Jack Roche: On trial for bombing conspiracy. Picture: Lee Griffith
|
|
|
|
|
To make the Text Letters look LARGER
For Mozilla Firefox 2, Netscape Navigator 9, AND Internet Explorer 7: [Ctrl] + "+" (to reverse, [Ctrl] + "-") For Netscape Navigator 4.78: [Ctrl] + "]" For Internet Explorer 6: View / Text Size > Larger (OR Largest) / (Copied in 2004 from Paul O'Brien Web Design at http://pmob. co.uk/version7 /customise. php ) but updated on 02 Nov 07 |
|
Analyzing the Roots of Middle East Turmoil; A history of perfidy and betrayal in the Mideast gives insight into the motivations behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. UNITED STATES: Presidents Bush and Clinton said that "we are a target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world." Nonsense! People in Canada enjoy democracy, freedom, and human rights. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian, or Swedish?" Robert Bowman, bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach FL, who marched in protest of Israeli attacks in Bethlehem and other Palestinian towns. He flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. Essentially, from the end of World War I to World War II, the empires of Britain, France, and Italy, controlled Arab territories. Since then, the United States has been the controlling imperial power in the Middle East. Prior to World War I, Arab territories were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan had taken the title of Khalif-al-Islam, or supreme religious leader of Moslems everywhere. When Turkey joined Germany in the war, the Sultan sent a summons to Sherif Hussein of Mecca, great-grandfather of the present King of Jordan, to declare a Jihad, or holy war, against the Allies. The British promised to support Arab independence, if Hussein revolted instead. There is a moment in the film Lawrence of Arabia when Peter O'Toole, clad in Arab clothes not unlike Osama bin Laden, asks General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) to confirm that he can promise Sherif Hussein independence in return for Arab support in destroying the Turkish army. For just a brief, devastating moment, Hawkins hesitates; then his face becomes all smiling benevolence: "Of course!" he says. Eventually shamed by what happened to British honor, Lawrence returned his medals to the British government. I have held in my hand the long-secret document for the inner group (USA, Britain, France, Italy) at the Paris Peace Conference that clearly recognizes that the Arabs had been promised their independence in 1915, including Palestine! It is marked "SECRET This Document is the property of His Britannic Majesty's Government." Kept secret, because in 1917 the British government--through international bankers--offered a national home for Jews in Palestine, at the expense of the land and future of the Palestinians. This promissory note to [UK] Lord Rothschild for the Zionist Federation, the Balfour Declaration, partly drafted by Associate Justice of the [US] Supreme Court Louis Brandeis, and underwritten by the Congress of the United States of America, has cost and continues to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a year. The intervention has caused suffering to millions of people, and death to many, and its consequences are major influences on domestic and international affairs. Brandeis, who joined the Court in 1916, was actually nominated by trial attorney Louis Untermeyer, in return for his pre-1916-election purchase and suppression of Wilson's passionate letters to Mary Allen Peck, with whom Wilson had committed adultery. Similarly, Lloyd George was beholden to a barrister, Rufus Isaacs, by whom he was implicated in insider trading in Marconi shares. When Isaacs was offered and accepted the post of Lord Chief Justice less than six months later, Rudyard Kipling wrote Gehazi, since described as 'one of the greatest hate poems ever written.' Instead of jail, within the shortest time ever, Isaacs was made a baron, a viscount, an earl, and Marquess of Reading. The noted Jewish author Arthur Koestler wrote that in the perfidious correspondence "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." More than that, the land was still part of the empire of a fourth, namely Turkey. Lloyd George had only headed the Government since December 1916, when his predecessor Asquith was ousted by a coup de main. George had been legal counsel for the Zionists, and while Minister of Munitions, had assured Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine." George's choice as his Foreign Secretary was Arthur Balfour, already known for his Zionist sympathies. After World War I, Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote in his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned years before, the Zionists were strongly represented, that there was competition with Germany for Jewish support: "There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V. J. O. D., was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment." "Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente. "It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry" (p. 726). Twenty years later, in a speech given in the context of continuing violence between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, David Lloyd George affirmed in the Commons on 19 June 1936, his justification for the Balfour Declaration in support of British interests. […] "It was at one of the darkest periods of the War that Mr Balfour first prepared his Declaration. At that time the French Army had mutinied; the Italian Army was on the verge of collapse; America had hardly started preparing in earnest. There was nothing left but Britain confronting the most powerful military combination that the world had ever seen. It was very important for us to seek every legitimate help that we could get. The Government came to the conclusion, from information received from every part of the world, that it was very vital that we should have the sympathies of the Jewish community. […] Under those conditions and with the advice they received, the Government decided that it was desirable for us to secure the sympathy and cooperation of that most remarkable community, the Jews, throughout the world." Winston Churchill said: "The Balfour Declaration must, therefore, not be regarded as a promise given from sentimental motives; it was a practical measure taken in the interests of a common cause at a moment when that cause could afford to neglect no factor of moral or material assistance." Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked rhetorically, "Are we to keep our pledge to the Zionists made in 1917? Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory." As for Britain, Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe's study, Britain's Moment in the Middle East (Chatto & Windus, 1963, p.43) concludes, "Measured by British interests alone, the Balfour Declaration was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history." Sir Arnold Toynbee, historian and a delegate to the (1919) Paris Peace Conference, wrote in his foreword to The Palestine Diary (New World Press) that there are Palestinian refugees because "Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power…The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the World, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the World's peace. Britain's guilt is not diminished by the humiliating fact that she is now impotent to redress the wrong that has been done." William Yale, who was special agent of the State Dept. in the Near East in World War I, told me on 12th May 1970 that Woodrow Wilson had asked him in 1919 to interview persons who might be influential to the future of the area. He interviewed General Allenby, Chaim Weizmann and others. Yale asked Weizmann what he would do if the British did not support the Balfour Declaration for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Yale said, "Weizmann pounded his fist on the table and the teacups jumped. 