Many Americans believe that Muslim women are all victims of Islamic culture, its fundamentalist laws, and that, if given the chance, they would all choose freedom from Sharia. That view, however, is a simplistic way of looking at a complex situation.
For example, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar last Saturday, March 23, 2019, has given a speech at the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraiser in Woodland Hills, California. A large rally was outside protesting her anti-Semitic statements and her support of CAIR. Omar said in her remarks “There are very fascinating people outside who for so many years have spoken about an Islam that is oppressive and Islam that lessens and isolates its women and today they gather outside to protest a Muslim woman who is in Congress.” She was bragging about a Muslim woman reaching power, but forgot to thank America for it. She also called on Muslims to “raise hell” in the face of human rights violations (she means against Muslims). That while making no comment on the worldwide terror by those who want to enforce Sharia on others.
There is no doubt there are very powerful Muslim women and have always existed since the inception of Islam. But those women have always been the kind to enforce Sharia, but never criticize it. Women such as Ilhan Obmar who rise to power in Muslim communities around the world are not the kind of women who reject the legal oppression of women under Sharia. But what is hard to understand is that these same pro-Hamas and pro-jihad women are also rising to power in the West as well.
Powerful pro-Sharia women traditionally never stood against honor killing, the legal right of men to beat their wives, polygamy, that the testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man, etc. They never “raise hell” when Christians are beheaded on the beaches of the Mediterranean at the hands of Muslims and when Christian girls are kidnapped and converted to Islam by force.
Muslim women, including Omar, have greatly benefited and achieved great power and success but only when they enforce Sharia and call for jihad. On the other hand, women, even in the West, who rebel against Islamic law end up going nowhere or shunned.
One must live in denial if they believe that Islam honors women as is often said. But because of the severity, humiliation and inhumane torture of rebellious women in Islam, many women managed to survive under Sharia not by rebelling against it, but by embracing it and even enforcing on other women.
Muslim women learned to work around Sharia to get some respect and protection. But for the more ambitious women who want status and power in the Islamic community they had to become part of the Sharia enforcement apparatus. In other words, if a woman wished for more than just to be “protected,” or treated with dignity and respect, she had to enforce Sharia on other women. This is at least partly how the militant, pro-Sharia, hijab-wearing, jihadist woman have emerged. And that is one reason they all say that the hijab empowered them.
Rebelling against Sharia and its culture is extremely difficult — often considered synonymous with rebelling against a husband, a family, a culture, the Islamic state, and even Allah himself. The Koran not only entrusts husbands to strike their disobedient wives, Sharia laws recommend punishing other forms of rebelliousness and disobedience of women with death.
“God, family and country” is a Western value system from which the priorities of citizens are structured; within radical Islam, the order of priorities is different. There, it appears as, “Allah, jihad, and more jihad” (for instance, here,here and here). Muslim women could easily conclude that in Sharia, jihad, most commonly thought of in the Arab and Muslim world as holy war in the service of Islam, takes priority over the life of a wife, husband, son, family and even children.
Unlike women in the West, women within the Sharia system acquire power not by rebelling against the system (Biblical values in the case of the West) but by protecting and conforming to it (The Islamic legal system).
That should explain why Arab/Muslim women appear to have become as militant, if not more so, than men. The West is often staggered at some Arab women who appear on television wearing their hijab and bragging about their “shahid” [martyred] husband or son. This complicity is a woman’s ticket to success, financial security and respect in a poor Islamic economic political and social system totally in the hands of Islamists.
A prominent example of a woman given preeminence in Arab society for putting Jihad and Sharia above the life of her children was Umm Nidal, the mother of three Palestinian suicide bombers. Accorded the highest honor in Palestinian society and media, and elected to the Palestinian parliament, when she died in 2013, her funeral was attended by “thousands” of Palestinians as well as the Hamas leader, Ismael Haniyeh.
Muslim women are often used as guards over the Sharia jail against other women. ISIS, for instance, established a merciless cadre of women, the Al-Khansa brigade, who would roam the streets of Raqqa, terrorizing females who fell short of the standard of strict Sharia. They were sometimes instigate the public flogging of other women who, for instance, might not have been fully covered from head to toe. “Watch this video of hijab women attacking a woman who is not wearing hijab.
This video seems to have been thoughtfully taken down by YouTube, presumably censored to keep you from knowing what is going on; but here is a separate testimony.
Traditionally, women and girls are sometimes tasked with monitoring and closely controlling their sisters or other females in the family, to ensure that the females do not tarnish the family’s reputation. Often Sharia-observant woman might report the “bad” ones to their fathers or brothers to enable them to “take care of” the family honor, or even “take care of” it themselves.
Some mothers participate in, or cover up, the so-called honor killing of their daughters. It is they who customarily teach their daughters not only to obey Sharia but also to be subservient to their brothers or other male relatives. Mothers or older females are the ones who take young girls to be circumcised (genitally mutilated). This is often the way an average Muslim woman in a conservative environment gets most of her Sharia-enforcement education — from other women.
Because Islam now exists in the West, there are at least three distinctive profiles of how Muslim women adapt in Western society:
Ostensibly Western religious Muslims who act as apologists for radical Islam. They claim that their hijab is the symbol of their freedom, yet they support causes and beliefs that act against freedom. Linda Sarsour, for example, has called for jihad against President Donald Trump. Ilhan Omar, newly elected to the US House of Representatives, has announced that she will be fundraising for a CAIR, a group linked to the terrorist group, Hamas.
The seemingly secular Muslim woman but still focused on anti-Semitism and whose natural inclination accepts the notion that Islam would eventually conquer the West and destroy Israel. Another newly-elected U.S. Representative, Rashida Tlaib, apparently belongs to a group, Palestinian American Congress, which calls Jews “Satanic”. She also — while tweeting about other American groups that, “They forgot what country they represent” – ironically sounds as if she forgot that she is representing Americans, not Palestinians.
Then, there is a different kind of Muslim woman, such as those who escaped from Sharia and life in the Muslim world. Rahaf Mohammed, recently had a dramatic escape from Saudi Arabia and now lives in Canada. Princess Latifa, was not so fortunate. After planning for seven years to escape from Dubai, she was captured a few weeks ago on a boat in the Indian Ocean and has not been heard from since. Three Saudi princesses also appear to have been met with punishment. They were locked up in 2014 for having spoken “in opposition to women being illegally detained and placed in mental wards.” After that, it seems, “the king had enough and no longer considered them his daughters.” They have been presumably left to die.
