“Martin said we must put Taylor’s concerns in a broader context. “It’s not just anti-Muslim rhetoric that puts Canada high on the radar list of enemies, or the upping of the ante by extending the Islamic State mission to Syria.” It’s also that the Harper government shut down the embassy in Tehran, as if that’s a bad thing. He might want to read The Islamic Republic of Iran—State sponsor of Terrorism by Shabnam Assadollahi, human rights advocate and Iran expert. Martin also suggested Harper has endangered us in the Arab world through unconditional support for Israel. If I understand Taylor’s statements, the last thing we want to do is upset the Arab/Muslim world for fear of the reaction of alienated Muslims in Canada. Is he suggesting Canada should make policy based on the potential actions of Muslims or any other ethnic/culture/ religious group in Canada? Should Canada turn a blind eye to Muslim on Muslim murder and Muslim on Christian murder for fear of hurting the feelings of Muslims in Canada?”
. . . . The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.
The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.
Rejecting criticism may serve to reject shame for a while, but time may develop an awareness greater than the narrative to which one clings for honor. Acts and roles simply age, some better than others, but with greater cognition and comprehension become antiquated and archaic.
Conservative voices chattering around — not in — the BackChannels environment have a consistently straightforward way of dealing with feudal and psychological evil: call it out; detail it; echo justified observations; and, in general, maintain the critical front line defense of informed modern values and pluralism in intellectual battlespace.
The classically liberal conservative modern Muslim voices to which BackChannels has listened over the years offer a convoluted defense of Islamic thought — how good of Islam to “defend” the interests of select dhimmis in exchange for the acceptance of second-class status and the payment of tribute for it — or evade the portent of demonstrations of the obvious, as with Daesh Baghdadi’s strenuously studied recapitulation of General Muhammad’s experience and vision — at least as well as he may have gleaned through his scholarship — albeit with the contribution of otherwise unemployed former Baathist military.
For such strident and damning criticism of a core civilizational history once isolated in space and now, perhaps, isolated by time — the 7th Century is a long ago “then”, and this is now — when is it too soon to speak?
And when might it be too late?
Oh, one more thing . . . if the nut is loosened from the monkey’s grasp, what is to take its place?
In rare vocal encounter yesterday, BackChannels heard, “Islam doomed to its own self-destruction . . . disintegration from within . . . ethnic system – no solid ground to walk on . . . . maintained by brutality.” Indeed, the penalties for apostasy, heresy, and hypocrisy seem high. It also heard about Obama’s perceived role: ” . . . to destroy American hegemony . . . proto-Marxist . . . emulating his father . . . anti-colonialist . . . .”
Given that American has failed to colonize even Baltimore, BackChannels might be a little leary of that last characterization.
Then too, those who follow this blog know that it may have as an underlying theme the want of bringing things to light, of digging around in the modern wells of seemingly limitless information and — this with a nod to political psychology — dredging and filtering what appears persistent across a broad spectrum of political expression plus separated historical observations over time.
Online — just a mouseclick away from where you are reading — “Change Navigator” Holger Nauheimer poses both a telling observation and question on slide 4 of 31:
- Attributed to Chris Spies (2006): “The dilemma with change is that everyone likes to talk about it, but very few have insight into their own willingness to change, let alone their ability to influence change. Those who see the need for change often want others to change first. That applies to adversaries and onlookers, but also to analysts and practitioners. Why is this the case?”
Stated in a thought cloud: “How to construct an environment in which people in conflict can safely explore new ideas towards a better future?”
Mitchell, Christopher R. 2005. Conflict, Social Change and Conflict Resolution. An Enquiry. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management/ Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation (online). http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/michell_handbook.pdf
Chris Spies wraps the essay cited with this closing paragraph:
The time has arrived for change agents to wander with their partners, not as initiative takers (see Mitchell’s list on page 20), but as accompaniers and walking partners whose conversations reawaken people’s energies and imagination. They are partners in the forest – fellow human beings. They will know the forest. They will navigate the rivers. Together they will transform competitive spaces into listening spaces; tactical planning into strategic planning; escalating dynamics into dynamic stability; and resistance to change into risk-taking for change.
Time has been space from the beginning, but only recently has the hard fact of it had, well, time to settle in: only for God is there a day without end or beginning; for all else, time moves along, transforms, runs out, begins anew. It has features too, and perhaps for “accompaniers” some breathtaking rivers. Moses, the Jews, and a “mixed multitude” found their way to just one such crossing.
The Islamic virus first divests the person of his most fundamental human attribute. It takes away his right to make decisions himself and absolves him and in return, of any responsibility for his actions rendered in blind obedience to it.
In recent years, the search for an alternative to Islamism has been thwarted by the widening sectarian conflict within Islam, which has increased tensions and driven violence across the Muslim world. In light of this emergency, the need to reform Islamic jurisprudence and social thought has become more urgent than ever. Islamism’s menace to Muslims, however, has been compounded by the weakened state of critical thinking within Islamic religious and political traditions. In developing a reformist alternative to Islamism, Muslims do in fact have a substantial body of both historical as well as contemporary thinking that they can draw upon to help improve their political and social structures and create more just, inclusive societies.
Watching the evolution of jihad videos, propaganda and message traffic I note a growing movement towards collective consciousness. This collective identity is nurtured with vitriolic attacks. What causes Muslims residing across the globe to be drawn to the hive of Abu Borg? Why choose divestment of individual personality (a gift from God) and investment in life as an assimilated slave? I no longer speak. We speak. I am no longer a free moral agent. My will bends and sways to the sound of thousands of voices. I become the enslaved.
# # #