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire." For some Germans and others following World War I, the weight given the Balfour Declaration by British Prime Minister Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and other powerful figures, in securing allegedly critical Jewish support resulting in the Allied victory, lent credence from the highest authorities to anti-Jewish feeling. Is this a way of understanding subsequent German susceptibility to discrimination against Jews following the Great War? The integrating relationship between German Jews and non-Jews was disrupted, a relationship that had been so firm that many German Jews could hardly accept that it had been jeopardized. President Wilson was no better than the British imperialists, for all the advertising of self-determination of peoples as an American value. A commission, headed by his appointees, King and Crane, was sent to elucidate the state of opinion in the area. They sent a telegram to the President on 20 June 1919, warning "There was a deep belief in American peace declarations 'as in those of the British and French Governments of 9 November 1918 on right of people to self-determination." The Commission's Report stated "There was hostility to French control of Syria, and "The feeling against the Zionist program was not confined to Palestine but was shared very generally throughout the area." Permission was not given for the printing of extracts of the Report until after the U. S. Congress had confirmed the Balfour Declaration, where the Resolution was introduced by Mr. Hamilton Fish of New York, and the League of Nations had approved a proposed British Mandate for Palestine. Thus, in the one area of the Near/Middle East where the wishes for self-determination of the inhabitants had been determined, Wilson suppressed the information. Wilson was--in the words of his Secretary of War Lindley Garrison--a man of high ideals and no principles. The resolution adopted by the United States Congress: on June 30, 1922 was the following: Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected. Why have American presidents and the United States Congress dishonored the American people by not keeping that pledge to the "Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine"? In area wars resulting from the British pledge and its implementation, and American support, millions of the Palestinians' neighbors in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, even Saudi Arabia, have been involved. Can one deny righteous anger - even hatred - of descendants who learn the truth? Did the men who piloted those planes on September 11, 2001 know? Public ignorance in Europe and America of these facts, and many more supporting them, allows Britons and Americans to be free from guilt for the enormity of crimes resulting from the perfidy, the breach of faith of their representatives Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson, and those who followed them. The German people have been required to acknowledge, atone and pay for the sins of some of their fathers "unto the third and fourth generation." Should the British, American and Jewish people acknowledge, atone and pay for the deaths, dispossession and exile of millions of Palestinians? (See footnote) When Britain withdrew its forces from Palestine in response to Jewish terrorism, Field Marshall Montgomery, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, wrote, "The result of being driven out of Palestine was to weaken our overall strategic position in the Middle East, and that of the Western world generally in the struggle between East and West." At the beginning of the 20th century millions of people in the Near and Middle East from Lebanon to Afghanistan believed that an Englishman's word was his bond and that the States of America were neutral in Near and Middle Eastern matters. A century later, millions there who know the facts believe the USA is their enemy - even a Great Satan - and Britain has become its running dog with Blair barking "bin Laden!" Too much history? The peoples of the Middle East live it. The Economist, Oct. 15, 2001 edition about the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, noting "the day a British mandate came into force in Palestine, over the heads of unyielding Arab opposition," quoted from a dispatch from Jerusalem to London's The Times of 1922. "The Arabs declared a day of mourning throughout the city and the shops were closed as a protest against today's formal proclamation of the Mandate, but no Jews were molested." The day was September 11. Lawrence of Arabia would understand US911. (Footnote. "Let us not forget that the founders of modern, international terrorism were the Zionist revisionists led by Jabotinsky, who inspired Menchem Begin, leader of the Irgun Zwei Leumi, and Yitzhak Shamir's leader of the Stern Gang (Lehi). Have we forgotten the huge bomb these people left in the basement of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem? "Have we forgotten the massacre at Deir Yassein and numerous other similar act of extermination which were designed to terrorize the Palestinian people and send them fleeing for their lives away from their land? Have we forgotten the slow hanging with piano wire of the kidnapped British Army sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin in the eucalyptus groves of Netanya? (Their bodies were also booby-trapped with explosives." -- Bamford, James. Excerpts from Body of Secrets, in The Guardian, Sept 8, 2001.) ©2002 * A New Enlightment Feature; [? Enlightenment ] This the second of a series of three on Our War and Terrorism Dr. John is a leading foreign affairs expert, and diplomatic historian. He is the author of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention 1914-1948. In his foreword, Arnold Toynbee, the outstanding historian of the 20th century, wrote, "I hope this book will be widely read in the United States, and this by Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. If the American Government were constrained by American public opinion to take a non-partisan line in Palestine, the situation in Palestine might quickly change for the better." John K. Cooley, Middle East Bureau, The Christian Science Monitor, wrote, "It is a most illuminating and useful book. It should be in universities and libraries, and especially in the hands of historians, throughout the world." ICHEE, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HUMAN ECOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY, www.ichee.org , P.O. Box 7024, New York, NY 10128-0010 "Of all the tyrannies on human kind The worst is that which persecutes the mind." -- Alexander Pope (1688-1744): Essay on Man, Epistle II, line 239. [Emphasis added] [Information received on 20 Jan 04] [Jan. 7, 14, 2002] |
|
AUSTRALIA: IT'S a colourful book that sits on a shelf in the country's largest Islamic bookshop deep in the southwestern suburbs of Sydney.
But unlike much of the texts surrounding it, Jihad and Jurisprudence is considered by moderate Muslims to pose a danger to society. Inside, Western laws are described as null and void and all Muslims are called to participate in violent jihad, or holy war, in "infidel lands". Its author Abu Qatada is the suspected leader of al-Qa'ida in Europe and is under arrest in Britain. Joining a jihad group is, he states, "not a seasonal choice" but a divine order. "Infidel Christians and Jews who live on Muslim lands can be considered protected people, but those who are not in Muslim lands can have no protection and cannot be trusted; they are war infidels." The Arabic-language book was bought by The Weekend Australian from The Islamic Bookstore, in Sydney's Lakemba. It is evidence of what moderate Muslims fear is the spread of radicalising books and pamphlets that could serve as a convincing rationale for terrorism among younger impressionable members of the Australian Muslim community. Among those concerned are the country's most senior Islamic leader, Sheikh Taj Din Al Hilaly, and Islamic scholar Mohsen Labban. Both warn this literature could lead to Muslims isolating themselves from mainstream society and create a situation where radical ideas can be incubated. "They (fundamentalists) choose certain translations which have this tendency towards dogmatic and violent attitudes as the meaning of verses (from the Koran)," Mr Labban says. "What we are talking about is shaping the mind. A mind that makes you dogmatic, superior and intolerant towards everyone else. "This leads to no tolerance for integration or assimilation or acceptance, and perhaps antagonism towards the rest of society." Sheikh Hilaly himself is an unwilling recipient of this kind of literature, including the works of the 18th century founder of the fundamentalist Wahabi form of Islam, Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab. But some time ago he made a firm decision about how to deal with the caches of booklets and pamphlets that turn up unsolicited every few months on the doorstop of Lakemba Mosque, the most prominent place of worship for Australia's 280,000 Muslims. So seriously does he take the literature's ability to influence people, he makes trips to the rubbish tip to dispose of it. In an interview with The Weekend Australian several months ago, Sheikh Hilaly refused to reveal who was behind the material - which is understood to be distributed unsolicited to other mosques. Most of the literature raising concern is Wahabi, the pure form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Based on a strict interpretation of the Koran, Wahabism has developed a negative reputation worldwide because its adherents include Osama bin Laden and his followers as well as Afghanistan's ousted Taliban. Wahabis believe laws laid down in the Koran, termed Sharia law, should be the way society is governed. Other moderate Muslims say official groups are spreading this literature, rather than a few individuals returning from the Middle East with books in their suitcase. But the moderates are reluctant to name these groups publicly, fearful of dividing the Muslim community and attracting unwanted attention. www.the australian .com.au/ common/ story_ page/0, 5744, 8541354% 255E601, 00.html |