Most of the women in the third group when escape to the West are mostly unknown and in all likelihood just grateful to be living in freedom, away from Sharia. But, even in the West, they are usually looked down upon by the Islamic community; some of them could be living in semi-isolation if they are not successful in integrating into a Western society. A few have defied the code of silence and spoken out. The brave Rifqa Bary, after her father threatened to kill her for leaving Islam, ran away from her parents’ home in Ohio when she was 16, and wrote a book, Hiding in the Light.
After 9/11, several former Muslim women spoke out from inside the safety of Western society about their escape from Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Wafa Sultan and this author are some who would belong to this group. Asra Q. Nomani has written, “One of our greatest challenges here in America is that progressives don’t always stand with the progressive Muslims because in the interest of freedom of religion and civil liberties and political correctness, they don’t want to offend cultural choices by Muslims. I know that people have gone to these interfaith sessions at different mosques and they see that the women end up in the basement, but they don’t want to challenge anyone because they think, “Oh, well this is your way”.
But as someone who has escaped life under Sharia, I am deeply saddened to watch the hostile reaction of Western liberals and feminists at outspoken women of Middle East origin who escaped Sharia and openly criticize it. We are not welcomed on college campuses by those who view themselves as progressive. When Hirsi Ali was disinvited by Brandeis University she said: “They simply wanted me to be Silenced.”
The progressive left in America has made their pick as to whom to give voice, power and respect out of the three profiles of immigrant women from the Middle East and it is not the third category. They have fantasies about multiculturalism that defies the reality looking straight at them in the eye.
On March 15, the day of the country's deadliest mass shooting, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff attended a dinner for delegates of the Teochew International Federation. He arrived late because, as he explained to the delegates, he had been meeting with police and the Muslim community in the hours after the massacre that killed 50 people
On the spot, the delegates pledged to donate almost $500,000 to those affected by the shooting. That sum grew to $2.1m as other delegates chipped in. One of the donors was controversial businessman Zhang Yikun, notorious for his entanglement in last year's feud between Jami-Lee Ross and the National party.
Mayor Goff passed on the donation to the Christchurch Foundation fund 'Our People, Our City', and called the gesture an "extraordinarily generous offer to the people of Christchurch and the Muslim community from a small community in New Zealand".
But the Khadija Leadership Network is calling for the donation to be returned and the money to go to the Uighur people, a persecuted ethnic minority in China. It said because millions have already been raised to help the shooting victims via crowdfunding websites Launch Good and Givealittle, as well as financial aid from the Government, the Teochew donation should instead be used to help the Uighurs - most of whom are Muslim.
Many in the Muslim community wish instead to address the plight of Uighur Muslims and take a stand against Islamophobia," the network's petition reads.
"Though we understand this generous donation isn't money from the Chinese government, we still firmly believe that the best assistance from any community that Muslims could receive is to call out Islamophobia, and stop the persecution of those practicing the Islamic faith around the world."
The petition calls the Uighur camps "the Auschwitz of contemporary times", and accused the New Zealand Government of turning a blind eye to injustice because of our historical links and business ties to China.
"As New Zealanders we have already lost our 50. We are simply calling for us all to lead in being a voice for those incarcerated for practising Islam."
New Zealanders of Chinese heritage are not impressed. A comment from the Face Book page of Khadija Leadership Network
These money is from local Chinese. Not from the Chinese govt. Some people just can't and never get it right. What kind of Muslim group you are? Back stabbing to the people who is doing good deed?
If the Muslims of New Zealand really don't need the money then the Chinese group should donate it to the Hospitals treating the injured for general purposes; then it will benefit all New Zealanders. New Zealand's Muslims really are emboldened in the aftermath of these murders.
On Saturday, a group called Love Aotearoa Hate Racism organised a rally for the victims in Auckland's Aotea Square.
Ahmed Bhamji, chairman of the Mt Roskill Masjid E Umar, gave a speech questioning where the gunman got his funding from.
"I really want to say one thing today. Do you think this guy was alone... I want to ask you - where did he get the funding from?" he can be heard saying in video footage. "I stand here and I say I have a very very strong suspicion that there's some group behind him and I am not afraid to say I feel Mossad is behind this."
One person can be heard shouting in support: "It's the truth. Israel is behind this. That's right!"
The video of him saying this is in the Newshub report - I took a screenshot at the moment.
Several attendees at the event have already called out the event, saying they were "disappointed by some of the hate rhetoric".
"The speaker talking about Mossad conspiracy theories already left me speechless," one person wrote on the event's Facebook page. "Mentioning Mossad was deeply, deeply disappointing. And pretty racist," another person said.
Looks like left-wing liberals are having trouble with the double think at long last.
Newshub spoke to Love Aotearoa Hate Racism co-founder Joe Carolan, who said Bhamji was one speaker out of 30 and there were many different points of view at the event.
When asked whether he agreed with or believed the theory that Mossad were behind the attack, Carolan told Newshub "absolutely not".
But New Zealand Jewish Council spokesperson Juliet Moses says the event organisers should have publicly disagreed with Bhamji.
"It is unfortunate that they did not appear to put its anti-racism message into practice, by challenging or condemning the racism in their midst," she told Newshub. "We must call out hateful dehumanising language, whatever the source, target and circumstances, and even when it is not politically expedient to do so." So she admits that political expediency gives Islam an easy ride.
Newshub contacted Bhamji, who accused Newshub of singling him out. "I made a statement, a lot of other people made statements," he said.
He continued to defend his speech, saying we need an inquiry into where the gunman got his money from. He didn't offer any proof to his speculation Mossad had given him it. "Mossad is up to all these things," he said. "When I talk about Mossad, why should the Jews be upset about it? Give me an answer?"
It shouldn't just be the Jews of New Zealand who should be outraged.
Having read Attorney General William Barr's letter to Congress regarding the completion of the Mueller investigation, I am amused by today's screams from leading Democrats questioning Barr’s impartiality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am also struck by the stark difference between this letter and former FBI Director James Comey's July 5, 2016 statement to the public, in which he basically laid out a prosecutable case against Hillary Clinton then concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". This is when, "grossly negligent" was changed to "extremely careless" because the former phrase was contained in the language of 18 USC 973f, which did not require intent.
There were two issues that the Mueller investigation was supposed to address (not whether Paul Manafort was involved in crooked business deals years ago). Was President Trump or anyone in his campaign involved with the Russians in their attempts to meddle in the 2016 election, and did the President engage in obstruction of justice? In the first, Mueller found no collusion. In the second, he came to no conclusion one way or the other. As Barr pointed out in his letter, since there was no crime in the first instance, finding intent to engage in obstruction would be very hard to prove.
