A link showing what goes in to the types of
bombs that Palestinian suicide bombers strap onto themselves. Notice the screws in picture five and the four-inch long nails in picture eight; these could be more useful in building a house. That however, implies infrastructure, so it's much more suggestable to lodge them into an Israeli. Use your imagination.
OK, I'll use it for you...
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3 - not for the weak-stomached
Picture 4
Picture 5 - not for the weak-stomached!
Picture 6 - not for the weak-stomached!
Pictures 7-21 - not for the weak-stomached!
Picture 8
Monday, June 26, 2006
Does humanity have the right to argue or debate over what the value of the human being is? What is the need for organized religion? Is it control, or perhaps, is it an organized understanding of unchangeable truth-expressing values?
We live in such an individualistic age that it is almost considered rude for a person to discuss with another as to what the value or meaning of human life is. To think that in an age of such apparent free-mindedness that for people to discuss such a topic would be acceptable is sadly with weak evidence; “free society” labels those whom are open-minded about discussing the deepest natures of the human being, and actually believing what they say and living according to it, as “fundamentalists.” This is to show that the definition of the word “fundamentalist” is misunderstood. A “fundamentalist” is one whom believes in certain fundamental truths, hence “fundamentalist,” and is not to be misunderstood with “extremist,” which is a person whom carries fundamentals to extreme conclusions. Granted, the confusion between the words, the mistake made that turns them into synonyms, has a lot to do with the fierce individualism that is bothered by notions of fixed values. It is a civilization that tries to wriggle its way out of fixed (and therefore limiting) values that seeks to define “fundamentals” as “extremist.” It is a social mechanism of freedom. A society that cannot even understand what “fundamentals” are damages itself and others when it begins to pass value judgments on what “extremism” is; if it is not comfortable, then it is extremism. This is not to say that extremism does not exist, because it does, but a civilization with a moral compass in need of readjusting cannot accurately discern between the two, which has negative repercussions for everyone.
If the members of society cannot openly, freely, and genuinely discuss the deepest and most essential values in an honest manner, are they not then cursed to shallow, superficial living, existing on the surface of the human experience but never delving below into its actual value? Is the lack of desire, or the hesitation to speak about such things in fact a social ailment, which has the ability to severely incapacitate society and all its members? We have the wrong impression that a damaged society dies. This is not true, society continues to trudge along albeit in a damaged state, for as long as human beings exist, then so does society. In a time in American society (at least American society) when it has once again become a value for citizens to question authority and politics, why is it the deepest searchers of political truths that turn a blind eye to the matters of the human spirit and the powerful effect that society has on our being? How can and do they justify the political paradigms and values for which they stand and not the spiritual and religious paradigms of humanity? How can they leave the entire search for human meaning in the hands of politics and not in the hand of spirit? Why do people, intelligent, value-driven people, neglect the soul? Where does the soul meet politics? Is there an intersection? Why is it chic to don bumper stickers with radical political messages but not with radical religious messages? Does politicalism trump religiosity?
We take for granted that murder is something which all humanity considers to be morally objectionable. We fail to see that perhaps “humanity” is a word that does not accurately reflect the human population; if the human population is made up of civilizations which are in debilitating disagreement with each other about the meaning of human existence and its role, then is not the word “humanity” a terrible misnomer? It would be like using the word “brotherhood” when people do not believe that they are family, or “Pan-Arabism” when Arab countries are not unified by any real ideological unity. Which society is to be correct in saying that murder is wrong, and which society provides the authorative definition? Is it by some “nature” that all societies happen to object to murder, or is the concept that murder is wrong an idea that flourishes within the body of humanity and which reaches the corners of the Earth? Is it, to make a contemporary analogy, one of the oldest forms of media in humanity; a value that spreads through some kind of channel, perhaps the ability to speak?
We take for granted that there are fixed values in humanity and fail to understand that there is not much separating what we consider to be fixed values and what are able to change. For example, it has happened countless times in human history when a civilization or society took to murdering another, despite the apparently fixed human value that murder is wrong. To the society, it was clear, a word other than “murder” was appropriate; perhaps “cleansing,” “defense,” or “retaliation.” To the murdered, however, it was just as clear or perhaps more that “murder” was in fact the only appropriate word. We get offended when we are told what is right and wrong and what the inherent value and meaning of the human being is, which means that there are inherently right and wrong behaviors and ways of thinking, but we do not get offended when we are told that murder is wrong; why not? Is that “murder is wrong” not just another value “imposed” on us through our inherited status as human beings and not animals? Is the immorality of murder a human tradition? Are we not free to disagree that murder is wrong? What if we are able to prove it, are we then free to murder? Have their not been several “historical superstars” whom have tried to prove that murder is not wrong? Do we not take that murder is wrong on faith?
