This is Chris's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Chris's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The USS Liberty was not sunk, but it was strafed, plied with napalm, and targeted by torpedoes in broad daylight in international waters on June 8, 1967. Thirty-four Navy personnel were killed, and 171 wounded. The ship was clearly marked as a U.S. naval vessel, but the Israeli government claimed it was a case of mistaken identity. President Johnson accepted their apology, and nothing more was done about it. The back-story is that this ship was intercepting Israeli radio communications during Israel's Six Day War with its Arab neighbors. Capturing and analyzing these intercepts would have provided valuable information about Israeli tactics and strategies, something Israel didn't want any other government to know about. A reverse Liberty would imply that the U.S. would attack Israeli ships or aircraft, but for what purpose? Not to protect U.S. intelligence.
When the media covers this story as an equal opportunity case, it plays into the "stealth jihad" agenda. Americans are blessed with many civil rights which actually run counter to Islamic Sharia Law. The concept at issue in this case is the religious edict that requires covering of female Muslims even when they are in public and not just at worship. (See Reliance of the Traveler, paragraph m2.3) But the same paragraph says that it is unlawful for a man to look at a woman who is not his wife or one of his unmarriageable kin. The veil only takes care of part of the requirement. Later, in paragraph m2.6, it says a woman may not look at a man other than her husband or unmarriageable kin. So in strict accordance with Sharia Law, this young woman should not be working in a public place where strangers will look at her and where she must look at strangers. What "stealth jihad" is doing is insisting that certain religious mandates be followed while ignoring other mandates which would render the case moot. Another case (in Great Britain) had to do with medical students expelled for refusing to sterilize their hands because the soap contained alcohol. The students claimed the school violated their religious mandates. But Sharia Law only requires that Muslims not drink alcohol. The very word is an Arabic word, and alcohol was used in perfumes and other remedies since the time of Muhammad. This game will continue forever because Sharia Law includes a thousand pages of such requirements, including the orientation of urinals. (One must not relieve himself in the direction of Mecca.) This will ultimately either frustrate the legal system or it will turn ordinary people against all this Islamic silliness.
The article was clearly a plug for the art show with little consideration given to the exhibit's potential for controversy. Muslims will not like the frank illustrations of the implications of the sacred words of the Quran in today's world, and non-Muslims will not like an exhibit dedicated to the Quran. All of this will be obscured by non-issues (and nonsense) about the clothing worn by the subjects, by whether an English translation is valid, by whether the illustrations represent what "Allah" really said, etc., etc. I just hope the curator has the courage to keep the exhibit open so people can see with their own eyes what the Quran says to the American culture.
Toggle Commented Aug 23, 2009 on A new image for the Koran at Culture Monster
1 reply