Barr also stressed that the decision not to recommend further indictments was not based on considerations of whether a sitting president could be charged. It was based on the lack of sufficient evidence. I would characterize it as lack of sufficient evidence as to the obstruction and lack of any evidence as to the collusion.
But that isn't enough for the same people who pooh-poohed the case against Hillary Clinton- a much stronger one, indeed. In the House, we can expect the Adam Schiffs and the Elijah Cummings' to hold more hearings, call more witnesses including Mueller and Barr themselves. They want every scrap of paper written by the Mueller team over the past two years, rumors, false leads, discredited statements, "golden showers", and all. There is no legitimate reason for all that to be made public, nor are they entitled to grand jury records, which are protected.
But let them proceed, I say. Let them continue to howl for Trump's impeachment. Most of the public will see right through it. They will pay the price in 2020.
The Democrats and the media stand today embarrassed. They had convicted Trump of everything but shooting Lincoln. All they have left from Mueller's report is that there was no conclusion that Trump didn't shoot Lincoln.
Our current civil war seems cultural, and therefore political, and threfore necessarily lapel-grabbing personal. Rarely does anyone on the Left attempt reasonable argument, or any persuasion; all is hortatory, imperative, urgent, condemnatory, dismissive. I used to think ‘progressives’ – progressing towards . . . what? – knew better but spoke their nonsense opportunistically, cynically: after all, it might just work, sway some minds (‘mind’ here being a euphemism for a tourettes trigger). The Beast of Narcissism, with its trailing familiar of Self-Righteousness, would be fed. The madding crowd could label, demonize, and ultimately dismiss the opposition, and it feels good, too. (There are exceptions: every now and then Amanpour seems ready to reason, as she did with Claire Lehmann of Quillette). Withal they are Eric Hoffer’s True Believers – still cynical, still opportunistic, but now simply childish, intellectually shallow, and often – there is no polite way to say it – stupid.
Bumper sticker thinking – not as slogans but as actual thought – walks the earth as political philosophy, as do figures of speech, -isms, and -ogonies. Manners are deemed repressive, rudeness celebrated, an inventory of fallacies (e.g. the whole for the part, the part for the whole, a failure to define, causal confusion, red herrings, strawmen, smokescreens, shifting of ground) proliferate, whole new vocabularies are invented . . . Does all this sound familiar? Every revolution has done the same; our case is simply the current flavor (though maybe here, too, we will be renaming months). New congresswomen who belong in a sandbox, old senators who should be medicated, an excitable audience as our neo-Coliseum (print, electronic and social media) mob who enable with their cheers and amplifications, and self-reinforcing mutual satisfactions - a mob cheering on a street fight.
It is nothing less than Neo-Stalinism.
They speak what they feel, and therein lies the fault. A simulacrum of thinking comes later, to justify the feeling, and the feeling comes from – well a Weltanschauung arising from attitudes fundamentally collective, fungible (cause to cause), and improvisational: abstractions expressing goals, not principles. A bagful of self-deceiving fetishes (diversity, inclusion, equality) and the rule of chromosomes (that is, demographic descriptors having nothing to do with actual achievement) dominate. Deliberative rhetoric, the type that requires explanation (at which Trump, Obama, and W are and were so inept, Reagan so adept), is too much trouble: why explain dogma? In short, we have – and take seriously – children pontificating with religious zeal. Are we in the greatest generation gap in our history? Self-styled alphas of our brave new world follow a dead white male, Pico della Mirandola, whose “Oration on the Dignity of Humanity” (the so-called manifesto of the Renaissance) teaches that one’s station is not fixed but is determined by what one chooses to enact.
And that sounds like freedom, but in fact the neo-Stalinoids want nothing to do with freedom. They are C. S. Lewis’s Innovators, who invent new values, on their way to becoming his Conditioners, who see through all value, seeking nothing other than power; they will level us, tribalize us, and finally de-humanize us – while they remain free. They weave their own web of meaning, an internal framework of understanding. And they are cyclothymic, which is a mood disorder. In it, moods swing between periods of mild depression and hypomania, an elevated mood. The swings never reach the severity or duration of major depressive or full mania episodes, but when shouting at the moon (literally) becomes tiresome, they jubilate over a Green New Deal.
At work here, I think, is what Jakob von Uexkull called Umwelt: how living beings perceive their environment. Organisms experience Umwelten, a 'self-in-world' of subjective reference frames (surrounding-world, phenomenal world). These are distinctive from Umgebung, the living being's surroundings as seen by an observer. Umwelt is a perceptual world in which one exists and acts. A new Re-birth. Pico lives, thus the ‘neo’.
And so we have, inevitably, a clash of Umwelten, with so many weaklings caught in the middle, eventually submiting to Romper Room wails of accusation. (Joe Biden, chump that he has always been, apologizes for calling VP Pence “a decent guy.”) Well then, try saying islamophobia is not rampant, white privilege is not preponderant, socialism is imbecilic, anti-Semitism is largely of the Left, sex is biological, climate change is not apocalyptic, unfettered immigration is a menace, same-sex unions are fine just don’t call them ‘marriage’, the unborn are people too, truth exists, history matters, anger does not trump reason, ‘social justice’ is a damaging sham, sin is real, humans are not perfectable, there can be no earthly utopia – and do not apologize.
Sound exteme? It is the way of extremes, especially sneaky ones, to beget loud, angry, woke extremes from the opposite direction. But my litany is not extreme and never has been – except to Stalinoid extremists.
Consider the deep divide between Globalization (from open borders, to no borders, to the elimination of the nation-state, “melted away,” as Jurgen Habermas happily has put it) and Populism, though the battle has been largely one-sided. Globalists – old-school ‘one-worlders’ – gradually encroached, until populists, so-called – patriots (and more than a few bigots) whose allegiance is to a nation-state and a particular culture – awoke to find themselves demonized. A people simply may not oppose an acquis, something permanent, unassailable, whether a program, a policy, or even a social norm. Of course, few people voted for this Union, one of the greatest long cons in history: the essence of Stalinism. And by the way, questioning this fetish invities a rhetoric that makes Joseph McCarthy’s look like a Gregorian chant.
Not long ago a friend, an extraordinary man, formerly a student whose mother was an original Black Panther, gave me a flash drive loaded with broadcasts from Pacifica Network, the ultra-liberal radio station. In some instances these archives went back fifty years, to James Baldwin, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Malcolm X. The programs are not balanced – the advocacy was always front-and-center – but they are rational. Karen Armstrong on religion and violence, Reza Aslan on the politics of Jesus of Nazareth, a celebration of Cesar Chavez, and several from “Out of the Vault,” most notably featuring Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis as narrators: making no pretence to debate but attempting actual explanations, they do not drive me nuts. Their positionsand dispositions are not very different from what we hear these days from the Neo-Stalinoids, but none seemed to me to be totalitarian, to demonize the opposition, or, simply put, to be juvenile.
