chapters which make up the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran by the length of the chapters. This means that the sequence in which these chapters were dictated has not been preserved, which creates the problem regarding the Islamic principle of ‘abrogation’ which states that if two verses of the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran are in conflict, the one that was revealed to Mohammad later is the valid one, as it abrogates the earlier revelation.
Allah: ‘The God’ in Arabic. At one point, Mohammed taught that Allah had three divine daughters, but later altered that teaching, making Islam monotheistic.
As Sunnah: Literally translates as ‘common practice’, in the Islamic context, it means the ‘righteous path’ of following proper Islamic customs.
Auliya: friend, helper, protector, patron or patron saint.
Azan/Adhan: Islamic call to prayer
Baitullah: Literally ‘house of god’ and may refer either to any mosque or to the main mosque in Mecca which houses the Kaaba, the box which houses a black meteorite, which the Muslims worship, and to which they are supposed to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime (haj). Prior to Islam, Mohammed’s grandfather made his living from people making a pilgrimage to the Kaaba.
Dakwah/Dawah/Da’wah: Literally means ‘issuing a summons’ or ‘inviting’, in Islamic context, it means proselytizing Islam. It is unlawful for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim without having first invited them to join Islam. Some Islamic leaders have criticized Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks because he had failed to issue a Dawah to all the American citizens 1 year before the terrorist attack. Numerous Islamic scholars have since corrected this oversight and issued a Dawah to all Westerners. If we fail to heed this call to convert to Islam, killing us is not considered to be ‘murder’ under Islamic law (Sharia).
Fatwa: a legal judgment pronounced by an Islamic scholar. These legal judgments make up Islamic jurisprudence and ought to be followed by pious Muslims. There have been some interesting fatwas issued over the time. For example, the Penang Mufti Hassan Ahmad had issued a fatwa that prohibits non-Muslims from ever using (speech, writing, publishing or in electronic form) the very 40 words being defined in this humble post. This is legally binding in Malaysia. However, if someone reading these words in Malaysia realizes they were published by a non-Muslim, they may make a legal complaint, a warrant may be issued and Interpol will act upon it to deliver the culprits to the land where the warrant was issued. So, enjoy while you still may! Another recently issued fatwa prohibits women from sitting in chairs, because if they moved just the wrong way, they may become sexually aroused.
Firman Allah: As I could not find this exact phrase translated into English, the closes I can make it out to be is ‘that which Allah has made permitted’. Granted, I did just a quick Google search, as I’m trying to define quite a few terms here, but this seems to fit in with Islamic sayings rather well and captures the spirit of the phrase. Corrections would be appreciated.
Hadith: literally ‘tradition’, this refers to the habits and sayings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Haji: Someone who had completed the haj and traveled to Mecca to see the Kaaba. As non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca, only a Muslim may be a Haji/Hajji/Hadji. A Muslim who has completed the haj may add this honorific to his name.
Hajjah: Not sure of this one, but I suspect it means a female Hajji.
Ibadah: Literally ‘obedience with submission’, the term is derived from practice of slavery. In the Islamic context, it means worship of Allah.
Illahi: I suspect this is an alternate spelling of ‘Elahi‘, meaning ‘my god’ or ‘my awesome one’.
Imam: An Islamic leadership position, usually denoting an Islamic cleric.
Iman: Iman is a really, really hot model. However, I doubt that is whom the good Mufti meant in his fatwa. Rather, I suspect he was referring to the Muslim believer’s faith in the metaphysical aspects of Islamic teachings.
Kaabah: literally ‘the cube’, in Islamic context, it is a black cube that Muslims have been praying to since a little over 200 years past Mohammed’s death. All modern mosques face the Kaabah, which is located in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. (For the first few centuries following the death of Mohammed, all mosques faced the ancient city of Petra, as archaeological findings have demonstrated.)
Karamah: a divine miracle (and not a conjuring trick type magic, that the other religions have)
Khutbah: public preaching, refers to the sermons delivered during formal prayers.