|
The Weekend Australian understands responsibility for spreading Wahabi literature worldwide rests with the Muslim World League and its affiliate the International Islamic Relief Organisation, both registered in Australia. They are Saudi government-controlled and have both been implicated in funnelling money to al-Qa'ida. The US Central Intelligence Agency says the IIRO funded six militant training camps in Afghanistan. The MWL is run out of an apartment in Melbourne's northern suburb of Preston. Director Mohamed Ahmed says about four shipping containers of literature arrive every year from Saudi Arabia for distribution in Australia, but says the material is never extremist -- merely copies of the Koran and other booklets to aid sheikhs and imams. Shafiq Rahman Abdullah Khan, who is listed on registration documents as IIRO director, says he has no knowledge of the organisation. The Australian Government has expressed its concerns to Saudi officials about the distribution of literature as well as money flowing from Saudi Arabia to schools, mosques and Islamic centres in Australia. But it remains a delicate area for the Government. Religious freedom is a fundamental right in any democracy. And the importation and dissemination of fundamentalist doctrine is therefore legal. However, Wahabism remains a potent label that some Muslims use against their rivals to try to damage their reputation. "It's a derogatory term that some people use to describe Muslims they don't agree with," says Amir Butler, chair of the Melbourne-based Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Such name-calling is expected to surface in coming months as Lakemba Mosque braces for management committee elections in June. Observers expect a power struggle between a coalition of young firebrand sheikhs, including Sheikh Shady el-Souleiman whose impassioned sermons can be heard at the United Muslim Association in Lakemba, and Sheikh Feiz Mohamad, who teaches at the nearby Global Islamic Youth Centre. They are expected to challenge the older generation who support Sheikh Hilaly, a leading moderate. "There is no doubt we would like to see him out of there," one member of the coalition says of Sheikh Hilaly. Jihad and Jurisprudence has a Wahabi rationale. Qatada rejects democracy, elections and parliaments. According to Wahabism, they contradict Islam because God made laws, not man. Wahabi followers in Australia exist on the fringes of the peaceful mainstream Muslim community. "Wahabism has been in Australia for a long, long time, they have their own centres, they have their own organisations, they just go about their business," says Mr Butler. "If they are distributing their literature, well good luck to them, but they don't have a monopoly on literature. Other communities spread their literature as well. If you go to a Turkish mosque, you won't find Wahabi literature there. "And even if it is widely distributed and read, it doesn't mean that they become Wahabis or that they even agree with it." Qatada's book clearly differs. The Jordanian-born cleric says violent jihad should occur everywhere and all Muslims are obliged to participate to remove the infidels. "Muslims, there is no substitute for fire, no substitute for arms, no substitute for blood," he exhorts. The Weekend Australian, www.the australian .com.au/ common/ story_ page/0, 5744, 8541354% 255E601, 00.html , By Trudy Harris and Vanessa Walker, pages 1 and 2, January 31 - February 1, 2004 |
|
SYDNEY: Australia's Muslim leader Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali's description of the September 11 terrorist attacks as God's work against oppressors was appalling, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday. Mr Downer said he had read a transcript provided by the Australian Embassy in Beirut of a sermon the Mufti of Australia had given in Lebanon earlier this month. [sic; presumably February is meant.] "His support for the events of September 11, which is pretty manifest from his remarks and, secondly his support for the suicide-homicide bombers against Israeli civilians -- I think these are appalling comments to make," Mr Downer told the Nine network. "For an Australian to go overseas and make these sorts of comments is appalling, it's provocative. "It doesn't reflect the views of Muslims here in Australia." [sic] A spokesman for the Sydney-based Mufti fiercely denied the claims, saying the Mufti did not, and never would, support terrorism or suicide bombings. Spokesman Keysar Trad said the Mufti had taken bits from poetry, which he incorporated into his sermon, and his other comments had been misinterpreted. The September 11 reference was aimed at highlighting that evil could have a very long reach to everywhere. His statement that September 11 was God's work against oppressors meant people could do these things when they felt oppressed. "He's highlighting the need for justice in the world, he's highlighting the need for people to actually take a step back and think before they do anything," Mr Trad said. "I believe the context has been lost in the translation … he's not praising it by any means, he's really condemning these atrocities." He said there was not one line within the sermon that called for arms to be raised against another country. |
|
Jack Roche: On trial for bombing conspiracy. Picture: Lee Griffith |
|
From Monogamy to Polygyny: A Way Through Rich with understanding, comfort advice, motivation, clarity, examples, experiences, and answers; a way through is paved for the Muslim women, making polygyny easier, or at the very least more endurable. Although this book is geared mainly towards women, its vast content can give men insight into the emotional affects of polygyny on women, which they can use to make sound and wise decisions. Overall, this is a valuable resource for both Muslim men and Muslim women, considering, dealing with, questioning and pondering polygyny. "Masha Allah! A must read for all Muslim women. Whether we experience polygyny first hand or not, it is most likely we will be touched by it at some time in our life. This book is an excellent tool for teaching us to overcome our nafs, accept Allah's decree and provide the support necessary to sisters who experience polygyny." Umme Zakariya "I found this book to be a very refreshing and empowering view of polygamy from American Muslim women who share a similar culture and outlook to our own. It has given me a fresh perspective on marriage and loving somebody for the sake of Allah alone. I would recommend this book to all Muslim women (and men), whether they face a polygamous situation or not." Umm Musab, Wilson |
The doctrine of war in Islam is a subject which is surrounded by much confusion. What all can agree is that war has featured overtly in Islamic theology and thought from its earliest days until now. Amidst the multitude of different interpretations which are sincerely held and practised by different individual Muslims, there is a "benchmark" against which all are compared. This is the well-defined classical interpretation which was followed in the early years of Islam, and to which modern Islamic terrorists look for their justification. This book seeks to trace the development of the classical doctrine in mediaeval times, and how it is used in our own age.