But that was long ago. Now Bill DiBlasio honeymoons in Havana, Bernie Sanders in Moscow, one child congressperson praises the old Soviet Union, another the Maduro regime, and fellow-travelers check their brains at the door, not caring to call them out for the firing squads, squalor, gulags, or the oher uncountable depredations. Why bother? It’s America’s fault, or capitalism’s. Whether by mockery, ostracism, expulsion, imprisonment, or merely by exile to the black hole of neglect, opposition is marginalized, or silenced. The Soviet empire may not exist, but it’s ideology (mutatis mutandi) does: total, despotic, fraudulent, treacherous, utterly earthbound. Now too many in public life want that game without the name, and so the time to change that has come.
Barbara Reynolds has reminded us that the journey to God is the journey into reality, but rarely does anyone dig deeply enough to find the spiritual tumor blocking the way. Many strong thinkers diagnose the disease, offering their prescriptions; and every now and then there emerges real thinking from real thinkers (for example, Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life or Anthony Esolen’s Nostalgia or Ben Sasse’s Them: Why We Hate Each Other--and How to Heal or Arthur C. Brooks’s Love Your Enemies) who would get us back on track if only we listened. But alas, reports of the death of Stalin were pre-mature.
 Defined variously: 1/ “a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions . . . generating transcontinental . . . flows of networks or activity” (David Held). 2/ “. . . the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Roland Robertson. 3/ “the intensification and acceleration of social exchanges and activities” (Manfred B. Steger). It has produced wealth for millions who were in poverty but has also contributed to staggering, and institutionalized, inequities.
 Decades ago Miss Dee visited York College to conduct a workshop for our acting students. Her broken leg was in a cast, but it did not matter. She was brilliant, tireless, gentle and acute. The improvements in the scenes played by our students were nearly unbelievable. Living in Westchester, I had the pleasure of driving Miss Dee home to her house in New Rochelle. We talked all the way: her generosity of spirit and conversational eloquence were extraordinary (and her religious belief palpable)
Times are a’changing as are policy proposals in Middle Eastern affairs, though religious festivals remind of the complexity and perhaps relevance of the past. Purim is a Jewish holiday in March 2019 that commemorates the saving of the Jewish people from the Persian ruler who 2,500 years ago was planning to kill all the Jews. On March 22, 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike R. Pompeo suggested that President Donald Trump could be on a similar mission to save the Jews from a new Persian massacre in Iran by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Similarly, Trump’s clear evidence of U.S. support for Israel is, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “a miracle of Purim.”
More in secular than in religious mode, Trump has been reshaping U.S. policy towards the Middle East, most recently by asserting that Israel’s claim to and control of the Golan Heights, is critical. Iran, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran, home to a civilization that can be traced back to 7thcentury B.C. Syria, officially the Syrian Arab Republic, is a state politically created in the 20thcentury, and now largely an example of a failed state.
On March 21, 2019 President Trump asserted that the U.S. should recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump said it was time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and regional stability.
It is a move important in itself, agreeing that Israel’s sovereignty is crucially important to Israel’s security but more significant of a change in the direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The U.S. has already shown this by opposing the UNSC Resolution that condemned Israeli presence in the Golan Heights, the first time the U.S. has issued such a veto, and by using the phrase, “Israel controlled,” rather than “Israel occupied,” of territories claimed by Palestinians.
This Trump view is one that challenges the views of many in the “international community,” and of a substantial number of the U.S. Democratic Party including contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination, who refuse to recognize Israel’s control of the Golan Heights as legitimate. Their views are in accordance with opposing the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and in more general way, oppose seizure of territory in violation of international agreement.
Some of the opponents of the Trump position, of whom Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, Somali-American, now a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has become the most publicized, have spoken of the “evils of Israel,”, questioned the loyalty of those politicians who accept donations from pro-Israeli organizations, above all AIPAC, and even implied the allegiance of those politicians to a foreign country, not the U.S.
The Golan Heights is a 700 square miles area, 500 of them occupied by Israel, and 200 controlled by Syrian Arab Republic. It is bounded by Jordan river and Sea of Galilee on the west, Mount Herman on north, Yarmuk river on south, and is 40 miles southwest of Damascus. About 40 square miles of Mt. Herman’s slopes are used for skiing. Home to variety of diverse ethnic, and religious groups. During the era of the old testament, the area was a power struggle between the rulers of Israel and the Aramaeans, based near modern Damascus. The area was conquered by Jews for a short time and Golan became a city of refuge. The area was conquered by Arabs in 7thcentury, and by the Ottomans in 16h century. The Golan was part of the vilayet of Damascus until 1918.
After the end of the Ottoman Empire, the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council at San Remo in 1920 set up two Mandates, one British, the other French, and the boundaries between them were defined in December 1920. The bulk of the Golan Heights was given to France, and became part of the French Mandate, while the Sea of Galilee was put under the British Mandate.
Syria was created and was 1920-46, a French Mandate, and got independence in 1946.
In the Six Day War in June 1967 between Israel and Arab states, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, Israel captured Golan on June 11, 1967 and took the Golan Heights after its victory in war. Arabs refused peace with Israel, recognition of Israel, negotiation with Israel. Five villages of Druze were offered Israeli citizenship, but refused, and kept Syrian citizenship. About 30 Jewish settlements were set up and put under Israeli military administration, and Golan was integrated into the communications and financial framework of Israel.
It applied Israeli law and administration to the region in 1981, action that was rejected by the international community by UNSC Resolution 497 which states that the Israel decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction, and administration, in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.
For Israel, Syria under Assad during the long civil war has remained a problem as Iranian backed Shia militias use Syria as a platform to move persons and supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon. By holding the area, Israel can see the rest of the whole Syrian area, including Damascus, and can contain the water for an arid season, supplying Israel with one third of its water supply.
As result of the Yom Kippur war, Ramadan, of October 1973 , the UN set up in the area a UN Disengagement Observer Force ,UNDORM, which is renewable every six months.
It is unlikely that Arab countries, whose main focus is to counter Iran’s influence in their areas, will be seriously troubled by Trump’s decision. Indeed, recent events suggest the opposite may be the case: frequent visits of Jared Kushner to Middle East countries, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar. Israel’s female culture and sports minister visited the UAE during the international judo competitions in Abu Dhabi, during which Hatikva was played. Netanyahu visited a number of countries.