Masjid: a mosque, defined by Mohammed as a place of worship as well as a community centre, barracks for soldiers and materiel storage depot.
Mubaligh: a missionary (just follow the link and click on English for translation), one who is practicing dawah.
Mufti: an Islamic scholar from the Sunni branch of Islam
Musolla/Mushola: Islamic prayer room
Nabi: Prophets of Islam. Most, but not all, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last prophet.
Qadhi: I suspect this term denotes Sharia courts.
Qiblat: The direction in which Muslims should pray. According to tradition, Mohammed is first ordered Muslims to pray in the direction of Jerusalem and to have later changed this to be towards Mecca and the Kaaba. However, the earliest mosques (from the first 200+ years following the death of Muhammad) are pointing to Petra, not Mecca, indicting that the Kibla may have changed more than once.
Rasul: prophet or apostle
Sheikh: an honorific that means ‘elder’ and denotes the front man of a tribe.
Soleh: This word is not Arabic in origin, but Indonesian and means ‘religious’. Thus, according to this fatwa, if you are not a Muslim you may not call yourself ‘religious’.
Surau: another word for ‘mosque’
Syahadah/Shahada: a ritual Islamic prayer which is also used as an affirmation that one is a Muslim. It translates into English roughly as: ‘There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.’
Syariah: Malaysia is one of the countries with a secular legal system for non-Muslims and Sharia law for Muslims living in the country. Syariah is Malaysia’s Sharia adherent legal system which applies to its Muslim residents.
Tabligh: ‘propagation’ of Islam by ‘spreading awareness’ of the teachings of Mohammed.
Taqwa: While this definition varies somewhat between sects, the meaning ranges from ‘god-consciousness’ to piousness, love/fear of Allah, self restraint and so on.
Ulama/Ulema/Uluma: In the stricter sense of the word, it refers to the upper echelon of Islamic scholars trained in the whole field of Islamic law, but it is often applied to any senior Muslim cleric. Especially in rural areas, the cleric’s scholarship is not a significant issue.
Wahyu: This word is of Indonesian origin. From English-language version of this link: ‘In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.’
Wali: Guardian – with all that it implies: being responsible for someone, managing their material wealth as well as having the right to enter into legal agreements on their behalf. This is an important concept in Islam. A father is the wali to all his minor male children and all his female children until the daughters are married, at which point the guardianship of the woman in question is transferred to her father. If there is no father, then the closest male blood relative takes on the role of a wali for any minor males and any females. As the wali manages their wards property and is the only one permitted to enter into legal contracts on their behalf, it means that an Islamic marriage contract is between the groom and the bride’s wali, with the bride having no legal standing in the matter. Thus, a petition for divorce in a Sharia court may need to be filed by the wife’s male relatives, as she has no legal standing in the marriage contract. It also means that under Sharia, the highest legal status a woman can achieve is that of a minor.
Zakat Fitrah: At the end of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast from sun-up to sun-down, there is a celebratory feast. While ‘zakat’ means taxes (a portion of which must go towards jihad), zakat fitrah is the specific obligatory gift of food to the poor so that they may participate with other Muslims in the end-of-Ramadan feast.
Now that I have tried to define these words for your convenience, please, do speak them as often and as publicly as you can, before you loose the freedom to do so! There is already a fatwa that forbids us to speak these words, if we are non-Muslims. It is up to us, freedom-loving people, to make sure that this and/or any other fatwa never becomes applied as a law onto us.
Rights are like muscles and cognitive abilities: if you don’t exercise them, you loose them!!!
John Stossel – Economic Freedom and Prosperity
January 10, 2014 — xanthippaThis video is loosely related to that famous speech by Margaret Thatcher where she unmasked the leftists hypocrisy on wealth: that caring about wealth distribution, the size of the difference between the very rich and the poor in any given country is politics of envy and hate of wealth, because it says nothing about the state of the poor themselves. After all, if the poorest people in a society are not hungry, cold or unhealthy, what does it matter how rich the rich are?
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 