We live in such an individualistic age that it is almost considered rude for a person to discuss with another as to what the value or meaning of human life is. To think that in an age of such apparent free-mindedness that for people to discuss such a topic would be acceptable is sadly with weak evidence; “free society” labels those whom are open-minded about discussing the deepest natures of the human being, and actually believing what they say and living according to it, as “fundamentalists.” This is to show that the definition of the word “fundamentalist” is misunderstood. A “fundamentalist” is one whom believes in certain fundamental truths, hence “fundamentalist,” and is not to be misunderstood with “extremist,” which is a person whom carries fundamentals to extreme conclusions. Granted, the confusion between the words, the mistake made that turns them into synonyms, has a lot to do with the fierce individualism that is bothered by notions of fixed values. It is a civilization that tries to wriggle its way out of fixed (and therefore limiting) values that seeks to define “fundamentals” as “extremist.” It is a social mechanism of freedom. A society that cannot even understand what “fundamentals” are damages itself and others when it begins to pass value judgments on what “extremism” is; if it is not comfortable, then it is extremism. This is not to say that extremism does not exist, because it does, but a civilization with a moral compass in need of readjusting cannot accurately discern between the two, which has negative repercussions for everyone.
If the members of society cannot openly, freely, and genuinely discuss the deepest and most essential values in an honest manner, are they not then cursed to shallow, superficial living, existing on the surface of the human experience but never delving below into its actual value? Is the lack of desire, or the hesitation to speak about such things in fact a social ailment, which has the ability to severely incapacitate society and all its members? We have the wrong impression that a damaged society dies. This is not true, society continues to trudge along albeit in a damaged state, for as long as human beings exist, then so does society. In a time in American society (at least American society) when it has once again become a value for citizens to question authority and politics, why is it the deepest searchers of political truths that turn a blind eye to the matters of the human spirit and the powerful effect that society has on our being? How can and do they justify the political paradigms and values for which they stand and not the spiritual and religious paradigms of humanity? How can they leave the entire search for human meaning in the hands of politics and not in the hand of spirit? Why do people, intelligent, value-driven people, neglect the soul? Where does the soul meet politics? Is there an intersection? Why is it chic to don bumper stickers with radical political messages but not with radical religious messages? Does politicalism trump religiosity?
We take for granted that murder is something which all humanity considers to be morally objectionable. We fail to see that perhaps “humanity” is a word that does not accurately reflect the human population; if the human population is made up of civilizations which are in debilitating disagreement with each other about the meaning of human existence and its role, then is not the word “humanity” a terrible misnomer? It would be like using the word “brotherhood” when people do not believe that they are family, or “Pan-Arabism” when Arab countries are not unified by any real ideological unity. Which society is to be correct in saying that murder is wrong, and which society provides the authorative definition? Is it by some “nature” that all societies happen to object to murder, or is the concept that murder is wrong an idea that flourishes within the body of humanity and which reaches the corners of the Earth? Is it, to make a contemporary analogy, one of the oldest forms of media in humanity; a value that spreads through some kind of channel, perhaps the ability to speak?
We take for granted that there are fixed values in humanity and fail to understand that there is not much separating what we consider to be fixed values and what are able to change. For example, it has happened countless times in human history when a civilization or society took to murdering another, despite the apparently fixed human value that murder is wrong. To the society, it was clear, a word other than “murder” was appropriate; perhaps “cleansing,” “defense,” or “retaliation.” To the murdered, however, it was just as clear or perhaps more that “murder” was in fact the only appropriate word. We get offended when we are told what is right and wrong and what the inherent value and meaning of the human being is, which means that there are inherently right and wrong behaviors and ways of thinking, but we do not get offended when we are told that murder is wrong; why not? Is that “murder is wrong” not just another value “imposed” on us through our inherited status as human beings and not animals? Is the immorality of murder a human tradition? Are we not free to disagree that murder is wrong? What if we are able to prove it, are we then free to murder? Have their not been several “historical superstars” whom have tried to prove that murder is not wrong? Do we not take that murder is wrong on faith?
The above picture is an original from the www.capmag.com website
Arab/Iranian/Pakistani/Tunisian/Muslim/Christians of Peace-----------------------------
It's time that we added some new names to the lexicon of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict, because the only ingredient we are truly missing for three-dimensional conversation to occur about what's going is the Muslim/Arab voice of self-criticism; G-d knows that such a voice thunders from the Jewish and Israeli camp. Like "Salt & Pepa" said, "I give props to those who deserve it." Hopefully, with them, we'll be one step to "burning all illusion tonight," like Bob Marley said. May we show some respect to these righteous Gentiles and sons and daughters of Ishmael. Therefore, and in no particular order, I present to you these nine stunning individuals.