The long civil war has changed Syrian reality. There is general recognition that the 1967 lines no longer are appropriate. Trump’s statement is part of that recognition, of reality on the ground, the need and ability of Israel to protect itself. Surely, even leading politicians, Bernie, Warren, Harris , and AOC, (A.O-Cortez) agree?
David Solway and Janice Fiamengo-- The Couple of Many Talents
David Solway is a regular contributor to NER. Besides writing beautiful poetry and astute articles, he and his wife, Janice Fiamengo, also make beautful music. Their second CD, Book of Love, will be out this month and you can watch and listen to one of their new songs (written by David), Partial to Cain, here.
Libertarianism(s) versus Postmodernism and "Social Justice" Ideology | Michael Rectenwald
Michael Rectenwald delivers the Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Yousif Almoayyed.
The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian School, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition. The conference is hosted by the Mises Institute at its campus in Auburn, Alabama, and is directed by Joseph Salerno, professor of economics at Pace University and academic vice president of the Mises Institute.
Ten men detained near Frankfurt on suspicion of Islamist attack plot
(Reuters) - Ten men were detained in raids around Frankfurt on Friday on suspicion of planning an Islamist attack using a vehicle and guns with the goal of killing as many people as possible, prosecutors said.
Several of the suspects, aged 20 to 42, were German citizens, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office said, without naming the other nationalities.
“They are believed to have agreed to carry out an Islamist, terrorist attack using a vehicle and guns that would kill as many ‘non-believers’ as possible,” the statement from the Frankfurt prosecutors said.
“To prepare the attack, they had already made contact with different arms dealers, rented a large vehicle and collected financial assets to use for the purchase of guns and the execution of the planned murders,” they added.
The main suspects were a 21-year old man from Offenbach, a city near Frankfurt, and two 31-year brothers from Wiesbaden, all of whom were associated with the Islamist Salafist community in the area, prosecutors said.
During the raids, police found and seized over €20,000 ($22,500) in cash, several knives, small quantities of narcotics, a variety of documents and electronic data storage equipment.
The charges include funding terrorism and conspiring to commit a crime. The accused are due to appear before a judge at the District Court of Frankfurt on Friday afternoon.
Democratic leaders have been cynical and slow in addressing Jew-hatred within their party, perhaps because they believe most Jews will remain Democrats regardless of how the party treats them or regards Israel.
by Matthew Hausman
Despite indignant denials, the Democratic Party has enabled anti-Semitism as progressives have embraced ancient stereotypes and asserted them against Israel. Haters who push claims of undue Jewish influence, divided loyalties, and even blood libel are accepted under the mantle of inclusiveness, and partisan apologists sanitize bigotry by calling it political speech, mendaciously distinguishing contempt for Israel from hatred of Jews, and tolerating slanders against the Jewish State. When challenged for permitting such conduct, they invoke free speech to defend those who make ridiculous accusations – e.g., that Israel engages in ethnic cleansing, controls international finance, or practices apartheid. But after the election of a few high-profile extremists last November, some Democrats finally began to admit they had a problem, although they failed to seize the moment, acknowledge responsibility, and pledge genuine change.
Not all Democrats can agree on whether a problem even exists; and those who do are divided over whether to punish the offenders or issue denunciations that specifically mention anti-Semitism. The glaring hypocrisy is that Democrats would not tolerate such moral ambiguity from across the aisle. If Congressional Republicans were to repeatedly malign African Americans, gay people, or women, Democrats would demand that the offenders be publicly chastised as racists, homophobes, and sexists; and they would be outraged at any attempt to dilute the message to appease party extremists.
When it comes to anti-Semitism, however, too many Democrats seem to be ethically challenged and morally blind.
Their inability to condemn anti-Semitism without qualification should not be surprising, given their failure to confront the tide of Jew-hatred that surged during the Obama administration. Or their tendency to deflect by blaming Republicans for intolerance that today comes predominantly from the left. The inconvenient truth is that the skyrocketing rate of bias incidents against Jews is not primarily the fault of conservatives or the political right, but increasingly of progressives and their constituencies.
The glaring hypocrisy is that Democrats would not tolerate such moral ambiguity from across the aisle...
“At the moment postmodern theory lay dying in the academy, it bore a child, namely, ‘social justice.’ As mothers are the root of all evil in horror films, so postmodern theory would be in waking nightmares.” Thus begins Dr. Michael Rectenwald, professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, in his recently published memoir Springtime for Snowflakes — Social Justice and Its Postmodern Parentage.
Rectenwald combines aspects of personal and academic memoir with the development of the intellectual movements within postmodern literary theory that led to the horrors of “Political Correctness” and the canons of the Social Justice Warrior creed. It is a personal story that tracks his own hostile encounters with co-workers and student activists, and the firestorm which was generated by his Twitter posts under the handle @antipcnyuprof.
Rectenwald’s book is far from the first to examine the origins of the phenomenon of the Social Justice Warrior. However, in contrast to books such as Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie, Rectenwald’s intellectual critique of the Social Justice movement comes from within the ranks of the intellectual Left. The author’s criticisms of Political Correctness and the SJW movement are all the more effective because of his academic career in those circles.
As one twitter troll put it: “You’re anti-P.C.? You must be a rightwing nut-job.” “But as I [the author] explained in numerous interviews and essays, I was not a Trump supporter; I was never a right-winger, or an alt-right-winger; I was never a conservative of any variety. Hell, I wasn’t even a classical John Stuart Mill liberal.”
Rectenwald continued, "In fact, for several years, I had identified as a left or libertarian communist.… I became a well-respected Marxist thinker and essayist. I had flirted with a Trotskyist sect, and later became affiliated with a loosely organized left or libertarian communist group.”
After “banishment … from the NYU Liberal Studies community,” Rectenwald seems hard-pressed even to define his current philosophical standpoint in conventional terms:
Despite the harsh treatment doled out to me by the social justice left and the warm reception I received from the right, I did not become a right-winger, or a conservative. But after the social-justice-infiltrated left showed me its gnarly fangs and drove me out, I could no longer identify as a leftist. Yet I also refused the libertarian label, even though the denotation of the term addressed many of my concerns.
Springtime for Snowflakes is roughly equal parts personal memoir, intellectual critique of the origins and present state of the Social Justice movement, and a printed compendium of Rectenwald’s tweets and Facebook posts that placed him at the center of academic controversy.
