Sunday, June 19, 2016
Ya gotta hand it to the man: A far-Left Australian Jew claims to understand Islam better than Islamic scholars do
As it is enormously long-winded, in a typical Leftist style, I won't try to reproduce Michael Brull's article here. Below, however, are a couple of his opening sentences. He is discussing the Orlando massacre:
"Right-wing politicians and commentators have hurried to link the attack to Islam and Muslims generally, using the massacre to promote goals like banning Muslim immigration.
While others have responded with critiques of the overt racism of some of these voices, in this article, I want to explain why these claims about the responsibility of Islam for this massacre are substantively wrong"
Brull's basic point is that both in the past and today, many Muslims condone homosexuality -- which is true. With the exception of a few Western Imams, however, Islamic scholars today universally condemn homosexuality.
So what do the Koran and the Hadiths say? The Koran re-tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which teaches divine vengeance upon homosexuality. But the Koran is not specific about how faithful Muslims should treat homosexuals. For that, we have to go to the Hadiths, which are treated by all Muslim scholars as the authentic teachings of Mohammed. And in the Hadiths we find not only an instruction to kill homosexuals but precise instructions about how: They are to be thrown off the top of a tall building, which is exactly what the devout Muslims of ISIS do regularly.
So how come many Muslims condone or have condoned homosexuality? How come the Orlando shooter himself appears to have been homosexual? Easy: Homosexuality is rife among Muslims. Their religion makes their relationship with women very difficult to start with and the toleration of polygamy creates an even bigger stress. Under polygamy, the rich old men get most of the women, leaving lots of young men high and dry.
So sexual frustration among Muslim young men is HUGE and tends to break out in all directions. It's why they clothe their sisters in Burkas, Niqabs and the like. And why many Muslim societies restrict the movements of women -- with some going to the extreme of requiring women to go out only in the company of a male family member. It's all to protect their female family members from other Muslim young men. Their women have to be made as untempting to Muslim young men as possible. Otherwise the women would be sexually harassed. In more liberal Muslim countries such as Lebanon, Muslim women are very frequently harassed and assaulted by Muslim men.
But if women are not available, what is the next best thing? Homosexuality and pedophilia. And in some countries, such as Afghanistan, that's institutionalized -- as with the Afghan "dancing boys". They do more than dance.
So there is HUGE tension between the Muslim religion and what Muslims do. And that dissonance can sometimes be resolved by various sorts of tolerance of homosexuality -- usually silent tolerance.
Brull makes much of some times in the distant past when Muslim societies have tolerated homosexuality fairly openly, but we have to relate that to something that he himself stresses: The diversity in Islam. Muslims are notorious for their sectarian wars. Islam is not unlike Christianity in that it has within it many sects which all think they are right and the other sects are wrong. There was a time when Anglican bishops were burnt at the stake for their beliefs -- a rather hilarious thought when we contemplate Anglican spinelessness today.
The important point is, however, that Christians no longer attack one-another physically, whereas Muslims still do. Religions change and evolve over time and Islam has done some of that too. So what some Muslims have done in the past is no guide to what Islam is today. The past roasting of Anglican bishops is no guide to modern Christianity and nor are episodes of liberalism among some Muslims of the past any guide to Islam today. Islam today treads an enormously difficult path of sexual inhibition, made more difficult by an awareness that infidels have a lot more fun.
As I said, Brull makes much of the fact that Islam is not a monolithic entity. It is split into a large number of mutually hostile sects. He seems to think that the divisiveness of Islam makes it unreasonable to talk of a single monolithic entity called "Islam". But that is only trivially true. There is much more that unites Muslims than there are things that divide them. And open hostility to homosexuality is something virtually all of them have in common. Homophobia is Muslim.
Some Muslim organizations in the West did condemn the Orlando massacre but that is a type of deceptive PR allowed by the Koran: "taqiyya". In some Muslim countries, such as Turkey, the massacre was celebrated -- JR
Multicultural train pest
A train passenger who intentionally held the doors open causing delays to dozens of services and costing the rail network £10,000 has been jailed.