Virago Press, Britain.
|
KUALA LUMPUR: Muslims worldwide fear Christians are waging a war against Islam, according to Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. He blamed the campaign against terror for tensions between religions. In an emotional speech to the World Council of Churches yesterday, he said the events that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, including the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, had religious undertones. "In the eyes of many Muslims, events in the last three years seem to lend credence to the view that the Christian West is, once again, at war with the Muslim world," he told representatives from Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican churches. Mr Abdullah begged Christians and Muslims to work together for the sake of peace and justice. "We cannot stand before a compassionate God while there is so much we have left undone because we are disunited," he said, wiping at tears as his voice began to crack. He stressed that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam represented a misguided minority, frustrated by the way Western powers tackled Muslim grievances such as the Palestinian struggle. |
|
By Sara Townsley, September 21, 2004
UNITED STATES: Over the weekend, three Kurdish truck drivers were beheaded and dumped north of Baghdad. Last week, terrorists kidnapped two Americans and a Briton, and a car bomb killed 47 and injured 114. At a madrassah in Bangladesh, a teacher cut off the ears of 17 children with a pair of scissors because they were not reading their textbooks loudly enough.
On Sept. 9, the Australian embassy in Indonesia was car-bombed, killing nine and injuring 180. The same day, major Swedish newspapers reported that Malmø, Sweden's third largest city, has been overrun by gangs of Muslim immigrants. The police can no longer maintain order, ambulance personnel are attacked with stones and weapons, gang rapes of Swedish girls have skyrocketed, and the number of people fleeing Malmø is reaching record levels. A week earlier, terrorists in Kashmir dragged three informants out of their homes and beheaded them. Two Italian humanitarian aid workers were abducted in Baghdad. Ansar al-Sunna captured 12 Nepalese laborers in Iraq; one was beheaded, the other 11 were shot. Three Turks taken hostage in Iraq were executed and found dead on a roadside. A Turkish truck driver was taken hostage and threatened with beheading. Seven grenades exploded outside a cinema in northeastern Bangladesh, killing two and wounding 10. At the end of August, suicide bombers destroyed two buses in Beersheba, Israel, killing 16 and wounding 100. A captured Italian journalist was slaughtered in Iraq, and two French journalists were kidnapped. In an attempt to gain their release, French diplomats openly sought the support of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Islamic Army of Iraq responded by blasting France as an "enemy of Muslims." The fate of the two remains unknown. On Aug. 24, two Russian airliners were hijacked and downed by explosives in the lavatories, killing all 90 souls on board. A week later, a Moscow subway station was car-bombed, killing nine and wounding 51. The next day, a Russian school was overrun, leaving over 300 dead and 700 wounded, mainly children. The butchers of Khartoum continue the genocide in Sudan -- with the help of Syrians armed with chemical weapons -- leaving an estimated 50,000 dead, thousands more enslaved, and over a million refugees displaced. And yet we all dutifully repeat: "Islam is a religion of peace." With tiring predictability, academics and the press have taken up their role as apologists for the carnage. Universities cheerfully create Saudi-funded chairs in Whitewashing Jihad, and intellectuals manufacture reasons why we deserve to be slaughtered. Multiculturalists anaesthetise us with fanciful "root causes," and students learn that "tolerance" means never pointing out the nexus between terror and Islamist supremacism. Muslim "civil rights" groups play the McCarthyism card, issue apologies for terror that sound more like justifications for it, and all the while their leaders keep pleading guilty to terrorism charges. And in that bizarre wormhole where the universes of the extreme left and right collide, conspiracy theories proliferate, while the most horrifying actual "conspiracy" of our time is minimized or denied. The good news is, I'm not the only one who's fed up with tiptoeing around the problem. Kamal Nawash of The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism ( www.freemuslims. org ) wrote a heartfelt apology for Sept. 11 and issued a call to action. "We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our religious leaders belong behind bars and not behind a pulpit. … Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no longer afford to be silent. If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and discrimination by non-Muslims. … Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we need to take the lead in this war." Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian raised in the Gaza Strip ( www.mesasp eakers.com ), writes: "The very few courageous Arab writers who think and speak independently are often attacked and terrorized for their views, accused of being puppets of the Zionists. Apparently, standing strong against terrorism and for reformation in the Muslim world is viewed as a 'Zionist' conspiracy no matter how heinous the murders carried out by militant Islamists." She points out that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has never -- not once -- passed a resolution condemning an Arab country for human rights violations. As the surviving black Christians in Sudan could tell you, don't expect the U.N. to help. Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble With Islam ( www.muslim refusenik.com ), also condemns Islamist atrocities and advocates an Islamic reformation. A lesbian living in Canada, Manji terms herself a Muslim refusenik, meaning that she "refuses to join an army of automatons in the name of God." She asks non-Muslims: "Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called 'racists,' or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?" These free thinkers are Islam's Bonhoeffers, Niemoellers, and Solzhenitsyns. They highlight how Kerry's proposed "more sensitive" war on terror demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the threat rather than any diplomatic skill. Ayatollah Khomeini agrees: "those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." Keep in mind, Kerry wants to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis by giving the mullahs uranium. Clinton tried that with North Korea in 1994, and gee, that worked out great. It's been said that trusting liberals with national security is like trusting a teenager with a fifth of whiskey and the keys to the car. We are fighting nothing less than World War IV -- the Cold War being number III -- and it's time we start acting like it. [Emphasis added] |
|
The massive explosion in a busy road outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, which astonishingly caused the deaths of only about 10 people, highlights the vulnerability of both Australia and Indonesia to violence perpetrated by terrorists who prey on the innocent.