Rectenwald’s chapters on the intellectual origins and tactics of Political Correctness and the Social Justice movement are often quite insightful. His efforts to demonstrate the link between the SJWs and literary criticism are reminiscent of similar links between so-called higher criticism and political leftism in theological circles. In Rectenwald’s words:
Postmodern theory may be properly understood as the “missing link” between the older Marxist left and the contemporary social justice left. Yet many mutations have occurred within leftist political ideology in the evolution from Marxism to social justice. In order to understand the contemporary social justice left, then, I have examined postmodern theory in some depth.
Rectenwald’s summary of the tactics of the Social Justice Warriors is familiar to anyone who has had to contend with them:
The social and linguistic constructivist claims of social justice ideologues amount to a form of philosophical and social idealism that is enforced with a moral absolutism. Once beliefs are unconstrained by the object world and people can believe anything they like with impunity, the possibility for assuming a pretense of infallibility becomes almost irresistible, especially when the requisite power is available to support such idealism. In fact, given its willy-nilly determination of truth and reality on the basis of beliefs alone, philosophical and social idealism necessarily becomes dogmatic, authoritarian, anti-rational, and effectively religious. Since it sanctions no push-back from the object world and regards it with indifference or disdain, it necessarily encounters push-back from the object world and must double-down. Because it usually contains so much nonsense, the social and philosophical idealism of the social justice creed must be established by force, or the threat of force.
For Rectenwald, contending with the Social Justice movement requires an understanding that it is a set of religious dogmas:
Recognizing that our institutions of education have adopted a religious creed should go a long way in removing social justice from its parapet and installing a new, higher-order creed in its place. I will call this new higher-order creed "post-secularism.”… Successful reformation must allow social justice ideology to remain in existence while it is removed from its current position as policy-maker, arbiter of expression and inquiry, and censor.
However, despite the author’s advocacy for such efforts to integrate SJWs into the ranks of the emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and morally sound, the task may prove beyond the confines of the possible. What seems more likely is that the rule of the French Revolution will continue to hold true in the words of Pierre Victorien Vergniaud (who perished under the blade of the guillotine in 1793): “The revolution, like Saturn, devours its children.”
The bus still smolders after Sengalese immigrant attempted to burn schoolchildren alive
The past week has not been good from the standpoint of horrific attacks around the world. We began with an Australian man attacking two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and killing 50 Muslim worshipers in a calm and collected manner, which he recorded on video. I have seen it, and it is horrific. I chose not to post it.
At the same time, Nigerian Christians by the hundreds have been slaughtered in the past couple of weeks by so-called "Fulani herders" (Muslims). It has received unbelievably little coverage.
On Monday of this week, a Turkish man boarded a tram in the old Dutch university town of Utrecht and shot three people to death, wounding five others. He was captured a few hours later. A note he left behind in a hijacked get-away car stated that he did it in the "name of Allah".
Then on Wednesday in Milan, a Senegalese school bus driver, with previous arrests for sexual abuse and drunk driving, no less, decided that because Africans were drowning in the Mediterranean trying to make it to Italy, he would tie up 51 school kids and their teachers, douse the bus with gasoline, and set it ablaze, which is exactly what he did. Miraculously, the police arrived just in time to block the bus, break through, and evacuate the kids as the bus erupted in flames. Everybody was saved. This week, the nation of Italy, already reeling from the effects of mass migration into their country of people they cannot support, and the presence of vicious Nigerian gangs, is in shock.
I am an opponent of political Islam and I believe that Islamic immigration is a great danger to the West in many ways. As a human being who doesn't believe that all Muslims are bad, I am horrified by what happened in New Zealand.
At the same time, however, the events in Nigeria, the Netherlands, and Italy should confirm to everyone that Islam has no place in the West. The Europeans should already know that, but with a few exceptions, their leaders plow blindly ahead, determined to create a multi-cultural paradise by importing those cultures that will never assimilate and threaten to destroy their very societies.
Whether Europe can be saved is an open question. Many believe it is too late. Yet, certain countries in the EU (the new Soviet Union) are resisting Islamic immigration and acceptance of tens of thousands of refugees. They are mostly the Eastern European countries, recently freed from the shackles of communism and unwilling to throw away their newly-found freedoms. Add Italy to that list under the leadership of Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who is doing his best to close Italian ports to shipfulls of young, male migrants. He risks assassination, and he even risks being charged by irresponsible prosecutors for closing the ports.
On Wednesday, the Dutch went to the provincial polls and made Thierry Baudet's Forum for Democracy the largest party in the Senate. Much like the courageous Geert Wilders, Baudet is opposed to open borders and understands the threat that the massive Muslim influx poses to Europe.
If what happened in Milan yesterday doesn't convince the bureaucrats of Brussels, nothing will. And yet, I am not hopeful when it comes to EU or leaders like Angela Merkel (Germany), Emmanuel Macron (France), Mark Rutte (Netherlands), Stefan Löfven (Sweden) and others. What they have failed to grasp is that the first duty of a democratic government is to protect its citizens. In that, they have utterly failed. They have failed their women, who are being raped on a regular basis. They have failed their Jews, who are emigrating by the thousands. They have failed their police, who are overwhelmed by the crime and riots. They have failed virtually all of their citizens.
If Europe is still democratic, the only hope lies with the voters. With the coming European elections in May, hopefully a change is in the winds.
Ikhwan Front CAIR and Pro-Iran-Deal HuffPo Smear Young American Professionals
Washington DC: The smear attacks waged by Muslim Brotherhood front, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Iran Deal backer, Huffington Post, on two young Americans - one serving in the Administration and another building a distinguished media career - demonstrate once again that the Iranian regime and Ikhwan backers in the US are working in tandem to deter any critique of their ideologies, or criticism of their influence, which is growing both inside and outside of Congress.
The two newest victims of smear tactics by the Brotherhood and Iran lobbies in Washington are Eduardo Neret and Faith Vander Voort. Mr. Neret, a Finance undergraduate student at the University of Florida in Gainesville, is a rising media commentator who has completed internships at Fox News and the Department of Justice. Ms. Vander Voort is a spokesperson at the Department of Interior and has worked on the Hill at a number of offices and committees. Well known in Washington circles, Vander Voort’s experience with these Islamist lobbies is similar to that of Heather Nauert, formerly at the Department of State, who was also savaged by the Ikhwan-Iran lobby and the same far-left media fellow travelers.
Neret and Vander Voort are representatives of a young generation of Republicans who are well-educated, well-informed and filled with ambition to serve their country. Both are seen by their peers as future players in shaping opinions among their generation.