Aaron Reid, 28, got on a London Midland service at Aston, Birmingham, but decided to prevent the doors from closing so that someone he was travelling with could board the train.
A conductor went to speak to Reid, where it is believed the passenger started to act aggressively and began to film the encounter on his mobile phone.
Birmingham Magistrates Court heard how he was asked to leave the service in February, but refused. He then intentionally held up the train again at the next station, Duddleston.
The Birmingham Mail reports that the man's actions caused an 11-minute delay to the service to Birmingham New Street, and is estimated to have cost the rail network £10,000.
It also resulted in delays and cancellations to as many as 42 other services operating on the line.
He was arrested on leaving the train at Birmingham New Street.
In court, Reid denied the obstruction charges, saying that his shoelace had accidentally got stuck in the train doors.
The 28-year-old was found guilty of two counts of obstruction for his actions on the train, and after an outburst in court, was also found in contempt of court.
For the obstruction offences Reid received a 16-week jail term. This triggered three suspended sentences he had previously had handed to him totalling 24 weeks, meaning the Birmingham man is set for a 10-month stretch behind bars.
PC James Hannan from Birmingham New Street said: 'Reid has come to our attention on numerous occasions for exactly this kind of behaviour. 'He'll pick arguments with rail staff and police over what are usually very trivial matters and then refuse to leave the train.
'The level of aggression he displays is totally unacceptable and over the top, affecting passengers around him and delaying their journeys. 'We hope this sentence acts as a wake-up call to Reid and makes him think twice before he acts. We will also be seeking measures to prevent him from using the rail network in the future in order to protect rail users and staff from his unpleasant behaviour.'
London Midland head of Cross City services, Rob Hornsey, added: 'Holding the train doors for just one person can have a knock on effect that can delay hundreds of people across the West Midlands. Which is exactly what happened on this occasion.'
Justice First! Jo Cox’s Mentally Ill Killer Should Not Be Discussed in Parliament
Louise Mensch (née Louise Daphne Bagshawe; born 1971) writes well below. She has been called the "thinking man's crumpet" -- evil though it is of me to mention that
Normally speaking a man who is arrested by police on suspicion of murder would enjoy both fair treatment from the press and a guarding of his rights by the BBC.
Not so the mentally ill killer of heroic Jo Cox MP.
Disgracefully, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn both imputed political motives to Thomas Mair, which could prejudice his trial.
They spoke of “hate”. Leading EU figures disgustingly appeared to connect mentally ill Thomas with the Brexit campaign. And the BBC did the same, on Twitter, Newsnight and across it broadcasts.
West Yorkshire Police leaked highly prejudicial crap to the Guardian about far-right memorabilia
Finally the Speaker allowed Parliament to be recalled despite the fact a man is to be tried. When I was on the Select Committee we received stern advice from Speaker’s Counsel that we could do NOTHING and say NOTHING in our hacking enquiry that would prejudice the trial of Andy Coulson.
How then is this being allowed?
Let us get this absolutely straight. Thomas Mair was severely mentally ill – and he may well, therefore, have had racist tendencies, which could be delusional.
But NOTHING thus far reported suggests that these are the “reasons” he killed poor Jo Cox, still less that the matter has ANYTHING WHATEVER to do with Brexit.
The speculation everywhere, fuelled by prejudicial police leaks to the Guardian, is that, as the BBC reported, Mair shouted “Britain First!” and then attacked the MP.
Couple that with the police’s neo-Nazi finds at his house and there is the hate crime motivation, done and dusted.
But this theory is already falling apart under scrutiny. One of the three original “witnesses” , Mr. Hitcham Ben Abdallah, cited, flatly denied he ever heard Mair shout “Britain First!”