NEWS WEEKLY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2004 -- PAGE 24
What made the bombing particularly atrocious was that it was inevitable that, although the target was a building where Australian Embassy staff work, the victims were overwhelmingly Indonesians. The bombing was an act of cowardice, being launched against defenceless civilians, as were the earlier bombings in Bali (2002) and Jakarta's Marriott Hotel (2003). Responsibility for the bombings has been claimed by the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah (JI), which wants to create a fundamentalist Muslim super-state in South East Asia. Ringleaders on the loose While JI has been damaged by the arrest of some 200 operatives and supporters after the previous bombings, two ringleaders of JI remain on the loose, and are suspected of having planned the Embassy bombing. They are Dr Azahari Husin -- a Western-educated Muslim from Malaysia, a former professor of statistics who studied in Great Britain and Australia, before becoming involved in JI -- and Noordin Muhammad Top. Evidence given at trials of members of the bomb-making group that carried out the Bali bombing indicate that Azahari, who allegedly trained in Afghanistan and the Philippines, was the bomb-maker. Noordin Muhammad Top was the controller of the bombing of the Marriott Hotel, and may have had the same role in the Embassy bombing. Both men are well-educated, contradicting suggestions that the attacks were caused by poor people jealous of the wealth of Western countries. National Police chief General Da'i Bachtiar said that the bombers' method of operation was the same as in the bombings in Bali and at the |
Jemaah Islamiah: the shocking evidence Marriott Hotel. Despite suggestions by Labor spokesmen in Australia that Australia's involvement in the Iraq war had prompted the Jakarta bombing, this seems improbable -- if only because that war has led to the overthrow of a left-wing secular leader, Saddam Hussein, who persecuted the Muslim religion. Equally unlikely is the suggestion that the bombing was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 bombing in 2001 or the Australian elections. Professor Harold Crouch, an Australian expert on Indonesian affairs, who was inside the embassy when the bomb exploded, told ABC Radio National's PM program, "I would say with absolute certainty it's got nothing to do with the Australian election; these people [the perpetrators] probably wouldn't even know there's an election in Australia." 
The underlying causes have more to do with hostility to the United States, with which Australia is closely aligned; Australia's role in East Timor in 1999; and its close co-operation with the Indonesian Government in hunting down Jemaah Islamiah operatives in Indonesia and elsewhere over the past five years. This conclusion is strengthened by reports by the Indonesian National Police chief that the JI group had intended to bomb the opening of an anti-terrorism centre in Indonesia several months ago, which had been partly funded by Australia. |
The Indonesian Government's commitment to stamp out the terrorist cell was clearly evident after the bomb blast. President Megawati returned from Sabah to visit the bomb site, and Indonesia welcomed the presence of the Australian Federal Police and Australian forensic experts, as they had after the Bali bombing.
To destroy the Jemaah Islamiah network will require sustained co-operation between police and intelligence organisations in several countries, including the Philippines, where there are JI training camps. Despite the arrests since the Bali bombing, the International Crisis Group reports that JI has some 3,000 members, tightly linked together by religious loyalty, inter-marriage, and the network of madrassas (Islamic schools) funded by Saudi Arabian oil money, and led by Abu Bakar Bashir, the extremist cleric who co-founded JI in the 1990s. In the 1970s, Bashir was imprisoned by the Suharto Government for attempting to form an Islamic militia. On his release, he fled to Malaysia, where he teamed up with a top JI operative, Hambali, who planned the Bali bombing. Bashir returned to Indonesia after the fall of Suharto in 1998. Video found after the American occupation of Afghanistan in 2002 revealed a Jemaah Islamiah plot to murder American soldiers in Singapore, and to target the American, British and Australian embassies. In June 2002, a senior al-Qaeda figure, Omar al-Faruq, claimed that Bashir had authorised him to use JI operatives to bomb Western embassies in the region. Al-Faruq also confessed to plotting to kill Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Nothing less than the total destruction of JI will end further acts of barbarism. -- Peter Westmore is
|
|
AUSTRALIA: [Unless quotation marks are used, the points are summaries] Muslims may take over Britain by peaceful or even democratic means, made possible by the liberalism of the West which does not expect nor permit us to take pride in our particular national or religious identity. "It will be the spontaneous consequence of uncontrolled immigration, demographic collapse and cultural and religious decline." (p 3 c) He quotes Christie Davies, September 2004: "The Muslim takeover of Britain will happen slowly and by stealth. In the future anyone who dares to oppose it will be prosecuted before and condemned by Britain's politicised judiciary, probably without benefit of trial by jury, ostensibly for stirring up religious hatred. Britain's New Labour rulers undervalue and condemn the moderate solidarity of the indigenous people, yet fail to condemn the obsessive group-mindedness of the Muslims. … women as objects to be bartered and battered and as machines to produce sons. … secularisation has led to the collapse of Britain's moral order …" (p 3 c - 4) "… Eric Fromm's contention that the history of man is a graveyard of great cultures that came to catastrophic ends because of their incapacity for planned, rational, voluntary reaction to challenge. (Eric Fromm, May Man Prevail, Doubleday Anchor Book, 1961, p 5) "… he … was one of the most articulate psychoanalysts to point out that just as there are … delusions shared by more than one persons -- there is also insanity of millions. … mass hysteria … its power is fearsome … consensus in error [even by millions] does not transform error into truth. "Like individuals, societies are not immune to pathological conditions such as paranoid thinking, fanaticism and automaton-like thinking. Somehow or other we have to penetrate and dispel the mists of rationalization, political correctness, self-delusion and xenophobia that mask truth and destroy freedom. No society is totally free from pathological thinking." (p 4 b and c) "Catholic response to the revival of militant Islam ranges from reasoned and well-informed argument to supine indulgence motivated sometimes by ignorance and sometimes by a seeming desire for peace with Militant Islam at any price." He quotes Frank Johnson, "Why Western Intellectuals Champion their Country's most Powerful Enemies," The Spectator, September 18, 2004: "The story of Western apologists for Islam … is familiar. … since the days of the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars … Napoleon had the support of Fox, Hazlitt, Leigh Hunt and Byron. … Stalin had many a poet and journalist to champion him … they transferred their allegiance to Mao, Castro, Guevara or successive African dictators … one of the most vocal champions of Islam and the Arabs, and a hostile critic of Britain's treatment of both, was the Arabist Harry St John Philby [father of the pro-Soviet traitor Kim Philby]. (p 5 b and c) "… from the very beginning, Islam's expansion which occurred by force of arms, was justified by verses from the prophet's writings. The Qur'an continues to be used in this fashion with no significant protest from the majority of Muslims." (p 5 c) "Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Cheith posted a three-part article 'In the Shadow of the Lances' on the website of the Centre for Islamic Research and Studies. ( www.almeda.com ) This includes: "We have the right to kill four million Americans -- two million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and to wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, …" (p 5 c - 6) "The West's inability or unwillingness to help Muslim migrants to understand that they are welcome to live in Western countries provided they accept the democratic way of life, as understood in the West …" (p 8 a) "Catholics have little to fear from Islam. We have much to fear from within ourselves … Catholics need only to rediscover the treasures of their Faith." (p 8 a) |
.jpg)
UNITED STATES: Put aside, for a moment, any fears or suspicions you may have regarding national security. The simple fact remains that our Muslim neighbors do not know Christ. And that, says Emir Caner, should break our hearts and compel us to reach out in love.