"This is precisely why notorious CAIR and pro-Iran regime Huffington Post jump on them - to muddy their names and cut them off from developing great professional careers," said John Hajjar, Co-Chair of the American Middle East Coalition (AMCD).
AMCD represents the anti-Jihadist and pro-democracy leaders of the US Middle Eastern and Muslim communities in the US. AMCD has developed strong outreach to the Administration and has good bipartisan ties to Congress. Its leaders, Arab Mideasterners, Iranians, Africans and others often appear on American and Middle Eastern media.
Mr. Hajjar went on to blast CAIR as “the central hub for Muslim Brotherhood influence in Washington DC. Behind CAIR, which has been designated as a terrorist entity by the UAE and several other Arab countries, is the Qatar regime. Qatar aims to destroy any opposition to its agenda in America. Now they are targeting these brilliant young minds in order to intimidate them. But we won't allow this to happen. We will take action against these smears, as Representative Nunes is taking action against Twitter for allowing smears to spread.”
Tom Harb, co-chair of AMCD said, “The Huffington Post is known for its support of the Iran Deal, and has been attacking US politicians, members of Congress and activists who oppose the Deal for years. Why these left-wing websites are smearing Americans opposed to the Deal that transferred 150 billion dollars to Tehran is a mystery, unless some media in the US are profiting somehow from the money of the Deal.”
Hossein Khorram said, “I have reviewed the charges by the Ikhwan group CAIR and by the pro-Iran regime web site Huffington Post against Neret and Vander Voort. There is nothing of substance in this attack. They claim the two young professional are ‘Islamophobes’ because they expressed their opinion about Islam and the Jihadists. I am Muslim and work with thousands of Muslim-Americans across the country. We have differences among ourselves. If regular Americans express themselves about these issues we shouldn't harm them in public nor destroy their professional reputations. We should engage them.” He continued, “What the attackers of these two young people are doing is similar to the tactics used by the Iranian regime and the Jihadi forces in the Middle East. They want to silence them."
AMCD board member and Egyptian-American, Ashley Ansara said, “We American Muslims won't accept that Ikhwan CAIR continues to harass people and smear them in the media, while claiming CAIR represents the Muslim community in America. All that they represent is the Muslim Brotherhood.”
He continued, “The silent Muslim majority has had enough of CAIR’s intimidation. We reject their portrayal of these two excellent young people by CAIR and the Iran Deal mouthpiece, Huffington Post. I would further point out that CAIR operates as a charity, yet it is clearly a political organization. At the very least, its 501 (c) 3 status should be revoked forthwith.”
CAIR’s target, Mr. Neret, replied, “While it's not surprising, it's absolutely disgusting that the left-wing rag that is the Huffington Post would try to link a nearly two-year old podcast by a college student and his friend to the recent terrorist attack in New Zealand. The coordinated circulation of the article by CAIR and Mother Jones follows a pattern of smears and hit jobs that are all too common on the radical left and Muslim Brotherhood precincts.
“It's also amusing that the Huffington Post would defend and make excuses for Sharia law, a legal framework seen by many (including in the Muslim world) as harboring injunctions that are notoriously anti-women and anti-LGBT. Instead of examining the roots and dangers of radical Islamic terror, the Huffington Post and its authors would rather condemn two college students who had a discussion on the subject. Their fear of an open dialogue is telling.”
The Utrecht tram gunman will face terrorism charges when he appears in court on Friday, Dutch prosecutors have said. A public prosecution service spokesman said on Thursday: "The 37-year-old suspect will appear before a judge on Friday, charged with multiple murders with terrorist aims, as well as attempted murder and a terrorist threat."
Authorities are also investigating whether he had other personal motives, and said they believe the suspect acted alone. However, from Deustch Welle
Dutch police on Wednesday said they had arrested a new suspect in a shooting that killed three people and injured seven others on a tram in the city of Utrecht, as they investigated whether there was a terrorist motive behind the attack.
Officers from a specialized arrest team detained the 40-year-old man in Utrecht on Tuesday and released two other men that had been detained earlier, said police spokesman Joost Lanshage.
A spokesman for public prosecutors, Ties Kortmann, said that the investigation is probing the motive of the suspects and into the possible involvement of the man arrested on Tuesday. "We are looking at the role of the new suspect," he added. The suspect's identity has not been released.
The statement continued: "We are investigating whether the suspect acted solely from a terrorist motive, or whether his actions came out of personal problems in combination with a radicalised ideology."
Tanis will face a judge on Friday and will also undergo psychological examination.
Police said a terrorist motive was being seriously considered after a note was found in the getaway car — a red Renault Clio that the suspect had carjacked before the attack and used to flee the scene afterwards. They had also found a firearm after his arrest.
Police appeared to rule out reports that the shooting was due to a family dispute, after Turkish media outlets reported such a connection on the day of the shooting.
"Our investigation has established no link between the main suspect and the victims," the statement added.
Were we in an acknowledged war, what Brenton Tarrant has done, murdering indiscriminately including small children, would be a war crime. As it is it’s the crime of mass murder and once convicted after a fair trial he must be punished properly according to the law of New Zealand.
But while the relatives of the murdered worshippers grieve it is obvious that the wider Muslim community, in this most liberal of English speaking Commonwealth countries, are seizing the opportunity to reach out with some subtle and not so subtle dawa or proselytization.
Towards women we have tomorrow’s effort: Stand with Muslim women: Wear a headscarf as an offering of support.
All women are being encouraged to wear head scarves tomorrow to show their support for the Muslim community. The nationwide event is all about making Muslims in New Zealand feel safe.
Some are unsure whether it's culturally appropriate and what colours to wear. Newshub spoke to Amina Patel, a Muslim businesswoman and mother.
She agrees that non-Muslims wearing scarves tomorrow is a lovely symbol. "It's not culturally inappropriate in any means, standing together in solidarity is really important and it's a meaningful way to come together as one."
Patel's hijab is elaborate and has a bonnet, pins and accessories, bus she says just draping a scarf over your head tomorrow is enough. Any colour but red is fine to wear tomorrow, and if you're in Auckland and want some help putting it on, call in to the Ponsonby Mosque from 4pm and volunteers will give you a hand.
Wearing a head scarf may feel strange or uncomfortable for some, but some Muslims said that's also part of what it takes to understand what it's like to walk in their shoes.
A top Auckland girls' school says the hijab is not allowed under their uniform code, but will support students who want to wear one for the 'Scarves in Solidarity' event on Friday. Diocesan School for Girls is an Anglican school based in Epsom, Auckland, which costs upwards of $19,000 per year in school fees for each student.