Next, the BBC originally stated that Mair screamed “Britain First” three times. But “eyewitness” Clarke Rothwell did not go so far on camera
And there was worse to come. The Muslim eyewitness contradicted Clarke Rothwell saying not only did he not say “Britain First” but NOBODY heard “Britain First” shouted:
Well, the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent, and West Yorkshire Police, now have MASSIVE explaining to do. Because “witness” Clark Rothwell is allegedly on the BNP’s membership list as leaked by WikiLeaks:
The BNP and Britain First have a rivalry between them as racist groups. Clearly, this means that any allegation by Rothwell is suspect. I satisfied myself on Facebook that “Clarke Rothwell” of Batley, Yorkshire, “likes” a Facebook group called “Islam NOT 4 UK”
Will the BBC, Independent and Guardian report the “Britain First” claimed shout falling apart?
Meanwhile, a poster on Reddit, claiming to be from Thomas Mair’s estate, suggested that it was well known locally that, rather than politics on his mind, Mair resented that a mental health programme he attended was closed. This poster claimed to be a Muslim and a supporter of Jo Cox’s. He decried the attitude of the media to both Mair and the local area. Even if, he said, Mair had supported the far right he was a mentally ill loner who never spoke of racist issues or politics and who was confused, the poster claimed, when running away, and waited at a bus stop.
Hope not Hate confirmed meanwhile that they were both taking money and campaigning for Remain today.
As the “Britain First” claim falls apart under the weight of the BNP, perhaps Hope Not Hate, David Cameron, and the Speaker of the House of Commons might consider the witness claim that Thomas Mair’s mentally ill grudge was over a mental health closure whether or not there was old Nazi memorabilia at his house.
These racist delusions, even on the reporting, go back to as early as 1999. They have, therefore, nothing to do with Brexit. Nothing to do with Vote Leave. Nothing to do with “rhetoric”.
We are seeing the full might of the EU bosses, of the Prime Minister, of the House of Commons, of the BNP, of the police – not as investigators but as leakers to the Guardian – deployed against a severely mentally ill man whom local people say was NOT motivated by politics at all.
This is not progressive. It is not OK. It is not justice. It is the base, the vile use of the death of a young mother in the service of throwing a vital referendum on the future of Britain.
Because in order to pay tribute to Jo Cox you do not need to suggest what the motivations of her mentally ill killer were.
You should not say those motivations were anything to do with hatred, with the EU, with Brexit. Because you have no idea. And to suggest these things on the basis of utterly spurious, contested, unreliable witness reports where conflicts of interest exist – BNP vs Britain First – is a disgusting misuse of Parliament.
If it is to be recalled, John Bercow will be failing in his duty if he allows any speculation on the floor of the house about why Jo Cox was killed. He is, in my view, clearly prejudicing Thomas Mair’s trial by even allowing the session.
And for the same reason, I believe Cameron and Corbyn should both resign. I hope that not a single voter changes their mind in this EU Referendum over the base politicisation of a young mother’s tragic death. Our democracy, and basic justice, deserves more than this.
Sir Cliff Richard is to face no further action following a controversial South Yorkshire Police investigation into allegations of historical sexual abuse
Atrocious police behaviour in response to unsupported allegations is once again exposed as an abuse of powers
The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed evidence relating to claims of sex offences made by four men against the 75-year-old singer dating between 1958 and 1983. However, it has decided there is "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
Sir Cliff said he is "obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close".
Martin Goldman, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Yorkshire and Humberside, said: "This decision has been made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences.
"The CPS worked with police during the investigation. This has helped minimise the time needed to reach a decision once we received the complete file of evidence on 10 May. "The complainants have been informed and provided with a full explanation in writing."
South Yorkshire Police has apologised "wholeheartedly for the additional anxiety caused" to Sir Cliff by the force's "initial handling of the media interest" in its investigation into the singer.
In a statement, Sir Cliff said: "I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point! "Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close.
"Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly. Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent.
"This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one. Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged. "I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'.
"It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people."
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.