 |
Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a MuslimNote from Robert Spencer: The heroic and piercingly insightful ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq on December 5, 2004, gave a talk consisting of a series of responses to some of the common assertions made by Islamic apologists. I am quite grateful that he has made his notes available for publication here. This is a refreshing and enlightening antidote to the usual dhimmitude we get from non-Muslim academics who engage Islam. 1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew? Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice. However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out-number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word. In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.[1] Even for contemporary Arabic-speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4] Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7] As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8] Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11] The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran. You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it. Endnotes below. 1. See Appendix, Bibliography of Translations, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edd. Beeston, Johnstone et al, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.502-520. 2. In Egypt, the rate of illiteracy is placed as high as 49.8 %, see Information Please Almanac, Boston, 1997, p.180 3. Charles Ferguson, Diglossia, Word, Vol.15, No.2 pp325-340, Aug.1959; William Marçais, La diglossie arabe, L’Enseignement public - Revue Pédagogique, tome 104, no 12, 1930, pp.401-409; Alan S. Kaye,Arabic, in The Major Languages of South Asia, The Middle East and Africa, ed. Bernard Comrie, London, Routledge, 1990, p.181 4. Ibid., p.173. 5. B.Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.65 6. It is in fact becoming more and more westernized, i.e. de-semitized under the influence of the international news agencies. 7. P.Larcher,Les Incertitudes de la Poesie Arabe Archaique, in La Revue des Deux Rives, No.1, 1999,p.129 8. Kaye, op. cit. p.183. 9. P.Larcher, La Linguistique Arabe d’Hier a Demain : Tendances Nouvelles de la Recherche, Arabica, tome XLV, 1998, pp.409-29. 10. Gustav Meiseles, Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum, Archivum Linguisticum, vol. XI, Number 2, 1980, pp.118-142;quoted in P.Larcher,see note 10 above. 11. A.S.Kaye, Formal vs. Informal in Arabic : Diglossia, Triglossia, Tetraglossia, etc., Polyglossia -Multiglossia Viewed as a Continuum, ZAL, 27, 1994, pp.47-66. 12. P.Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation, Prometheus Books, Amherst,1986 13. There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is, see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says., Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2002. 2. Out of context Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword. Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves: Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say. For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”. Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.” The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished! Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context. The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point: Sura IV.34: ”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ” This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context: Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.” If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly” in brackets after “beat” even though there is no “lightly” in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character. Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that “make war “in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated. First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.” (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral. The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses: IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men. IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them. The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight - especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.” As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 - 35: “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. “The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are! “They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!…. “It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it. “O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …” The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse. 3. Go to the Original Sources When you do debate with a Muslim make sure you are armed with all your references from the original Arabic sources. The major sources are all available in English, and are the Koran, the Sira or the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and the Hadith, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions. You must make the effort to familiarize yourself with these. Start with the Koran. It is not a very long text, about four hundred pages in the Penguin translation. Acquire at least four different translations, at least one of which should be by a Muslim. Yusuf Ali and, despite his name, Marmaduke Pickthall were Muslims, and their translations are easily available in paperbacks. At least one should be by someone whose mother tongue was Arabic, such as N.J.Dawood, an Iraqi scholar whose translation is quite readable. If you read French, I strongly advise you to acquire and read Regis Blachere’s translation - it has copious footnotes which reveal the opaqueness of the Holy text, and the grammatical errors of the original Arabic. If you have read the Koran, you are already better informed of its contents than the majority of Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have been genuinely surprised when I have apprised them of the verses preaching war, intolerance, hatred of Jews and Christians, misogyny, cruel punishments, etc. When you do read the Koran, read it with a highlighter in hand, and mark or underline the passages which preach intolerance, or which reveal injustice, cruelty and violence, absurdities, insults to women, contradictions, anti-Semitism, homophobic attitudes, superstitions, and, to be scrupulously fair, passages which teach morally acceptable principles. Someone has already undertaken just such a task at: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html [NOT displaying July 13, 2007]. Our diligent skeptic found 511 passages of injustice, 384 of intolerance, 320 of cruelty and violence, 46 insults to women and just 60 passages of morally acceptable principles. Here are some anti-Jewish sentiments from the Koran: II.61: ….Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them (that is, the Jews), and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression. IV.44-46: Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path. But Allah knows best who your enemies are, and it is sufficient to have Allah as a friend. It is sufficient to have Allah as a helper. Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say, ‘We hear and we disobey’, and ‘Hear without hearing,’ and ‘Heed us!’ twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said, ‘We have heard and obey’, or ‘Hear and observe us’, it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah had cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. IV.160-161: And for the evildoing of the Jews, We have forbidden them some good things that were previously permitted them, and because of their barring many from Allah’s way. And for their taking usury which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people’s wealth under false pretense. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them a painful punishment. IX.29-31: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute [poll-tax] readily, and are utterly subdued. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Those are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and so too the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to serve but one God. There is no God but He. Allah is exalted above that which they deify beside Him. IX.34: O you who believe ! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom. V.63-64: Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and devouring of illicit gain? Verily evil is their handiwork. The Jews say, “Allah’s hands are fettered.” Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said! On the contrary, His hands are spread open. He bestows as He wills. That which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the arrogance and unbelief of many among them. We have cast enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they light the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They hasten to spread corruption throughout the earth, but Allah does not love corrupters! V.70-71: We made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them. But whenever an apostle came to them with a message that did not suit their fancies, some they accused of lying and others they put to death. They thought no harm would follow: they were blind and deaf. God is ever watching their actions. V.82: Indeed, you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists. V.51: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. V.57: O you who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] before you, and of the disbelievers, as make jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah of you are believers. V.59: Say: O, People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do you blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evildoers? V.66: ….Among them [Jews and Christians] there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. XXXIII.26: He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book [Jews of Bani Qurayza ] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive. V.60: Say: ‘Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God ? Those whom [i.e. Jews] God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path.’ Then pass onto the oldest source on the life of the Prophet, the Sira by Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham. It is also available in an English translation. Again read it, with the same skeptical attitude and a highlighter in hand. It makes for very depressing reading. The biography is full of violence, cruelty, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammad’s hatred of the Jews : 1. “Kill any Jews that falls into your power” said the Prophet: p.369 2. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.369 3. The killing of Sallam ibn Abu’l -Huqayq: pp.482-483 4. The assassination of Ka‘b b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-369 5. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banu‘l-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-445 6. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-469 7. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666 Finally, pass onto the Hadith or Traditions, which are also, fortunately, available in English. The collection by Bukhari, who died in 870 C.E., is the best place to start. The Hadith or the Books of Tradition are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses. Apart from what Muhammad did and enjoined these traditions include what was done in his presence that he did not forbid, and even the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of the Prophet. These traditions serve as the theoretical basis of the Sharia or Islamic Law, and hence of Islam itself. Here you will find all that you suspected about Islam but were not sure where to look for. Jihad, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the usual litany of violence and cruelty. Bukhari’s collection is highly regarded by the Muslims. Thus furnished with precise references to and quotes from the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, you are well-equipped to criticise Islam, and ready to debate any Muslim. # |
|
|
MELBOURNE (Vic) AUSTRALIA: COMPLAINANT: Islamic Council of Victoria FIRST RESPONDENT: Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. SECOND RESPONDENT: Daniel Nalliah THIRD RESPONDENT: Daniel Scot WHERE HELD: Melbourne BEFORE: Judge Higgins, Vice President […] REASONS THE APPLICATION 1 This is an application under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The Islamic Council of Victoria brings the action in a representative capacity (see Section 19 of the Act). THE LEGISLATION 2 The Complainant alleges that the Respondents breached Section 8 of the Act. It provides as follows: "(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons." 3 Section 9 provides as follows: "(1) In determining whether a person has contravened Section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in such conduct is irrelevant. (2) In determining whether a person has contravened Section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground." 4 Section 11 provides: "A person does not contravene Section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith - (a) In the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) In the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for - (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or (ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or (c) In making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest." 5 Section 4(2) of the Act is in the following terms: "It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted so as to further the object set out in sub-section 1. Turning to sub-section 1, it provides the objects of this Act are: "(a) to promote the full and equal participation of every person in a society that values freedom of expression and is an open and multicultural democracy; (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 2 of 140) (b) to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons; (c) to promote conciliation and resolve tensions between persons who (as a result of their ignorance of the attributes of others and the effect that their conduct may have on others) vilify others on the ground of race or religious belief or activity and those who are vilified."" 6 A combination of Sections 8 and 11 may be seen to strike the balance between the right to express one's views in a robust fashion, provided it does not transgress the obligation to ensure that what is said or done does not constitute religious vilification. Legislation of this nature is now common in the Federal and State arenas, although this legislation is only one of two which specifically deals with religious vilification. 7 Legislation of this nature may be described as attempts to prevent discrimination. There are authorities which support the view that such legislation should be given a beneficial construction and that any defences or exemptions should be construed narrowly. See Waters v PTC (1991) 173 CLR 349 at 359 per Mason CJ and Gaudron J; Kazek v John Fairfax [2000] NSW ADT 77. The latter decision was overturned on appeal, but on other grounds. 8 However, notwithstanding this approach to the legislation, which possesses the character to which I have referred, as in all cases it must be the legislation as interpreted which will determine the scope of the exemptions. 9 The Premier, in introducing the Bill to the House in the Second Reading Speech, referred to the fact that there were exceptions and then made the following comment: "This exemption clause is based on exceptions already existing in equivalent legislation in New South Wales and other jurisdictions. These exemptions are not a shield for unrestrained abuse." 10 Again, I think the words of the Premier are seeking to make it clear that there is a balance to be struck between free speech which is the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion, but that such a freedom is not to be abused. 11 The complainant in their submission rely upon the explanatory memorandum. They are entitled to do this by reason of s.35(b) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. It was submitted that the explanatory memorandum supports the application of a narrow interpretation to this legislation. However that clearly is not the case having regard to the following passages: (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 3 of 140) "The Act will prohibit extreme conduct which promotes and urges the strongest feelings of revulsion, hatred or dislike of a person or group on the ground of the racial background or religious beliefs and practices of that person or group. Engaging in prohibited conduct can give cause for a civil complaint. This proposition is balanced by exceptions to liability, which are designed to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom from racial and religious vilification. An exemption is provided for conduct or discussion that is engaged in "reasonably and in good faith" in an artistic performance, for a genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose or for any purpose that is in the public interest. These nominated purposes are intended to have a broad meaning. For example, the discussion of religious issues includes a statement of religious belief, religious instruction and discussion concerning the conduct and practices of religious bodies. Similarly, the discussion of matters in the public interest would include discussion of any public affairs with which the community may be concerned." (My emphasis). (See page 1755). Having regard to those comments, I believe that Section 11 should be interpreted broadly, but not, of course, so as to defeat the primary purpose. See Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA FC 16 at 73. In that case French J noted that the legislation before the Court described the exemptions in the Second Reading Speech as "broad". Having regard to that statement, the Court observed that there was nothing in either the explanatory memorandum or the Second Reading Speech which should be read other than in a way which gives full force and effect to them. I see no inconsistency with what is contained in the Second Reading Speech and in the explanatory memorandum, and I therefore propose to interpret the legislation on the basis that the exemptions are to be "broadly" construed, but as I have indicated, but not so as to defeat the primary purpose. 12 Section 8 prohibits conduct which occurs "on the ground of" the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons. In my view, the use of the words "on the ground of" are designed to create a causal connection between the "conduct" and the religious belief or activity. It is not dissimilar to the use of the word "because", which is used in Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (CTH). I see no difference to the use of this concept in dealing with the Act which is currently before the Tribunal. 13 Although it must be shown there is a causal connection between the conduct and the religious belief or activity of another, Section 9(1) provides that a person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant. Further, Section 9(2) provides that the religious belief or activity of another does not have to be the only or a dominant ground for the conduct, but it must be a substantial ground. The extent of the connection between the conduct and the religious belief of another may be open to various interpretations. However, what is abundantly clear in this case is that the statements made, (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 4 of 140) whether orally or in writing, (the latter including the newsletter and the article) are made because of the religious beliefs and activities of Muslims who adhere to the religion of Islam. 