Diocesan school Principal Heather McRae said in a statement that "any girl or person who wants to show their respect for Muslim families affected in Christchurch by wearing a hijab to school on this day is most welcome to do so."
At Timaru Hospital the initiative is being organised by a doctor. It is called Headscarves for Harmony and this photograph shows the staff already wearing their head coverings IN ADVANCE. Have many nurses and radiographers, knowing the oppression around the hijab in other countries refused? How much moral pressure would be exerted to show ‘solidarity’ after such a heinous crime of mass murder? How could you refuse?
A bit more worrying is the outreach between the mosques and the biker gangs, many of whom are Maori and Polynesian. On the surface it looks great. In principle I expect it has started with good intentions. The gangs are tough and manly. The Maoris had a warrior culture. Protecting fellow citizens while they pray is a Good Thing. But when dawa begins….
The white Europeans came to your country… they came to ours… our religion is not the white man’s… it could be yours….
Just as happened with African Americans and Nation of Islam, and elsewhere.
…a handful of biker groups that have reached out to the country’s small Muslim community to express solidarity in the aftermath of the massacre, according to The New Zealand Herald, and offered to provide voluntary security at mosques during this week’s jumah, or Friday prayers. Groups that have promised protection include the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, King Cobras and Hells Angels.
The president of the Mongrel Mob chapter in Waikato, Sonny Fatu, reportedly offered to shield the Jamia Masjib Mosque in Hamilton.
“We will support and assist our Muslim brothers and sisters for however long they need us,” Fatu told the New Zealand news outlet Stuff.
The president of the Waikato Muslim Association, Asad Mohsin, told NZME, “Some people from the Mongrel Mob had been visiting the mosque during the week, and said they wanted to come on Friday, show their support and solidarity.”
Although the Muslim community did not feel scared, Mohsin said, the support was appreciated.
But instead of asking the bikers to protect the Muslims from outside the mosque, he invited them inside. “They don't have to stand outside the mosque. They can come inside, right behind where the sermon is given,” he said. “We would love everybody to come, but we don't want anybody to show they are scared. We are not scared. You don't have to stand outside the mosque, we want you to be inside, with us.”
Picture below. Mongrel Mob Waikato president Sonny Fatu with Hanad Ibrahim from Jamia Masjid Mosque in Hamilton. Jihadist Mark Taylor who is currently in a Kurdish prison after his escapades with ISIS is from Hamilton and 'embraced Islam' there. I have no information as to where he was radicalised.
A mixture of Maori and Polynesians, the Mongrel Mob has 30 chapters throughout New Zealand and they have been linked with organised crime. Waikato Muslim Association president Dr Asad Mohsin said he did not view the mob as 'gang members' and added: "We value them as humans and we appreciate that they value us too."
Then there is the usual tightening of gun regulations. Jared Savage in the New Zealand Herald
The announcement by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern successfully balances the tension between making New Zealand safer, and the legitimate concerns of the rural community. By instantly changing the Arms Act to reclassify any semi-automatic with a calibre greater than .22 as MSSA firearms, weapons such as the AR-15 now require E-category licences.
These licence endorsements are much more difficult to obtain.
Semi-automatic shotguns capable of using detachable magazines with more than five cartridges also fall into this category.
The instant classification means there can be no stockpiling of AR-15s, or similar, before all MSSAs are totally banned in a few weeks' time.
This is a sensible move.
Nearly all of my friends and family I've spoken to this week had no idea of the incredible firepower easily available over the counter in our country.
None will be worried about a ban. All asked why it's taken so long.
Also there will be public worship. A two minute’s silence is what we do in Western culture. And if this was an invitation to the wider public to participate in, say, Hindu worship I wouldn’t have a qualm. I would think, diversity; we are all brothers and sisters. But of this, I am wary. From Stuff
Thousands from across New Zealand are expected to come to Christchurch's Hagley Park for a call to prayer and two minutes of silence one week after 50 people were killed in a terrorist attack.
Friday's service will start with the call to prayer, which will be broadcast nationally across all major free-to-air TV and radio stations.
The Muslim Call to Prayer for the Friday congregational prayer, the Jumu'ah, will be broadcast at 1.30pm, and will be followed by a two-minute silence at 1.32pm, at Hagley Park, opposite the Masjid Al Noor in Deans Ave.
TVNZ and RNZ will broadcast the call, and MediaWorks has confirmed it will follow suit on television station Three and radio station Magic Talk. NZME will also broadcast it on Newstalk ZB.
… The Muslim community will then pray from 1.34pm until about 2pm, with the crowd asked to remain silent. The event will end with a brief closing remark from Ardern (left) about 2.02pm.
For non-Muslims who hear the call to prayer on Friday, Victoria University religious studies lecturer Eva Nisa said the best thing to do was "just be quiet and listen". "Muslims respect that call a lot, so ideally they have to listen. ..”
Muslims have even set out guidelines for how people should approach them when offering condolence and support. From TVNZ
Helpful tips if you're not Muslim and want to pay respects,
offer support after Christchurch attack
Samir Harith from Waikato University has provided some helpful tips if you’re not Muslim and want to pay respects and offer support to those affected by the Christchurch terror attacks.
He told TVNZ1's Breakfast it's important to learn about the types of prayers and the food Muslim people can eat for people wanting to provide meals.
He said if non-Muslims want to join the prayers it's better to wait for the invitation from the mosque to the public rather than show up unannounced. "Most non-Muslims will be participating in the dhuhr."
Mr Harith also said Muslims will only take and consume halal food. Mr Harith said if you're going to donate food seafood and vegetables are halal and most desserts are fine.
"Especially pavlova, everyone loves pavlova."
He said he doesn't think there's any real danger of offending anyone.
"Most Muslims that live here are quite open minded and quite understanding of other cultures, but that being said knowing a little bit more about our sensitivities does go a long way in extending that support."
I have always had a lot of respect for New Zealanders and Australians. There was a time when they were indistinguishable to the English eye, both our cousins, they sounded similar and were not Canadians. But in recent years the difference is more pronounced. New Zealanders are very liberal. Australians, perhaps because they have had Islamic terrorism in their streets, or a more up front militancy among their Muslims, seem more aware, less inclined to accept the soft soap.
I know the Kiwis are so well-meaning. They breed sheep, delicious sheep, which I can no longer purchase in the UK as it is all slaughtered halal compliant for their middle eastern/Malaysian market. I don’t like to see them walking like sheep into a halal dawa fest, with their good nature and friendly outreach being taken advantage of.