Nonie Darwish - An Egyptian Muslim (turned Christian) whose father died fighting Israel. An avid supporter of the change that she believes Islam needs to see in its dealing with terrorism from a first-hand perspective.
Walid Shoebat - A Palestinian from Ramallah turned Christian. As a boy he almost carried out a shooting attack on Israel but changed his mind at the last moment. Exposes the truth of what Palestinian children are taught from a young age from a first-hand perspective.
Ismail/Ishmael Khaldi - an Israeli Bedouin and his thoughts on the State of Israel.
Sheikh Abdul Palazzi - an Italian Muslim Sheikh who demonstrates that the Qur'an is not anti-Jewish at all.
Irshad Manji - Author of "The Trouble with Islam" and a public speaker about issues pertinent to Muslims and Arabs.
Reza Aslan - Public speaker and educator, author of "No G-d but G-d," intellectually honest about problems pertaining to Muslims and Arabs.
Wafa Sultan - Very outspoken Tunisian-born Arab Muslim woman about "the clash of civilizations" between Islam and "the West."
Tashbih Sayyed - Muslim Pakistani psychologist speaks about issues related to Islam.
Joseph Farah - A Christian Arab with a fresh perspective on Middle Eastern issues.
At the bottom of the page you can find audio and video tracks of a few of the aforementioned people.
It seems that for quite a long time has there been a loud anti-Israel Jewish voice lodged deep in the sinuses of the anti-Israel intelligentsia, causing great migraines to the Jewish people. Intelligentsia, if that’s what it can really be called without inciting a chuckle, has been leading the march against Israel’s morale. Now, we all know that the relief for such aches and pains is not a political solution in and of itself, but rather one tempered with that special nasal decongenstant Jews know as "Torah." But the voices coming from the aforementioned noble souls act as does a hot sauce when ingested, clearing the nasal cavity. One and all, together, let us stick our fingers into our noses and remove all malcontent blockages! Okay, okay, enough with the shnoz analogies!
Seriously now, the events since 9/11 opened up a path for Arab Muslims and Christians, not to mention Muslims of other nationalities, to speak confidently and publicly about issues of concern regarding Islam and the politics surrounding it. Some of these people are traditionalists and religious while others are liberal and secular; some are Arabs, some are Pakistani, and some are Iranian, but all see the importance of new paradigms that are able to snap into place with Islam and the Muslim people. Just like it was not good for Adam to be alone, it is not good for Jews to be alone in bringing a voice of reason; these Muslims and Arabs represent the new “arsenal,” if you so wish to call it, in bringing about healthy and intellectual changes for the Arab and Muslim people from the inside out, the only way that the ever-important and most highly-held values of the Arab and Muslim people can be kept intact (which is not something that the liberal Jewish intelligentsia is concerned with regarding Israel). Now, instead of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein being silently prayed from the lips of the enlightened “prophets” of academia, let them as well utter the names “Darwish,” “Shoebat,” “Palazzi,” Khaldi,” “Manji,” “Sayyed,” “Aslan,” “Farah,” and “Sultan”; the “Dream Team.” May many young and concerned Muslims be allowed to follow and follow, and maybe some of the old too.
As the list grows and as I find more people, I will add them on to here with a short description of who they are and perhaps some of their writings. So like Bob Dylan said, or was it Carlie Simon (?), "You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, cuz the times they are-a changing."
*You can also check out these clips.
Nonie Darwish
Walid Shoebat
Reza Aslan
I have found some audio interviews with many of the aforementioned people and I will post more soon. Here are a few to hold you over.
And these interviews with the aforementioned people and more, from the Tovia Singer Show:
You can also go here to listen to interviews with Tarek Abdelhamid one and two and Walid Shoebat in parts one and two.
Professor Khaleel Muhammad being interviewed about the Qur’an’s mention of the Land of Israel and the Jews in parts one and two.
An earlier Walid Shoebat interview here in parts one and two.
Ishmael Khaldi and Nonie Darwish in parts one and two.
An older interview with Walid Shoebat in parts one and two.
The original Nonie Darwish interview in parts one and two.
A debate between Walid Shoebat and Shaykh Yassir Fazaga is found here in parts one and two.
The original interview with Walid Shoebat back on July 15th of 2003 is here in parts one and two.
An interview with Joseph Farah, a Christian Arab, is here in parts one and two.
An interview with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi is here.
A May 28th 2002 interview with Ehud Olmert here.
An earlier interview with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi is here in parts one, two, and three.
An earlier Joseph Farah interview is found here in parts one and two.
Shalom, Shlam, Salaam, Paz, Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