14 The test to be applied is agreed by both parties to be an objective one. See John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kazak [2002] NSW AD TAP 35. In that decision the Tribunal relied on the various decisions which related to defamation law, which is logical in the context of the use by the legislature of the words hatred, ridicule and contempt. The Tribunal concluded at paragraph 16 as follows: "This, in the context of vilification provisions the question is, could the ordinary reasonable reader understand from the public act that he/she is being incited to hatred towards or serious contempt for or serious ridicule of a person on the grounds of race? The question is not, could the ordinary reasonable reader reach such a conclusion, only after his/her own beliefs have been brought into play by the public act". 15 Further, the fact that the ordinary reader is free to disagree with these facts or opinions is irrelevant. Many readers will disagree with the sentiments expressed in the article or conduct, but that is not the test. The test is whether an ordinary reasonable reader who is not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined to hatred by the publication or conduct: see Kazak at first instance p.52. 16 Finally, the social and historical context of a public act must be relevant at this stage of the enquiry, albeit only to the extent that they may be presumed to be part of the ordinary reasonable reader's knowledge and experience of human affairs (see paragraph 21 of Kazak (on appeal)). 17 Insofar as that test is concerned and whether it is to be applied to Section 8, it is submitted by the Complainant that the use of the words "any person" should be given their ordinary and beneficial meaning. In other words, it is the conduct that incites "any person" and that no such limitation as was applied in Kazak, should be read into this legislation. I am of the view that the use of the words "that incites" is not materially different from the words which were interpreted in Kazak. If the legislation in Kazak was couched in the following terms – "a person shall not perform a public act that incites hatred etc." – I do not believe a different test would have been applied. I am of the view that the descriptors which set the outer limits of the spectrum within which the ordinary person may be found, are those set out in Kazak. Section 8 of the legislation adds the word "revulsion", but I do not think that alters the descriptors applicable to the "ordinary reasonable person". Accordingly, I propose to apply the test which is set out in paragraph 16 of the decision in Kazak (on appeal). 18 The meaning of other words in the section are ones that present no difficulty. (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 5 of 140) Incites – means to urge, spur on, animate, stimulate or prompt to action. Hatred – means intense dislike, detestation. Serious – means weighty, important. Contempt – the feeling with which one regards anything considered mean, vile or worthless. Severe – hard or extreme. Ridicule – means words or actions intended to incite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing or derision. In respect of the above interpretations, see the Macquarie Dictionary. 19 The only anti-discrimination case I have been referred to involving religious vilification is Deen v Lamb [2001] QADT 20. That involved a complaint by a Muslim who was the Chairman of the Islamic Council of Queensland. It related to a Federal Election and a pamphlet distributed by one of the candidates. It contained a quote from the Qur'an to say that: "So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a greater endeavour." 20 There were other quotes from the leaflet, but the Tribunal made a decision to rely upon one only. The interpretation of that passage was that people who regard the Qur'an as authoritative are compelled to disobey secular governments, and to war against non-believers, and that Osama Bin Laden and his followers were acting entirely consistently with the teachings of the Qur'an. The pamphlet then went on to compare various Christian Bible passages favourably against the Qur'an. There was no actual use of the word Muslim in the pamphlet. 21 In upholding the claim for religious vilification by reason of what was contained in the pamphlet, the presiding Member said, "I am of the opinion that the Respondent has, by his pamphlet, incited serious contempt for Muslims as a whole, representing that they, as believers in the teachings of the Qur'an are persons who will be prone to disobey the laws of Australia when those laws conflict with the teachings of the Qur'an, to the extent of being prepared to commit murder. He has compared them unfavourably with Christians in that respect. Further, I am of the view that the Respondent has incited hatred towards Muslims. His express identification of a reputed murderer with others who profess the same faith can have no other tendency." 22 However, the presiding Member went on to decide that, notwithstanding his findings in respect of the pamphlet, that it was protected because of the fact that it was made during the course of a Federal Election. In so finding, the decision relied upon the Commonwealth Constitution insofar as it contains within it, an implied freedom of communication on matters relevant to political discussion. Reliance was placed upon the decision of Australian (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 6 of 140) Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1992] 177 CLR 106 at 139. There is also a provision in the Act which provides that it is not unlawful to do a public act, with a relevant tendency to incite, provided it is done reasonably and in good faith for a purpose in the public interest, including public discussion or debate and exposition of any matter. Accordingly, it was found that the conduct of the candidate for election, fell within one of the exemptions contained within the Act. The Respondents in this case rely upon not dissimilar exemptions which are contained in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and I will return to this issue in due course. 23 If I am wrong with regard to the interpretation which I have adopted of the objective test and that the correct analysis is that stated by counsel for the complainant, I am of the view that it makes no difference to the result in these proceedings. For reasons which I will explain, whatever test is applied, I am satisfied that there has been a breach by the respondents of Section 8 of the Act. […] (VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 7 of 140) […] 395 I therefore find that the seminar, the newsletter and the article "An Insight Into Islam by Richard" all constitute a breach of section 8 of the Act and that I am not satisfied that they were performed in good faith, whether viewed subjectively or objectively, and that they constitute a breach by the respondent of section 8 of the Act. That finding includes the firstnamed respondent, which is the Body Corporate of the second respondent, who was at all times the public officer of the firstnamed respondent. The first respondent was responsible for the organisation, conduct and promotion of the seminar and website, and its liability arises by virtue of section 15 of the Act. 396 Accordingly, the complainant succeeds in the application. I will hear the parties on the question of the relevant remedy in due course. VCAT Reference No. A392/2002 Page 140 of 140 # |
Not Helpful
AN EDICT from Saudi Arabia circulating among Muslims in Australia said that Muslims should not greet anyone with 'Merry Christmas' and must not return the greeting to anyone who offers it.
The edict {or fatwa} also said that Muslims must not • offer or accept any food or drink linked with the celebration of Christmas; • send greeting cards for, or import or sell anything related to Christmas; • put up Christmas lights or keep Christmas trees or have any signs relating to the Christmas season. – Cameron Stewart, The Australian, December 24, 2003; reprinted on page 4, Annals Australasia, August 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
by James Jaworski in HTML Complete, Brenda Frink and Michael Anderson (editors), Sybex, San Francisco, 1999, page 607. |
| Netscape users: If you see question marks (?) on your screen when viewing the following -- Ĉĉ Ĝĝ Ĥĥ Ĵĵ Ŝŝ Ŭŭ -- the problem might disappear if you click "Back", allow the previous webpage to appear, then click "Forward". If you succeed, Netscape will show Esperanto's accented letters and allow you to print them on paper. Internet Explorer 6.0 sometimes leaves the accents off when printing. |
|
To move quickly to the TOP of any webpage, press [Ctrl] + [Home]
(or, if in view, click "Top ^ ^" or "^ ^")
To move quickly DOWN to the bottom, press [Ctrl] + [End] (or, if in view, click "Foot v v" or "v v") |
| To SEARCH only ONE WEBPAGE AT A TIME,
you may use the built-in features of your own Browser. With most systems press [Ctrl]
+ F. This will cause a Find dialogue box to appear.
Pressing [Ctrl] + H will cause a Find/Replace dialogue box to appear. (With some old
programmes, start by pressing [Ctrl] + [Shift] + F. However, if your system requires it,
click "Edit", then click "Find".) Type in a keyword, and press [Enter], or click
"Find".
To search in the whole Site, use the special panel. |
|
|
|
|
